Dictionary of Biblical interpretation, Volume 1 (A-J)

Dictiona~~____________

Bibliial Interpretation lohn H. Hayes, General E.dltor

he Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation is a comprehensive reference work on the theory and practice of biblical interpretation. The Dictionary contains essays on thehistory of interpretation of the various biblical books, including apocryphaVdeuterocanonical books; essays on individuals ancient and modern who have made significant contributions to biblical interpretation; and essays on numerous methods and movements related to biblical interpretation. Each entry includes extensive bibliographic information.

T

With over one thousand signed articles from three hundred and ninety -seven contributors, the DBI is ecumenical, drawing on Jewish, Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic scholarship; international, featuring African, Australian, European, Middle Eastern, and N orth American scholars; and eclectic, examining a broad array of perspectives on and procedures for biblical interpretation. Scholars in biblical studies and in related fields, graduate and theological students, clergy and laity involved in interpreting Scripture within congregations and communities, and all individuals seeking to better understand the most important book in the history of Western culture will find the Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation a valuable resource for years to come. ISBN 0-687-05531-8

I

9 780687 055319

ABINGDON PRESS 90000

- Book and Case Box Designs by Ed RYnne - Front Panel Art: The Bodleian Library, OxJord, MS. Digby 226, Jo!. 96v.

Dictiona~_ _ _ __

Biblical Interpretation

lohn H. Hayes, General Editor

A-J Abingdon Press Nashville

Dictionw:v of Biblical Interpretation Copyright © 1999 by Abingdon Press All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly pennitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed ill writing to Abingdon Press, 201 Eighth Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37203. This book is printed on recycled, acid-free, elemental-chlorine free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation / John H. Hayes, general editor p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-687-05531-8 (hardcover: alk. paper) 1. Bible-Criticism, interpretation, etc.-History-Dictionaries. 2. Bible-Hermeneutics-Dictionaries.!. Hayes, John Haralson, 1934BS500.D5 L999 98-42795 220.6'03-dc21 ClP Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989; by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of Amelica. Scripture quotations noted as AT are the author's translation. tvianuscript on title page: The Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS. Digby 226, fol. 96v. PUBLICATION STAFF President and Publisher: Neil M. Alexander Vice President and Editorial Director: Harriett lane Olson Director of Bible and Reference Resources: lack A. Keller, Jr. Senior Editor: Michael R. Russell Production Editor: Joan M. Shoup Editor: Deborah A. Appler Assistant Editor: Emily Cheney Production and Design Manager: Walter E. Wynne Copy Processing Manager: Sylvia S. Street Composition Specialist: Kathy M. Harding . Publishing Systems Analyst: Glenn R. Hinton Prepress Manager: Billy W. Murphy Prepress Systems Technicians: Thomas E. Mullins 1. Calvin Buckner Director of Production Processes: James E. Leath Scheduling: Laurene M. Brazzell Print Procurement Coordinator: Martha K. Taylor

99 00 0 I 02 03 04 05 06 07 -

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CONTRIBUTORS· Andrew K. M. Adam Princeton Theological Seminary Princeton, New Jersey

David E. Aune Loyola University Chicago Chicago. lllinois

Kurt Aland (deceased) Institut fur Neutestamentliche Textforschung Westfalische Wilhelms-Universitat Munster, Germany

Randall Charles Bailey Interdenominational Theological Center Atlanta. Georgia

BertH Albrektson Bibelkornmissionen Uppsala, Sweden

William R. Baird Brite Divinity School Texas Christian University Fort Worth, Texas

Dale C. Allison, Jr. Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania

Karen Baker-Fletcher Claremont School of Theology Claremont. California

John E. Alsup Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary Austin, Texas

Lewis V. Baldwin Vanderbilt University Nashville, Tenne~see Robert S. Barbour Fincastle Pitlochry. Scotland

Marvin Anderson Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Louisville, Kentucky Paul S. Ash Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

Philip L. Barlow Hanover College Hanover. Indiana

Ann W. Astell Purdue University West Lafayette. Indiana

John R. Bartlett The Church of Ireland Theological College Dublin, Ireland

HamId W. Attridge The Divinity School Yale University New Haven. Connecticut

Albert Baumgarten Bar-Uan UniversilY Jerusalem. Israel

John H. Augustine West New York. New Jersey

Timothy K. Beal Eckerd College St. Petersburg. Florida

A. Graeme Auld University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, Scotland

Derek R. G. Beattie The Queen's University of Belfast Belfast, Northern Ireland v

CONTRIBUTORS

CONTRIBUTORS

Roger T. Beckwith Latimer House Oxford, England

Richard J. Blackwell Saint Louis University St. Louis, Missouri

Martin J. Buss Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

James F. Coakley Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts

Christopher T. Begg The Catholic University of America Washington, DC

Sheldon H; Blank (deceased) Hebrew Union College Cincinnati, Ohio

John J. Carey Agnes Scott College Decatur, Georgia

Ethel A. Coke Austin, Texas

Ehud Ben Zvi University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta Canada

Hendrikus Boers Candler School of Theology Emory University -I Atlanta, Georgia

Jerry H. Bentley University of Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii Christoph Berger Friedrich-Schiller-U niversitat Jena Jena, Germany

Robert G. Bratcher Chapel Hill, North Carolina I

Marc Brettler Brandeis University Waltham, Massachusetts

Klaus Berger Wissenschaftlich-Theologisches Seminar Ruprecht- Karl s- Universitat Heidelberg Heidelberg, Germany

Pamela Bright Concordia University Montreal, Quebec Canada

Robert F. Berkey Mt. Holyoke College South Hadley, Massachusetts

Hans Bringeland N orsk Loererakademi Bergen-Sandviken, Norway

Adele Berlin University of Maryland College Parlv, Maryland

I

David Berman Trinity College The Univer3ity of Dublin Dublin, Ireland Lawrence V. Berman (deceased) Stanford University Stanford, California

Bernadette Brooten Brandeis University Waltham, Massachusetts I

Ernest Best University of Glasgow Glasgow, Scotland Mark Edward Biddle Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond Richmond, Virginia

George J. Brooke University of Manchester Manchester, England

William P. Brown Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education Richmond, Virginia Walter Brueggemann Columbia Theological Seminary Decatur, Georgia

I

C. Clifton Black Perkins School of Theology Southern Methodist University Dallas, Texas

John M. Bullard Wofford College Spartanburg, South Carolina Mark S. Burrows Andover Newton Theological School Newton Centre, Massachusetts

vi

Marcia L. Colish Oberlin College Oberlin, Ohio

David McLain Carr Methodist Theological School in Ohio Delaware, Ohio

Billie Jean Collins Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

P. Maurice Casey University of Nottingham Nottingham, England

John J. Collins The Divinity School University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois

Henry Chadwick Magdalene College University of Cambridge Cambridge, England

Raymond F. Collins The Catholic University of America' Washington, DC '

James H. Charlesworth Princeton Theological Seminary Princeton, New Jersey

.John .J. Contreni Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana

C. Conrad Cherry Indiana University Indianapolis, Indiana

John G. Cook La Grange College La Grange, Georgia

Randall D. Chesnutt Seaver College Pepperdine University Malibu, California

John W. Cook The Henry Luce Foundation New York, New York

Brevard S. Childs The Divinity School Yale University New Haven, Connecticut

Michael J. Cook Hebrew Union College Cincinnati, Ohio

Bruce Chilton Bard College Annandale-on-Hudson, New York

S. Peter Cowe University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California

Duane L. Christensen William Carey International University Pasadena, California

Howard H. Cox Moravian Theological Seminary Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Ronald E. Clements King's College University of London London, England

Philip Culbertson St. Johns Theological College Auckland, New Zealand vii

CONTRIBUTORS

CONTRIBUTORS

Frank H. Gorman, Jr. Bethany College Bethany, West Virginia

Jacques M. Gres-hayer The Catholic University of America Washington, DC

Gary Herion Hartwick College Oneonta, New York

Cornelius Houtman Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands

Moshe Goshen-Gottstein (deceased) Hebrew University Jerusalem, Israel

David M. Gunn Texas Christian University Fort Worth, Texas

Siegfried Herrmann Ruhr-Universitat Bochum Bochum, Germany

Herbert B. Huffmon Drew University Madison, New Jersey

Alfred Gottschalk Hebrew Union College Cincinnati, Ohio

W. C. Gwaltney, Jl" Milligan College Johnson City, Tennessee

Susannah Heschel Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire

Frank W. Hughes Codrington College St. John, Barbados

Jo Ann Hackett Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts

Sten Hidal Lunds Universitet Lund, Sweden

Jeremy R. A. Hughes The Oriental Institute Oxford, England

Michael D. Goulder University of Birmingham Birmingham, England M. Patrick Graham Pitts Theology Library Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

Joachim Hahn Evangelisches Stift Eberhard-Karls-U ni versi tat Tii bingen Tiibingen, Germany

Robert M. Grant The Divinity School University of Chicago Chicago, Ulinois

Getatchew Haile Hill Monastic Manuscript Library St. John's University Collegeville, Minnesota

Erich Grasser Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universitat Bonn Bonn, Germany

Carolyn P. Hammond Bammel (deceased) Girton College University of Cambridge' Cambridge, England

Fred Grater r Pitts Theology Library Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

Nancy A. Hardesty Clemson University GreenvjlJe, South Carolina

Moshe Greenberg Hebrew University Jerusalem, Israel

David Harnden-Warwick Bellingham, Washington Roy A. Harrisville Luther Seminary St. Paul, Minnesota

Frederick Greenspahn Center for Judaic Studies University of Denver Denver, Colorado

Alan J. Hauser Appalachian State University Boone, North Carolina

Leonard Greenspoon Creighton University Omaha, Nebraska

John H. Hayes Candler School of Theology Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

Edward L. Greenstein Tel Aviv University Ramat Aviv, Israel x

Martha Himmelfarb Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey

David G. Hunter University of St. Thomas St. Paul, Minnesota

Manfred Hoffmann Candler School of Theology Emory University Atla!1ta, Georgia

John C. Hurd Trinity College University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario Canada

Michael J. Hollerich University of St. Thomas St. Paul, Minnesota

Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz Drew University Madison, New Jersey

Michael W. Holmes Bethel College St. Paul, Minnesota

Bernard S. Jackson The University of Liverpool Liverpool, England

Morna D. Hooker University of Cambridge Cambridge, England

Walter Jacob Rodef Shalom Congregation Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Leslie J. Hoppe Catholic Theological Union Chicago, Illinois

Louis Jacobs New London Synagogue London, England

Maurya P. Horgan The HK Scriptorium, Inc. Denver, Colorado

Sara Japhet Hebrew University Jemsalem, Israel

Friedrich W. Horn Gerhard-Mercator-Universitat-Gesamthochschule Duisburg Duisburg, Germany

David Lyle Jeffrey University of Ottawa Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Gottfried Hornig Auf dem Aspei, Gelmany xi

CONTRIBUTORS

CONTRIBUTORS

Edwin M. Curley University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan

, Thomas B. Dozeman United Theological Seminary Dayton, Ohio

Marcellino D'Ambrosio University of Dallas Irving, Texas

Musa W. Dube Shomanah University of Botswana Gaborone, Botswana

Mary Rose D'Angelo University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana Philip U. Davies University of Sheffield Sheffield, England John Day University of Oxford Oxford, England John A. Dearman Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary Austin, Texas

I

Everett Ferguson Abilene Christian University Abilene, Texas

John H. Eaton University of' Birmingham Birmingham, England

Janet F. Fishburn The Theological School Drew University Madison, New Jersey

Diana Edelman James Madison University Hanisonburg, Virginia

Ferdinand E. Deist University of Stellenbosch Stellenbosch, South Africa

John A. Emerton St. John's College University of Cambridge CambIidge, England

John A. H. Dempstel' Glenmavis Airdrie Lanarhshire, Scotland William G. Dever University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona Simon J. DeVries Methodist Theological School in Ohio Delaware, Ohio Alexander A. Di Leila The Catholic University of America Washington, DC Devorah Dimant University of Haifa Haifa, Israel John R. Donahue Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley Graduate Theological Union Berkeley, California viii

Edward J. Furcha (deceased) McGill University Montreal, Quebec Canada

Louis H. Feldman Yeshiva University Forest Hills, New York

James O. Duke Brite Divinity School Texas Christian University Fort Worth, Texas

Robert S. Eccles DePauw University Greencastle, Indiana

Reginald C. Fuller London, England

Cain Hope Felder School of Divinity Howard University Washington, DC

Victor P. Furnish Perkins School of Theology Southern Methodist University Dallas, Texas Julie G. Galambush College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia Gershon Galil University of Haifa Haifa, Israel

John T. Fitzgerald, Jr. University of Miami Coral Gables, Florida

Roy E. Gane Seventh-Day Adventist Theological Seminary Andrews College Benien Springs, Michigan

Joseph A. Fitzmyer Jesuit Corrununity Georgetown University Washington, DC

E. Clinton Gardner Candler School of Theology Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

Michael V. Fox University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin

Peter C. Erb Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, Ontario Canada

Albert H. Friedlander Johann Wolfgang Goethe-UniversiUit Frankfurt am Main Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Tamura C. Eskenazi Hebrew Union College Los Angeles, California

Jerome Friedman Kent State University Bowling Green, Ohio

Gillian R. Evans University of Cambridge Cambridge, England

Maurice S. Friedman San Diego State University San Diego, California

Craig S. Farmel' Milligan College Johnson City, Tennessee

Karlfried Froehlich Ptinceton Theological Seminary Princeton, New Jersey

William R. Farmer University of Dallas Irving, Texas

Thomas Fudge University of Canterbury Chlist Church, New Zealand

Beverly Roherts Gaventa PIinceton Theological Seminary Princelon, New Jersey B. A. Gerrish Union Theological Seminary Richmond, VA

Erhard Gerstenberger Philipps-Universitat Marburg Marburg, Germany John H. Giltner Methodist Theological School in Ohio Delaware, Ohio M. E. Glasswell (deceased) Essex, England Robert Gnuse Loyola University New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana ix

CONTRlI3UTOl{S

CONTRIBUTORS

Joseph Jensen Catholic Biblical Association The Catholic University of America Washington, DC

Charles Kannengiesser Concordia University Montreal, Quebec Canada

Bernd Kollmann Georg-August-UniversiUit Gottingen Gottingen, Germany

Andrew Lenox-Conyngham Sl. Catharine's College University of Cambridge Cambridge, England

Robert Jewett Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary Evanston, Illinois

Arvid S. Kapelrud University of Oslo Oslo, Norway

Beate Koster Inslitut flir Neutestamentliche Textforschung Westfalische Wilhelms-UniversitUt Munster, Germany

Baruch A. Levine New York University New York, New York

David Jobling St. Andrews College Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada

Rimon Kasher Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan, Israel K. A. Keefer Baylown, Texas

David W. Johnson First Presbyterian Church Irving, Texas

S T Kimbrough, Jr. General Board of Global Ministries The United Methodist Church New York, New York

Luke Timothy Johnson Candler School of Theology Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

Wanen S. Kissinger Library of Congress Washington, DC

A. H. Jones University College of St. Martin Lancaster, England

Walter Klaassen Conrad Grebel College Waterloo, Ontario Canada

Brian C. Jones , Eugene, Oregon Scott J. Jones Perkins School of Theology Southern Methodist University Dallas, Texas

.....

I

William Klassen Ecole Biblique Jerusalem, Israel Ralph W. Klein Lutheran School of Theology Chicago, Illinois

Mark D. Jordan University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana

David E. Klemm University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa

Donald H. J uel Princeton Theological Seminary Princeton, New Jersey

John S. Kloppenborg University of St. Michaels College Toronto, Onlario Canada

Otto Kaiser Philipps-Universitat Marburg Marburg, Germany

Douglas A. Knight The Divinity School Vanderbilt University Nashville, Tennessee

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary South Hamilton, Massachusetts xi,i

Betty Jane Lillie Mt. .St. Marys Seminary Cincinnati, Ohio

Steven J. Kraftchick Candler School of Theology Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

Tod Linafelt Georgetown University Washington, DC

Miles Krassen Oberlin College Oberlin, Ohio

Donald W. Livingston EmolY University Atlanta, Georgia

Jeffrey Kah-Jin Kuan Pacific School of Religion Graduate Theological Union Berkeley, California

James C. Livingston . College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia

Hans-Wolfgang Kuhn Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversiUit Miinchen Munchen, Germany

Raphael Loewe (deceased) University College London, England

Marion L. Kuntz Georgia State University Atlanta, Georgia

D. Eduard Lohse Georg -August-U ni versi tat Gottingen Gottingen, Germany

Paul G. Kuntz EmOlY University Atlanta, Georgia

Burke O. Long Bowdoin College Brunswick, Maine

Richal'd Kyle Tabor College Hillsboro, Kansas

David E. Luscombe University of Sheffield Sheffield, England

Robert D. Kysar Candler School of Theology Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

Johan Lust Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Leuven, Belgium Harvey K. McArthur Hartford Seminary Hartford, Connecticut

Dietz Lange Georg-August-UniversiUit Gottingen Gottingen, Germany

S. Dean McBride Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education Richmond, Virginia

D. L. LeMahieu Lake Forest College Lake Forest, lllinois xiii

CONTRrBUTORS

CONTRIBUTORS

Lane C ..McGaughey Willamette University Salem, Oregon

Sara R. Mandell The University of South Florida St. Petersburg, Florida

Gregory Mobley Andover Newton Theological School Newton Centre, Massachusetts

Jerome Neyrey University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana

Paul McGlasson Central Presbyterian Church Stamford, Texas

John H. Marks Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey

David P. Moessner University of Dubuque Theological Seminary Dubuque, Iowa

Frederick W. Norris Emmanuel School of Theology Johnson City, Tennessee

Alister E. McGrath Wycliffe Hall University of Oxford Oxford, England

Rick R. Marrs Pepperdine University Malibu, California

Johannes C. de Moor Theologische Universiteit van de Gerefonneerde Kerken in Nederland Kampen, The Netherlands

Robert North Pontificio Istituto Biblico Rome, Italy

Clarice J ..Martin Colgate University Rochester, New York

Barbam J. MacHaftie Marietta College Marietta, Ohio

James P. Martin Vancouver School of Theology Vancouver, British Columbia Canada

William McKane St. Mary's CoJJege St. Andrew's, Fife Scotland

J. Louis Martyn Union Theological Seminary New York, New York

Cameron S. McKenzie Providence College Otterburne, Manitoba Canada

E. Ann Matter University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Steven 1,. McKenzie Rhodes College Memphis, Tennessee

Andrew D. H. Mayes Trinity College University of Dublin Dublin, Ireland

Donald K. McKim Memphis Theological Seminary Memphis, Tennessee

William W. Meissner Boston College Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

Edgar V. McKnight Furman University Greenville, South Carolina

Otto Merk Friedrich-Alexander-U niversitat Erlangen Erlangen, Germany

Jennifer Berenson Maclean Roanoke College Roanoke, Virginia

J. Ramsey Michaels Southwest Missouri State University Springfield, Missouri

Jonathan Magonet Leo Baeck College Sternberg Center for Judaism London, England

Gordon E. Michalson New College of the University of South Florida Sarasota, Florida

Rudolf Makkreel Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

G. T. Milazzo Greensboro, North Carolina xiv

Julia M. O'Brien Lancaster Theological Seminary Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Carey A. Moore Gettysburg College Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

Gail R. O'Day Candler School of Theology Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

James Morey Emory University Atlanta, Georgia Robert Morgan University of Oxford Oxford, England

Bernard O'Kelly University of North Dakota Grand Forks, North Dakota

Phil Mullins Missouri Western State College St. Joseph, Missouri

John C. O'Neill The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, Scotland

Frederick J. Murphy College of the Holy Cross Worcester, Massachusetts

Thomas H. Olbricht Pepperdine University Malibu, CaLifomia

Jerome Murphy-O'Connor Ecole Biblique Archeologique FranRETATION

AFROCENTRIC BIBLICAL INTERI)RETATION

(Egypt, Cush, Put, and Punt) are mentioned again and again. The HB alone refers to Ethiopia over forty times and Egypt over one hundred times. Many ancient biblical and extra-biblical sources mention Egypt and Ethiopia together, almost interchangeably. Scarcely are such ancient African locations portrayed fully in biblical maps produced in Europe and especially in the United States. Usually Western biblical cartographers show as little as possible of the African continent, while by contrast they highlight areas to the north in Europe and Eurasia that are seldom, if ever, referred to in the Bible. Second, the Bible provides extensive evidence that the earliest of its people must be located in Africa. The creation story (Gen 2:8-14) indicates that the first two rivers of Eden are closely associated with ancient Cush, whose Hebrew name the Greeks would later translate as "Aithiops" or Ethiopia, meaning literally "burnt face people." Genesis 2: 11-12 connects the Pishon River with "Havilah," which according to Gen 10:7 is the direct descendent of Cush. The Gihon River, named in Gen 2:13 as the second river in Eden, is desclibed as sunounding the whole land of Cush. Biblical scholars usually date this composite Jahwist (J) tradilion in th~ tenth century BCE, suggesting that these verses are an early reference to the African river system known today as the Hlue and the White Nile rivers. (The name Nile derives from the Latin !lilliS, but the Genesis story predates the Latin language.) Clearly, wherever else Eden extended, a substantial portion was within the continent of Africa. Third, the ancient land of Canaan was an extension of the African land mass, and in biblical times African peoples frequently migrated from the continent proper through CanaanIPalestine to the east along the Fertile Crescent to 'the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys of ancient Mesopotamia. Thus, the term Afro-Asiatic is probably the most accurate way to identify the mixed stock of people who populated the ancient Near Ea~t. "Eurasians" and even Europeans (Greeks and Romans) begin to feature in later biblical narratives; but the fact remains that the earliest biblical people, by modern Western standards of racial types, would have to be classified as Blacks (meaning that they had Aflican blood and some physical features similar to those of African Americans today). The modern student of biblical history and interpretation has to keep in mind that the ancient authors of the Bible, together with the Greeks and the Romans, had no notion of color prejudice. As startling as it may seem to those schooled in modern European, South African, and North American modes of scriptural interpretation, the Bible actually reflects a world before color prejUdice or racial discrimination (see F. Snowden, Jr. [l983]). The authors/redactors of the Bible had a rather favorable attitude about black people, and the Bible as a result often reflects the ancient greatness of African

people and their civilizations. For example, Gen 10:8 identifies Nimrod, son of Cush, as "the mighty warrior"; Solomon matTies the daughter of the pharaoh (1 Kgs 3:1, 7:8; 2 Chr 8:11); and the heroine of the Song of Songs is "black and beautiful" (Cant I :5). Once one tackles the problem of how to define Black, it becomes quite easy to see that most of the early characters of the Bible would have to be so classified, even though the biblical authors had no notion of race in the modern sense of the term. For more than a century, despite their exclusion from centers of theological education, leaders in the black church have undertaken studies of the Bible. Many of these efforts show clearly that Blacks long ago rejected the latter-day, post-biblical view that they were the progeny of the accursed Ham (there is no such curse in Gen 9:18-27). D. P. Seaton, a prominent leader in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, represents the thinking of Blacks who have identitied a more wholesome interpretation of their role in biblical history. In a work written in 1895, Seaton displayed considerable knowledge about the Bible, the location of ancient religiolls sites, and the significance of many biblical characters, providing extensive descriptions of tombs, villages, and other ancient sites he visited during several field trips to Palestine. Regarding Ham and his descendants, Seaton observed: "Because these Hamites were an important people, attempts have been made to rob them of their proper place in the catalogue of the races. The Bible tells us plainly that the Phoenicians were descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham, and anyone who will take the time to read the Bible account of their lineage mllst concede the fact." What is particularly noteworthy about Seaton's study is his profound awareness of racism among the respected biblical scholars of his day. In the last decades of the twentieth century, both in the United States and in Aftica, there has been a resurgence of what may now be called Afrocentric approaches to the Bible (see, e.g., R. Bailey [1995]; C. Copher [1993]; C. H. Felder [1991]; M. A. Oduyoye (1995]; and A. Smith (1995]). Caution, however, is advised, for students of the Bible must avoid the tendency of taking the sons of Noah-Shem, Ham, and Japheth-as representing three different races (Whites, Blacks, and Asians). The traditional approach of European missionaries and others was to designate Ham as the father of Blacks, who were allegedly cursed in Gen 9: 18-27 (see T. Peterson (1975]); but it is absurd to claim that Noah and his wife could produce offspring that would constitute three distinct racial types. In fact, "Ham" does not mean "black" in Hebrew; it means "hot" or "heated." Moreover, there is no curse of Ham in this passage, for the text explicitly says, "Let Canaan be cursed" (Gen 9:25). Any discussion on the subject of Blacks in the Bible should be held suspect if its

14

Matt 2:15, quoting from Hosea 11:1, reads "out of Egypt, I have called my son." The passage describes how Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to hide the infant Jesus from King Herod. Imagine the divine family as white Europeans "hiding" in Africa! It is doubtful that they would remain unnoticed, for despite centuries of European scholarship that has diligently sought to portray Egypt as an extension of southern Europe, it has always been part of Africa. Literally hundreds of shrines of the Black Madonna have existed in many parts of North Africa, Europe, and Russia. These are not weather-beaten misrepresentations of some original white Madonna; rather, they are uncanny reminders of the original ethnography of the people who inhabited ancient Palestine during Jesus' time and earlier. The "sweet little Jesus boy" of the Negro spiritual was, in point of fact, quite black. While that song intones "we didn't know it was you," it reminds most modern Christians that they still do not know what Jesus actually looked like. The maps of biblical lands need to be reassessed in light of more recent studies that show the true attitudes about race in the ancient Greco-Roman ethos. At that time all of Africa was refen·ed to as Ethiopia, while present-day Sudan was called Ethiopia proper. The greatness of the people from these areas was proverbial. Recall Ps 87:1-4, which asserts that not only were the Ethiopians among those who fillly knew the God of ancient Israel but also that they may have been born in Israel ("This one was born there," [Ps 87:4b])! Similarly, Isa 11: 11 includes Hlacks among the righteous remnant, whereas Isa 18: 1-4 celebrates those from "the land of whirring wings sending ambassadors by the Nile," a people "tall and smooth," "feared near and far." Although Greeks and Romans are frequently mentioned in the Bible, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were neither Greek nor Roman. So how did Jesus of Afro-Asiatic birth become whiter and whiter over the years? The answer is neither complicated nor profound: It is a simple maller of paint. Medieval and Renaissance artists skillfully employed the painter's bl:ush, and gradually Jesus came to be depicted in images more familiar and favorable to persons of European descent. Thus there developed a brand-new manger scene and an infant Jesus for all the world, not least the Third World, to adore. Jesus' parents also were reimaged, as ancient darker and clearly more African icons were discarded or destroyed in favor of more "modern" ones. These artistic representations still remain in many cathedrals of Europe and North and South America as well as in a great new basilica on Africa's Ivory Coast. Clearly, Africa has for too long stretched out its hand to biblical characters remolded as non-Black. In Jeremiah 13:23a the rhetOlical question is raised, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin?" In the sixth century BCE, Jeremiah knew that it was unnecessary for any

author tries to argue that Blacks constitute the "Hamitic" line only. Black women and men are fully a part of the Bible's salvation history (see Felder [1989, 1991]. Moses was an Afro-Asiatic, and according to NUI11 12: I he married a Cushite or Ethiopian woman. The Queen of Sheba, a black Ati·ican (1 Kgs 10:1-13; 2 Chr 9:1-12; also see Gen 10:6-9), is called "the queen of the South" in Matt 12:42. The NT mentions another black queen: Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who 111led from her ancient Ethiopian capital at Meroe (Acts 8:26-40). For years persons of African descent have taken heart upon reading the celebrated passage in Ps 68:31: "Let princes come out of Egypt and let Ethiopia hasten to stretch forth her hand to God!" But today there is a much greater basis for Blacks to celebrate and otherwise take seriously their rich ancient helitage in the sacred SCliptures, for the real Black presence is by no means limited to isolated verses here and there. Despite all the evidence indicating a manifest Black biblical presence, Eurocenttic church ofticials and scholars in most of the prestigious academies and universities of Europe and the United States have t~nded to deny or otherwise to overlook or minimize the fact that black people are in any significant way part of biblical history. This standard academic and popular Western tendency has had grave consequences for persons of African descent. Thus modern biblical scholarship is just beginning to overcome centuries of tragic biases against Blacks and their biblical history, biases that continue to find expression in the view that Blacks are to be thought of as mere "hewers of wood and drawers of water" (see Felder [1991] 132). In the period between 367 CE (the date of Athanasius's canonical lists) and the Enlightenment, Europeans recast the Bible into a religious saga of European-type people. What makes this racialist tendentiousness so difficult to counteract is that such reinterpretations of ancient ethnographic realities are accepted as fact by many scholars in the Western academic community. These scholars teach and influence others throughout the world, thereby effectively recasting biblical history in terms and images that are distinctly favorable to Whites while literally displacing Blacks. The result has been that even Blacks portray biblical characters within their churches as totally unlike themselves. For biblical characters to be viewed in black images is still seen as a terrible thing by many Blacks around the world. One need not hesitate to suppose that Mary looked like the other Palestinian women of Nazareth of her day. It is more historically accurate to portray her physiognomy as that of an ancient Afro-Asiatic, who probably looked like a typical modern Yemenite, Trinidadian, or African American. Several factors challenge the traditional Western perception of the Madonna and child:

15

A.GRICOLA, JOHANN

AGRICOLA, RUDOLPH

Ethiopian to attempt to do so; that kind of thinking Greatest Story Ever ToLd, and Ben HUI; films in which se~tns peculiar to our own modern age of -pseudoEuropeans magically populated the entire region of an~cle~tific theories of White supremacy and Negroid cient Palestine, rendering its inhabitants White. Ancient ~nfenOrity, a most "enlightened" by-product of what is Palestine has never been the same. nown as the Western Enlightenment. J Many contemporary persons may think of a black Bibliography: D. 1: Adamo, Africa and tire Africans ill esus as an oddity or as a scandalous distortion of Ihe OT (1998). M. K. Asante, Tire Afrocentric Idea (1987). R. ~~al.ity. The claim may be tolerated as. long as it is C. Bailey, "They Are Nothing but Incestuous Bastards: The 1~~ltted to the theological metaphors of black theologians Polemical Use of Sex and Sexuality in Hebrew Canon NanaI e J. H. Cone or A. Boesak, but it is not taken seriously tives," Reading ftvm 111is Place (ed. F. F. Segovia and M. A. as anc· tent ethnography. Many Europeans and EuroTolbert, 1995) 1:121-38. M. Bernal, Black Athelia: The AfmM~ericans insist that Jesus was Semitic and, as such, : Asiatic Roots of Classical Ch'ilizatioll (2 vols., 1987, 1991). A. h tddle Eastern. However, to call Jesus "Semitic" is not ' A. Boesak, Black Theology, Black Power (1978). C. B. Copher, "3,000 Years of Biblical Interpretation with Reference to Black elpful inasmuch as this nineteenth-century term refers, ~ot to a racial type, but to a family of languages Peoples," lITC 3D, 2 (1986) 225-46; "The Black Presence in ~~CIUding both Hebrew and Ethiopic. Moreover, about the OT," Stony the Road We Trod (ed., C. H. Felder, 1991) S e ~~rne time the European academy coined the term 146-64; Black Biblical Studies: All Allthology of C. B. Copher: it aL~o created the geographical designation Biblical and Theological Issiles 011 the Black Presellce in Ihe lddle East, an expression that would have made no Bible (1993). C. H. Felder, Troubling Biblical Waters: Race, sense to Herodotus, to Strabo, or even to Thucydides, Class, alld Family (1989); (ed.), StollY the Road We Trod: mUch less to biblical personalities. The point of creating Aft·ican American Biblical Illterpretation (1991). N. F. Gier, ~rS?-calied Middle East was to avoid talking about "The Color of SinIThe Color of Skin," lRT 48, 1(1991) 42-52. t flca. It Was a sign of academic racism, which sought' C. J. Martin, "A Chamberlain's Journey and the Challenge of t~ de-Africanize the sacred story of the Bible along with Interpretation for Liberation," Semeia 47 (1989) 105-35. M. A. e WhOle sweep of Western civilization. Oduyoye, The SOliS of the Gods alld the Dallghters of Mell: Whether one considers the "Table of Nations" that All Afro-Asiatic fllle/pretatioll ofGellesi~'l-II (1984); "Biblical appears in Genesis 10 as a historical record, the fact Interpretation and the Social Location of the Interpreter: African relllain . before Jesus of Nazareth, those St h at centunes 1 Women's Reading of the Bible," Reading fivlll This Place (ed. W 10 compiled the list of the descendants of Noah F. F. Segovia and M. A. Tolbert, 1995) 2:33-51. T. Peterson, ~peared to have an ideological intent. They insisted that "The Myth of Ham among White Antebellum Southerners" anaan Was a direct descendant of Ham-in fact his (diss. Stanford University, 1975). A. Smith, "A Second Step in ~O~' the very one who is conve.niently cursed in Genesis African Biblical Interpreiation: A Generic Reading Analysis of th In order to discredit his right to his own land. FurActs 8:26-40," Readingfrolll/his Place (ed. F. F. Segovia and M. fermore, when the Greeks rose up to conquer the land A. Tolbert, 1995) 1:213-28. F. M. Snowden, Jr., Blacks iliAlltiq? Canaan after the exile, they infused Greek culture uity (1970); BeJore Color Prejudice: The Anciellt View of Blacks nto lt the subjugated peoples of their empire. Greek cul(1983). L.A. Thompson, ROlllallsalldBlacks (t989). J. Vercoitter, J. Leclnnt, F. M. Snowden, Jr., and.T. Desanges, The Image RlIre be caine the standard of acceptance .tn the Grecod oman WOrld, leading both those in power and those of the Black ill Western Art, vol. I, From the Pharaohs to the Fall ominated to be as Greek as possible and to nee northof the Romall Empire (1976). Ward fo C. H. FELDER r cultural roots. In contrast, when Jesus' parents f ~d Herod's domain in order to protect Jesus, they o lowed the established trail to Africa-not to Europe! Bern I th a (1987, 1991) suggests that the ancient modeJ for AGRICOLA, JOHANN (c. 1494-1566) e dawn of civilization, a model that was African Born in Eisleben, A. was trained by the Franciscans centered, Was later co-opted by a "white/pure" European in Braunschweig and schooled in the liberal arts· at ~Odel. Certainly historians should take seriously that Leipzig before returning to Braunschweig as a teacher. e mOdels for the origins of culture changed simultaIn 1515116 he began studying theology with LUTHER, neOusly with the rise of racism and antisemitism. became his close friend, and accompanied him to the f SUbsequent Western civilization took a different path Leipzig Disputation (1519). As professor (1520) and :o~ that of the holy family-namely, one leading dean (1523) of the faculty of arts at Wittenberg, A. also s ~atght to Europe; it was aided by artists paid by the lectured on the NT in the theological faculty and in~h llrch and its universities, artists who sought to please structed the city youth in the Bible. t ose in power as opposed to rendering biblical characProbably for reasons of personal ambition he escaped ers in an accurate ethnographic fashion. Hollywood the shadow of the Reformer by taking the job of school ~ompleted this revisionist imaging through movies like principal in his hometown (1525). He reformed the . B. DeMille's l1ze Ten Commandments, The Robe, The curriculum along humanistic lines, wrote catechisms,

A

:/IIfIC ,

became a popular preacher, and on Saturdays held exegetical lectures for the clergy. Over the next ten years he published biblical commentaries, sennons, and a collection of hundreds of German proverbs. In 1536 he returned to Wittenberg to resume his activities as a lecturer. Despite increasingly bitter controversies with the Reformers, he was appointed to the Wittenberg Consistory (1539). By. 1540, however, his break with Luther wa~ final. A. fled the city again, this time to accept the position of court preacher and general superintendent in Brandenburg. His prince took him along to the diets of Regensburg (1541) and Augsburg (1547/48), where he was instrumental in the Augsburg Interim. In the Philippist-Gnesiolutheran quarrels he sided with the strict Lutherans. He died in 1566 during the pestilence in Berlin. Among A.'s forty-five publications the most notable exegetical works are his commentaries on Luke and Colossians. His antinomian interpretation of the relation between repentance and faith put him at odds with P. MELANCHTHON (1527) and finally with Luther (from 1537). While the Reformers taught that repentance arises from the coercion of the law, A. held that repentance must be preached in the name of Christ (Luke 24:47). Luther could reconcile the initial differences (Torgau [1527]), but A. published three sermons (1536) in which the law was subsumed under the new law of Christ. Luther suppressed A.'s teaching (Theses Agaillst the Antinomialls) , insisting that the removal of the law weakens the gospel and invites libertinism.

,,yorks:

I

In lucae eliallgeliulII adllotaliolles (1529).

Bibliography: I. Guenther, CE 1 (1985) IS. J. Rogge, .I. A.s LllIhel1l erstiindllis: Vlller besonderer Beriicksichtigullg des Alltillomislllus (1960); TRE 2 (1978), 110-18. M. HOFFlvIANN

Works:

16

De ;nvelltiolle dialectica libri tres (1528 ed.:

1976).

n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and began his principal work, De inventione dialectica. Upon returning to his homeland, he was appointed town secretary (scribe and orator) of Groningen, a position that allowed him to cultivate humanist friendships, e.g., with GansfOlt and Hegius. An invitation by the Palatinate chancellor von Dalberg brought him to Heidelberg (1484), where Elector Philip gave him a free hand in university activities. A. lectured 011 selected topics, participated in disputations, delivered speeches, and made a plea for the humanities in De jonllQndo studio. He died in Heidelberg on Oct. 27, L485, after a tlip with Dalberg to Rome. A true Renaissance man, A. was a musician, painter, athlete, orator, translator, and humanist scholar. A friend of J. REUCHLIN and admired by ERASMUS and P. MELANCHTHON, he became a model for the new learning. Although during his lifetime he impressed more with his art of life than with his writings (De inventione dialectica and De jormando studio were published posthumously), A.'s introduction of Italian rhetoric influenced decisively the beginnings of Northern humanism. A. held that the reform of learning concurred with the renewal of spirituality. Returning to both the sources of antiquity and the Bible would improve intellectual and religious life. Thus he rejected the speculative, syllogistic method of dialecticians and scholastics alike and advocated reading historians. poets, and rhetoricians. However, he saw rhetoric from a dialectical perspective and continued to adhere to the dogmas of the Roman Catholic tradition. His coordination of dialectic and rhetoric was to engender a practical art of persuasion aimed at social utility. This ethical orientation of humanist rhetoric was for A. symbiotic with the practical piety of the Dellolio moderna.

Bibliography: F. Akkerman (ed.), Rodolphus Agricola PizrisiLts (Brill's Studies in Intellectual History 6, 1988). C. G. van Leijenhorst, CE, 15-17. P. Mack, Rellais.wllce Argument: Valla alJ(l A. ill the n·aditiolls (lJ Rhetoric alld Dialectic (1993) ..1. R. McNally, "An Appraisal of R; A.'s De inventione dialectica" ((\iss., lown, 1966). M. A. Nauweillerts, Rodolplllls Agricola (HeIden van de geest 27, 1963). W. Ong, Ramus, Method, alld the Decay oj Dialogue (1958); RalllllS and Taloll Illventory (1958). L. W. Spitz, Tire Religious Renaissance of the Germall Humanists (1963) 20-40. H. E. J. M. vander Velden, R. A., Roelof Huusman: eell /Iederlalldsch Humallist der vijJtielide Eel/IV (1911). Eo H. Waterbolk, Een hand ill Iret bad: Enige aspecten VlllI de verilOliding fussell Eraslllus ell Agricola (1966) . M. HOFFMANN

AGRICOLA, RUDOLPH (1444-85) Born in Ballo, Frisia, on the day his father, an unordained parish pastor, was appointed abbot of Seiwert, the nearby Benedictine monastery, A. (latinized for Huisman) received his primary education at SL Martin's in Groningen, a school influenced by the Devotio 1110derna of the Brethren of the Common Life. In 1456 the twelve year old matriculated in the university of Erfurt, where he completed his BA within three years. He took advanced courses at Cologne but moved on to Louvain to earn his MA (1465).From 1468 to 1479 he sojourned in Italy. While reading law in Pavia he became an expert in eloquence, gaining a reputation as an accomplished orator. After moving to Ferrara to work as court organist for Duke Ercole J d'Este, he translated Greek literature into Latin

17

AHLSTROM, COSTA WERNER

AHAD HA'AM (ASHER HmSCH CINZI3ERC)

Bibliography: A. 8and, "Tadmit6 sel m6se(h) rabbenO AIlAD HA'AM (ASHER HIRSCH GINZ8ERG) I esel 'al)ad ha' am. . . . .. World Congress of Jewish Studies 8 (1856-1927) (1983) pt. 3, 217-21. N. Dentwich, A. H. and His Philosophy Born to a Hasidic family in Skvira, Kiev province, (1927). A. Gottschalk, "A. H., the Bible, and the Bible TradiRussia, A. received extensive training in classical Jewish tion" (diss., University of Southern California, 1965). Y. Kauftexts; however, he educated himself in Western philosomann, "'iqqare de'ota(y)w sel 'al)ad ha'am," Halekufah 24 phy and literature. Earning a livelihood in business, he (1928) 421-39. J. Kornberg (ed.), At the Crossroads: Essays joined Zionist circles in Odessa, where he began pub0/1 A. H. (1983). L. Simon, A. H., A. G.: A Biography (1960). lishing Hebrew essays stressing the need to prepare S. J. Zipperstein, Elusive Prophet: A. H. alld the Origills of emigrants to Palestine by steeping them in Jewish ethics Zionism (1993).' and culture. His outlook ha'i been characterized as a E. L. GREENSTEIN somewhat paradoxical mixture of "intellectual positivism and practical idealism" (Y. Kaufmann [1928] 422). Adopting the pen name Al}ad Ha'am (One of the People), A. honed the Hebrew essay to an art form, making I AHARONI, YOHANAN (1919-76) Born in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1919, A. emigrated a lasting contribution to Hebrew language and letters. to Palestine in 1933. He was a member of Kibbutz From 1896 to 1902 he edited the monthly Hashiloal} from his new residence in Berlin. Continuing his Zionist Allonim from 1938 to 1947. He earned his PhD from political activity, he moved to London in 1907. In 1922, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1955 with a suffering poor health, he settled in Palestine, where he dissertation on the settlement of the Israelite tribes in edited his letters and memoirs during his final years. upper Galilee (1957, Hebrew). He rose to the rank of A.'s thought notably intluenced the Israeli sociologist i associate professor at the Hebrew University (1966) but (see SOCIOLOGY AND HBINT STUDLES) and Bible scholar ' in 1968 left to found the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University and also to chair the department of Y. KAUFMANN. Although A. did not write biblical commentary, he ancient Near Eastern studies there (until his death on formulated much of his thinking within the franlework Feb. 10, 1976). A.'sfield excavations began with Y. of biblical ideas and institutions. He endeavored to trace YAOIN at Hazor (1955-58), and he worked with him the essence of Jewish peoplehood and values to ancient again (1960-61) in the Judean desert caves. A. then Israelite roots. The original biblical ideal of a just directed numerous projects on his own: Ramat Rahel society, he wrote, was promulgated by the prophets (see (1954-62), Arad (1962-67), Lachish (1966-68), and PROPHECY AND PROPHETS, HB). Following the prophets' , especially Tel Beersheva (1969-74). radical innovation, the priests sought to resolve conflictA.'s career was unusual among Israeli archaeologists, ing social vectors and stabilize the nation ("Priest and combining ARCHAEOLOGY, historical geography, bibProphet"). The prophetic archetype is Moses, whose lical studies, and epigraphy-no doubt partly due to character eIJlbodies not so much a historical personage the influence of his mentor, B. MAZAR. A.'s principal as a projection of Ihe popular spirit ("Moses"). Impelled publications reflected this breadth of interests. He by a passion for justice, Moses sought not only to published many report volumes on archaeology (and liberate his people but also to imbue them with ethical epigraphy) as well as a synthetic textbook. His 1955 monotheism. A. held, nonetheless, that ethical monothethesis on historical geography was followed by many ism did not take hold among the Judeans until after the articles and Hebrew studies on the subject as well as exile, when they came to identify their national God as by two principal full-scale works in English (1967, 1968). the Lord of all nature and history. A. argued that the prophets did not withdraw from A. was a pioneer in many respects. One of his most sociely to nourish their piety; they engaged with society significant contributions was the introduction of the now-popUlar regional approach, combining extensive in order to transform it. He maintained that in line with surface survey with selective excavations (especially in early biblical monism, in which there was no body/soul. dichotomy, Judaism sought to elevate the physical his work in Galilee and later in the Negev). He will also through spiritual refinement ("Flesh and Spirit"). The be remembered for his founding of the Tel Aviv Institute individual tinds meaning in developing the nation. The and its journal Tel Aviv. This was a bold challenge to Bible's ethic is, A. claimed, social; reward and punishthe Jerusalem establishment dominated by Yadin, but it ment are collective. proved extraordinarily stimulating to a younger generation of Israeli archaeologists. Despite the heated contro'Vorks: Ten Essays on Zionism alld Judaism (ed. L. Simon, versy surrounding A. because of his excavation methods 1922); A/wd Ha-Am: Essays, Leuel's, Memoirs (ed. L. Simon, and scholarly views, he remained personally a gentle, 1946); 'iggi!l'(Jt 'a~/ad hii'am (6 vols., 1956); Kol kitbe 'abat! open-hearted man. He was deeply imbued with a love h{,'alll bekereck 'ebad (1956); Selected Essays (ed. L. Simon, of the land of Israel and courageously dedicated to 1912; repro 1958). recovering its past.

18

Works:

when he served as the annual professor at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. He was introduced to Syro-Palestinian ARCHAEOLOGY and panicipated in the first of many excavations in Israel, Cyprus, and Tunisia. As a result, during the 1970s the focus of his research moved away from texts alonetheir histOlical contexts and their subsequent developmentto include artifactual data and a stronger emphasis on ancient Syro-Palestinian history, including the history of Israel and Judah. At a time when synchronic LITERARY studies were becoming the vogue in biblical studies and history was on the wane, he was one of the few scholars in America and Europe who kept a consistent focus on the historical reliability of details within the diachronic biblical texts, the social production of various biblical and extra-biblical texts, and the issues involved in lIsing the Bible and artifactual remains recovered through excavation to write a history of ancient Syria-Palestine. When he died Jan. 17, 1992, he was awaiting the publication of his 905-page magnum opus, a his lory of ancient Syria-Palestine, which was the culmination both of two decades of interest and research in texts and artifacts and of his lifelong interest and training in history and religion. The volume, published posthumously, places the history 'of Israel and Judah in the wider context of ancient Syria-Palestine.

The Settiemeru of the Israelite Tribes in Upper Gali-

lee (1957), Hebrew; Excavatiolls at Ramat Rahel, Seasons 1959 and 1960 (1962); Seasons 1961 and 1962 (1964); The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (1967, rev. ed. 1979); (with M. Avi-Jonah), The Macmillall Bible Atlas (1968, rev. ed. 1993); Beer-sheba 1: Excavatiolls at Tel Beer-Sheba, 19691971 Seasons (1973); Arad IlIScriprions (1975; ET 1981); Lachish V: Investigations at Lacllish. The Sanctuary and the Residency (1975); Archaeology of the Land of Israel (1977); The Archaeology of the Land of Israel: From the Prehistoric Beginnings to the End of the First Temple Period (ed. M. Aharoni, te. A. F. Rainey, 1982).

Bibliography:

Erlsr 15 (1981). IE) 26 (1976) 155-56. 1f!/

Aviv 3, I, and 4 (1976).

W. G. DEVER

AHLSTROM, GOSTA WERNER (1918-92) Born Aug. 27, 1918, in Sandviken in east central Sweden, A. was the son of a Methodist clergyman. By the time he was fifteen both of his parents had died and he was working full time; nevertheless, he earned his gymnasium certificate in 1943 through cOlTespondence courses and went on to the University of Goteborg for a year. He then moved to the University of Uppsa\a, where he received his teol. kan. (1950), teol. lic. (1955), Works: Psalm 89: Eine Lil!lrgie ails dem Ritl/al des leidelland teo I. dr. (1959) from the faculty of theology; and den Konigs (1959); Aspects of Syncretism ill Israelite Religioll his til. kan. in history of religions, Semitic languages, (1963); Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerllsalem (1971); "Wineand ASSYRIOLOGY (1961) from the faculty of humanities. Presses and Cup-Marks of the Jenin-Megiddo Survey," BASOR At Uppsala he served as instructor in OT from 1954 to 231 (1978) 19-49; Royal Admillistratioll and National Religioll 1959, as Docent of OT from 1959 to 1964, and as ill Allcient Palel·tine (SHANE, 1982); All Archaeological Picprofessor pm tempore of OT in 1961. Tn 1957 he studied /lire of Iron Age Religiolls ill Anciellt Palestine (1984); ''The at Basel and Heidelberg on an international fellowship Early Iron Age Selliers at Hirber el-Msas (Tel Ma.Mi)," ZDPV from the Olaus Petri Foundation. 100 (1984) 35-52; Who Were the Israelites? (1986); The History While at Uppsala A. studied under the main repreof Anciellt Palestine (1993); "Pharaoh Shoshenq's Campaign to sentatives of the so-called Uppsala school of OT studies, Palestine," HiSIOIY alld Traditions of Early Israel: Siudies I. ENGNELL, G. Widengren, and H. S. NYBERG, aCl]uiring the usual interests and methods associated with this ' Presellled to E. Nielsell May 8th, 1993 (ed. A. Lemaire and B. Otzen, 1993) 1-16; "The Seal of Shema," S)01' 7 (1993) group of scholars: an emphasis on the consonantal MT 208-15. as the best reflection of the underlying oral tradition that had undergone centuries of development before being Bibliography: W. D. 8arrick, "G. W. A. in ProfLIe," III committed to writing; an emphasis on Israelite cult, the Shelter of Elyon (ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer, 1984) PROPHECY, and kingship and the need to place them in 27-30. W. D. Darrick and J. R. Spencer, "Parentheses in a their larger, ancient Near Eastern contexts for proper Snowstorm: O. W. A. and the Study of Ancient Palestine," ibid., understanding; and a use of traditio-historical method43-65. ology (see TRADITION HISTORY) for texulal exegesis. D. EDELMAN In 1962 A. accepted an invitation to be a visiting professor of OT at the University of Chicago divinity school; the following year he beG arne a member of that AlLRED OF RmVAULX (c. 1109-67) faculty, teaching in both Bible and history of religions. Born in England, A. was educated at the court of In 1974 he received a joint appointment to the faculty King David of Scotland. He was drawn to the monastic of the department of Near Eastern languages and civilife and entered the Cistercian abbey of Rievaulx in lizations and in 1976 became full professor of OT and Yorkshire C. 1133. In 1143 he was abbot of Revesby ancient Palestinian studies in both faculties. and from 1147 abbot of Rievaulx itself. He did not A major turning point in A.'s career came in 1969-70

19

AINSWORTH, HENRY

ALAN OF LTLLE

follow many able young men of his day by studying in the schools of northern France: his learning was chiefly biblical and patristic, with an especially profound debt to AUGUSTINE. A's writings came out of the spiritual leadership he gave his monks and reflect Cistercian attitudes. He authored a treatise on friendship (De Spiritali Amicitia) that seeks to make Cicero Christian; The Mirror of Love; and On the So III, a book that explores some of the problems raised and not fully settled by Augustine. His most important exegetical work is the treatise JeslIs as a Boy of Twelve, in which he explored the story of JESUS talking with the elders according to its literal and spiritual senses. A. exemplifies twelfth-century monastic scholarship, which emphasized the reflective and prayerful side of lectio divina.

'Yorks:

Opera Omllia (CCCM I, ed. A. Hoste and C. H.

Talbot, 1971).

Bibliography: I. Bim, "Bibbia e Liturgia nei sermoni

Ji-

turgici di Aelredo di Rievaulx," Bibbia e spirifllalita (ed. C. Vagaggini, 1967) 5J6-98. A. Squire, AeLred of RievauLx: A Study (1969, rev. ed. 1981). G. R. EVANS

AINSWORTH, HENRY (1571-1622) An English Separatist educated at Caius College, Cambridge, A removed to Amsterdam in 1593, where he was pastor to a congregation of exiles. Accomplished ill Hebrew, he improved his knowledge through acquaintance with Dutch Jews. His translations of and commentaries on the Pentateuch (see PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM) and other biblical books were literal renditions of Hebrew idiom and drew on comparisons with the SEPTUAGINT and "Chaldee" (Aramaic) versions as well as on rabbinic lore. His translation of the Psalms was one of the versions sung by the Puritans. A thought that "the literal sense of the Hebrew should be the ground of all interpretation" but that th~ OT also contained "types and shadows" of what was to come in the NT. He interpreted the Song of Solomon as an allegory of the church as the bride of Christ and defended the Hebrew vowel points and the marginal variants of the Masoretes as part of the original text ' and of divine INSPIRATION. He controverted H. BROUGHTON's argument that the high priest's ephod could not be silk but had to be translated "wool" since the worms that made silk were ritually impure.

',,"orks: CertaYlle Questions COllcemillg 1. Silk, or Wool, in the High Priest's EpllOd . .. Handled between M,: H. Broughton ... alld lvh: H. A. (1605); Annotations UpOII the Five Bookes of Moses, The Booke of PsaLlIles. and the Song of Songs, Or Callticles (1627).

Bibliography: W. E. Axon,

DNB I (1885) 191-94. T. Liu,

BDBR 1 (1982) 3-4. M. E. Moody, "A Man of a Thousand: The Reputation and Character of H. A.," HUII/inglOlI Librmy QuanerLy 45 (1982) 200-214. U. R. White, The Ellglish Separatist TraditiOll: Fmm the Marilin Martyrs 10 the Pilgrim Fathers (1971).

D. D. WALLACE, JR.

AKIBA (c. 50-135 CE) A. ben Joseph, born in the lowlands of Judea, was one of the most outstanding tannaim of his day. According to tradition, he was originally unlearned man who disdained the rabbinic scholars (b. Pesahim 49b) and had to master language and learning from scratch ('Abot R. Nat. A 6: 15). He studied at the academy in Lydda and founded his own academy at Bene-Berak. When the Jewish revolt against Rome empted in 132 CE, he supPOlted it enthusiastically and apparently recognized the Jewish leader Kosiba as a messianic redeemer, applying to him the reference to the "star out of Jacob" (Num 24:17)-thus the title Bar-Kochba (Son of the Star). A. was captured by the Romans, suffered torture, and died as a martyr. In exegeting Scripture A considered the entire Torah to have emanated from God and to contain no redundancies. Thus every word of the text, including particles and duplicated verbal forms, was significant and replete with meaning. Although A. is credited with reading significance into even the decorative marks on Hebrew letters (b. Mella{l. 29b), no examples of such reading have survived in rabbinic literature. He- practiced the allegorical interpretation of some scriptural texts and spoke out in favor of the Song of Songs as a canonical book (m. Yad. 3:5; see CANON OF THE BIBLE), and his allegorical and mystical approach to the work (I. Sal1l1. 12: 10; b. Sal1h. lOla) became standard in many Jewish circles. A., his students, and his disciples played significant roles in the collection of early rabbinic traditions.

an

Bibliography: P. Denoit, "Rabbi Aquiba ben Joseph, sage et heros du Judai'sme," RB 54 (1947) 54-89. J. Bornstein, El 2 (1928) 7-22. L. Finkelstein, A.: Scholar, Saint, lind Martyr (1936). H. Freedman, Ellclud 2 (l971) 488-92. A. Goldberg, "Rede und Offenbarung in der SchriftausJegung Rabbi A.s," Fran/ifUrter llldaistische Beitriige 8 (1980) 61-79. P. von der Osten-Sacken, Rabbi A.: Texte I/nd llllerpretationell ZLlln rabbbrischen luden/llm und NT (ANTZ I, 1987). G. G. Porton, "The Artificial Dispute: Ishmael and A.," Christianity, ludaism, lind Other Greco-Romall Cuits (SlU 12, 4 vols., ed. J. Neusner, 1975) 4:18-29. S. Safrai (ed.), Tire Litera/lire of the Sages, First Part: Oral 10m, Halaklra, Mis/lI1a, 1osefta, Talmud, ExterllaI1i·ac/ates (CRINT 2, 3a, 1987), see index. H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, lrlllVductioll to the Ta/mlld alld Midrash

(1991) 79-80. E. E. Urbach, "The Homiletical Interpretation of the Sages and the Exposition of Origen on Canticles, and lewish-Christian Disputation," Scripta 22 (J 971) 247-75. J. H. HAYES

20

ALAN OF LILLE (d. 1202) A. died a Cistercian monk in 1202, but his date of birth is uncertain. Evidence suggests that he may have been in his late eighties or nineties at his death. If so, he may have studied under P. ABELARD and GILBERT DE LA PORREE. A. taught in the schools of France for a lifetime and eamed the title doctor lmiversalis for the range of his learning. He was the author of a number of works in new genres of his age, of poetry as well as of commentaries and sennons. His writings display a ' knowledge of Scripture and the fathers, of the liberal arts, of the new logic and the new science, and of the hermetica. He probably lectured on the whole Bible. His "Elucidation of the Song of Songs" was saved by a prior of Cluny, and his pupils put together notes of his glosses on the songs of the HB and the NT; an allegory of the six wings of the cherubim in Isaiah 6 survives. Undoubtedly more is extant, but the problems of secure attribution are considerable. A.'s most important contributions in exegesis were twofold. His manual The Art qf Preaching preceded the series of handbooks on the method of delivering a university-style sermon that were produced from about 1230. He began with general advice and provided collections of material appropriate for use in considering certain topics (vices and virtues) and for addressing a variety of audiences (clergy, widows, princes). Biblical texts are arranged in these groups with patIistic and some secular authOlities. His own sermons show something of the way these commonplaces were used. The technique departs from the framework of the Augustinian or Gregorian homily, in which the biblical text was interpreted phrase by phrase, in favor of a topical treatment. A. was the author of one of the first of the DICTIONARIES of theological tenns that were among the novel aids to Bible study developed in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Words occurring in the Bible are given in a rough alphabetical order, with texts to show the different meanings each may carry in context. A. regarded the "proper" sense as that which refers to the divine, \vhether or not it is figurative. ("Arm," for instance, properly means "Christ.") This is a development both of a technique used informally by GREGORY THE GREAT and by others among the fathers and of the work of the twelfth century on the theory of signification. A was a pioneer among other pioneers in providing such aids to Bible study, even though his own work was not notably influential; he represents a significant shift in method in the late twelfth century from the lectio divina of monastic study of the Bible to study in the context of schools and universities, where the pace was brisk and textbooks were needed.

Works: PL 210; Alaill de Lille: Textes in edits avec IIlIe illtroduction Sill' sa vie et ses oeuvres (M. T. d' Alverny, Etudes de philosophie medievale 52, 1965).

21

Bibliography: G. R. Evans,

Alan of LilIe: The Frollliers of Theology in tire Later Twelfth Ceil/lilY (1983). G. Silagi, TRE 2 (1978) 155-60. W. Wetherhee, DMA I (1982) 119-20. G. R. EVANS

ALAND, KURT (1915-94) A. was bom Mar. 28, 1915, in Berlin. Confirmation classes and the youth organization "Wrutburgbund" influenced him deeply during the difficult times at the close of the Weimar Republic. After graduating in 1933 he studied Protestant theology, the classics, history, and ARCHAEOL· OGY in Berlin. His studies received a decisive orientation through the church historian and text critic H. LIETZMANN, who became his teacher and led him to scientific work; Lietzmann made A his personal assistant in 1937. In 1938 A passed the first theological examination at the Bruden'at der Bekennenden Kirche, Berlin, and in 1939 he obtained a licentiate of theology. He habilitated and became superior assistant of the theological faculty in 1941; however, for political reasons he could not obtain a lectureship. In 1945 he became a Dozent in East Berlin and in 1946 an aI/ssero,.delltlicher professor; from 1947 he was also on the faculty at Halle. Declared a public enemy, A. escaped from the Gennan Democratic Republic in 1958 and the following year became a professor of church history and NT TEXTUAL CRHlCISM in Munster, where he founded the Institute for NT Textual Research. He also built up a Bible museum (founded 1979) affiliated with the instinlte that offers exhibits on the history of the Bible from its manuscript beginnings to the present. A. was director of the institute until his retirement in 1983, when his wife, B. Aland, became director. He died Apr. 13, 1994, in MOnster. Although a productive scholar in church history, A.'s work in textual criticism of the NT established his worldwide reputation. By gathering films of all known manuscripts of the NT from around the world in his institute in Munster (more than 90 percent of the approx. 5,660 manuscripts), he created the basis for comprehensive research on the NT text and made Munster the international center for NT textual criticism. Beginning with the twenty-second edition (1956), he served as co-editor of Eberhard and Erwin Nestle's Nnv!!11l Testamelllum graece; in the course of tillle the "Nestle" became the "Nestle-Aland." He was also a member of the editorial committee of the Greek New Testamellt (GNT). Both editions (the GNT has reached its 4th edition, the Nestle-Aland its 27th) offer the same text, differing only in critical apparatus. According to an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies, these two editions are to be used for every TRANSLATlON and every revision of traditional translations. A wanted atl readers of the NT in whatever translation to benefit from the results of NT textual research. This conviction energized his work. A. also strove to compile an Editio C,.itica Maio,.

ALBRIGHT, WILLIAM FOXWELL

ALCUIN, ALBINIUS FLACCUS

(ECNf) of the Greek NT, an edition presenting all known variants in the Greek manusctipt tradition of the first millennium in the early versions, and the Greek fathers. To this end he tried to record and penetrate the mass of Greek text manuscripts as completely as possible. The results of these investigations are published in Text und Textwert del' griechisclzen Handschriften des Neuen Testamellts. The first installment of the ECM appeared only after his death, in 1997. He also edited a Synopsis Qual/HOI' Evangeliotu11l and took care that the NestleAland was published in bilingual editions (e.g., GreekLatin, Greek-English, Greek-German, Greek-Italian). He edited or initiated the publication of concordances, a dictionary (Bauer-Aland), and special editions like Das Neue Testament calf' PlIpyrus and Das Neue Testament ill syrischer Uberliejerung. He also continued and revised the Hala series of the OL evidence of the Gospels of A. JOUCHER and W. Matzkow. The series Arbeitell ztlr llelltestamentlichell Textjorschullg testifies to the bre.adth of the continuing research can'ied on by the institute he founded.

Works:

Text, Wort, Glallbe.· SlUdiell zur (jberlieferung, inlerpretation, und ALttorisierung biblischer Texte, K. A. gewidllIet (cd. M. Brecht, 1980) 1-15. E. Lohse, "Wahrheit des Evangeliumszum Gedanken an K. A.," K. A. ill memoriam (1995) 35-40. B. KOSTER

ALBRIGHT, WILLIAM FOXWELL (1891-1971) Born May 24, 1891, A was the son of Wesleyan Methodist missionaries in Chile. By age three (after he learned to read) he suffered typhoid fever, which probably caused his severe myopia. When he was five his family returned on furlough to his grandmother's fann in Iowa, where A's left hand was drawn into the pulley of a farm machine and crippled. Given lhese circumstances, after the family returned to Chile he was thrown onto the resources of his father's library of history and theology and assisted his parents in teaching his younger brothers and sisters in their home school. The family returned to Iowa when he was twelve, and A attended regular schools, graduating from Upper iowa University in Fayette in 1912. Having taught himself Hebrew and Assyrian (see ASSYRIOLOGY AND BIBLICAL STUDlES), he submitted an article to a German scholarly journal, a proof of which he sent with his application to P. HAUPT, head of the Oriental Seminary at Johns Hopkins University, where A. would receive his PhD in 1916; his dissertation, "The Assyrian Deluge Epic," was never published. After WWI A. went to Palestine, having won the Thayer Fellowship for study in Palestine at the young AMERICAN SCHOOL OF ORJENTAL RESEARCH in Jerusalem. He studied modem Hebrew and Arabic, soon became director of the school, and camed on explorations of the land, usually by walking or on horseback tours with his students, mostly clergy, there for a few months' ~tudy. A. turned from exploration to excavation, beginning with Tel el-Ful north of Jerusalem, which he believed to have been Gibeah, King Saul's capital. His four seasons at Tell Beit Mirsim with M. Kyle became a model for archaeological work in the Holy Land for many decades; its stratigraphy, combined with pottery sequence-dating, put Palestinian ARCHAEOLOGY on solid footing. He made a valianl effort to put the Bible on a solid historical basis by showing how archaeological research validated much of the biblical narrative. Adopting a moderately critical position against J. WELLHAUSEN and other more radical critics, A. defended the essential historicity not only of the Mosaic period but also of the patliarchal period. He excavated at Beth-zur and Bethel with O. Sellers and J. Kelso, training such later famous scholars and archaeologists .as G. E. WRIGHT, J. BRIGHT, N. GLUECK, and B. MAZAR. A. returned to Johns Hopkins as successor to Haupt in the William Wallace Spence chair of Semitic languages and as chairman of the Oriental Seminary, a

Kirchengesclziclltliche Entwiilfe: Alte Kirche-Refmm-

alioll tllld Luthertum-Pietislllus tlnd Envecktlllgsbeweglllzg (J960); (ed.), P. J. Speller; Pia desideria (19643; textbook ed., with B. KaSler, vol. I, I, 1996); (ed. with W. Milller) , i. H. vmz Wessenberg: UnveriiffellIlichte Malluskriple tllld Briefe (t968, 1970, 1979, 1987); (ed.), Die allen (jberselwnge1l des Neuell Testaments, die Kirchenviiterzitate IIIzd Lekliollare (AN'lT 5, 1972); (ed.), Vollstiilldige Konkordallz :;lIIn griechischell Neuell Testament (vol. 2, 1978; vol. I, AN1T 4, 1.2, 1983); NelitestQmentlicile EllIwiilfe (TBU 63, 1979); A History oj Christianity (vol. I, 1985; vol. 2, 1986); (ed.), Die Kun'espOlldellZ H. M. Miihlenbergs (4 vols., 1986, 1987, 1990, 1993;

5th in preparnt(on; ET of the letters from 1740, 1747, 1993); Die Reformatorell: LlIIhel; Melanchthul1, Zwillgli, Calvin (GlItersloher Taschenblicher 204, 19864); Te.>;;t U/zd Textwert del' griec/zischen Handschrijtell des Nellen Teslaments (Katholische Briefe, ANTf 9-11, 1987; Paulinische Briefe, ANTI 16-19, 1991; Apostelgeschichte, ANTI 20-21, 1993; Markusevangeliulll, ANTI 26-27, 1998); (ed. with B. Aland), Griec:lzischdelllsches Wiirterbuch ?;II dell Schriftell des Neuen TestctllIellts IIl1d del' friihchristlichell Literalll,. von tv. Baller (1988); (with B. Aland), Tize Texl of the N1:' All introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Praclice of Modem Textual Criticism (1989 2); (ed.), Luther Deutsch (10 vols., 1991); (ed.), nle Greek NT (1993 4 ); K. 1'011 Tischelldolf (1815-/8741: Neutestamellfliclze Textforsclllmg damak,' wzd hellle (SSAW.PH 133, 2, 1993); (ed.), NOIIl/1lI Testamentum graece (Nestle-Aland, 1993 27 ); KlIl7.gefasste Liste de,. griechischell Halldschriften des Nellell Testamellts (AN'IT 1, 19942); (ed.), Synopsis QllatlllOr Evangelion'l1I (1996 15); (ed.), NOl'ulII 1tmamentum GraecLlIII.· Editiu Critica MaiOl; vol. 4, installment 1, James (1997).

Bibliography: M. Hengel, "Lalldatio K. A.," K. A. in lIIemoriam (1995) 17-34. H. KUllst, "K. A.: Eine WUrdigung,"

22

Works: The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible (1932); osition he held until his mandatory retirement in 1958. The Excavatioll of Tell Beit Mirsilll (AASOR, 1932, 1933, 1938, ~rom 1930 to 1968 he edited RASOR. This joumal, begun 1943); The Vocalization uf the Egyptian Syllable Orlhography by J. MONTGO~rERY just.as A: went to Palestine, bec~me the main vehicle for hiS articles, first on exploratIOns , (1934); From the Stolle Age to Christianity: Monotheism and Ihe Historical Process (1940); Air:haeology alld the Religion of and excavations, then on ancient history, CHRONOLOGY, Israel (1942); The Archaeology of Palestille (1949); The Bibliand linguistic studies. A founded JPOS after helping to cal Period from Abraham to Ezra (1950, 1963); Samuel alld organize the Palestine Oriental Society in Jerusalem. Ihe Begillnillgs of the Prophetic Movement (1961); History, In the 1930s and 1940s he began publishing books, Archaeology alld Christian Humallism (1964); The Protomany of which were translated into other languages, and Sinaitic Inscriptiolls and Their Deciplzenllellt (1966, 1969); guiding his few but outstanding students to similar Yahweh alld the Gods of Canaall: All Historical Analysis of careers. He was one of the early decipherers and trans1\vo COlltrastillg Faiths (1968); (with C. S. Mann), MallhelV lators of the Ugaritic lablets (see UGARIT AND THE BIBLE), (AB 26, 1971). contributing numerous articles on their meaning and value, especially for the understanding of biblical HeBibliography: "Celebrating and Examining W. F. A.," BA brew POETRY. A was one of the first scholars to recog56, 1 (1993) 3-52 (with contributions by I. M. Sasson, N. A. nize the authenticity and early date of the DEAD SEA Silbennann, W. Hallo, W. G. Dever, and B. O. Long). D. N. SCROLLS. He traveled widely, lecturing to nonspecialists Freedman (ed.), The Published Works of IV. F. A.: A Cumpreas well as to scholarly audiences and receiving from hensive Bibliography (1975), 1,100 titles. S. E. Hardwick, universities in America and several foreign countries "Change and Conslancy in W. F. A.'s Treatment of Early OT about thirty honorary degrees. During the 1930s A helped numerous German Jewish ' History and Religion, 1918-1958" (diss., New York UniversilY, 1966). B. O. Long, Plaming alld Reaping A..' Politics, Ideolugy, scholars tind posts in the United Slates to escape the alld Illlerpretillg the Bible (1997). A. Malamat (ed.), Erlsr (w. Hitler menace. In the 1940s many Catholic students, cut . F. A. vol. 9, 1969); L. G, Running and D. N. Freedman, I·V. off from studies in Rome by the war, came to him. F. A.: A Twelllieth-centllry Genius (1975; centennial ed., 1991). Among scholars he trained were D. N. FREEDMAN, F. E. A. Speiser (ed.), BASOR 122 (April 1951). G. W. VanBeek M. CROSS, T. Lambdin, M. DAlmOD, W. Moran, R. BROWN, (ed.), The Sclzularslzip of w. F. A..' An Appraisal (1989). M. and 1. FITZMYER. Weippert, TRE 2 (1978) 193-95.' G: E. Wright (ed.), The Bible In expeditions organized by W. Phillips, A. explored in Sinai and excavated in south Arabia. He spent a fall and the Ancient Near East.' Essays ill Honor of lV. F. A. (1961). L. G. RUNNING semester in Turkey in 1957; he made return visits to Israel in 1953, 1958, and in 1969 on a grand tour when he was made a "Worthy," or honorary citizen, of Jerusalem. Two months after his eightieth birthday he sufALCUIN, AL81NIUS FLACCUS (c. 735-804) fered strokes that culminated in his death on Sept. 19, A. was educated in the cathedral school at York, 1971. England, where he became master in 766. In 781 he A. drew on his unparalleled knowledge of the lanmet Emperor Charlemagne at Panna and became the guages and cultures of the Near East, utilizing priemperor's adviser in reJigious matters and his tutor, mary sources from Egypt to Assyria and beyond. providing him with a number of simple dialogues of While there have since been refinements in detail and elementary instruction in the liberal arts. Among his corrections at various points, his chronology still other pupils was RABANUS MAURUS, the encyclopedist. stands as a major contribution to scholarship on the A's gifts as an educator were outstanding; he was able ancient Near East. His studies in Egyptian syllabic to present material in an easily digestible form for orthography (see EGYPTOLOGY AND BIBLICAL STUDIES) beginners. He carried the technique into his biblical were revolutionary in their day and are still important, commentary, for which other studies were a preparation, and his studies in northwest Semitic and Protoe.g., in his "Questions and Answers on Genesis." He Sinaitic inscliptions were both seminal and substantial. also made collections of extracts from sources to help His special expertise in epigraphy and orthography students without access to the full texts of the fathers, helped to establish lhose disciplines. in the field of although he did so in a less scholarly manner than did biblical studies his main contributions were in the hisBEDB and often by bon-owing rTom other collections. In torical reconstruction of the experience of Israel from this way he made an important contribution to the the beginning down to the postexilic period. Throughout process by which the biblical text acquired its medieval he endeavored to correlate the latest archaeological findstudy apparatus, notably in establishing the practice of ings with the biblical materials in making both a plaucopying JEROME'S prologue with each book. His own sible and a factual reconstruction of Israelite history. commentary, like those of his contemporaties, added For his insights and leadership A. is acknowledged almost nothing to what the fathers had said. The techas the "dean of biblical archaeology." nique was to select and alTange extracts, and the value

23

ALEXANDER, ARCHIBALD

ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL

of an individual commentary lay in the skill and appropriateness with which this selection and alTangement were carried out. A.'s most significant achievement as an exegete was the reform and standardization of the biblical text. He was not the only scholar of his day to see the need for cOITection of the cOlTuptions that had crept in; Theodulf of Orleans also produced a revised version, but A.'s was the more influential revision, to judge from the number of surviving manuscripts. He presented it to Charlemagne on his coronation as emperor in 800. The difficulty was to coUate versions, not all of which derived directly from the VULGATE (there are traces of the complex OL tradition). A seems to have made use especially of English and Northumbriall manuscripts.

Works:

Works: A Brief Outline of the Evidences of the Christian ReligiOIl (1825); The CallOIl of tfle Old and New Testamems Ascertained (1826): El'idences of the Allthellticity, Inspiration, and Callonical AlIIhority of the Holy Scriptllres (1836); A Brief COil/pend of Bible Trllth (1846); A HistOlY of the IsraeLitish Natioll from Their Origi/l to the Dispersioll at the Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (1852).

Bjbliography: J.

W. Alexander, The Life of A. A., DD,

First Pmfessor ill the Theological Seminary at Princeton, New Jersey (1854). R. V. Huggins, "A Note on A. A.'s Apologetic Motive in Positing 'Errors' in the Autographs," WTJ 57 (1995)

PL 100-101.

Bibliography: W.

A.'s teaching and writing influenced many students who went on to important posts in teaching, educational administration, and Christian ministry. Among them were C. HODGE, W. GREEN, and A.'s sons James and . Joseph ALEXANDER.

Edelstein, Emdilio l/lld Sapielltia (1965).

463-70. L. Loetscher, Facillg tire Elllightellmellt alld Pietism:

F. L. Ganshof, "La revision de la Bible par A./' BHR 9 (1947)

A. A. and tire Founding of Princeton SeminQ/Y (1983). D. McKim, "A. A. and the Doctrine of Scripture," JPH 54 (Fall 1976) 355-75. M. A. Noll, The Princeton 71,eology, 1812-1921:

1-20. W. Heil, TRE 2 (1978) 266-76. A . .T. Kleinclausz, Aicllin (Annals de I'universite de Lyon 3, 15, 1948). L. K. Shook, DMA 1 (1982) 142-43.

n. Smlllley,

The Study of tile Bible ill

Scripture, Science, Theological Method fmm A. A. to B. B.

the Middle Ages (1983 3). L. Wallach, A. alld Charlemaglle:

Warfield (1983) 59-104, with full bibliographical listings. M.

Studies ill Cwvlillgia/l History alld Litemture (1959, rev. ed. 1968).

A. Taylor, "The or in the Old Princeton School" (diss., Yale University, 1988) 1-90.

G. R. EVANS

1.

ALEXANDER, ARCf1lI1ALD (1772-1851)

A

DEARMAN

ALEXANDER, .JOSEPH ADDISON (1809-60)

Born to Scotch-Irish parents near Lexington, Virginia, A. was strongly influenced by his heritage. An ordained Presbyterian minister, he served as professor of theology at Princeton Seminary (1812-48), an institution he helped to found in 1812 along with S. Miller and A Green. A.'s greatest contributions to the science of biblical interpretation lie in the institution he helped to begin and the students it produced. He was known as a gifted speaker, and his sermons and speeches were full of sctiptural quotations and references. As a young man he had been exposed to revival preaching, and this influenced not only his decision to enter the ministry but also the pattern of his later teaching and writing. A firm Calvinist (see CALVIN), he adhered to the Westminster Standards as they were interpreted by such scholastics of the seventeenth century as F. TUlTetin; however, his experience with revivals made him appreciative of the issues of conversion, testimony, and evangelical piety. Thus his biblical interpretation was marked by Calvinist orthodqxy, with a strong emphasis on the testimony of miracles in the biblical period and in the inspired writings of the apostles (see INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE). He was also an apologist, discussing religious experience and the evidence for the Bible's trustworthiness in his writings.

A PIinceton Seminary professor amI exegete, A. was bom in Philadelphia, the third son of A. ALEXANDER, the first professor of the seminary. He showed early promise of outstanding linguistic skills, taking up the study of Latin soon after learning to read English. At age six he knew the Hebrew alphabet, and at ten he read the biblical Hebrew text fluently. He graduated from Princeton with highest honors at age seventeen. He then studied Hebrew and other Semitic languages for two years privately with a Jewish scholar from Philadelphia named Horwitz. From 1830 to 1833 A served as adjunct professor of ancient languages and literature at Princeton while attending the seminary. He was eventually accredited with mastery of seven languages, but he could read and write fourteen others and had reading ability in yet five more. In 1833-34 he studied and traveled in Europe. especially Berlin, where he was impressed by E. HENGSTENBERG. He returned to teach at Princeton Theological Seminary as instructor (1834), associate professor (1838), and professor of oriental and biblical literature (1840--51); he held a chair in biblical and ecclesiastical history (1851-59); and he was professor of Hellenistic and NT literature from 1859 until his death. A. was in great demand as a preacher and published two volumes of sermons (1860). A prolific writer, A. contributed numerous articies to

24

has been questioned, but certainly there were successive the Biblical Repository, which he edited for several teachers in several generations with a recognizably comears, and published commentaIies on both OT and NT mon intellectualism and approach to Scripture. Clement ~ookS. As an exegete his greatest contribution lay in claimed to be seeking and teaching the way of the true translation and grammatical explanation, as is especially gnostic, and the church subsequently recognized his obvious in commentaries on Psalms, Mark, and Acts. orthodoxy by canonizing him. Ironically, though later He used works of European and British scholars and entered into dialogue with them, especially in his com- , condemned, Origen was in some ways closer to the mainstream than Clement was. mentary on Isaiah, in which he defended the traditional Origen's theory of scriptural interpretation was depenposition on the unity and christological interpretation of dent on that of Philo, but it was developed in his own way the book, on occasion faulting M. STUART for eroding and backed up by Scripture. Origen used the analogy of the christological tendencies of various pericopes in body, soul, and spirit, claiming that Scripture has three Isaiah 40-66. Perhaps more than any other scholar, A senses: the literal, the moral, and the spiritual. The threefold provided the exegetical foundations for "Princeton thesense of Scripture was grounded in Prov 22:20-21: ''Do ology," and his commentaries on Isaiah. Psalms, and Mark were among the few American biblical studies . ' thou record them threefold in counsel and knowledge, that thou mayest answer words of truth to those who question respected by European scholars in the nineteenth centhee." The simple person, said Origen, may be edified by tury. what we might call the flesh of Scripture, this name being given to the obvious interpretation; while the person who Works: Isaiah (2 vols., 1846-47): The Psalms 1/"anslated has made some progress may be edified by its soul; and alld &plained (3 vols. 1850); Acts of Ihe Apo.ftles (2 vols., 1857, 1860J ); The Gospel According 10 Mark (1858); The the person who is perfect and, like those mentioned by the apostle in 1 Cor 2:6-7, able to receive God's wisdom in a Gospel Accordillg to Mal/hew (1861). mystery, may be edified by the spiritual law, which has "a shadow of the good things to come." Just as a person Bibliography: H. C. Alexander, The Life of J. A. A. (2 consists of body, soul, and spirit. so also in the same way vols., 1870). F. W. Loetscher, DAB I (1928) 173. J. H. does Scripture (De Pl'in. 4.2.4). OIigen's practice of scripMoorhead, "J. A. A.: Common Sense, Romanticism, and Bibtural interpretation wa~ not, however, so schematized as lical Criticism at Princeton," .IPH 53 (1975) 51-65. M.-A. this theory suggests. He rarely set out each of the three Taylor, "The OT in the Old Princeton School" (diss., Yale meanings of any given text. University, 1988) 166-307. Although often undistinguished. two different things T. H. OLBRICHT are meant by the "literal" meaning: the historical reference of a narrative and the actual practice of legal and ritual rulings. Origen tended to undermine the imporALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL tance of both these "obvious" senses, on the one hand This school is particularly associated with the practice attributing literal interpretation to the Jews, who practice of allegorical interpretation. The most notable practitionthe law, and claiming that Christians are not meant to er, ORIGEN (c. 185-254), was later accused of excessive take legal texts literally but spiIitually. On the other allegory, along with other faults. and condemned. Some hand, he pointed out that such impossibilities as God's of his followers went down with him. However, espeplanting a tree like a farmer or walking in paradise in cially in the spirituality of the Eastern church, his meththe cool of the day are to be taken as figurative expresods and many of his exegetical proposals survived and sions that indicate certain mysteries in the semblance of were also influential in the medieval West through the history and not actual events. His practice of contrasting medium of JEROME's commentaries. the literal exegesis of the Jews with the "spiritual" Origen was by no means the first to employ allegory exegesis of Christians is given NT backing. For examin exegesis. The method, derived from philosophical ple, Isaac's weaning suggests the necessity of leaving treatment 'of classical Greek texts like those of Homer, milk and moving on to solid food (see 1 Cor 3:2; Heb had been used extensively by the Alexandrian Jew 5:12-14), while the story of Sarah and Hagar is interPHILO. Early Alexandrian Christianity seems to have preted in the light of Gal 4:21-24; a purely historical been GNOSTIC in tendency-both Valentinus and understanding is regarded as inadequate. The irony of Basilides hailed from that center of Hellenistic syncreall this is that contemporary Jews were practicing elabotisq1-and Gnosticism used allegory to develop its sysrate forms of exegetical deduction to turn the narratives tems from ancient sacred texts. Tradition has it that of the law into Halakhah, none of which could ever be Origen was the third "head" of the catechetical school described in our terms as literal, while Origen was in Alexandtia and that he and a number of named taking quite literally some narratives that we would successors followed an educational and theological line . regard as impossible, even speculating about where the pioneered by Pantaenus and CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. refuse went in the ark! The existence of this school as a continuous institution

25

ALT, GEORG ALBRECHT

ALT, GEORG ALORECHT When il comes to moral and spiritual meanings, the figurative uses of language and of the necessity for lack of correspondence between theory and practice imaginative engagement with a text if it is to be approbecomes the more marked. There is never any question priately read. of the moral or the spiritual meaning; rather, Origen's fancy produces one or the other or a whole series of Bibliography: J. N. B. Carleton Paget, "The Christian possible "deeper" meanings. Mocal meanings seem to Exegesis of the OT in the Alexandrian Tradition," HBIOT 1, 1 be those that speak of the soul's pmification and acqui(ed. M. Saeb~, 1996) 478-542. H. Crouzel. Origene, pI. 2: sition of virtues; spiritual meanings are those that refer L'Exegete (1985). J. D. Dawson, "Ancient Alexandrian Inter. to heavenly or messianic realities. But often these things i pretation of Scripture" (diss., Yale University, 1988). R. P. C. are inextricably interwoven as Origen reads out of ScripHanson, Allegory and Evelll: A Study of tile Sources and ture his own theological vision. While deeply indebted Sigllificance of Orige/l's IntelpI'etatioll of Scr;PWI'e (1959). J. to Philo and sharing many similar features, Origen's H. Tigcheler, Didyme l'AI'ellgle et l'e.dgese allegol'iqlle, etude semalltique de quelques terrnes exegetiques importallts de SOli allegory is by comparison far less "philosophical" than some accounts have suggested. Where Philo focuses on commelllaire sur Zacharie (GCP 6, 1977). J. W. Trigg, Biblical the classical Hellenistic virtues and on the enlightenment Interpretation (MFC 9, 1988) 69-160. M. F. Wiles, "Origen as of the soul as it discerns distinctly Platonic ideals, Biblical Scholar," CHB 1 (1970) 454-89. Origen's virtues include the Christian values of faith, F. M. YOUNG hope, and love, willingness to follow Chlist even to a martyr's death, and being merciful, while the spiritual realities are those of Christ, the church as Christ's bride, ALI', GEORG ALBRECHT (1883-1956) the enlightenment of God's Word in Christ, and the gifts The son of a pastor, A. was born Sept. 20, 1883, in of the Spirit. SLilbach, northern Bavaria. From 1902 to 1906 he studThis difference is because Origen's allegory draws on ied at the universities of Erlangen and Leipzig (theology the church's tradition of seeing prophetic texts (see and oriental philology). He was a member of the Munich PRUPHECY AND PROPHETS. HB) fulIilled in Christ and of i preaching seminary from 1906 to 1908, when he made tracing typological foreshadowings of Christ in the narhis tirst journey to Palestine. He attained the MA and ratives and rituals of the old covenant. There was a time completed his habilitation at the University of Greifswhen scholars drew hard and fast distinctions between wald in 1909, where he became a professor of OT in allegory and typology, bUI in the case of Origen such , 1912, moving to the University of Basel in 1914. In distinctions tend to break down. What we find is a I 1921 he accepted a position at Halle/Saale, and in 1922 deeply messianic interpretation of Scripture married to was called to Leipzig. The successor of R. KnTEL, A. a philosophical system that embraces the Christian goswas professor of OT in Leipzig until his death; however, pel in a coherent vision of the way things are. It is he often lived in Palestine. From 1921 to 1935 he served rooted in the intellectual world of Origen's time, while as director of the Deutsches Evangelisches Institut filr also being deeply Christian and scriptural in its fundaAltertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusamental character. Scripture informed Origen's intellect; lem. From 1919 to 1949 he was chairman of the DEUTand in his own understanding it was Scripture that was SCHER VEREIN ZUR ERFORSCHUNG PALA.STINAS. He died lhe vehicle of truth, not (he alien philosophies (hat in April 24, 1956, in Leipzig. effect gave him the rational categories through which to The focus of A.'s work lay in the attempt to study achieve a coherent vision. the early history of Israel against the background of SClipture also provided the relatively systematic set Canaanite Palestine. One of the first scholars to do so, of symbols that actually makes Alexandrian allegory less he consistently employed the geographico-historical arbilrary than has sometimes been suggested. Study of method (territorialgeschiclztliche Methode)-that is, he a later Alexandrian exegete, DlDYMUS THE BLIND, many compared the connections between the historical geogof whose works have come to light comparatively reraphy and topography of Palestine with the witness of cently, has shown that the allegorical understanding of the lIB and of the peoples bordering on Palestine. An Scripture was based on a consistent methodology and extensive knowledge of both the region and its archaeused consistent correspondences, finding a coherent set ological remains (see ARCHAEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL STUD· of references to heavenly realities throughout the ScripIES), plus a study of the results of historical-critical tures. Thus "Jerusalem" always refers to the church, the scholarship, enabled A. to verify the biblical tradition to people of God, just as "Joshua" always means JESus. a considerable exlent. The allegorical approach to interpretation is alien to In two books (1925, 1939) A. described the penetramodern assumptions about how texts shouid be intertion of individual Israelite tribes into the west- and preted, but it does not deserve some of the criticisms east-Jordanian arable land as a gradual process compalhal have been advanced. It has a coherence of its own rable to the annual change of pasturage of semi nomadic and acknowledges the importance of being aware of peoples ("transhumance"), which only occasionally led

(cf. N. Glueck, AASOR 15, 141-42; response by A. in to warlike atercations ("the peacefUl infiltration"). AcZDPV 59 [1936] 166-67; 71 [1955] 88-89). A.'s cording to him" the conquest of Canaanite towns al~d "Beitrage zur historischen Geographie iJnd Topographie cities recounted in the books of Joshua and Judges did des Negeb" (1929-38) dealt with Christian Palestine. at take place during the tirst phase of the conquest In these studies he showed himself nol only to be ~Landnahl1le). This stage was instead confined to the knowledgeable about the country and its archaeological occupation of the thinly populated mountains ~est of the Jordan. It was not until the next phase, which A. I problems but also to be an able epigrapher and intertermed the Lalldesausbau (telTitorial expansion), that the , preter of singular ancient sources. In his famous religio-historical essay "Gatt der tribes expanded their territorial possessions, conquering I Vater" (1929), A. proposed to have discovered a type the towns while at the same time defending already of Israelite religion distinct from the worship of Yahacquired lands against the encroachments of the Philisweh, one that understood the patriarchs of Genesis as tines, who dweHed in the coastal regions to the west, recipients of their own specific revelations. The disand of the Ammonites, who had established themselves cussions of this particular issue have not abated. in the southern and eastern regions of east Jordan. A.'s studies of the conquest led him, on the basis of It would be a serious misunderstanding of A.'s posithe earliest Israelite legal traditions, to attempt to illution to imagine that he maintained that only a peaceful minate the origins of [sraelite law. The distinction prosettlement had taken place or that he held the biblical posed in this work between casuistic (Canaanite) and accounts of a military conquest of the country to be the apodictic (genuine Israelite) law has provided a standard result of secondary literary developments of the HB for the further study of Israelite legal thought. traditions (in particular by means of etiological "sagas"). As Kittel's successor, A. became one of the co-editors Instead, he painted a picture of a developmental occuof Biblia l-1ebraica (Bl-1K); he served in this capacity pation of the land and so included the sporadic warlike together with O. EISSFELDT and P. KAHLE from 1929 encounters within the scope of his theory. onward and published the third edition of the work. The A. argued that the entire defensive capabilities of Bl-1K was the predecessor of the contemporary Biblill the Israelite tribes were necessary for the resolution Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Bl-1S). of local conflicts until the close of the period of the As an orientalist A. utilized both hieroglyphic and cujudges when these powers were consolidated and the neifOlm sources to the extent that they were relevant to the new institution of the monarchy was inaugurated history of Syro-Palestine. Notable essays in this connection (1930, 1950). His numerous topographical studies, include "Volker und Staaten Syriens im fruhen Alteltum" particularly of the lists of place-names in the book of (1936) and "Del' Rhyttunus der Geschichte Syriens und Joshua, were accompanied and corrected by his acP~ltlstinas im Altertum" (1944). His topographical studies counts in the Paliistillajahrbuch of his travels and of the conquest were suppOlted by references in the studies in Palestine, which took place under the aegis pharaonic lists of town names and in the Ammna letters. of the Deutsches Palastina-Institut. A. pursued his The idea of a "school of A. and M. NOTH" oversimresearch into the governmental structures of Judah plities the sophisticated and differentiated achievements and Israel in works dealing with the monarchy (dyof both scholars. Neither sought to form a school, nor nastic in Judah, charismatic in Israel). He undertook did they always embrace the same ideas (see Noth, further topographical and archaeological studies as VTSup 7 [1960] 263). well as examinations of the constitutional law of the city-states of Jerusalem and Samaria. Works: Die Landllahme del" Israelitell in Pa/iistina (1925); A.'s extensive and often subtly detailed studies of the Die Staatellbildllng del' Israelitell ill Palitstilla (1930); Jlldas historical geography and administrative structure of RoNachbam zur Zeit Nehemias (1931); Die Rolle Samal";as bei man and Christian-Byzantine Palestine have not received der Elltstehung des JudenlulI1s (1934); Galiliiische Probleme the attention they deserve. In this connection his main (1937--40); Enviigllllgell abel' die Landllahme der Israeliten ill contributions were a monograph (1949); a number of Palilslilla (1939); Die Statten des Wil'kells Jestl in Galiliia, studies on the Limes Paiaestillae (Pi 1930-31; ZDPV tel'ritol'ialgeschic/rtlich betraelltet (1949); Das Grossreich Davids 1940 and 1955); and the closely related writings entitled (1950); Kleine Sellriflen ZlIr Geschielrte des Volkes Israel, 1-2 "Aus der 'Araba' " (ZDPV 1934-35), in which A. con(1953); 3 (1959); Essays 0/1 OT HistOlY and Religion (1966, ducted an intensive dialogue with N. GLUECK'S "Explo1989). rations in Eastern Palestine and the Negeb" (BASOR 55 [1934]; AASOR 14 [1934]; 15 [1935]) with particular Bibliography: W. F. Albl'ight, JBL 75 (1956) 169-73. H. emphasis on the dating of the fortresslike complexes on Bal'dtke, "A. A.: Leben und Werk," TLZ 81 (1956) 513-22. S. the elevated eastern flank of the Araba in the regions of Herrmann, Telldellzell der Theologie illl 20. Jir. (ed. H. 1. ancient Edam and Moab. Glueck saw these fortresses Schultz, t966) 225-30; "Nachtrag zur Bibliographie A. A.," as Nabataean caravanserais, whereas A. regarded them TLZ 81 (1956) 573-74. K. H. Mann, "Bibliographie A. A.: as Roman castles connected with the southern Limes

26

27

AMAMA, SIXTINUS

AMERICAN PALESTINE EXPLORATION SOCIETY

Geschichte und Altes Testament," Feslschrift A. A. (BHT 16, 1953) 211-23. S. Morenz, zAS (1956) I-III. M. Noth, "A. A. zum Gediichtnis," ZDPV 72 (1956) 1-8; RGG3, 1 (1957) 247-48. S. Schauer, G. Broker, and H. J. Kandlel; "Das Iiterarische Werk von A. A.," WZ(L) 3 (1953/54) 173-78. R. Smend, ZTK 81 (1984) 286-321; repro DATDJ (1989) 182-207. M. Weippert, TRE 2 (1978) 303-5. W. Zimmerli, Gollillgisc/ze Gelehrte Anzeigell 209 (1955) 79-93.

tllll!, paelill! illcrel1 ••..• 11111. • •. (1618); Censura I'lIlgalae, alque a Tridelltinis canoniwtae, l'ersiOllis qllinqlle lihrorlllll Mosis (1620); Oratio de Ebrielate (1621); Allfi-Barba11ls biblicus ill vi Libras distribuIlIs (1625); Grammatica Ehmea a MartillioBlIxforjiana (1625); Sermo Academicus ad locum Eccl. 12, i (1625); De Hebreusche Grammlltica ofte TaalkOllSl (1627); Ebrellsch Woordboek (1628).

S. HERRMANN

Bibliography:

AMAMA, SIXTINUS (1593-1629) The son of a leading political figure in Franeker, A. was born Oct. 13, 1593. In 1610 he enrolled in the local university, where he was under the special tutelage of 1. DRUSIUS, who quickly saw A. as his potential successor. A. went to Leiden in 1614 to study Arabic with T. Elpenius and in 1615 to Oxford, where Dl1lsius had long had close contacts, especially with T. Bodley (d. 1613). At Oxford A. enrolled in Exeter College, headed by 1. Prideaux, where he also taught Hebrew. Retuming home upon the death of Dl1lsius (1616), A. assumed his post and taught at Franeker until his early death Dec. 9, 1629. His most famous student was J. COCCElUS.

BWPGN 1 (1907) 132-38. F. S. Knipscheer,

J. C. H. Lebram, "Ein Streit urn die Hebraische Bibel und die Septuaginta," Leiden UniversilY ill the Sevellteellth CenfUlY: All ETc/range of Leal7li/lg (ed. T. H. Lunsingh-Scheurleer and G. H. M. Posthumus Meyjes, 1975) ' 21-63. MSHH 34 (1736) 238-45. J. E. Platt, "S. A. (15931629): Franeker Professor and Citizen of the Republic of Letters," Ullil'ersiteil te Franeker 1585-1811: Bijdragen lot de geschiedenis vall de Friese hogeschool (Fryske Akademy 648, ed. G. T. Jensma et aI., 1985) 236-48. P. T. van Rooden, Theology, Biblical Scholarship, and Rabbinical Studies in the Sevenleenth Century '(Studies in the History of Leiden Unjversity 6, 1989) 64-83. ·

NNBW 1 (J911) 105-7.

1. H. HAYES

A. was a strong advocate of biblical language study AMBROSE (c. 339-397) and, like ERASMUS, saw this as one of the means of Born in Trier, A. was educated in Rome and entered achieving moral reform in society, especially in univerthe imperial civil service. He was appointed governor sity life. Through his influence the Friesian and other of Aemilia Liguria (northern Italy), based in Milan, and synods moved to require competence in biblical lanin 374 was elected bishop of the city. A fluent reader guages of all theological students. A. supplied new of Greek, he could transmit to the West the most valueditions of the Martinez-BuxTORF Hebrew grammar and able insights of contemporary Greek Christian thought. produced his own as well as a Hebrew wordbook. Through his influence on the emperors of the West, Much of A.'s work took the fonn of attacks on what he especially Theodosius I (whom he compelled to tmdercalled "barbmisms." Seven of these were denounced, estake public penance after the Massacre of Thessalonica pecially in his massive 1625 work: (1) the emphasis on the in 390), he greatly consolidated the position of the INSPJRAfION and value of the SEPTUAGINT and (2) the church in the state. He died in397. VULGATE; (3) the claim that the OT Hebrew text had been A.'s self-denying and energetic character captured the cOllupted by heretics and Jews and was thus of reduced imagination of his own and of later generations. His value (although he accepted the views of L. Cappel); (4) personal, spiritual, and ecclesiastical life was rooted in the view that the study of Hebrew and Greek was unnecthe Bible. Unlike the Manichees, who rejected the HB, essary; (5) the contention that the study of Scripture is not he emphasized the Bible's unity: "The NT was in the necessary for theology; (6) the contention that modem Old; in the Old it was running [clIrrebat], through the versions and editions of the Bible are adequate (he strongly . Old it was announced" (Exposilio psalmi 718, 4, 28; criticized the contemporary Dutch translation); and (7) the i CSEL 62, 81). In his interpretation A. was strongly view that Scripture should be interpreted in both a literal influenced by the allegorical exegesis of PHILO and of and a mystical sense. A.'s positions drew him into debate, I ORIGEN and by the more sober expositions of BASIL, especially with Roman Catholics, over his attack on the although he often took an independent line. He defined Vulgate (1620), which was answered caustically by the allegory as "when one thing is done and another is French polymath M. Mersenne (1588-1648) in his massive indicated" (De Abraham 1.4.28; CSEL 3211, 523). More Quaestiones celeberrimae ill Gellesilll (1623). Letters surspecifically, three levels are to be found in Scripture: viving in Mersenne's conespondence indicate that a cordial the natural, the mystical, and the moral (Explanatio relationship was eSlablished between these two men of the psalmi 36. I; CSEL 64, 70). The natural is the literal "republic of letters" before A.'s death. I or historical interpretation. The mystical represents the culmination of exegesis; it is the mystical interpretation Works: Dissertathlllcula, qlla ostendill/r praecipuos papismi of the OT that points to Christ. The moral level deals envres ex iglloralllia ehmismi el VIIlgala I'ersione parlim 01'with the practical conduct of life. A.'s preference was

28

for moral-as also for OT----..-,.~gesis. The NT, being the fulfillment of the OT, did not require the same degree of allegorical treatment. He ~'egarded PAUL's writings as self-explanatory (Ep. 7; 37 III PL), 1; CSEL 82/1, 4344). Just as the OT comes before the NT and should, therefore, be read first (Explallatio psalmi I, 33; CSEL 64, 28), so also moral matters come before mystical (Expositio psalmi 718, 1, 2; CSEL 62, 5). A.'s attitude toward exegesis was part and parcel of his attitude toward his pastoral obligations. L. Pizzolato has emphasized the powerful link A. forged between exegetical activity and the spiritual life (1978, 29). An eyewitness account of A.'s exegetical method, based on the text "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2 Cor 3:6), was provided by his greatest convert, AUGUSTINE (Confessi(}/lS 6.4.6; CSEL 33, 119).

a meeting in New York City. The society immediately set about raising funds for the exploration and mapping of the Transjordan from the Dead Sea to northem Syria. Appealing to Americans' patriotic and religious sentiments, the society argued that its projects would enhance America's reputation as a center for scholarship and scientific investigation and would defend the Bible against the attacks of skeptics. The society sent its first expedition to Palestine in 1871 under Lt. E. Steev'~r and a second team in 1875 under Col. J. Lane and Dr. S. Merrill. Although a number of reports and incomplete maps were forthcoming from these campaigns, both expeditions failed to produce what the society had expected, due in part to inadequate funding, inexperienced personnel, and the sheer immensity of the undertaking. The APES disbanded in 1884, leaving behind the issues of its Statement (1871-77) and a few bulletins as well as an interesting collection of over one hundred photographs of archaeological ruins in Palestine (see ARCHAEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL STUDfES).

Works:

Exameroll (CSEL 3211), De paradiso (CSEL 3211), and De Caill el Abel (CSEL 32/1), all in ET hy J. J. Savage, FC 42 (1961); De -isaac vel anima (CSEL 32/1), De bOllo I/Iortis (CSEL 32/1), De [acoh el I'ila beata (CSEL 32/2), De Joseph (CSEL 3212), De patr;archis (CSEL 32/2), De fuga saeculi (CSEL 32/2), and De illierpellatiolle lob el DGI'id (CSEL 3212), all in ET by M. P. McHugh, FC 65(1972); De Abraham (CSEL 32/1); Exposilio el'allgelii seculldulII Lllcam (CSEL 32/4); Expositio psalmi 118 (CSEL 62); Explallatio

Bibliography: w. .I. Moulton, "The American Palestine Exp[oration Society," AASOR 8 (1928) 55-70. M. P. GRAHAM

psa/morllm 12 (CSEL 64).

AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF OmENTAL RESEARCH ASOR was established in 1900 by funding from twenty-one American universities and assumed the task of enabling "qualified persons to prosecute Biblical, linguistic, archaeological, historical, and other kindred studies and researches under more favorable conditions than can be secured at a distance from the Holy Land." Originally the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, the organization changed its name as it established additional research centers in Amman, Baghdad, Damascus, and Nicosia and sponsored excavations in Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Cyprus, Carthage, Syria, and Egypt. Currently, ASOR is supported by about 1,400 individual and institutional members and maintains centers for sludy in Jerusalem at The W. F. ALBRfGHT Institute of Archaeological Research, in Amman at the American Center of Oriental Research (est. 1968), and in Nicosia at the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (est. 1978). ASOR's institutes at Baghdad and Damascus were closed because of political circumstances, but the Baghdad Committee for the Baghdad School and the Damascus Committee continue the organization's interests in those countries. In addition to monographic series, ASOR issues ASOR Newsletter, Biblical Archaeologist, Bulletin of the ,111lerican Schools of Oriental Research, and Jountetl of Cuneiform Studies.

Bibliography: E. Dassmann, TRE 2 (1978) 362-86. F. H. Dudden, The Life alld Times of St. A. (2 vols., 1935). M. Grazia Mara, Patrology 4 (1986) 144-80, esp. 153-65. V. Hahn, Das walrr!! GeselZ; eille Ullter.flIc!lIl11g der AujJassUlrg deJ A. vall Mailmrd VOIII Verhiiltllis der heidell TeSlamellle (MBTh 33, 1969) . .I. Huhn, "Bedeutung und Gebrauch der Heiligen Schrift durch den Kirchenvater A.," Hi 77 (1958) 387-96. J. B. Kellner, Der Ireilige A., Bischof 1'011 Mailand, als Erkliirer des Allell Testamelltes (1893). R. H. Malden, "SI. A. as an rnterpreter of Holy Scripture," iTS [6 (1915) 509-22. n. de Margerle, [lIIroductiOIl l'hisloire de l'e.regese 2:99-143.

a

H. J. auf del' Maur, Das Psalmenverstiilldllis des A. Vall Mailalld (1977) . .I. Pepin, 171eologie cosmique ef tlriologie c1rreliemre (Ambroise, Emm. [, 1, [-4) (BPhC, 1964). L. F. Pizzolato, La "Explallatio psalmonmr XII": Studio letlerario slIl/a esegesi de sanl'Ambrogio (Archivio ambrosiano 17, 1965); "La Sacra Scrittura fondamenlo del methodo esegetico di sant' Ambrogio," Ambrosius EpiscoplIs (SPMed 6, 1976) 1:393-426: La dOl/rilla e.vegelica di ,w1lt'Amhrogio (Studia patristica Mediolanensia 9. 1978). H. Savon, Saillf A. devalll 1'I!XI!gese de Phi/Oil Ie .luif (2 vols. in 1, 1977); "Saint A. et saint Jerome, lecteurs de Philoh," ANRW 2.21.1 (1984) 731-59.

A. LENOX-CONYNGHAM

AIVIERICAN PALESTINE EXPLORATION SOCIETY The APES, inspired by the example of the British Palestine Exploration Fund, was established in 1870 at

Bibliography:

C. U. Harris, "The Role of CAARI on Cyprus," BA 52 (1989) 157-62. P. .T. King, American Arr.hae-

29

AMMON, CHRISTOPH FRIEDRICH VON

AMOS,1300KOF

vlogy ill the Mideas/: A His/ory uJ the American Schuols of Orienwl Research (1983).

I

M. P. GRAHAM

AMMON, CHRISTOPH FRIEDRICH VON (1766-1850) A. was professor at Erlangen and Gottingen between 1789 and 1813; he then became Saxon court preacher and held various administrative positions. He is representative of the moderate wing of the late eighteenthcentury Enlightenment. 1. KANT gave him his approach to religion; J. G. HERDER, his understanding of the PSYCHOLOGY of the biblical writers; and J. SEMLER, C. STAuDLIN, and G. Less, his theological framework. A. was the third person in the eighteenth century (after G. Zachariae and W. Hufnagel) to attempt a modern biblical THEOLOGY. For A., dogmatic theology had to present the basic Christian doctrines from a single viewpoint. He felt this had a certain utility for the instruction of society in general but did not do justice to all the variations in the individual perception pf religion. In contrast to this feature of dogmatic theology, there is no single principle behind the books of the Bible; therefore, biblical theology can present what is said in the Bible so that the different stages in the apprehension of religion can be made clear. Thus the most honorable concern for the prophets of the HB (see PROPHECY AND PROPHETS, HB) was to be teachers of morality concerned for the true worship of the one God; but they failed to rise above their national pride. The NT canies this teaching further, A. argued, in that JESUp set out purer moral truths that contain the notion of an encompassing love of humankind as a whole. In his work A. tended to adhere to the old method of commenting on prooftexts, but he acknowledged that there was no unifying principle within the Bible that could be used for his anangement. His erudition and exegetical skill were respected by his contemporaries as he was considered to be one of the greatest rationalist theologians of his era.

Works:

Wandillngen des C. F. v. A.: Ein Beitrag Wi' Prage des legilimen Oebrallches philosophischer Begriffe in der Chrislologie" (diss., Erlangen, 1953). J. SANDYS-WUNSCH

AMOS, BOOK OF R. Cripps calls Amos "perhaps the most important prophet in the QT." Although the book comes third in traditional orderings of the Minor Prophets (see PROPHECY AND PROPHETS, HB), Amos ranks first in the heart of most readers. There are many reasons for this: the beauty of his language-especially apparent in the Hebrew; his impassioned plea for social justice; and the man's courage, not to say temerity, in attacking the powerful politico-religious establishment of the northern kingdom of Israel. Here, however, is where unity concerning the interpretation of Amos ends; his very popularity and importance have generated an enormous amount of secondary literature with, predictably, many contlicting opinions. 1. Hayes lays out three stages of modern (c. 1880 onward) critical study of Amos concerned with the prophet, his religion, and finally, the text. A fourth area of inquiry, which we might call the SOCIOLOGY of Amos, may, thanks to N. Gottwald and others, be the next step. In any case, we are beginning to witness a rather remarkable reevaluation of Amos and his book, including his origin, status in society, place in and sense of history, language, and the unity of the book ascribed to him. The traditional Christian view of Amos as a simple Judean shepherd goes back to AUGUSTINE, who marveled that such words as Amos's could come from a rustic. This immensely popular view, conjuring up images of David versus Goliath or JES.US and the Temple elders, had no trouble surmounting occasional challenges until the nineteenth century. It was an image that the JudeoChristian tradition could appreciate. LUTHER, for example, shared God's apparent delight in choosing the meek to challenge the mighty; he began his Amos commentary by comparing Amos's situation in Israel with his own vis-a-vis the pope. Following his example, commentators who reflect the first stirrings of modern (Protestant) scholarship at the end of the nineteenth century concerned themselves mainly with the person of the prophet, allhough Luther also maintained that the person was less important than his message. Regarding the person of Amos, we know that the earliest Talmudic commentators (see H. Routtenberg fl971)) who mention Amos lived, like Augustine, nearly 1,000 years after the prophet-but only shortly after one who said that the meek would inherit the earth. Seeing Amos as one of the latter was natural for Christians; however, the scanty Jewish sources (Tg. Onq., b. Ned. 38a) suggest, rather, that Amos was a wealthy shepherd.

EIIIIVurJ eiller reinen Biblischen Theologie (2 vols.,

1792); EIIIWIllj' eiller ChrislOlogie des Altell Testaments (1794); Ethic (1795); BibJische Theologie (3 "ols., 1801, 1802), a combinalion and 2nd ed. of the 1792 and 1794 vols.; Dogmatic (1803); Fortbi/dullg des Chris/ell/wlls WI' Wel/religioll (1833).

Bibliography: R. C. Dcntan, Preface to OTTheology (1963) 26. H. J. Kraus, Die Biblische Theologie: Ihre Geschichte Ulld Problematic (1970) 40-51. J. Sandys-Wunsch, "A Tale of Two Crilks," Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical alld Other Studies ill Memory of P. C. Craigie (ed. L. Eslinger and O. Taylor, 1988) 545-55. J. D. Schmidt and .J. Dictrich, "Die theologischen

30

impact; but it is significant that the Judean king Amaziah, held hostage for a further ten years, returned home to find his son Uzziah king. Amaziah was murdered in c. 767, almost coinciderttal with the beginning of Amos's career. . 3. Occupation. Amos's occupation is an area of great conjecture. Today he is enshrined "among the prophets," but there is a strong suspicion that this membership is posthumously conferred. For one thing, although he speaks prophetically, his words contain an explicit denial of having been a prophet (7:14). As H. ROWLEY (1947) pointed out, the crucial verse lacks a verb, leading E. Wiirthwein (1950) to posit that Amos underwent a sort of intenuption or mid-career change in the nature of his prophecy from supporting the official cult to opposing it. But we do not really know whether he was a prophet at all. In 3:7 he seems to indicate that he is, indeed, one. And his capacity for predicting ruin is obvious from the oracles with which the book begins. J. Blenkinsopp (1983), however, states that 3:7 is the "most obvious Deuteronomistic interpolation" in the whole book; and the authenticity of many of the oracles is questioned. Even if Amos were a prophet, he would likely have had another livelihood. In fact, he identifies himself as a "dresser" (?) of sycamore trees and a boqel; "herdsman" (7: l4). Traditional identification sidesteps the fact that, although he says he was taken "from behind the flocks" (7: 15), the usual word for "shepherd" is not used to describe his activities. Modern discoveries in cognate languages, especially Ugaritic (see UGARIT AND THE BIBLE), have convinced some scholars (A. Kapelrud [1956]; P. CRAIGIE (1982)) that Amos was an influential sheep owner/dealer (as the Jewish tradition had long remembered) with perhaps some connection to the cult. This makes sense. As much as we admire his outburst, an Israelite festival was no New England town meeting at which anyone could speak at will. Besides, who would listen to a simple shepherd and, on top of that, a Judean? How could anyone, much less an uneducated outsider, have commanded an Israelite audience? The answer to these questions may lie in an examination of Amos's other occupation, which had nothing to do with religion. Scholars assume that harvesting sycamore fruits (7:14) is proof of humble origin; who but a poor man would tend tigs barely tit for human consumption? H. OORT (1836-1927) caused some consternation one _ hundred years ago by pointing out that sycamores do not grow at the altitude of Judean Tekoa (2,800 fr. above sea level). In addition, if Amos owned groves of trees, how can he be considered humble? G. A. SMITH (189698), whose description of Judean Tekoa borders on the lyrical, responds that Amos must have been some sort of migrant worker; sycamores do grow in the Shephelah by Ein Gedi and in the north, the locus for Amos's preaching. But if he a migrant worker, how did he also care for his sheep?

This would have contradicted Augustine'S most dearly held notions. Indeed, there is almost nothing about Amos that commentators, Jewish and Christian, ancient and modern, have not contested. 1. Background. There is general agreement that Amos'S career was very brief; no scholar assigns him more than a year's public ministry, sometime between 765 and 740 BCE (though few go as far as J. Morgenstern, who reduces it to a single day!). At least some of his remarks were delivered at the national shline of Bethel, perhaps on the day of the fall festival. The traditional view locales Amos's hometown in Judean Tekoa (1: I), where, according to EUSEBIUS's Onomasticoll, his tomb was still extant in the third century. Contrarily, medieval Jewish commentary (D. Kimhi; see S. Berkowitz [1939]) casually identifies him as hailing from Asher in the north. CYRlLOF ALEXANDRlA (5th cent.) reported a northern origin, but few have taken this or any other northern suggestion seriously. The book gives us little help: neither a patronymic nor a designated place of origin like the ninth-century northern hero/prophet Elijah the Gileadite. Positing a northern origin for Amos would solve many problems, but the more obvious questions concerning his period and his profession(s) should be addressed first. 2. Chronology. Dates for Amos's prophetic activities have ranged from c. 780 to c. 740. Amos's placement in this forty-year period is significant because the signal event of that span-namely, the rise of Assyria under Tiglath-pileser III-1'2., liturgical performance, preaching, and communal praxis . :~'! as well as through scholarly apologetics and polemics~'" both extramural and internecine. The devastating blow~ .; to Jerusalem's Temple cultus and Jewish national aspi· ,,;S' rations struck by Rome in response to the revolts of .:,~ 66-70 and I32-:135 CE :,ere c~tical factors iJ1 the diver. .:~~ gence 0 f th ese InterpretIve mamstreams. "li a. Formatioll of rabbinic alld patristic orthodoxie~ '\'~ (1st-5th cellts.). The appropriate role of Mosaic Torah . in sustaining the communal faith and the discrete politi. '.,~ cal identity of Israel in the midst of other nations was '" not Paul's preoccupation alone, of course, nor was it a new one in his era. Deuteronomy directly addressed . .i! some of the chief theological and cultural issues, espe. . ~ cially in 4: 1-40. The agenda for Israel's survival as the unique people of God, which is eloquently sketched in ::J! this preamble to the legislative corpus, was developed;~) in both visionary and institutional forms from the exile ~.'.i.:'." through the extended Judean restoration of the later sixth ',;1 and fifth centuries BCE (e.g., Ezra 3:2; 7:11-26; Neh·.;' 10:28-31 [Heb 29-32]; Neh 13:1-3; Isa 51:4-8; 61:1-11;{! Jer 31:31-37). Moreover, the semi-autonomous polity of :.'~ the Judean commonwealth, based on scriptural Torah and consolidated by Ezra and Nehemiah under Persian auspices, was apparently p.rivileged as ancestral law in ..,r.,' the wake of Alexander's conquest of the Near East (late 4th cent. BCE; see Josephus AlII. Jud. 11.329-39). The ,. polity seems to have retained this benign status through the first century and a half of Ptolemaic and Seleucid hegemony in. Syro-Palestine, until it was undennined and forcefully abrogated during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE; see I Maccabees I; 2 Maccabees 1-7; 4 Macc 3:20-4:26). The latter crisis, with the successful Maccabean-Ied response to it and the often fractious politics of Has· monean rule that ensued, is the starting point for Josephus's review of the centuries of Judean civil strife and international conflict that culminated during his own lifetime in Rome's destruction of the commonwealth (Bel. Jud. 1.17-30). Already in this account of the Jewish War (or First Revolt of 66-70 eE), but more expressly in his later works that define and defend the centrality of Torah in Jewish life, Josephus's theopolitical perspec- . tive is deureronomic, again as epitomized by the paradigm of Deut 4: 1-40 (see also Josh 1: 1-9; 2 Kgs 17:7-20).

it

:i /1 ':r!

I I

276

made extensive use of allegory to exposit the universal signiticance of particular laws (e.g., Deut 23:1-2 [Heb 2-3] in Spec. Leg. 1.326-32), he insisted that the literal, practicable sense of Mosaic legislation should not be denigrated or exegetically abrogated (Mig. Ab. 89-93). Philo's work, which brilliantly illuminates an intersection between first-century Judaism and Hellenistic culture, had formative influence on the development of the ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL of early Christian biblical scholarship. The principal architects of rabbinic Judaism, on the other hand, were the generations of Jewish scholars active at Jabneh and at other sites in Roman Palestine, who are known collectively as utnllaim (teachers, transmitters [of tradition]). Their labors extended from the beginning of the first century CE through the early third, when the Mishnah and the chief collections of Tannaitic Pentateuchal MLDRASH, including Sipre to the book of Deuteronomy, were stabilized in written forms. The achievement these works attest is the reconstitution of a coherent Jewish identity, one still resolute as to the insuperable authority, efticacy, and integrity of revealed traditions of Torah ("Torah from Heaven," m. Sanh. 10.1) and able to withstand at least interim loss of the Temple service as a means of divine grace and blessing CAbot R. Nat. A 4, 14, 38). The Mishnah documents the jurisprudential consolidation of rabbinic Judaism as an integrated system of faith and praxis. The key integrating factor is a ligorous discipline of piety that, in continuity with the themes of Pentateuchal legislation, interrelates sacral obligationsincluding those of the defunct Temple cultus-with civil duties and ethical responsibilities. One who resists the entrapments of worldly culture and follows this discipline (accepting "the yoke of Torah," 111. 'Abol 3.5; see 'Abot R. Nat. A 20) serves God with the whole self in all aspects of personal and communal life; hence the Mishnah aptly begins with instruction abollt twice-daily recitation of the Shema', whose keynote in Deut 6:4-9 epitomizes this covenantal commitment of those who comprise Israel (m. Bel: 1-2). The relationship between the Pentateuchal traditions of law and the Mishnah's tractates is complex. The Mishnah frequently cites scriptural sources, often as proof texts for particular arguments; and it sometimes links expository remarks to segments of text (e.g., the serial comments on Deut 26:13-15 in m. Ma 'as. S. 5.10-14, replicated in Sipre Dem. 303; see also 111. So./. 8 on Deut 20:2-9). On the whole, however, the work presents a complex reconfiguration of traditional Judaic polity, for the most part loosely alTanged around scriptural loci, rather than an exegetical extension of Pentateuchallaws. For example, the tractate Makkol (Stripes), which derives its name from the practice of flogging regulated in Deut 25:1-3, treats various aspects of judicial due process and punishment, matters that are associated with the implementation of a number of

Since its constitution in the time of Moses, Josephus aintained, the Jewish state prospered, or decreased and ~Ied, according to the strict measure of its fidelity to God's will, articulated in the laws promulgated through Moses (e.g., A Ill. Jud. 1.14; 4.176-93; Apioll 1.42-43; 2.45-47, 145-89). Judea's recent defeat b~ Ro~e is no exception, atlJibutable to the lall~r's supen?r ffilght and ulture; rather, the Roman leglOns prevalled because ~ey were implementing God's judgment on the divisive policies and deviant practices of Judea's tyrannical leadership (Bel. Jud. 1.9-12; 5.375-419; 6.38-41, 99-110; 7.358-60; cf. Ani. Jud. 20.215-18; see 'Abot R. Nat. A

.

4)'JosephUs's overview of Israel's Mosaic "constitutio!l" (Gr. polileia) takes the form of a broad paraphrase of Deuteronomy 12-26, into which he interpolated some supplementary ordinances from earlier Pentateuchal corpora (AnI. Jud. 4.196-301). He emphasized the fairness and practicability of this ancestral legislation, occasionally adding juridical details that are not found in the biblical text but that are most often congruent with Pharisaic and later rabbinic interpretation (e.g., Ant. Jud. 4.219, 248, 254; see 13.297-98). The int1uence of Deut 4:1-40 may also be discerned in the erudite reworking of the Greek Pentateuch authored by PHILO, a leader of the Jewish community resident in Alexandria, Egypt, who flourished in the earlier first century CE (Le., before the war between the Jewish state and Rome). Using terminology and philosophical concepts familiar to his Hellenized audience, Philo extolled at length the virtues of Moses and of Mosaic legislation. He argued that not only is Israel's polity both more ancient than and superior to the ancestral laws of other nations but also that it manifested from the outset the sublime ideals of reason, piety, equity, and amity celebrated in Platonic thought and pursued toward the ultimate goal of the intellect'S freedom in the spiritual regimen of Stoicism (e.g., Vita Mos. 1.156, 162; 2.12, 25-44, 50-51; Virt.; Liber 41-47; cf. Deut 4:5-8). According to Philo's influential analysis, the Decalogue is a legislative precis consisting of divinely articulated general laws (Heres 167-68; Spec. Leg. 4.132); these ten stipulations serve as the main heads under which all other Pentateuchal ordinances may be alTanged and interpreted as either oracular pronouncements of Moses or his own authoritative specifications of divine will (Vita Mos. 2.187-91; cf. Deut 4:12-14; 5:22-6:3). This scheme for relating the specifi~s of Mosaic legislation to the moral precepts of the Decalogue facilitated Philo's claim that there is no real disparity between the universal n~tural order of divine law, idealized by Hellenistic culture, and such sacral rites as Passover that are peculiar features of Israel's experience, shaping its unique vocation as God's priesthood among the world's nations (e.g., Spec. Leg. 2.15067; see Gp. MUll. 1.1-3). Conversely, although Philo

277

DEUTERONOMY

DEUTERONOMY

Pentateuchal provisions (including Deut 19: 1-13, 1521). The archaic institution known as levirate marriage, sketched in Deut 25:5-10, is presupposed in tractate Yebamot (Brothers' Widows), which is largely concerned with contingencies and exemptions in application of the scriptural precedent (see, similarly, m. Pe 'a on Deut 24:19-21 and Ill. Seb. 10.3-7 on Deut ]5:2). Note is sometimes taken of scholarly differences in interpretation of biblical regulations; a classic example is the dispute between the schools of Shammai and HILLEL over the grounds for divorce allowed by Deut 24: 1 (m. Git. 9.10; see also 8.9). Midrash Sipre to Deuteronomy provides a lucid expositional complement to the associative concatenations of the Mishnah's legal reasoning. Sipre is also an anthology of Tannaitic scholarship, composed in this case of selected interpretations and rulings of various rabbinical authorities and schools, attached segmentally to rubrics of the scriptural text (see R. Hammer [1986]; 1. Neusner [1987]; S. Fraade [1991]). The legislative corpus of Deuteronomy 12:2-26: 15 receives fullest treatment (sees. [pisqa' at] 60-303). Although some comments of antiquarian and homiletical character are included here (e.g., in sees. 148, 152, 275) most are concerned to give succinct definition to such matters as the logical sense, strict applicability, and continuing relevance of the scriptural ordinances as received and interpreted by the scribes and by their Tannaitic Sllccessors (e.g., secs. 153-54,248,285; see m. Yad. 4.3). Interconnections with the regulations and expository remarks of the Mishnah are both common and illustrative of the exegetical foundations of rabbinic orthopraxis (e.g., cf. m. Hag. 1.1-5 with sec. 143 on Deut 16: 16-17, and m. Sa/llz. 2.4 with sec. 159 on Dellt 17:17; cf. secs. 127-43 on Deut 16:1-17, providing a virtual textbook on method). Moreover, the value of Sipre as a complement to Mishnaic jurisprudence is greatly enhanced by sections of exposition devoted to portions of Deuteronomy that frame the central polity (specifically secs. 1-59 treating Deut 1: 1-29; 3:23-29; 6:4-9; 7: 12; II :10-12: I; and sees. 30457 on Deut 31:14; 32:1-52; 33:1-29; and 34:l-12). Sensitivity to theological and hermeneutical issues is sharply attested here, articulated often in view of Israel's threatened status among the world's nations and sometimes in apparent defense against the competing claims on scriptural traditions made by Samaritans and Christians (e.g., secs. 31, 56, 311-12, 336). Prevalent themes are that God has neither abandoned the sole legitimate lineage of Abraham, which extends through Jacob and his physical offspring, nor negated the efficacy of the Torah. In sum, the whole Torah, promulgated through Moses, remains Israel's unique and unifying inheritance, witnessing still to its favor with God (eloquently expounded in sees. 342-46 on Deut 33:2-5). Tannaitic insistence that faithful observance of Torah continued to define the existence of Abraham's true heirs

is one of the two major poles with reference to which patristic Christianity sought to establish an identity for the church as "the Israel of Ood" (OaI6: 16). The second"' pole is represented by otherwise diverse parties, even_ tually marginalized as heretical, who shared a view that the cultural idiosyncrasies of scriptural Torah made it largely irrelevant or even antithetical to the universal spiritual redemption effected through Christ. Negotiating a middle course that respected the revelatory impon of Pentateuchal legislation while transcending many of its ostensible demands required both vigorous and fleXible argumentation. Philo's agile hermeneutics had shown the way. Themes that developed into charactelistic patristic views on the significance of the Mosaic law are adumbrated in the Epistle of BARNABAS, probably composed in the late first or early second century CEo By then, destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and fUl1her loss of .Judean civil autonomy after the failed First Revolt had decisively altered the terms of the early apostolic debate regarding the extent to which observance of Torah was incumbent on either Jewish or gentile Christians (e.g., Acts 10:1-11:26; J5:1-29; cf. Jas 1:19-4:12). Most substantively, the traditional sacrificial cultusrevealed at Sinai and implemented under Moses' direction (e.g., Exodus 40; Numbers 7-8)-had been physically abrogated, thus rendering key portions of the Torah no longer institutionally practicable. According to Barnabas, however, this did not negate Mosaic law; it contirmed that what the old cultus had imperfectly materialized was now spiritually realized through Christ's expiation of sins, a remission that transformed the church's membership into a new temple of God's indwelling presence (Bam. 4:11; 5:1-7; 8:1-3; 16:1-10; cf. 1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 6:14-18; Eph 2:19-22; Hebrews 7-11; 1 Pet 2:4-5). Accordingly, Christ repristinated Moses' work as mediator: Moses restored the covenant to conform with Ood's original intention, removing from it the heavy "yoke of necessity" imposed because of Israel's apostasy in the golden calf affair (Bal'll. 2:4-10; 4:6-8; 6: 19; 14: 1-6); and he unveiled the law's spiritual significance, which had become obfuscated by Jewish literalism (e.g", Bam. 10 on the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 and Deut 14:3-21). Freed from the incrustations of traditional Jewish praxis, the Decalogue especially undergirds the moral "law of Christ" (Oal 6:2), which guides the consecrated community along the "way of light" (Ba1'l1abas 15; 19: see also Didache 1-2). The costly second Judean revolt of 132-135 CE, whose messianic nativism had significant Tannaitic support, sharpened the divide already evident in Barnabas between a Christian "we" and a Jewish "they" (e.g., Bam. 3:6; 8:7; 10:12; 13: I; see Justin First Apology 32; Eusebius Hist. eccl. 4.5-6; 4.8.4). From the later second through the fifth centuries, this polarization is exhibited in patristic apologetic and adversative writings that de-

278

fend, often stridently, the cHurch's clai m to be the chosen legatee of ~cient Israel's Scriptures and cov~nantal identity (EusebJUs Praep. Evang. 14.52; AugustIne Adl'. Jud. 3' 12; Trinity 1.13; AlIswe"r to Maximinus 2.10.1; 2.23.1Two app~oache~ to the signifi~ance Of. Pentateuchal laW, distingUIshed 1Il part by the Illterpretlve uses they make of Deuteronomy, are represented in these sources. One of these approaches is identified with prominent Alexandtian scholars. Alexandrian Christianity, which may have been the provenance of Barnabas, developed a catechetical curriculum indebted to Philo that integrated scriptural testimony to divine sovereignty with popular currents of HellenistiC learning. An eclectic Stoicism is the intellectual medium used by CLEfo,'IENT OF ALEXANDRIA to commend the ethical sublimity of biblical law in his Paidagogos and Sll'OlI1ateis, written at the close of the second century. The Word brought near to Israel in Mosaic legislation and in the new law manifest in Christ, the incarnate Word, are understood in these treatises to be complementary, successive stages in a divine pedagogy of saving knowledge (e.g., Paid. 1.9, 53-61; cf. Deut 30:11-14; John 1:14-18). As Philo had argued, Moses was a preeminent paradigm of wisdom lInd virtue; Moses' instructions to Israel, therefore, continue to provide a foundational education for Christian initiates in humanitarian values, preparing them for the advanced course in the sours spiritual ascent taught by Christ (Slrom. 1.23-26; 2.78-96; 2.105). ORIGEN, who studied under Clement, made extensive use of allegory and typology to discern the figurative import of Pentateuchal traditions, while disparaging Jewish literalism as parochial (e.g., COli. Cel. 1.47; 2.78; 4.49-53; 5.42-50; De Prill. 4.3.2.). In Origen's view, Deuteronomy-the "second law" that succeeds the cultic provisions of the Sinai tic covenant-is the type of Christ's moral law, just as Joshua, who succeeded Moses in the leadership of God's people, prefigures his namesake Jesus (De Prill. 4.3.12-13; cf. Num 13:16; Deut 31:7-23; 34:9). In the earlier fifth century this position was elaborated by CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA in his Glaphyra, extant portions of which include typological exposition of selected texts in Deuteronomy 21-31. For example, the strange expiatory ritual featming an unworked heifer in 21:1-9 became intelligible to Cyril as a type of Christ's sacrificial atonement (Glaplz. ill Delli. 643-50). A second strategy, shaped more by Pauline than by Philonic considerations, emphasized, not the metaphysical harmony of law and gospel, as did Alexandrian hermeneutics, but ostensible discord between them as well as perceived tensions within the Pentateuch. Justin's Dialoglle wilh T1}'pho, set soon after the Second Revolt, exhibits the ambivalence toward Mosaic revelation that characterizes this approach. Althought the polity revealed at Horeb specifically for the Jews is declared obsolete, some of the former legislation is

3).

acknowledged to remain "good, holy, and just" because it correlates with the new covenant universalizeu through Christ (e.g., Dial. II, 45, 67). A number of works composed in the later second and third centuries attempt to differentiate between two or more categories of Pentateuchal legislation: Laws instituted by Moses or elaborated by his successors are deemed to be of questionable authority (see Deut 17:8-13; Matt 15:2; m. Yad. 4.2; y. Sanl!. 11.3-4); only the Decalogue receives rull approbation as efficacious instruction for the moral life of Christians (Ptolemaeus, Leller 10 Flora; PseudoClementine Homilies 2.38-40; 3.41-51; Didascalia Apostolorum 1.6; 6.15-17; and, somewhat later in date, the Apostolic COIlStitUtioIlS). JRENAEUS, in his Adverslls Haereses, develops an influential and relatively moderate form of this position. Especially on the basis of Deuteronomy 4-6, he distinguishes between the sufficient revelation to Israel of Ood's "natural precepts," encoded as the Decalogue, and two categories of supplemental legislation (Heb. halJuqqzlII lVehammi.fpatfm [NRSV: the statutes and ordinances, e.g., Deut 4: I, 14, 45; 6:11 rendered in Latin by caerimollias et il/dicia [the ceremonial and judicial laws]). The latter types were imposed through Moses as interim restraints on Israelite sinfulness; after Christ, they retain only figurative im" port (Ad\~ Haer. 4.15-17). This broad distinction, used to affirm Christian fidelity to the universal moral law as revealed to ancient Israel and to relativize Pentatellchal support for Jewish particularism, became a mainstay of patristic apologetics (see Tertullian lId\!. Iud. 2-3; Apology 21.1-3; Chrysostom Adv. llld. 1.5; 6.6; Homilies all the Statlfes 12; Augustine Spiril alld Letter 36; Itdl'ersus Fallsll/11l Malliclzaelllll 4.1-2; 6.2; 10:2-3; 16.10; 32.815). h. Medieval developmellts (6tll-15th eel/ts.). By and large, interpretation of Deuteronomy during the Middle Ages conformed to the respective mainstreams of rabbinic and patristic orthodoxy. Important developments may be observed even so, especially in ways that traditional views of Moses' legacy were defended and, as became necessary after the tl1m of the millennium, adjusted to n(!w intellectual circumstances. AUGUSTINE'S four-part De doctrina chrisliana, completed in 427, defined the cUlTiculum for Christian biblical scholarship and teaching that prevailed through the Middle Ages and beyond. (The later medieval handbooks of Cassiodorus Senator, Isidore of Seville, and Hugh of St. Victor are in large measure revised editions of Augustine's work.) According to Augustine, Scripture must be understood and effectively exposited in order to fulfill its innate purpose, which is instruction in how to love Ood and neighbor. By giving careful allention to matters of historical context and to the diction of texts in their original languages, interpreters seek to under! stand what the inspired authors of Scripture (see INSPIRATION OF THE BmLE) intended to convey. If the "letter"

279

DEUTERONOMY

DEUTERONOMY

of the text does not yield a sense in accord with the rule of charity, then the interpretation is either false or incomplete; recognition of semantic figurations and use of allegorical method may facilitate discernment of the text's true spiritual sense, which is the only one that can teach Christian morality and nUl1ure faith worth propagating. In short, sound exposition of Scripture is the essential handmaid of practical theology. This influential agenda helps to account for the unsystematic, disjunctive character of most medieval Christian commentaries on Deuteronomy (and some other biblical books as well): Such works are typically composed of sparse explanatory notes, mostly gleaned from earlier sources, recorded to assist expository study, teaching, and preaching by identifying spiritual tropes that a literal reading of the text might miss (see the commentaries ascribed to Bede [c. 700] and Rabanus Maul1ls [c. 850J). The earliest extant commentary on Deuteronomy of this type (known as catena) is attributed to Procopius of Gaza (c. 520); it consists in the main of paraphrased extracts from Alexandrian and other Greek patristic sources. Introductory notes, apparently intluenced by Philo and Origen, sketch an overview of the book's significance: Read literally, Deuteronomy is a record of the covenantal legislation promulgated by Moses in Moab, supplementing the covenant already enacted at Horeb (citing Deut 29: I); read figuratively, the Mosaic polity points to the natural law of the cosmic "city of God" (citing Ps 87:3). Although most of the expository notes pertain to types and tropes (e.g., the two wives in Deut 21: 15-16 connote the Jewish synagogue and the gentile church; Joshua is a figure of Jesus, who is the prophet like Moses announced in 18: 15-19), "this Deuteyonomy" in 17:18 (LXX) is identitied-as JEROME, among others, had done (PL 25, 17B; commenting on the date in Ezek I: 1)-with the book found in the Jerusalem Temple during Josiah's reign and read aloud to the assembled people (2 Kgs 22:8; 23:21). Deuteronomy 32:1-43 receives the fullest treatment, testifying to the importance of this prophetic canticle in Christian as well as in Jewish liturgy and preaching (see Josephus AnI . .Iud. 4.303-4; Sipre Dew. 306-33; Ros. HaS. 3Ia). Talmudic an1plification of the Torah, in the form of commenlary on the tractates of the Mishnah, was substantially complete by the end of the sixth cenLury. The detinitive Babylonian version (denoted by b. before the title of the tractate) includes at least oblique response to hermeneutical moves characteristic of pau'istic theology. Above all, the rabbinical sages insist that the whole Torah of Moses suftices to sustain Israel's sacral vocation, countering presumptions of Christians and others that new revelation has superseded it or that any of iLS components are "not from Heaven" or lack full, permanent, divine authorization (see b. Sanll. 99a; b. Sabb. 104a). Several deuteronomic texts provide the scriptural

foundations for prosecution of this case. First, Deut 33:1-5 establishes that Torah was neither revealed to the Gentiles nor meant for secondary appropriation by them' its 613 prescriptions and prohibitions (the numericai " value of Torah plus two, which are the initial stipulations of the Decalogue addressed to the Israelite assembly at Sinai in divine first-person voice [Exod 20:2-6; Deut 5:6-10]) remain the legitimate possession of Jacob/Israel alone (b. Sanh. 59a-b; cf. b. lvIak. 23b-24a; b. 'Abod. Zar. 2b-3b; and compare Sipre DeLlt. 322, 343). Second Deut 4:1-40 and Lev 18:2-5 frame reconsideration (se~ Sirach 24; Philo; Josephus) of how this covenantal legacy of law comports with general wisdom or ration_ alistic knowledge ostensibly shared among the World's cultured nations. On the basis of these texts the sages identify a significant difference between the l'l'losaic statutes UllIqqi'm] and ordinances [mispa!im], one that resembles the distinction represented by the Latin renderings "ceremonials" [eaerimonias] and "judicials" [iudicia]. The ordinances are precepts that Jews, certainly, but also enlightened Gentiles should recognize t~ be plUdent and just (Deut 4:5-8): They include rules for judicial due process and proscriptions of idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, and sexual immorality-all matters covered, according to rabbinical exegesis of Gen 2: 16-17, by the so-called Noahic or Adamic laws (see b. Sunil. 56a-b; Detlt. Rab. 2.25). The statutes, on the other hand, are sacral rites and regulations, such as the injunction against wearing garments woven of both wool and linen (Deut 22: 11), that may be opaque to conventional reason and whose faithful observance honors God's rule but offends the minions of Satan (b. Yoma 67b). Torah's discrete, coherent purpose of sustaining Israel's relationship with God is thus violated by any attempt to extract from its corpora universal, natural precepts of morality or to set aside laws supposed to have only temporary or parochial import. Third, the Great Court instituted in accord with Deut 17:8-13 (see 1:9-18; Exod 18:13-26; Num 11:16-25) assumes the mantle of Moses in jurisprudential affairs (b. Sa1lh. 86b-89a). Because this court's decisions, based on IvIosaic precedents, are deemed at once to be rulings intended by God (Deut 1:17; 15:1-2), it is unnecessary as well as illegitimate to revise the Torah by adding to or subtracting from its provisions (Deut 4:2). In sum, constitutional Torah encompasses its own authoritative interpretation (see b. Sanh. 87a; b. Qidd. 49b). Other currenls of Jewish interpretation of Deuteronomy, flowing from late antiquity through the Middle Ages, are represented in the major Aramaic TARGUMIM, Onqelos (Tg. Ollq.) and the freer, more expansive Palestinian versions, especially Neofiti (Tg. NeoJ.) and Pseudo-Jonathan (Tg. Ps.-J.). The contemporizing style of these Targumim features paraphrase and adaptation (e.g., Shekinah replaces the indwelling divine name in Deut 12:5, etc.) but not allegory; figurative readings are

280

29:29[28]). Yet Nachmanides was not a philosophical feW and usually intertextual (see INTERTEXTUALlTY) in rationalist. More than occasionally he alluded to a spiricharacter (e.g., the toponyms "Lab~" an~ "Di-zahab" in Deut 1: 1 are understood etymologIcally, In the senses I tual sense-the mystical "way of truth" (Kabbalah)which transcends but does not negate the rational "white" and "of gold" respectively, to connote the contours of peshat (e.g., on Deut 4:21; 5:26; 32:20). manna and golden-calf episodes [so already Sipre Dew. Duality of textual "letter" and "spirit" remained fun1]; "Lebanon" in Deut 11 :24 is read as an epithet of the damental to Christian interpretation of the Pentateuch Jerusalem Temple [1g. Neof.; 19. Ps.-J.]). during this period and the rest of the Middle Ages, but Although apparently redacted in the eighth or ninth renewed attention was given to Augustine's emphases century, Midras Debarim Rabbah (Deut. Rab., tr. 1. on literary context and philology (which had anticipated Rabbinowitz) is another repository of older Palestiniankey aspects of peshat) as necessary guides in the pursuit Jewish traditions, some taken over from Sipre and other of right spiritual understanding (B. Smalley [1952]; K. Tannaitic sources. The work is composed of twentyFroehlich [1977]). The earlier twelfth-century works of seven homilies linked to consecutive lectionary pericopes of Deuteronomy in the ttiennial cycle of sabbath i RUPERT OF DEUTZ and of HUGH OF ST. VICTOR, different though they are, exhibit a shift away from disjointed readings. Exposition is diffuse, associative, and anecdotropology in favor of broad salvation-historical designs tal, often incorporating elements of FOLKLORE (e.g., that highlight thematic continuities of Scripture. Still, Moses' encounter with Og [Deut. Rab. 1.24-25, on Deut the older eclectic sty Ie of the catena continued in the 3:1-2; cf. 7g. Neof; Tg. Ps.-J.]; the origin and import GLOSSA ORDINARIA, which prevailed as a Christian exof the declaration in Deut 6:4 [Dew. Rab. 2.35; cf. Sipre pository resource from the eleventh through the thirDeut. 31]; and the ex tended account of Moses' death teenth centuries (finally to be superseded in the 14th [Del/f. Rab. 11.10; cf. Sipre Dew. 357; Midras Pe!irat cent. by Nicholas of Lyra's Postilla litteralis). AnnotaMoseh]). The broad turn that occurred in biblical scholarship I tions to Deuteronomy in the Glossa are quite mixed in character. Jerome, Augustine, ISIDORE OF SEVILLE, and during the eleventh and twelfth centuries toward closer, RABANUS MAURUS are often cited, but most comments philologically informed engagement with the literal text are unattributed. A few display rudimentary knowledge affected exegetical style more than substance in the of Hebrew (e.g., the note on Deut 16:1, naming Nisan interpretation of Deuteronomy. The scholar known as as the month in which the exodus occurred). Many more RASH! made exemplary use of the method commonly identify figurative readings: for example, the eleven-day called peshat to produce a spare, fluent, lucid exposition journey from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea symbolizes the of the Pentateuch; but while the work eschews homiletimove from the Mosaic law to the proclamation of the cal embellishments (of the kinds attested, e.g., in DeLlt. gospel in the preaching of the original apostles, minus Rab.), it is vigilant in its defense of classical rabbinic Judas, of course (1:2); manna is a trope for Christ's interpretive traditions (giving frequent approbation to body (8:3); the three cities of refuge to be appointed in readings of Sipre Dellt.and Tg. Ollq.). A. IBN EZRA, the promised homeland signify faith, hope, and charity another early master of philological method, stated ex(19:2). plicitly in the introduction to his Pentateuch commentary The line between classical Jewish and Christian ap(see PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM) that he intended to upproaches to Mosaic law was redrawn in the monumental hold rabbinical orthodoxy, especially in matters of Mosyntheses constructed by MAIMONIDES and by THOMAS saic law (halakah), against the eXU'emes represented by AQUINAS. There is a close intellectual bond between the reductive, anti-traditionalist scripturalism of Karaite these scholars. Influenced by the resurgence of Aristo"distorters," on the one hand, and the illogical fantasies telian philosophy as cultivated initially in Islam, each of Christian allegorists and of some Jewish homileliwanted' to discern and describe comprehensively, to cians on the other. He claimed scmpulous reason as his codify, how normative faith and religious praxis are ally, and he did not refrain from identifying key Pengrounded in the ultimate rationality of scriptural revelatateuchal anachronisms-a number of them in Deuterontion. omy (esp. 1:2; 3: 11; 34:6)-that would eventually be The centerpiece of Maimonides' vast project is entiused to argue the case against Mosaic authorship (see tled, not coincidentally, Mishneh 7orah-borrowing the 3a below). A century later the new style of exegetical descriptive Hebrew name for the book of Dellteronomy study and discourse, still used in resolute advocacy of (see Ie above). In an earlier work, The Book of fhe traditional Judaism, was brilliantly displayed in the work Commandments, Maimonides first explained his criteria of NACHMANIDES. He often expressly called into quesand then offered a schematic enumeration of the 613 . tion the interpretive views of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, someperennial precepts of Pentateuchal Torah (i.e., 248 pretimes even when they had ostensible support in classical scriptions and 365 prohibitions that Israel is covenansources, and argued for his own positions on grounds tally obliged to observe in perpetuity). Mishl1eh Torah of their greater fidelity to contextual plain sense (see, completes this codification (1. Twersky [1980]). Followe.g., his remarks on Deut 1:12, 25; 5:15; 6:2-3; 8:4;

281

DEUTERONOMY

DEUTERONOlvl Y

ing the precedenl of Deuteronomy (e.g., 1:5; 4: I; 29: I [28:69]) Maimonides redrafted and exposited the authorilative extensions of the Mosaic Torah crystallized in classical rabbinic sources. His work not only reconfigured the provisions of the TALMUD in order to make them more intelligible and accessible to Jewish practitioners but also bound them closely to their Pentateuchal loci, thereby countering the charges of the Karaites and others lhat rabbinical traditions had violated divine law by presumptuously adding to it. In both Mishneh Torah (esp. Me'ilah 8.8; Melakim 11-12) and his later, far more controversial Guide of Ihe Perplexed (esp. 2.25, 39; 3.26-35, 51), Maimonides argued that the whole Torah was given to Israel to provide this people alone with a sufficienl, practicable, and purposeful revelation of God's will, as complete and perdurable as the divine orders of crealion. Each of the Torah's provisions has utility, lhough the reasons for some of them are not meant to be readily discerned lest human arrogance deem them too easy or idle: the ordinances [mi.fpatim] establish rules of justice and guard against unhe~lthy and immoral acts; the statutes UU/qqfm] shield Israel from idolatrous practices and opinions and prescribe the spiritual discipline that leads to communion with God. Thomas Aquinas entered the Dominican order in 1243, a decade after the Dominicans had staged a public burning of Maimonides' Guide. Yet Thomas not only read this synthesis of biblical and philosophical theology, which many Jews as well as Christians considered dangerous (H. Ben-Sasson [1971 D, but also acknowledged the value of its scholarship in his own masterwork (e.g., Summa Theologiae [ST] Ia2ae lOLl, 102.6.8). Nevertheless, the difference of emphasis separating these approa~hes to Mosaic law is intractable. According to Maimoni-des' analysis, the divinely legislated particularily of Israel's sacral identity, revealed through the Torah, remains cogent when articulated within an Aristotelian framework of universal wisdom. Conversely, Thomas's scholasticism understood the rational coherence of the "old law" to be an axiomatic witness, together with the rest of Scripture, to the all-encompassing scope of God's providence (see esp. ST la. 1.6, citing Dellt 4:6 as proof text). Thomas's overview of the old law, aLthough anticipaled in important respects by Philo and frenaeus, adverls directly to the hermeneutical agenda of Augustine (ST 1a2ae 98-L05; cr. On Charity, art. 7). The central claim is that Scripture's moral legislation, epitomized in the Decalogue, reveals what sin had obscured: the natural, universal duties of humankind to love God and the neighbor as oneself (ST la2ae 100.3-5, 11). The Jewish people were chosen to receive this mandate in order to predispose them to reject idolatry and to encourage "a certain preeminence in sanctity" because Christ was to be descended from them (ST la2ae 98.2-6). Moreover, scholarly reason is able to discern how the principal

categories of tvwsaic law-the ceremonial statutes and the judi~ial ordinances-ap~Ly precepts of the rnorallaw to the Clrcumstances of anClent Israel's historical exis_ " tence. Ceremonials were given to teach right worship of God in preparation for the advent of ~hrist, who is prefigured by them: For example, the hteral sense of Deut 12:2-28 prescribes the unification of Israel's Worship by restricting sacrifical service to one divinely chosen sanctuary; the spiritual sense signifies the unity of the church in Christ (ST J a2ae 102.4). The literal sense alone suffices to show how the ordinances are i. designed to promote justice in human society. Although these rules have also been superseded by Christ's "new law" of grace, civil government may choose to reinstitute them on the grounds of their rational merit (ST . la2ae 103-4; see, e.g., the use of Deut 17:6 and 19:15 as judicial exempla in ST 2a2ae 70.2). Thomas's fonn of the distinction between statutes and ordinances is momentous: It portends renewed conflict between ecclesial and ciVil, claims to exercise the authority of Scripture. 3. From the Reformation to the Present Day. The taxonomy and the theological significance of biblical law received considerable attention during the Middle Ages; the particular character and purpose of the book of Deuteronomy did not. That began to change in the sixteenth century. Some German Reformers and, more successfully, CALVIN and his heirs, who deveLoped the Protestant Reformed tradition, appropriated Deuteronomy as a model for reconstruction of civil society. Their experiments with theocraclic government touched off a much wider debate that extended through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and whose results include works foundational to modern poli tical theory. The debate also encouraged the development of a critical historiography of scriptumlliterature, setting the agenda bf nineteenth- and twentieth-century biblical scholarship. a. Delltero1lnmic law ill early Protestant exegesis, Reformed politics, and ratiollalist critiques (16th-18th ce1lts.). W. TYNDALE's English TRANSLATION of the Hebrew Pentateuch (1530) is an exuberant witness to the confluence of Renaissance scholarship and evangelical zeal that reshaped Western Christendom during the sixteenth century. Tyndale stated in prefatory remarks that he intended his work to nurture renewal of personal faith among English laity but also to provide a mandate for both social reform and ecclesial revolution. He spurned allegorical interpretation because it veils the literal, practical import of Mosaic laws for the maintenance of the "common weaL" Moses himself should be honored, not as "a figure of Christ," but as "an example unto aU princes and to all that are in authority, how to rule unto God's pleasure and unto their neighbors' profit" (Mombert ed., 161 [archaic spelling modified here and below]). Deuteronomy receives particular approbation:

282

"This is a book worthy tl. ~
283

DEUTERONOMY

DEUTERONOMY

Lion aULhorizes civil government that is competent La sermons was politically cogent: In the election of Feb_ defend "a public form of religion" as well as to secure ruary 1555 .Calvin's allies regained. majoi"ity on the social justice and judicial equiLy (Institutes 4.20.2-30; Small CounCIl of the Genevan Republlc, leading to cl08 see Hopfl, 49-82). collaboration in civil reforms with the conSistory, ~ II is noL surprising, then, that Calvin-unlike Luther, ecclesial court modeled by Calvin in large part on Deut but in line with Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas17:8-13 (on these issues and the era, see J. Calvin's wanted to systematize the scattered and oSLensibly repeSermons, 13-29, and now esp. M. Valeri [1997]). titious corpora of Mosaic law. The hermeneuLical model The shift during the middle decades of the sixteenth he adapLed in attempting to do so is the familiar one, century toward deuteronomic theocracy in Calvin's Gewhich understands Mosaic legislation to amplify indineva was not unproblemaLic, of course, as the trial and vidual precepts of the Decalogue (see Philo; also Rashi execution of M. SERVETUS for heresy in 1553 may attest on Exod 24:12, citing Saadia Gaon). This results in the (Deut 13:6-11). Yet the Reform party claimed as princontrived expository arrangement in Calvin's Harmony, cipal motive, not imposition of theological orthodoxy which catalogs in decalogic order the nomistic traditions on a diverse populace, but devotion to the political serialized in the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy. enfranchisement and economic ideals enacted into law For example, under the rubric of the commandment I for ancient Israel by God's preeminent prophet, Moses. prohibiting homicide, Calvin treated Deut 21:1-9 and Moreover, this commitment to a civil polity designed to 12:15-16,20-25 as ceremonial supplements; many other implement what were supposed to be the timeless moral deuteronomic rulings are included among those identiprecepts of the Decalogue became a hallmark of Caltied as judicial applications of the same prohibiLion vinisL Reformed and Federal traditions generally (D. (treaLed in this order: Deut 17:6; 19: 15; 22:8; 24:7; SLeinmetz [1989J; D. Weir [1990], esp. 3-33). If Luther's 21:22-23; 25:1-3; 24:16; 20:10-18; 23:15-16; 22:6-7, 4; Reformation reclaimed the gospel of God's egalitarian 19:1-13; cf. Philo Spec. Leg. 3.83-203). grace in Christ, Calvin's renewed the revolutionary soCalvin's investment in this scheme is much more cial mandate of the Mosaic law. The mandate was energetically displayed in his 200 Sermons sur le exported when many who had found refuge in Geneva Dellterollome, preached on consecutive weekdays (from retumed to their homelands-some to the Netherlands; Mar. 20, 1555, through July 15, 1556) at the former , some who came to be known as Huguenots to France; cathedral of St. Peter in Geneva. The published tranand others, the Marian exiles soon to be called Puritans scriptions are inLroduced in a preface contributed by and Presbyterians, to Elizabethan England and Scotland. some of Calvin's fellow Genevan clergy, which Interpretation of Deuteronomy played an important role hails Deuteronomy as the grand summation of Penin the series of intellectual and often violent political tateuchal law and a bas Lion for defense of tlUe piety struggles that ensued from the 1560s through the end against the idolatties of Roman Catholicism. Polemic is of the eighteenth century. also well rewesented in the sermons. While it is most The first century of conflicL pitted the authority of ofLen directed against the "papists," whose errors inScrip Lure-as warrant for a society constiLuted in accord clude Lurning the Lord's Supper into the Mass, also I with biblical notions of covenantal law, equity, and targeLed are Jews and "Turks," who rightly abhor the morality-against absolutist ~onarchical rule by divine veneraLion of images but who do not acknowledge Jesus right and iLs elitist corollaries, ecclesial prelacy and to be "the law's soul" and "the living image of God, his magisterial discretionary justice. Major impetus for this. FaLher" (Sermon 45 on Deut 6: 1-4 [delivered July 19, engagement in the English-speaking world came from 1555]; 1. Calvin's Sermons on the Ten Commandmellts, the Marian exiles, among them M. COVERDALE and his 289-307; cr. institutes 2.6.4; 4.18-19). Calvin's sermons colleagues, whose Geneva Bible (1560) brought to comon Deuteronomy 5 in this series exposit the Decalogue pletion Tyndale's annotated translation of the Hebrew as the epitome of moral law. Because these moral and Greek Scriptures. The dedicatory epistle to Queen provisions remain in full force for Christians, Moses' Elizabeth, dated Feb. 10, 1559, commends as examples ceremonial and judicial applications of them should be of effective governance Josiah and other Judean rulers received as authoritative guidance in such maLLers as who reesLablished "true religion" based upon God's relief from burdensome debts (Deut 15:1-11), a demoWord (see also the 1556 "Confession of Faith" of cratkally constituted and accountable magistracy Geneva's English congregation in A. Cochrane [1966] (16:18-20), neighborly assistance (22:1-4), reslraints on 127-30; and the 1558 tracL of C. Goodman, one of the usury and collateral (23: 19-20; 24: 10-13), fair wages congregation's pastors, invoking Deuteronomy 13 and (24: 14-15), and honesL business practices (25: 13-16). 17:14-20 against Queen Mary as a pagan Jezebel [E. Calvin made forceful sermonic use of these texts to Morgan [1965] 1-14]). Introductory notes to DeuteronindicL egregious economic exploiLaLion, especially of omy identify the book as a discrete "second law," Protestant refugees from France, by Geneva's encomposed of "a commentarie or exposition of the ten trenched mercantile elite. Moreover, the timing of these commandments" in which Moses prescribes all that is

284

necessary for faithful service of God and for th~ preservation of God's .people (i.e., ~oses' cerem?mal a~d 'udicial laws). ThiS understandmg of Israeltte poltty J ovided a platform for the largely unsuccessful efforts ~~ T. CARTWRIGHT and other Puritans during Elizabeth's reign (1558-1 ??3) to rid t~e establishe~ ch.urch of pr~c­ tices not speCIfically sanctIOned by their literal read1I1g of Scripture (such as prelacy and its accoutrements of vestment, tixed liturgy, and social privilege) bUL also to institute deuteronomic laws as normative guidance for civil courts, particularly in capital cases (G. Haskins [1960] 145; D. McGinn [1949] 110-47). English Puritans and Presbyterians labored in concert to aLLain and expand these goals through the agency of Parliament, assisted by the Westminster Assembly, during the reign of Charles I (1625-46) and the eleven-year InLerregnum, or Commonwealth, that followed his execution in January 1649. In the same era English Puritans who esLablished the Massachusetts Bay Colony made much less conflicted progress toward implementation of a civil polity inspired by Deuteronomy. With a view toward safeguarding the colony's freemen against arbitrary treatment by professional magistrates, pastor 1. carrON, at the request of the General CourL, presented for consideration in 1636 a draft of "fundamental laws" based on Moses' "judicials," which he deemed to be still authoritative not only for Jews but also for the "new Israel" of Puritan Christians bound together in covenant with God (w. Ford [1902J; Morgan, 160-77; Haskins, 119-27). At least some of Cotton's proposals were adapted into the Massachusetts "Body of Liberties," enacted in 1641, which identities foundational rights of citizenship (Morgan, 177-203). In article 94, for example, scriptural precedents are noted in the margins for crimes punishable by death (e.g., Deut 19:16,18-19 in a case of false witness). In some other instances, articles paraphrase biblical laws without citing them (e.g., art. 43 limits punitive flogging to forLy sLripes [Deut 25:1-3J; alt. 47 requires "two or three witness or that which is equivalent Lhereunto" to sustain a capital charge [Deut 19: 15]; art. 90 prescribes that finders return lost property to rightful owners [Deut 22:1-3]). This popUlist document, expanded into the code of 1648 entitled ''The Lawes and Liberties· of Massachusetts," marks a substantial departure from English common law as well as from European traditions of Roman jurisprudence (Haskins, 136-47). Anglican royalists were not alone in resisting what they perceived to be the inflexible biblical parLicularism of the Calvinist political agenda. In colonial Rhode Island, R. Williams (c. 1603-83) questioned the theological cogency of the Massachusetts model of governance. He maintained that Christian congregations are neither continuous with nor counterparts of ancient Israel, constrained by its sacral obligations; nor should a God whose beneficent sovereignty is universal be

claimed as party to an exclusive civil covenant that compromises the integrity of individual consciences in matters of faith (The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution [1644]; see Morgan, 203-33). In response to the aggressive biblicism of Dutch Calvinists, who did much Lo encourage popular supporL of the House of Orange in the struggle against Spanish imperialism, jurist H. GRarrUS argued that Roman law continued to provide a sound, irenic, and internationally acceptable foundation for civil polity and public morality, whereas bOLh the Decalogue and deuteronomic legislation had been addressed only to hislorical Israel (e.g., De jure [1645J 1.1.16, citing Dellt 6:4 as proof text). Similarly, T. HOBBES mounted an elaborate defense of monarchy as "the most commodius government" in his Philosophical Rudiments (= De Cive [1642]), a position sharply restaLed during the Interregnum in Leviathan (1651). Human rights and the civil orders legitimately instituted to protect them are, he argued, grounded in natural law, of which Pentateuchal Jaw is a historically conditioned manifestation. Although Hobbes denied Lhat either the entire Pentateuch or Deuteronomy as a whole could be the authoritaLive work of Moses (citing Deut 34:6 and oLher anachronisms), he identitied Deuteronomy 11-27 as an archaic Mosaic code eSLablishing God's kingship over Israel, which was entrusted for interpretation to an aristocacy of clergy and elders (Deut 31 :9-10, 26). He considered this document lo be the book of the Law found again by the priest Hilkiah in Josiah's reign that gave rise to the reforms and renewal of covenant described in 2 Kings 22-23 (Rudiments 16.11-17; Leviathan chap. 33). The histoIicizing approach to biblical tradiLions, adumbraLed in the writings of Hobbes, is more programmatically exhibited in B. SPINOZA'S Tractatus ti1eoiogico-politicLls (pub. anonymously in 1670). Like GroLills's De jure earlier in the century, Spinoza's treatise is a plea for reason and tolerance in maLLers of both politics and religion-crafted here as a Cartesian response to the theocratic pretensions of Dutch Reformed clergy in their continuing efforts to suppress especially what the Synod of DOFt (1618-19) had defined as the heterodoxy of the Remonstrant parlY (representing a more liberal Calvinist as well as Anabaptist theopolitical position). In his provocative analysis of the Pentateuch's nomistic traditions, Spinoza drew on the heriLage of late medieval Jewish scholarship. He declared "useless ancl absurd" the attempt of Maimonides to salvage the revelatory authority of Mosaic-rabbinic jurisprudence for Jewish onhopraxis by accommodating primitive ceremonial precepts, as well as the Torah's ethical norms that Spinoza considered accessible to Gentiles and Jews alike through reason, to Aristotelian philosophy (Treatise [tr. Elwes] 79-80,116-18,190). On the other hand, Spinoza developed the evidence cryptically notecl by Ibn Ezra in order Lo refute the "ilTational" claim that Moses was the

285

DEUTERONOMY

DEUTERONOMY

sole author of the Pentateuch (7/"eatise 120-27). It is important to observe, however, that Spinoza did not engage in wholesale deconstruction of Pentateuchal legislation. In his view the original Sinai/Horeb covenant instituted a democratic theocracy that almost immediately became a limited monarchy: Elected by the Israelite assembly to serve as its king and to exercise divine authority, Moses promulgated the civil polity preserved in Deuteronomy 6-28 (cf. Deut 5:22-33; 1}·eatise 21921). Spinoza directed particular attention to what he considered the eminently wise system of checks and balances in this Mosaic constitution: It enfranchises common citizens to be military leaders and judges, and it separates the function of levitical interpretation of the law from royal administration of it (Treatise 226-28, 235). Yet this rational polity of Moses was subverted through priestly control of Jewish government during the Second Commonwealth-a llsurpation which, in effect, prefigured the hegemony sought by orthodox Calvinist clergy in Spinoza's own day (Treatise 236-56). The influential writings of J. LOCKE in the final decades of the seventeenth century championing democ~ racy and expansive religious tolerance should be counted in significant part as the secular harvest not only of his own Puritan heritage but also of Spinoza's reassessment of Mosaic traditions (L. Feuer [1958] 25458). While Locke vigorously opposed royal absolutism, he also eschewed as frivolous traditional efforts to distinguish between Moses' moral, ceremonial, and judicial prescriptions for the purpose of identifying some still binding on Christians or any contemporary civil order. Locke argued that a society's positive laws should be humane, protecting natural rights, and grounded in reason rather than in privileged and privileging revelation; just laws 6bligate only those who consent to the government that enacts and enforces them (see esp. Letter Concerning Toleration [1689]). Much political and religious thought of the eighteenth century participated in the renewed conflict between the ostensible demands of revelation and of reason (see Philo). One noteworthy attempt at compromise was M. MENDELSSOHN'S Jerusalem (1783), which addressed the issues posed by Spinoza's critique of Maimonides. Mendelssohn insisted that Judaism, at least since the destruction of the Temple, is a superbly rational, non-dogmatic faith rather than a theo-political commonwealth. This means that Jews are free to embrace enlightened modernity by participating with Gentiles in the quest for scientific knowledge, humanistic culture, and social well-being. Yet their separate religious identity as Jews remains contingent on adherence Lo the orthopractical traditions of Torah revealed to their ancestors through Moses; Jewish piety is viable in an age of reason. Political themes of deuteronomism resounded strongly in Congregationalist and Presbyterian preaching during the era of the American Revolution and

286

constitutional korny, Der Briefdes Paulus all die Epheser the Holy Spirit." In the West he was virtually unknown (THKNT 10, 2, 1992); Der Epheserbrief IlI1d die Gliosis: Die until the eighteenth century. Bedeuttlllq des Haupt-Glieder-Gedallkens in der elltstehenden Kirche (1965). P. Perkins, Ephesians, (ANTC, 1997) . .T. H. P. Works: Works (ed. and GT E. Beck, CSCO, Scriptores Syri, neumann, Colossians (ACNT, 1985). L. M. Russell, Imitators 1955- ); Hymlls (CWS, tr. and intro. K. E. McVey. 1989); of God: A Sttldy Book on Ephesians (1984). J. P. Sampley, The Hymns on Paradise (If. S. Brock, 1990; Genesis); St. Epilraem's , Deutero-Pauline Letters (Proclamation Commentaries, ed. GerC~ml/le1llary 011 Tatiall's "Diatessaroll": All English Trallsla· hard Krouel, 1993) 1-23. C. Schille, "Del" Autoe des Epheserbrieftioll of Chester Bealty Syriac MS 709 (JSSsup 2, If. C. es," TLZ 82 (1957) 325-34. H. Schlier, Der Brief all die Ephe.l"er: Eill Kommentar (1971 7). n. Schnuckenburg, Ephesians: A Com- I McCarthy, 1993); Selected Prose Works (ed. K. E. McVey, It. E. G. Mathews, Jr. and 1. P. Amar, 1994); The ArmelliOJI mentary (1991). E. Schussler l~iorenza, III Memory of Her: A Fe/llini~·t Theological Recollstruction o/Christiall Origins (1983).

COI/Il/len/(II}'

E. Schweizer, "Die Kirche als Leib Christi in den paulinischen

Syriall (2

Antilegomenu," Neotestamelllica (1963) 293-316. C. L Stockhausen, Lellers ill the Paulille Tradition (1989). S. J. Tanzer, Searchil1g the Scriptures, vol. 2, A Femillist Commentary (ed. E.

Reading the Bible with St. Ephraem the Syrian (P.

011

the Book of Gellesis Attributed to Ephraem rlie

vols., CSCO 572-73, tr. E. G. Mathews, Jr., 1998).

Bibliography: S. H. Griffith,

340

Faith Adoring the Mystery:

Marquette

Traditioll (ConBOT II, 1978). 755-62 (includes bibliography).

R. Murray, TRE 9 (1982) S. HIDAL

ERASMUS, DESIDERIUS (1466/69-1536) Born in Rotterdam, E. received his pdmary education at Gouda, and then at Deventer, where he was influenced by the Brethern of the Common Life. In 1487 he was sent to the Augustinian canon regulars at Steyn. One year after his ordination to the pliesthood (1492), he became secretary to the bishop of Cambrai. Subsequently he studied theology at the College de Montaigu in Paris (1495-99). A seven-month stay in England (1499-1500) engendered his friendship with J. COLET, whose NT exegesis strengthened his desire to devote his life to biblical studies, Between 1500 and 1516 E. moved frequently, sojourning from 1506 to 1509 in Italy, where he obtained his doctorate in theology from the university of Turin. His third stay in England (1509-14) dampened his enthusiasm for English academic life, and from 1514 to 1516 he settled in Basel. Appointed counselor to Emperor Charles V and released from his monastic vows, E. lived on the support of influential patrons, working as a freelance biblical humanist. E.'s 1517-21 stay in Lou vain became frustrating when Roman Catholic theologians (B. Latomus, E. Lee, L. de Stuniga) attacked his work on the NT and associated him with LUTHER. Trying to maintain the integrity of silldia hllmanitatis and to keep his peace of mind, he returned to Basel. Yet even there he was not spared controversy. The Protestant U. von Hutten accused him of having left Luther in the lurch (1523). Prompted by his patrons, E. wrote De Libera arbitrio (1524) to come to [elms with his adversary; but Luther's uncompromising rebuttal in De servo arbitrio (1525) made the break final. When critics associated E. with ZWINGLl'S and J. OECOLAMPADlUS'S teaching on the Lord's Supper, E. affinned his loyally to the Roman Catholic tradition. Religious disturbances in Basel (1529) forced him to escape to nearby Freiburg, where, troubled by further Controversies with M. BUCER, Luther, and Roman Catholics (A. Pia), he pleaded for the concord of the church (1533). After returning to Basel in 1535 to supervise the printing of a work on ORIGEN, E. died on July 12, 1536. For E., erudition enhanced by piety could renew Iheology and restore both church and society (restitutio Christianismi). Returning to the sources of classical antiquity and Scripture (ad jOlltes) , he refused Lo sepa-

341

ERIUGENA (JOHN

ScO'rrus)

ERNESTl, JOHANN AUGUST

E. refused to abandon the letter (liltem) , for it declares its hidden content (res). Still, tropology and allegory liberate the confined word to reveal its broader and deeper meaning. Similarly to the rule of TYCHONIUS, E. took the allegorical meaning to point to Christ, to the church, and to Christians. The tropological method uncovers moral instruction, aiming at ethical utility for individuals, church, and society. The anagogical sense adumbrates the last things of God and, therefore, makes us speechless in the face of mystery. So, keeping the historical sense intact as the irremovable starting point of interpretation, E. emphasized the middle-the allegorical and tropological transitus toward the spiritwhile leaving the end poinl'-anagogical consummationveiled in the mystery of God's Spirit. Allegory is an expression oT accommodation because the transition from the literal to the spiritual is impossible unless God adapts to human speech. Since author and reCipient of t~e revelation are essentially dissimilar, accommodation is required according to the principle similia similibus. This is why Scripture abounds with allegories, similitudes, metaphors, and parables. By virtue of divine accommodation, then, allegory functions as a medium between contraries, revealing similarities, attracting affection, and enabling the transformation from flesh to spirit. And it is Christ, the supreme allegory, in whom this persuasive power of reconciliation has become incarnate. Allegorical interpretation must be oriented in the perfect circle of the philosophia Christi, however. Because the harmony of Christ's teaching is inseparable from his way of life, allegory includes a specifically Christian ethic; but inasmuch as this ethic perfects rather than eliminates natural morality, the allegorical method puts tropology to use. Just as the Spirit does not destroy nature, history, and culture, so also Christ perfects the natural' virtues in faith, love, and hope. While the literal meaning of the word can be ignored if absurd, its ethical import is always present, even if the allegorical sense is lacking. To understand Christ's teaching and to arrange theological topoi around the scopus Christi, E. employed the rhetorical method of compmison (collatio). Both an exegetical and systematic procedure, collatio functions to organize subject matter according to similarity. Having first clarified the particular circumstances in a text by ascertaining the coincidence of a variety of persons, things, times, and places, the interpreter looks for commonalities with other contexts in order to bring ahout agreement. The judgment about visible things (illdiciwn) serves to identify the particular situation of a text, whereas the discernment of invisible things (COilS ilium} helps to integrate the text into its appropriate place in the overaLl order, which is characterized by the unity of truth (consensus) and love (concordia). The text does not release its real meaning until the interpretation is

harmonious wJ[n natural equity, ethical utility, and abOve all the scopus Christi. Finding the suitable place of a text in the overall order (commoditas) requires that the interpreter be exegeti_ cally moderate and ethically modest. One must look for the advantage of others-a behaviQr patterned after Christ's innocence, simplicity, and humility. RhetOrical theology, therefore, teaches the means of LiTERARy analysis and instills a humanist disposition of prudence decorum, and moderation. Caution, discretion, and de~ cency enable the theologian to find proper means, fitting ways, and common denominators to accommodate to a variety of conditions, whether it is adapting the interpretation to the nature of the text, adjusting the literary genre to the subject matter, fitting the instruction to the student, or observing propriety in one's relation to others.

\Vorks: Desiderii Erasl7li Roterodami Opera omllia, LugdlllJi Batavorul/l (ed. J. Le Clerc, 1703-6; repr., 1961-62); Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (ed. J. H. Waszink et aI., 1969- ); AlIsgewiihlre Werke (ed. H. Holborn, 1933; repro 1964); Collected Works of Erasl/lus (1974-- ); Erasmus VOII ROflerdam: Ausgewiilllte Schrijtell (ed. W. Welzig, 1967-80). Bibliography: C. AugustUn, TRE to (1982) 1-18: E.: His Life, Works, and influellce (Erasmus Studies 10, 1991). J. k. Bentley, Humanists alld Holy Writ: NT Scholarship in tire Renaissance (1983). A. Bludau, Die beiden ersten EraslllusALlsgaben des Nel/en Testaments lind ihre Gegller (t902). J. Choma rat, Grammaire et rluftoriqlle chez Erasme (1981). M. Hoffmann, Erkenntllis I/Ild Vel'lvirklichllllg del' wall/'en Theologie naclz E. von Rotterdam (BHT 44, 1972); Rlzetoric and Theology: The Hermenetttic of E. (Erasmus Studies 13, 1994). H. Holeczek, HUIIIGllisti.rche Bibelphilologie als Reformproblem bei E. VOII Rotterdam, 1:. More, lind W TYlldale (1975). F. KrUger, HUlllanistische Evallgelienallslegung: D. E. I'on Rottere/am als Ausleger del' Evangelien in seillen Paraphrasen (1986). M. O'Rourke Boyle, E. OIZ Language and Method in Theology (Erasmus Studies 2, 1977). J. 8. Payne, "Toward tl\e Hermeneutics of E.," Scrinium Erasmionllm 2 (ed. I. Coppens, 1969) 13-49. A. Rabil, E. and the NT: The Mind of a Christian Humanist (1972). E. Rummel, E.'s Annotations 011 the NT (1986). W. Schwarz, Principles alld Pmblems of Bihlica/ Tralls/alioll: Some Reformation COilfrol'ersies and Theil' Back· ground (1955). G. B. Winkler, E. Wid die Eillieillmgssc/zriften ZUni NT: Fonllale Stl'llkturen IIl1d theologischer Sinn (1974). P. Walter, Theologie ails dem Geist del' Rhetorik: Zur Schrift· allsiegwig des E. VOII Rotterdam (1991).

M.

HOFFMANN

ERlUGENA (JOHN SCOTTUS) (c. 810-c. 877) E. was among the Irish (scotti) scholars who came to Europe in the eighth and ninth centuries to ply their skills as grammarians, poets, and biblical exegetes in

342

dIe cathedrals, monas ten ,and cOllrts of the Carolingians. In the preface to his transIation of the PseudoDionysian corpus, he called himself Eriugena (of Ireland by birth), perhaps emulating Virgil's "Graiugena" (Aeneid 3.550). E. enjoyed the patronage of King Charles the Bald (840-877) and associated with scholars and students in Compiegne, Laon, Reims, and Soissons. He commented on Priscian's (fl. C. 500--530) grammar and on Martianus Capella's (5th cent.) Marriage of Philology and Mercwy; and his treatise On Divine Predesti/lation contributed to the theological. conlroversy swirling around that contentious topic. As a court poet, he wrote verse that praised the accomplishments of his patrons and celebrated Easter and Christmas, but he made his most significant contributions to medieval learning and biblical exegesis as an interpreter of Greek texts and of the Bible. E.'s translations of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (c. 500), Ma:dmus the Confessor (c. 580662), GREGORY OF NYSSA, and Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315-403) opened the world of Byzantine Greek scholarship to the Latin West. The Neoplalonism E. encountered in these texts combined with his deep Augustinianism (see AUGUSTINE) to enrich his biblical exegesis. He worked at biblical interpretation from early in his teaching cm'eer, when he glossed biblical vocabulary, to his last days, when he left the unfinished Commentary all the Gospel of John. In belween he composed a homily on the prologue of John's Gospel, the Voice of Ille Mystic Eagle; a commentary on Matthew, surviving in the so-called Opus impel!ectulIl ill Matthaeum; and his theological and philosophical masterpiece, the hexameral Periphyseoll (On Natures). In the latter work he wrote that "true authotity does not conflict with right reason, nor light reason with true authority, since both flow from the same source, the Wisdom of God" (bk. 1,51 tb). That source was the Bible. In an age of encyclopedic biblical scholarship when many interpreters combined the words of earlier exegetes (often in very creative ways) in· their own commentaries, E. went beyond an "exegesis of exegesis" (S. Cantelli [1980] 298) to interpret the Bible directly. He personified Scripture as an artist (artife;.; scriptum), the textual equivalent of the Creator (E. Jeauneau [1996]). The key to understanding Scripture as artist lay in using the tools of reason God provided in the liberal arts, especially the arts of grammar an.d dialectic, to interpret the artistry and thereby unlock Scripture's multiple meanings. E.'s ex.ceptional literary skill and his lively intelligence combined with his deep spirituality to animate the Augustinian, Neoplatonic, and liberal arts traditions he mastered. The combination enabled him to interpret the Bible in strikingly bold and original ways. In the commentary on John he defined two types of allegory in a new way; and among the niany exegetical insights of Periphyseon, his discussions of contempla-

tion, contradiction, human dignity, and the division of the sexes are pioneering. E. appreciated the hard work and danger inherent in biblical interpretation and to characterize the perils he faced often used the image of a sailor whose small boat contended with dangerous seas and rocky shoals. In the homily on John, his comparison of the apostle Peter to the evangelist John, E.'s namesake, suggests that the Irish exegete faced those perils with confidence (Jean Scot: Homelie sur Ie plVlogue de Jeall [1969]1- V). Peter represented faith and action, while John stood for wisdom and contemplation. Both apostles ran to Christ's tomb, which is "the divine sCliptures in which, protected by the mass of its letters just as the tomb was protected by stone, the mystery of Christ's humanity and divinity m'e contained. John got to the tomb before Peler because contemplation penetrates quicker and with greater sharpness than action the secrets of the divine letters." E.'s learned, personal exegesis contrasted sharply with the compilatory editorial exegesis of the ninth century.

"Yorks: lohamzis Scotti Eriugenae Periphyseon (De Dil'isione Naturae) (SLH 7, 9, ll, 13 [bks. 1-3 ed. l. P. Sheldo\\Williams; bk. 4 ed. E. IeauneauJ 1968-95); Jeall Scot: Homelie sw· Ie prologue de Jean (SC 151, ed. E. Jeauneuu, 1969); Jean Scot: COII/mentaire sur I'Evangile de Jeall (SC 180, ed. E. Jeauneau, 1972); Glossae Divillae lfistoriae: Tile Biblical Glos.res of J. S. E. (ed. J. 1. Contreni and P. P. 0 Neill, 1997). Bihliography: S. Cantelli, "L'esegesi al tempo di Ludovico iI Pio e Carlo iI Calvo," Giol'anni Scoto nei SilO tempo: L'Orgallizzaziolle del sapere ill era camlingia (ed. C. Leonardi and E. Menesto, 1980) 261-336. J. J. Contreni, "Carolingian

Biblical Culture," 10halZlzes Scot/us Erillgena: The Bible and Hermeneutics (ed. G. Vall Riel, C. Steel, and J. McEvoy, 1996) 1-23; "Carolingian Biblical Studies," Carolillgian Leamillg, Masters, alld Manuscripts (ed. J. J. Contreni, 1992) chap. 5. E. .Jeauneau, "Artifex: Scriptura," lvhallnes Scot/us Eriugena: 71le Bible and Hermeneutics (ed. G. Van Riel, C. Steel. and I.

McEvoy, 1996) 351-365. G. A. Piemonte, "Recherches sur les 'Tractatl.ls in Matheum' attribues 11 Jean Scot," 10haIlIles Scolllls Erillgella: 17ze Bible alld Hermeneutics (ed. G. Van Riel, C. Steel, J. McEvoy, 1996), 321-350. .I. J. CONTRENI

ERNESTI, JOHANN AUGUST (1707-81) E. played an importanl part ill the emergence of the historical-critical method in eighteenth-century Germany, although his own position remained one of traditional orthodoxy. He was born Aug. 4, 1707, in TennsUidt, ThUringia; and following his education in Schulpforte he entered the University of Wittenberg in 1726, where the influence of C. Wolff's (1679-1754) philosophy was strong. In 1728 he moved to Leipzig and on completing his studies became a schoolmaster.

343

ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF

ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF

In 1731 he was appointed co-rector of Sl. Thomas's appears as Esdras a, to be distinguished from ESdras school in Leipzig, becoming rector in 1734, a post he (Le., the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah), which fOllows In the VULGATE it is designated as 3 Esdras (or 3 held for twenty-eight years alongside positions as l/Ltsserorden/Ucher (1742) and then full professor (L756) at the Although the most ancient Greek manuscripts' Esdras, the book nevertheless has been university. Believing that music had little to contribute the Christian CANON (the only book consistently to education, during his time at St. Thomas's school he came into conflict with·1. BACH, who won Ihis initial to in the Septuagint to suffer such a fate) and baltle. An uneasy truce followed; however, in his review HB. Since the Council of Trent (1546) many of the school year 1750-51, E. failed to mention Bach's Catholic Bibles append it after the NT as a ~U~)PI(:mp,nl death in 1750. E. died in Leipzig, Sept. 11, 1781. The earliest extant copies of I Esdras are in E. was a distinguished classical scholar who pubMost modern scholars concur, however, that the lished many editions of Greek and Latin texts. His goes back to a Hebrew or an Aramaic odginal. The translalion comes from the second century BCE and contribution 10 biblical scholarship resulted from a comindependent of (and in many cases superior to) that bination of his skills as a classicist, the philosophy of Wolff, and the humanistic spirit of the age. E. believed Ezra-Nehemiah in the Septuagint. The estimated that God had conununicated a series of necessary truths, of the original remains controversial. Some scholars date some form of the original as early as the lifth century . which the biblical authors had recorded in human lanBCE (F. M. Cross [1975]) or the third (C. C. Torrey guage. The primary task of theology, therefore, is the elucidation of these Iruths by means of grammatical and [1910]), but most place it in mid second century BCB .: because its vocabulary largely corresponds to that of . historical exegesis of the Bible. In this task no special spidtual illumination is needed; exegesis is Ii purely other second-century compositions, such as Ben Sira,.' Judith, and 1-2 Maccabees (J. Myers [1974] 6). ' scientific enlerpdse that provides the data from which With very few (yet often telling) exceptions, I· doctrine can be fomulated. This position is set out in E.'s most important work, the InstitL/tio interpretis Ilovi , Esdras overlaps portions of the canonical books of testamellti (1761). 1-2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, which explains E.'s approach implied that a purely scientific exegesis why the dominant interpretive debates have concenwould result in an acceptable Christian (Lutheran) intrated on its scope and relations to these two books; terpretation. His opinions about the authorship of NT In particular, scholars disagree as to whether I Esdras books were unshakably orthodox; he accepted the facts is a fragment of the original work of the chronicler or a later compilation from the canonical books. The: recounted in the NT as unassailable, to be resolved by following· charts the relations: harmonization where they seemed to be in conflict. The effect of his position, however, was to help to establish NT study as a separate philological and scientific disci2 Chr 35:1-19 1 Esdr 1:1-22 pline within theology, with the implied consequence that (Josiah's Passover in Jerusalem) ullimate(y research, unfetlered by dogma, might radi1 Esdr 1:23-24 without canonical parallel cally question traditional Christian orthodoxy. (summary of Josiah's deeds and the nation's sins) 1 Esdr 1:25-58 . 2 Chr 35:20-36:21 (decline and fall of Judah and Jerusalem to the Works: lllstjtllijo jllterpretjs IlOl'j testamelllj (1761; ET, EleBabylonians) lIIellls of Illlerprel£ltjon [1824-33]). 2 Chr 36:22-23 = Esra l:i-3a 1 EsdI' 2:1-5a

Bibliography: K. Blaschke and F. Lau, NDB

(Cyrus's edict calling fOf return 10 Judah and rebuilding the Temple. End of Chronicles) I Esdr 2:5b-15 Ezra 1:3b-Il (Cyrus's decree contiriues; the return to Judah during Cyrus's time) 1 Esdr 2:16-30 Ezra 4:7-24 (hostile neighbors interfupt the building of the house of God) I EsdI' 3:1-5:6 without canonical parallel (story of the three guardsmen) 1 Esdr 5:7-73 Ezra 2:1-4:5 (return and rebuilding under Jeshua and Zerubbabel) 1 Esdr 6: 1-9:36 Ezra 5: 1-10:44 (completion of the Temple, the story of Ezra, and the separation from foreign wives) I Esdr 9:37-55 Neh 7:72-8: 13a (Ezra's mission and the reading of the law in Jerusalem, followed by a celebration)

(1957)

4:604-5. H. Frei, The Ecljpse of Bjblical Narralil'e (1974) 247-60. E. Hirsch, Geschichle del' neuerell el'allgelischell Theologje (1964 3 ) 4:10-14. W. G. Kiimmel, The NT: 11le llis/ory of the Investigatioll of Its Problems (1972) 60-61. 1. W. ROGERSON

ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF The Greek book of 1 Esdras depicts the history of Israel during a pivotal period, tracing the major events from a high point of prosperity in Judah under King Josiah (d. 609 BCE) to a nadir of destruction and exile (587/86), followed by return and restoration in the Persian period under Zerubbabel and Ezra (538-458). The firsl book in the Apocrypha, in the SEPTUAGINT 1 Esdras

344

First Esdras contains the story of the three guardsmen (I Esdr 3:1-5:6) and the summary of King Josiah's deeds (l Esdr 1:23-24), which h~ve no parallels in the anonical books. Another key dIfference from the caeonical books involves when and where the reading of ~e law occurs. In Ezra-Nehemiah, this event takes place after Nehemiah rebuilds the wall (Nehemiah 8). In I Esdras, which lacks the story of Nehemiah, the reading directly follows the expUlsion of the foreign wives (lead-' ing some scholars to conclude tha~ this represents the original version of the story). This and other details, some of them seemingly minor, signiticantly shape the material, offering a distinctive account of ancient Israel's history. First Esdras begins and ends with grand celebrations in Jerusalem. The opening scene, set in seventh-century Jerusalem, focuses on Passover during King Josiah's reign, a high-water mark on which the narrator lavishes many details (1: 1-24). After Josiah's sudden death, however, the nation plunges into apostasy and suffers divine punishment: The Babylonians destroy Jerusalem and exile or kill its people (587/86), leaving the land desolate for a seventy-year sabbatical (1 :25-58). The rest, and longest, part of 1 Esdras depicts the three stages of Jewish restoration. In the first stage (2:1-25) the Jews respond to Cyrus's edict and go up to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. Their etfmts, however, come to a halt when Judah's neighbors harass the returnees. In the second stage (3:1-7:15) more Jews return and this time successfully rebuild the Temple under the leadership of Zerubbabel, a descendant of David. According to the story of the three guardsmen (3:1-5:3 and unique to I Esdras), Zerubbabel lises to prominence in King Dadus's court. He wins the admiration of the Persian king with an eloquent exposition on the power of women and the even greater power of truth. As a result, Zerubbabel receives unstinting support for the reconstruction of the Temple and for communal life in Judah. He leads a major return, culminating in the completion of the Temple, full restoration of worship, and a grand celebration of Passover by all. In the Ihird and final stage (8:1-9:55) Ezra the priest brings further suppmt for the Temple and implements the law during Artaxerxes' reign. Under his guidance the community separates from foreign influences (in particular from foreign wives). The final scene of 1 Esdras is the climactic public reading of the law in Jerusalem followed by yet another grand celebration (d. 1 Esdr

1:1-22). 1. Ancient Interpretations. The Jewish historian JOSEPHUS provides the main wit~ess for 1 Esdras in antiquity. His reliance on it for a rendition of the return from exile (Antiquities 11) indicates that the book cirCulated and was granted importance in the first century CEo Other ancient Jewish sources do not refer to 1 Esdras, aILhough some Talmudic teachings (see TALMUD)

345

about truth recall Zerubbabel's speech on truth in 1 EsdI' 4:33-40 (e.g., 'Abot 1:18 and Sabb. 55a). The early church fathers widely used and quoted I Esdras but rarely commented on it. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA wrote that Zerubbabel, "having by his wisdom overcome his opponents, and having obtained leave from Darius for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, returned with Esdras to his native land" (StlVm. 1:21). We tind references to the book in JUSTIN MARTYR, EUSEBIUS. ATHANASIUS. CHRYSOSTOM, and others (see 1. Myers [1974] 17). ORIGEN not only cited I Esdras but also may have used this book, rather than canonical EzraNehemiah, in his Hexapla. Several Latin fathers also used I Esdras; e.g., AUGUSTINE saw Zerubbabel's praise. of truth as a possible PROPHECY about Chdst (City of God 28.36). JEROME, however, rejected the work as apocryphal (see his Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah). Largely as a result of Jerome's objections, 1 Esdras was eventually taken out of the Vulgate and relegated to non-canonical status-the only book fully attested to in the various LXX manuscripts to be excluded. Although it appears in some fifteenth-century Latin Bibles, it was regarded as apocryphal by the sixteenth cenlury and was ignored by LUTHER, who wrote: "The third book of Esdras I threw into the Elbe." Luther also mentioned in his preface to BARUCH, "The same two books of Ezra we simply did not want to translate because they contain nothing that one cannot find much better in Aesop or still more inferior books; moreover ... Jerome himself says that Lyra did not desire to exposit; it is not found in Greek" (cited by Myers, 18). 2. Modern Interpretations. Lack of canonical status may explain the long neglect of 1 Esdras. It gained attention during the nineteenth century with the rise of source criticism, when its nature, scope, and relation to the canonical books became a subject of controversy. Already H. GROTIUS (17th cent.) and 1. D. MICHAELIS (18th cenl.) had suggested that 1 Esdras preserves a more reliable account than MT Ezra-Nehemiah, but it was H. Howorth (19th cent.) and later TORREY who brought 1 Esdras into the limelight. As advocates of what has been called the fragment hypothesis, these and other scholars maintained that 1 Esdras is a fragment from the original work of the chronicler. Initially connected to the books of Chronicles, it preserves the original form of 2 Chronicles' account of the return and restoration. The canonical Ezra-Nehemiah, according to this view, is a later rean'angement of Ezra-Nehemiah. Arguments in support of this position include the use of I Esdras by JOSEPHUS and the absence of comparable early witnesses to EzraNehemiah. This hypothesis uses the separate Iraditions about Ezra and Nehemiah in the postexilic era (Ben Sira and 2 Maccabees mention only Nehemiah, not Ezra, and Josephus keeps them apart) to support the contention that the linking of the two men in Ezra-Nehemiah is

ESDRAS, FmST BOOK OF

ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF

later than 1 Esdras. J. D. Michaelis, A. Treuenfels, Howorth, J. Marquart, Torrey, G. HOLSCHER, and most recenLly K-F. Pohlmann, among others, have been supporters of the fragment hypothesis. TOIl'ey claimed that 1 Esdras is "simply a piece taken without change out of the middle of a faithful Greek translation of the Chronicler's History of Israel" (18). According to him, the original version of the chronicler's history was written in the mid-third century BCE and included the following: 1 and 2 Chronicles; Ezra 1; I Esdr 4:47-56; 4:62-5:6; Ezra 2:1-8:36; Neh 7:708:18; Ezra 9:1-10:44; Neh 9:1-10:40; 1:1-7:69; 11:113:31 (30). A redactor later added the story of the three guardsmen and transposed certain chapters of the Ezra narrative. Further revisions had emerged by the first century BCE, out of which 1 Esdras grew. The canonical Ezra-Nehemiah only came into being in the second century CEo First Esdras, however, remains as "the one surviving fragment of the old Greek version of the Chronicler's history" (34). Torrey's thorough analysis and his reconstruction of a Semitic original underlying 1 Esdras have been influential. Pohlmann, an articulate proponent of the fragment hypothesis, also claims that 1 Esdras is an older and better translation than LXX Esdras b (Ezra-Nehemiah). In addition, he argues that the original sequence of Ezra history, as far as it can be ascertained, corresponds to the account preserved in 2 Chronicles-1 Esdras. Pohlmann examines the beginning and end of 1 Esdras, the interpolation of the story of the three guardsmen, the Ezra narrative in L Esdras and its relation to EzraNehemiah, and especially the evidence of Josephus. He concludes that all of these data support the fragment hypothesi~.

A contrasting view, generally labeled the compilation hypothesis, maintains that 1 Esdras presupposes the canonical books of 1-2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah and was compiled from them. The most important evidence for the compilation hypothesis appears in studies by P. Bayer (1911) and B. Walde (1913), whose detailed textual analysis of variants supports the dependence of I Esdras on 1-2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. Advocates of this position claim that 1 Esdras has been preserved largely as its author had intended (although some, like W. Rudolph, modify the ending somewhat). They maintain that the omission of Nehemiah is deliberate and that Josephus's reliance on I Esdras is understandable in light of his own apologetic reasons. Neither feature requires the priority of 1 Esdras over Ezra-Nehemiah. The LXX, which consistently presents 1 Esdras as a distinct composition, and the subsequent ancient lists and records lend further support to this theory. Advocates of the compilation hypothesis include L. Bel1holdt, Bayer, Walde, Rudolph, and H. Williamson. Williamson (1977) provides the most thorough contemporary expression of the compilation hypothesis by

I

criticizing Pohlmann's version of the fragment sis. He claims that I Esdr J :23-24, which largely ignores, indicates a new beginning, not a continuation of 2 Chronicles, hence that I Esdras a distinct compilation (Williamson, 18). He, like Pohlmann, recognizes it as an ancient and independent translation of an alternative reading or a . ing of the Hebrew text (13); but he questions the sibility of two different contemporary translations of the same work, both done in Egypt, as implied by Pohlmann's theory (15). Whereas Pohlmann argues that Josephus did not know Ezra-Nehemiah in its form (114-26), Williamson turns the matter around. points out that Josephus's account of Ezra breaks off . just where I Esdras does, which suggests that Josephus's .. Vorlage ended as did the present version of 1 EsdraS and implies, therefore, that the latter is a complete composition and not a fragment. Although forms of the fragment and compilation hypotheses continue to be held (see Pohlmann [1980]; G. Garbini [19881; Myers; R. Klein [1989]), new interpretations have been proposed. Cross models his interpretation of 1 Esdras on approaches to the two recensions of Jeremiah, identifying one as Palestinian ;, (i.e., Ezra-Nehemiah) and one as Alexandrian (i.e., I Esdras). Basing his findings on those of Klein, he argues for a more pristine Vorlage for 1 Esdras. Cross envisions three different editions of Chronicles: The first inclUded 1 Chronicles 10-2 Chronicles 34, plus a Vorlage of I Esdras 1:1-5:65 (= 2 Chr 34:I-Ezra 3:13, composed shortly after 520 BCE). The second included 1 Chronicles 10-2 Chronicles 36:23. plus the Vorlage of I Esdras (composed around 450 BCE). The third and final edition included I Chronicles 1-9, plus 10:1-2 Chr 36:23, plus Hebrew Ezra-Nehemiah (composed around 400 BCE). Cross concurs ~ith D. N. Freedman (1961, 437-38) that the books of Chronicles, hence I Esdras, focus on "City and mler, temple and priest-these appear to be the fixed points around which the Chronicler constructs his history and his theology." First Esdras (as palt of the larger work of the chronicler) was designed to support the restoration of the kingdom under Zerubbabel (Cross [1975] 13), but the third revision sup· pressed material concerning Zerubbabel in light of the changed political climate. T. Eskenazi suggests that 1 Esdras is a compilation from the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah but claims that it was composed as a distinct and complete work by the school of the chronicler, representing the chronicler'S ideology. Much as 1-2 Chronicles uses Samuel and 1-2 Kings for a retelling of the story of the preexilic era, I Esdras, with the same point of view, uses Ezra-·Nehemiah for the later era in Israel's history. She argues that omissions and additions to 1 Esdras shape the book to conform to the central emphases of 2 Chronicles: direct retribution (wherein persons and generations are

---------------------------------------------------------------------346

nsible for their own t. _oJ); insistence on the deci- i bucher del' Sp.ptuaginta: Ihr gegellseitiges Verhiilmis (BibS(F) of the prophets; and a more lenient attitude II t8,4, 1913). J. C. Vllndcrkam, The Jewish Apocalyptic Tieri· SIV ard non-Jews than is found in Ezra-Nehemiah. But . wge ill Early Christianity (1996). H. G. M. Williamson, Israel are th e e IevatlOn ill tIe Books 0if CIlrollicies (1977). toW most telling SIgns . . 0 f D aVI'd' souse thed the Temple: W hereas EzraNe hemla . h Ignores . T. C. ESKENAZI ~rubbabel'S Davidic origin, 1 Esdras spells it out, exalting ZelUbbabel with the story of the three guardsn and the reao'angement of the chapters and making ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF :.~ uniquely responsible for the successful restoration. Second Esdras is the name given in the English ~kenazi also links the ending of 1 Esdras and 2 ChronAPOCRYPHA to an expanded version of an apocalypse icles: Both books end. seemingly in mid-sentence, with (see APOCALYPTICISM) identified in Latin manusctipts as a key word that sums up. the important co~munal task: 4 Ezra. That apocalypse is found in chaps. 3-14 of 2 "going up" for 2 Chromcles and "gathenng together" Esdras. FOUlth Ezra is part of a fairly extensive body of for 1 Esdras. Thcse and other details convince Eskenazi Ezrianic traditions, the breadth and importance of which that 1 Esdras does have a thematic and ideological are reflected in the wealth of extant manuscripts. Of the relationship to the books of Chronicles as the fragment eleven Latin codices that survive, perhaps the oldest and hypothesis maintains; but, as the compilation hypothesis most impOltant is Codex Sangermanensis. Written about maintains, it is nevertheless a distinct composition, not 822 CE, this codex lacks some sixty-nine verses of chap. a fragment of Chronicles. 7. In 1875 R. Bensly published a fragment that restored Other contemporary contributions to the interpretation these missing verses, 4 Ezra 7:36- JOS, which appear to of I Esdras include· ·Myers's linguistic analysis, which deny the value of prayer for the unrighteous dead. B. establishes a second-century BCE date for the Greek transMetzger (1957) and L. Gry (1938) also believed that lation, mid his suggestion that the book may be an apologia this codex was the source of "the vast majority of extant for Jews who assisted Antiochus Ill. IVlyers relates the manuscripts" of the book. An ARMENIAN text was puhbook's heightened emphasis on divine presence with the ~ Iished in 1805 by Zohrab (or Zohrabian) and later by existence of competing temples (e.g., at Leontopolis), Hovsepheantz; it was translated into English in 190 I hy which may have necessitated special pleading 011 behalf of Issavel'dens. Ezrianic material distinct from the more Jerusalem. A. Gru'dner (1986) links its purpose and date to "mainline" Ezrianic traditions survives in Arabic; the Maccabean era, reading it as a specific response to Ethiopic (see ETHIOPIAN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION); priestly abuses; and Garbini reasserts the pJiority of I Syriac; Coptic/Sahidic; Georgian; and, in fragmentary Esdras over Ezra-Nehemiah, claiming that this independent fonn, Greek. Important editions of the Ethiopic and second-century BCE composition reflects refomls directed related texts were published by A. DILLMANN in 1894 toward removing the rigid separation between clergy and and by 1. HALEVY in 1902. laity and implementing a new popular liturgy. With respect to the question of the text's original language, three languages are proposed: Greek, AraBibliography: D. Dohler, Die ileUige Stadt ill Esdras lind maic, and Hebrew. While Metzger argued that all extant Esra-Nehelllia: Zwei KOllzeptiOlzeII del' Wiederherstelhmg Ismanuscripts derive from the Greek, he left open the roels (OBO 158, 1997). S. A. Cook, "r Esdras," APOT (1913) possibility that the Greek may itself derive from a 1:1·20. F. M. Cross, "A Reconstruction of the Judean Resto· Semitic text. With the possible exception of the Armeration," JBL 94 (1975) 4-18. T. C. Eskenazi, "The Chronicler nian texts, differences between the various versions of and the Composition of 1 Esdras," CEQ 48 (l986) 39-61. III 4 Ezra can be explained "by presupposing cOI1'uptions all Age of Prose: A Literal), Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah in or misunderstanding of a Greek text underlying them" (1988). D. N. Freedman, "The Chronicler's Purpose," CEQ 23 (OTP 1:520) A. HILGENFELD used the Latin version to (1961) 436-42. G. Garbini, History alld Ideology in Allciellt reconstruct the original Greek. Supporters of this posiIsrael (1988). A. E. Gardner, "The Purpose of I Esdras," .lJS tion included G. Volkmar (1863), O. Fritzsche (1851), 37 (1986) 18-27. R. Hanhllrt, Text lind Textgeschiclzte des 1. F. Rosenthal (1885), and H. Thackeray. Esrabllches (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta 12, 1974). R. W. In 1633 J. MORrN postulated that either Hebrew or Klein, "Studies in the Greek Texts of the Chronicler" (diss., Aramaic was the original language of 4 Ezra (Gry, Harvard University,' 1966); "I Esdras," The Books oJ tile Bihle J :xxi). Accordingly, J. WELLHAUSEN argued that the (ed. B. W. Anderson, 1989) 2:13-19. T. Muraoka, A Greek· work's vocabulary, grammar, syntax and use of formulas Hebrew/Aramaic Index to I Esdras (S~pluagint and Cognate were more consistent with Semitic usage than with StUdies 16, J984). J. M. Myers, I alld II Esdras (AB 42, (974). Greek (Gry, 1 :xxii) and argued in favor of Hebrew (234, K.·F. Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra (FRLANT 104, note 3). Later, however, he reversed himself and en1970); Historische und legelldarische Erziihlungell: 3. Es· dorsed Aramaic as the original language (1911, 1 :xxi iirabllch (FRLANT 104, 1980). C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies Ixxx). Likewise, Gry, C. C. TORREY, and J. Bloch argued (Library of Biblical Studies. 1910). B. Walde, Die Esdrasthat the original language was Aramaic.

r~sPorole e

hi'

347

ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF

ESTHER, BOOK OF (AND ADDITIONS)

Written in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic?" JQR 48 (1957) 279~ 94; "Some Christological Interpolations in the Ezra. Apocalypse," HTR 51 (1958) 87-94. G. H. Box, The Ezra Apocalypse (1912); "4 Ezra" APOT 2.542-624. R. J. Coggina and M. A. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdrll,f (1979) 76·305. J. J. Collins, ;'The Jewish Apocalypses" Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Gellre (ed. I. J. Col\in~.'· Semeia 14, 1979) 33-34, 53; The Apocalyptic Imaginatio~ (1984) 156·69. A.-M. Denis, "Les fragments grecs de l'Apoca. Iypse 4 Esdras," Illtroduction UlfI: Pseudepigraphes Grecs d'AIi. ciell Testamellt (SVTP I, 1970) 194-200. E. G. A. Ewald, Das :

The presence of "notable Hebraisms" has led othersincluding G. Box (1912), A. Kamilll17

:'i~

FRAZER, JAMES GEORGE (1854--1941) '~ Born in Scotland Jan. 1, 1854, F. was educated at Glasgow University and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he took a first in classics, and in 1879 was elected to a fellOWShip he retained for the rest of his life. Although he held a chair of social anthropology at Liverpool from 1907 to 1922, he largely remained in his rooms in Cambridge, amassing FOLKLORE material from all over the world to form the basis of his numerous publications. F. was impelled toward the study of anthropology by his friend, the famous OT scholar, W. R. SMITH. F.'s major work, 71!e Golden Bough, in which his compara· tiv~ technique was fully developed, was a formative, :J influence on the MYTH AND RITUAL SCHOOL, both by its c. methodology and by its theories of the function of ritual, the sacral role of the king, and the significance of the dying and rising god. More directly concerned with the Bible was his Folk-lore ill the OT, which soughl to illuminate various OT stories and customs from a wide

FRANCKE, AUGUST HERMANN (1663-1727) The most significant Pietist follower (see PIETISM) of P. SPENER, F., born Mar. 22, 1663, was reared in an orthodox Lutheran family. After studying at Erfurt and Kiel he went to Hamburg for Hebrew instruction. Following brief pedods of study in Gotha (completing an intensive study of the Bible), Leipzig (finishing his Dissertatio philologica de grammatica hebraeica in 1685), Uineburg (in 1687), and Dresden (where he spent time with P. J. Spener), he returned to Gotha and then proceeded to Leipzig as lecturer on the Bible. While at Leipzig he founded the collegium philobiblicul11, a Bible study club in which ScIipture was studied from a devotional perspective. In 1690 he was called as a pastor to Erfurt, and two years later he moved to the newly established University of Halle as professor of Greek and Hebrew and pastor at nearby G1aucha. He remained in this dual appointment until his death on June 8, 1727.

418

The Goldell BOLlgh (12 vols .. 1907-15); Totelllism

and Exogamy (4 vols., 1910); Folk-lore ill the 01' (3 vols.,

'Yorks: Dissertatio philologica de grommatica hebraica (1685); Praelectiollwn pllblicarwn allspicia (1692); Mallduclio ad lectionem ScriplUrae Sacrae (1693); Observatiolles biblicae (1695); Proelectiones hennelleuticae (1717); MetllOdus studii

'Yorks:

Bibliography: H. R. Guggisberg,

range of early and primlL .. c societies. In recent years F.'s general approach has been largely abandoned, but the immense amount of material he collected and surveyed remains a valuable quarry for biblical students.

FREEDMAN, DAVID NOEL (1922- ) Born and reared in a secular Jewish family in New York City, F. attended City College (1935-38), the University of California, Los Angeles (AB, 1939), Princeton Theological Seminary (ThB, 1944), and Johns Hopkins University (PhD, 1948). He was an ordained Presbyterian minister from 1944 until his retirement in 1984. He has held faculty positions and endowed chairs at Western Theological Seminary in PittsburghlPittsburgh Theological Seminary (194864), San Francisco Theological Seminary (1964--71), the University of Michigan (1971-92), and the University of California, San Diego (1985- ). He was also a professor at Graduate Theological Union (1964--71) and a visiting professor at numerous institutions. Through his outstanding and indefatigable work as editor, author, teacher, and speaker, F. has greatly influenced virtually every area of biblical scholarship during the second half of the twentieth century. Author of numerous books and countless articles, he has also edited dozens of works, most notably the prestigious Anchor Bible projects as general editor of the multivolume commentary series and reference library and editor-inchief of the six-volume dictionary. A student of W. F. ALBRIGHT, F.. follows his distinguished teacher's example in the breadth of his learning and the wide range of fields under his control. He has done significant work in almost every area related to biblical studies: Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic orthography and grammar; TEXTUAL CRITICISM; Hebrew POETRY; the "primary history"; the formation and structure of the Hebrew CANON; Hebrew lexicography; Israelite history, ARCHAEOLOGY, and CHRONOLOGY; prophetic literature (see PROPHECY AND PROPHETS HB)' biblical THEOLOGY; and Qumran studies (see ~EA~· SEA SCROLLS). Together with F. M. CROSS, F. has identified early

~ebrew poems-which he dates from the twelfth to the

n~nth centuries-and from these he has recovered signtficant information regarding the early history of Israel

(1975a. 1997 2). He and Cross have also done groundbreaking work in Hebrew orthography regarding the inlroduction and use of vowel letters (1952). F. has devoted much attention to the nature and conventions of Hebrew poetry by observing line lengths, th~ infrequency of prose particles, the intricacies of acrostics, and the structural symmetries of whole poems. He argues for seeing an overall symmetry in the arrangement of the books of the Hebrew canon, with the tirst nine books-what he calls the "primary history"-serving as the canonical core and foundation. The commentaries on Hosea (1980a) and Amos (1989) that he coauthored with F. Andersen are considered standards in the lield. In the area of biblical theology he hall wdtten on the nature of biblical religion, divine names, the covenant theme, and divine repentence, among other topics.

Works: (with F. M. Cross, Jr.), Early Hebrew Orthography: A Srudy of the Epigraphic Evidence (ADS 36, 1952); (with F. M. Cross, Jr.)'. Studies ill Ancient Ya/llvistic Poetry (SBLDS 21, 1975a; 19972); (with L. G. Running), IV. F. Albright: A 1\velltieth-Cemury Genius (1975b); (with F. I. AnderSen), Hosea (AB 24, I 980a); POllery, Poetry. and Prophecy: Studies ill Early Hebrew Poetry (l980a); (with K. A. Mathews), The PaleoHebrew Levi/iclls Scroll (11 QpaleoLev) (1985); (with F. I. Andersen), Amos (AB 24A, 1989); The Unity of the HB (1991);

(with A. D. Forbes and F. J. Andersen), Studies ill Hebrew alld Aramaic Orthography (BJuS 2, 1992); (with S. Mandell), 11,e Relationship Between Herodoills' Histol}' and Primal'\' History

(SFSHJ 60, 1993); DMlle Commitment and Hlllllall ObligatiO/I: Selected Writings of D. N. F., vol. I, Histol}' and Religion; vol. 2, Poel1y and Orthography

(ed. J. R. Huddlestun, 1997).

Bibliography: A. B. Beck et al. (eds.),

Fortullate tire Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of D. N. F. in Celebrmiol/

of His Seventieth Birthday (1995). BibRev 9 (1993) 28-39;

10 (1994) 34-41, 63. C. L. Meyers and M. O'Connor (eds.) The Word of the Lord Slzall Go Forth: Essays ill HOllar of D. N. F. in Celebration of !lis Sixtieth Birthday (ASORSVS

I, 1983).

P. R. RAABE

FREi, lL\NS WILHELM (1922-88) Born in Breslau, Germany, Apr. 29, 1922, of Jewish background, F. fled Germany with his family, first to Britain and then to the United States, where he did his undergraduate work at North Carolina State University. A meeting with H. R. NIEBUHR, his most influential teacher, led to seminary and graduate work at Yale. F. was ordained an Episcopal priest in 1952. He taught at Wabash College (1950-53) and the Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest (1953-56), returning to Yale in 1957, where he was a powerfully influential teacher until his death, Sept. 12, 1988. In The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (l974) F. sur-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------419

FREUD, SIGMUND

FRfDRICHSEN, ANTON JOHNSON

veyed the history of biblical interpretation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Before that time, in his opinion, the Bible had defined the world for most Christian scholars, setting out a story from creation to the last judgment; and Christians made sense of their lives by titting them into that ti-amework. By the eighteenth century, however, the world of their own experience primarily defined reality for many Christians. If the biblical narratives were true (and it was the task of apologetics to argue that they were), they had to be connected with that experiential world, either as conveying moral lessons about how we should live our lives or as including more or less historically accurate reports of past events. Either way, their status as narratives was lost. E argued that the meaning of the stories as stories is to be understood by the interaction of character and incident they present. If one begins by asking, for the sake of apologetics, if these texts are true, then one inevitably turns from narrative structure to moral lesson or fragments of historical raw material and distorts the texts' meaning. The question of truth should arise only as a more general question of whether the world as limned by these narratives seems to describe the world in which people find themselves-a matter where argument will be complex and indirect and grace may play as much a role as does reasoned analysis. K. BARTH's reading of Scripture, especially in the later volumes of Church Dogmatics, struck E as a good example of the kind of biblical interpretation he wanted to recover; and in The Identity of Jesus Christ (1975) he tried his own hand at showing how such a reading might shape a christology. He had begun his work at a time when Bultmannians (see R. BULTMANN). who tended to focus on interpreting individual biblical pericopes, dominated the field of biblical THEOLOGY. A number of trends, from LITERARY approaches to REDACTION CRITICISM. have more recently drawn attention to the narratives and other larger structures of the Bible. F. proposed such an approach early on, and his work remains the best account of its theological implications. He has sometimes been cited as a founder of "narrative theology," but the association always made him nervous. Believing that the particular character of the biblical text generates particular rules appropriate for its interpretation, he had little in common with those who begin their interpretations with the narratives of their own lives or general theories about the narrative quality of human experience. He most directly influenced what his Yale colleague G. Lindbeck christened "post-liberal theology."

Works: "The Doctrine of Revelation in the Thought of

Dogmatic Theology (1975); Types of Christian Theology (ed.

G. Hunsinger and W. C. Placher. 1992); Theology and Narra_ tive: Selected Essays (ed. G. Hunsinger and W. C. Placher,

1993).

Bibliography: C. L. Campbell,

NHCT (1996) 151-57;

Prellching Jesus: New Directions for Homiletics ill H. F.'s Postliberal TheoLogy (1997). D. E. Dcmson, fl. F. and K. Barlh: Dijferellf Ways of Reading Scripture (1997). G. Green

(ed.). Scriptural Authorily (/lid Narrative Interpretation (FS, 1987). G. Loughlin, 1ellillg God's Story: Bible, Church, and Narrative 111eology (1996). C. PLACHER

w.

FREUD, SIGMUND (1856-1939) Born in Freiberg, Moravia. on May 6. 1856, F. moved with his family to Vienna as a child. He graduated from the medical school of the University of Vienna in 1881, continued in research and clinical training for several years. became Privatdozent at the university in 1885, and entered pIivate practice in 1886. Although he traveled widely, Vienna remained his home until he and his family were .j forced by the Nazis to flee Austria in 1938. He then settled in England. dying in London on Sept. 23. 1939. E came to view himself as an atheist and agnostic-a true son of the natural science of his day. He wrote to his friend and colleague of many years, the Swiss Lutheran pastor O. Ptister,. "Why have the religiously devout not discovered psychoanalysis, why did one have to wait for a totally godless lew?" He also claimed that .• he knew no Hebrew and that his family was not par• ticularly religious. However, it seems that E studied thej: Bible and learned Hebrew as a child and that his father ;1: was a member of the Haskalah as well as a lifelong student of the Bible and the TALMUD. Evidence of .this connection and training is found in an inscription-written )i' in Hebrew-in a Bible Jacob Freud sent his son Sigmund on the latter'S thirty-fifth birthday:

contained extensive notes in E's handwriting. NonethelesS, he treated Scripture not as a repository of religious trUth but as one of the great books of WESTERN LITERATURE, using it as he did other literary sources to illustrate. to draw comparisons. to make points. Most numerous are his references to the Pentateuch; but he also alluded to the psalms, to historical books, and, It<ss often. to other books in the HB. He seldom referred to the NT. F.'s own contribution to biblical lore came in his late work Moses Gnd Monotheism (1939). The Moses legend had fascinated him from childhood and led in adulthood to a powerful identification with the figure of Moses. who would lead his people into the promised land-for E, psychoanalysis. In Totem and Taboo (1912-13) he had theorized that the murder of the father in the primal horde lay at the root of primal guilt that had to be expiated through worship of the father-god. In the work on Moses, he refashioned the PENTATEUCHAL material and reinterpreted it to fit his own earlier hypothesis about the origins of religion. F. WaS familiar with higher biblical criticism, especially the work of J. WELLHAUSEN and W. R. SMITH, and drew on the work of E. SELLIN, who had suggested that Moses was murdered; but his reading was his own. He advanced the claim that Moses was an Egyptian who transposed the worship of the one god (Aten) to the Israelites. In the manner of the pIimal horde. the murder of Moses and the following gUilt and undoing of the original crime were the foundation for Israelite religious beliefs. F.'s imaginative interpretation regarding Moses has had little influence on biblical studies. However, his theOlies in general and thoughts on religion in particular have made a powerful impression on subsequent understanding of both religion and the Bible (see PSYCHOANALYTIC INTERPRETATION).

Works:

The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of S. R (24 vols .• 1966-74).

. My dear son, It was in the seventh year of your age that the spirit of God began to move you to learning. I would say that the spirit of God speaks to you: "Read in My book; there will be opened to you sources of knowledge and of the intellect. It is the Book of Books; it is the well that wise men have dug and from which lawgivers have drawn the waters of their knowledge."

Bibliography: J. Assmann, "S. E: The Return of the Repressed." Moses ~he Egyptiall: The Memory of Egypt ill Western MOlJotheism (1997). E. Jones, The Life alld Work of S. F. (3 vo1s., 1953. 1963). P. Gay, A Godless Jew: F., Alheism. alld Ihe"Makillg of Psychoallalysis (1987); F.: A Life for Ollr Times (988). D. L. l}als, "Religion and Personality: S. F.... Sevell Theories of Religioll (1996) 54-87. J. S. Preus, "Psychogenic Theory: S. E ... Explaining Religion: Crilicism and Theory frolll Bodin 10 Frelld (1987) 178-204.

F. was reared, then, in a family whose interest in t!Jc Bible was both pious and scholarly. His subsequent life demonstrates his ambivalence toward both his father and his religion; but he would have known the Bible well. having read and studied much of it in HebreW. Indeed among the books found in F.'s library after his de~th was a Bible in Hebrew and German; it

w. W. MEISSNER

K.

Barth. 1909-22: The Nature of Barth·s Break with Liberalism" (diss. Yale. 1956); The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A S/Ildy ill Eighteenth- and Nineteellth-Celltury Hermeneutics (1974); The Ielelltity of Jesus Christ: 71le HermeneuticaL Bases of

420

FRIDRICHSEN, ANTON JOHNSON (1888-1953) Born at Meraker, NOlway, Jan. 4. 1888, F. died at UPPsala. Sweden, Nov. 16, 1953. He received his theology degree from the University of Klistiania (now Oslo) in

1911, for two years studied classical languages at German universities, and from 1915 to 1927 taught NT at the University of Kristiania. Already· renowned for numerous philological conttibutions to the study of the NT and for his doctoral dissertation on the miracles in early Christianity, presented at the University of Strasbourg (1925), F. was appointed in 1928 to the NT chair at Uppsala and became rooted in Sweden for the rest of his life (although he engaged in relief work for Norway during WWlI). At Uppsala he fascinated undergraduates by his teaching and attracted a remarkable number of postgraduate students who wrote theses, continued their scholarly work. and found positions in Sweden or at foreign universities. Thus he made Uppsala a center for personal relations with colleagues in central Europe, Great Britain. a~d the United States. On the yearly Exegetical Day. which he arranged. participants from all over Sweden could meet with well-known scholars from other parts of the world. The Swedish Exegetical Yearbook. which he established in 1936, and other more exclusive series have since provided wider access to Scandinavian work in the biblical field. Stimulated by his academic position and by Swedish church life, E turned more consistently to problems of biblical THEOLOGY. He was one of the first scholars in his generation to emphasize the central position in the Gospels of the self-consciousness of JESUS as it is ex.pressed primarily in the symbolism of the Son of man and his followers. In similar perspectives he studied the apostolate and the concept of the church in primitive Clu·istianity. An English translation of a selection of F.'s exegetical writings appeared in 1994.

Works:

Hagios-QadosiJ: Ein Beilrag zu den VOl"/lIlterSllch-

ungen zur christlichen Begriffsgeschichte (1916); Le probleme dll miracle (1925; ET The Problem of Miracle ill Positive Christianity [1972]); Johallnes-ellangeliet (1939); The Apostle and His Message (1947); Markllsevangeliel (1952); (ed. and contributor), The Root of the Ville: Essays in Biblical Theology (t953); Exegetical Writings: A Selection (WUNT 76. 1994).

Bibliography: W. Bauer, "Zur Erinnerung an A. E ... ZNW 45 (1954) 123-29. Coniec/allea Neotestamelltica XI in honarem A. R sexagenarii (1947). B. Gerhardsson, F., Odeburg, AI/Len Nygren: Fyra teolager (1994) 9-83; "A. F. R. Bultmann. Form Criticism and Hermeneutics." Gesc!lichte-Traditioll-Rejlexion (FS M. Henget. ed. H. Cancik et al.. 1996) 657-75. R. A. Harrisville, "Introduction," The Problem of Miracle (A. 1. Fridrichsen, 1972) 10-23. H. Riesenfeld, Svellskl Biograjiskt Lexikon 16 (1964-66) 5\3-14. A. Smith, A. F.·s kristendolllsforstaelse (1976). K. Slendahl, "Foreword." The Problem of Miracle (A. J. Fridrichsen. 1972) 5-9. Uppsala Ullil'ersilets "MaIrikel," 1937-50 (\963) bibliography, 158-62. H. RlliSENFELD

------------------------------------------------421

FUNK, ROBERT W. FRIES, Sf\MUEL ANDREAS

FRIES, SAMUEL ANDREAS (1867-l914)

Bibliography: s. A. F., 1867-19/4: Millllesskrili utgiven av Uppsalll exegetiskll siillskap (1942). S. Hidal, Bibeltro och

By introducing historical-critical exegesis into Swebibelkritik (1979) 86-96. den F. played an important role in Swedish RezeptionsS. HIDAL geschichte of the J. WELLHAUSEN school. His enormous energy and many publications made a great impact on his contemporaries, even though he never obtained an FUCHS, ERNST (1903-83) academic chair and his life was short. He studied in Born June 1 l, 1903, in Heilbronn am Neckar, WUrtUppsala, where he became a member of a circle of temberg, F. died Jan. 15, 1983, in Langenau bei Ulm. young liberal theologians. After his ordination in the He was nurtured in the Swabian cnlture of Esslingen Church of Sweden, he worked as a curate for some and Cannstatt and attended minor seminaries in Schoen. years, applying in vain for three chairs at Swedish tal and Urach (1918-22). His student years at Tiibingen universities. His good friend ,N. SOderblom-then pro(1922-24, 1925-27) and Marburg (1924-25, 1927-29) fessor at Uppsala-tt:ied to help; but finally F. became during the heyday of dialectical theology were indelibly vicar in a newly established parish in Stockholm. stamped by the theology of K. BARTH, the philosophy In his dissertation (1895) F. denied that Deuteronomy of M. Heidegger, and the NT studies of R. BULTMANN, contains any decree on the centralization of the cult. He under whom he received his doctorate at Marburg in did not deny the centralization of the cult after the exile 1929. ' but held that this development was neither intended nor F.'s career combined acclaim and censure, insight and demanded by the deuteronomists (see DEUTERONOMISTIC enigma as did no other German NT theologian in the HISTORY), thus distancing himself from Wellhausen and mid-twentieth century. A Social Democrat, he was exhis school. pelled in 1933 by the National Socialists from his post In other maLLers he was a decided adherent of the as Privatdozellt at Bonn and from his Winzerhausen new German approach to the HB (as well as in other pulpit by the Gestapo in 1938. As a passionate interbranches of theology-his good friend F. Fehr had preter of Bultmann's program of "demythologization," introduced A. Ritschl's theology into Sweden). This F. became a center of theological controversy within the can be seen in his history of Israel (1894), which was Lalldeskirche of Wilrttemberg. Although honored by a turning point in biblical scholarship in Sweden. He Marburg (ThO, 1947),' he was denied a post at the was attacked vehemently from the conservative wing University of Giessen and became a Vozent in NT at for disputing the truth of the Bible. A contributory TUbingen in 1949, where he formed a productive friendcause was his lack of discretion in choice of words; ship with church historian G. Ebeling. F.'s enigmatic he was often misunderstood by his opponents. Howstyle and propensity for vittiolic retort worked against ever, he defended himseJf and "the critical cause" him, however, and following an ecclesiastical trial he vigorously; in his opinion the church had nothing to was removed from membership in the still pietistic (see fear from an unconditional investigation into the bibPIETISM) state church of WUrllemberg. Without hope of lical texts. Through numerous articles he informed his promotion, he left TUbingen in 1954 to assume a posi· contemporaries about developments in biblical scholtion at the Klrchliche Hochschule in Berlin. Exoneration arship and was one of the first to recognize the came in 1961 when he was called to Bultmann's chair importance of the Amarna letters for the study of the at the University of Marburg. He retired in 1970. AlHB. though he was repeatedly censured by the church hierGradually F. turned his interest toward the NT. In a archy, as an NT theologian his impact on a whole number of publications he dealt with the JOHANNINE generation of theological students on both sides of then tradition, trying to shed new light on the biblical text divided Germany was highly significant. from a RELlGlONSOESCHlCHTLICHE viewpoint. He was Considered cocreator with Ebeling of the "new herconvinced lhat the Fourth Gospel contains some authenmeneutic" (see HERMENEUTICS) and an original contributic information about JESUS and that the Gospel tor to the "new quest of the histOlical Jesus," F.'s originally was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. This achievement lay in bringing the insights of Barth, Bultproto-Johannine Gospel was then interpolated from the mann, and Heidegger into fruitful conjunction. He gospel according to the Hebrews, mainly with episodes sought to bridge Barth's Calvinist emphasis (see CALVIN) from Jesus' ministry in Galilee. F. maintained that finally on the revealed Word of God with BulLmann's Luther[ll1 Cerinthus in Alexandria translated the whole Gospel into emphasis on the nature of human existence before G~d Greek, making his own interpolations. by employing a phenomenology of language derived 10 part f{om Heidegger's later position, arguing th~t both Works: Israels !1;stor;a rill sllIderandes tjellsT (1894); Dell human existence and the being of God are ultunately israelitiska· kultells celltralisatioll (L895); 1st Israel jemals ill liilguistic-made available in language-and that theol;\gyptell gewesen? (1897); Gamla och lIya lestamelltets reliogy is thus properly "faith's doctrine of language"

I

the National Association of Biblical Instructors, an off(Sprach!ehre des Glaubens). J heology's task is essentially shoot of the SBL, into the American Academy of Rehermeneutical, i.e., theology translates Scripture into conligion. In the face of escalating costs for academic temporary telms and contemporary existence into scriptural terms. F.'s doctJine of language helped to inspire a "new j monographs and periodicals, F. founded Scholars Press in 1974 to serve as the publishing venue for learned quest" of the histOilcallESus because it could now be said that Jesus' words and deeds constituted that "language societies in religious and classical studies. After retiring event" (Spmclrereignisse) in which faith first entered into i from teaching he founded and is the director of Polelanguage, thereby becoming available as an existential bridge Press and the Westar Institute in Santa Rosa California, which sponsors the Jesus Seminar. ' possibility within language, the "house of being" (Heidegger). Conversely, the reality of God's love is verbalized in For five decades F. has been a productive scholar, outstanding teacher, and innovative leader in the expanJesus' words and deeds recorded in the Gospels and is thus preserved as language gain (Spmcllgewil1lz). In the freedom sion of religious studies as a discipline in American of proclamation God's presence in the gospel as the "Yes I higher education. His scholarly contributions have of love" happens again-that is, comes to be as language, shaped current developments in at least six areas of Ameriopening up the future to authentic existence (faith, hope, can NT scholarship. I 1. NT Greek Grammar. Trained in classical Greek and love). Beginning in the 1960s, the Fuchs-Ebeling project, at Butler, F. wrote his Vanderbilt dissertation on PAUL'S avidly promoted by leading biblical scholars in the I use of the Greek article. His first major scholarly work United States, greatly influenced liberal biblical studies I was the translation and thorough revision of the ninthand theology for over a decade. tenth editions of F. Blass and A. Debrunner's Gral11111atik I des neutestamentlic/zen Griechisch in 1961. N. DA HL Works: Hel7l1eneutik (1954; 19582 , with ErgiinZllngsheji; 1970'); (Yale Divinity School) has written that B-D-F, as the Gesammelte Auftiitze, vol. 1. ZUlli hemlelZeUlischell PlDblem ;/1 del' English edition has come to be known, "is one of those 17leologie (1959); vol. 2, Zur Frage nach dem hislOrischell Jesus rare cases in which a translation is definitely belter than (1960); vol. 3, Glat/be r/lld El/ahl1/11g (1965); Srudies of the Histhe original." In the process of this massive work, F. torical Jeslls (SBT 42, 1964, selected essays flum Gesammelte was confronted with two qnestions about the status of AlIjsiilze vols. 1 and 2); Marbllrger Henlleneutik (1968); Jesus. \lim the field: Should not the language of the NT be treated 1IIu1 Tat (1971); Wagllis des Glaubens (1979). as a dynamic idiom that deserves its own definition rather than as a corruption of the Attic dialect, and Bibliography: P. J. Achemeier, Introduction to the New He/,should not insights from modern linguistics and second~ mellf?lIlic (1969). J. Fangmeier, E. F.: \'ersuch einer Orie1Zlienlllg language pedagogy be lIsed for the analysis and teaching (ThStud 80, 1964). .T. M. Robinson and J. n. Cobb (eds.), The of NT Greek? In order to address these questions, he NelV Hermenelltic (New Frontiers in Theotogy 2, J964). R. N. produced his own three-volume grammar (1973), a work Soulen, "E. E: NT Theologian," JAAR 39 (1971) 467-87. that has defined the study of NT Greek as an NT R. N. SOULEN sub-field with its own integrity rather than simply as an exegetical tool or appendage to classical Greek. 2. Hemleneutics. F. also engaged theoretical questions about the nature and function of religious discourse in FUNK, ROBERT W. (1926- ) gen~ral. This resulted in a programmatic work (1966a) in F. was bam July 18, 1926 in Evansville, Indiana. He which he argues that the ctisis of contemporary Chtistianily was educated at Butler University (AB 1947; BD 1950, is related to the decay of traditional theological language MA 1951) and V;1nderbilt University (PhD 1953), where and the archaic world view it sponsors. The impetus for this he studied with the German NT scholar K. Grobel and the project was his effort to mediate the work of G. Ebeling, Philonic scholar S. SANDMEL. He has served on the faculE. FUCHS, and other Gelman theologians to an America ties at Texas Christian University (1953-56), Harvard Diaudience through a series of consultations at Drew Univervinity School (1956-57), Emory University (1958-59), sity in the early 1960s, editing the .Toll17lai for 71zeo!ogy Drew University (1959-66), Vanderbilt Divinity School and the Church from 1964 to 1974, translating and inter(1966--69), and the University of Montana (1969-86). preting the work of R. BULTMANN, and helping to establish F. was instrumental in transforming the SOCIETY OF the Hermeneia commentary series. BIBLICAL LITERATURE from a small circle of scholars 3. Parables. F.'s work on HERMENEUTICS was based from the northeastern region of the United States into a on two probes into the way a new tradition (primitive large inclusive, international learned society during his Christianity) is attendant upon a new language for its tenures as executive secretary (1968-73) and president birth, the new language of parable (Jesus) and personal (1974-75). At the same time he and his colleague from letter (Paul). Beginning with a series of studies on the Drew and Vanderbilt universities, R. Hart, established good Sammi'tan, F. argued that the PARABLES OF J~SUS the department of religious studies at the University of should be read as absolute metaphors of God's presence, Montana and, in collaboration with others, transformed

, I

I

I

i

I

I

I

gion: Ell historisk skildril1g (19 L2).

422

423

FUNK, ROBERT W. not as allegories (Middle Ages) or as moral illustrations (see A. JUUCHER). The language of parable is the language of invitation: In light of contemporary work on the phenomenology of language, he showed that for Jesus God's empire is not simply another idea in the history of religions but a new destination that is glimpsed through the parables. He followed these initial studies with two volumes (1975a, 1982), in which he juxtaposed the major parables of Jesus with later textual voices for which those parables were precursors in order to ask about the authentic heirs of the JESUS tradition, in distinction from putative Christianity. 4. Letters. In the face of disputes over the authenticity and integrity of the Pauline corpus, F. analyzed commoll letters from the Greco-Roman era to demonstrate that Paul's letters follow a highly conventional form. He then used this typical pattern as a criterion for settling disputes over the authorship and editing of the letters. His essay in the J. KNOX Festschlift (1967a), in particular, made an important contribution to the understanding of Paul's travel plans and their connection to his apostolic vocation. 5. The Bible in the American 'fradition. American biblical scholarship has, by and large, been dependent on European antecedents. Beginning with a colloquium he organized at Vanderbilt in 1968 on the distinctiveness of the "Chicago School of Theology," however, F. has encouraged work on the ways in which the uniqueness of the American experience has altered European theological CUlTents after they have crossed the Atlantic. The colloquium was followed by his 1974 SBL presidential address, "The Watershed of the American Biblical Tradition," and a monograph series he organized on the role of the Bible in North America as a part of the SBL's centennial celebration in the 1980s. 6. Historical Jesus. Since the Enlightenment scholars have recognized that the Christ of faith had eclipsed the Jesus of history by the time the Gospels were composed. This set in motion a scholarly project known as the "quest for the histO\;cal Jesus" to recover the unscriptecL.tigure of Jesus behind the theological portraits of the evangelists. Most nonspecialists have been unaware of this research project and its implications for the Christian tradition. F. founded the Jesus Seminar in 1985 to collate and communicate the scholarly results of the quest to the literate public. The seminar consists of about one hundred Gospel scholars who have surveyed the results of critical work since the EnlighLenment on all the sayings and deeds attribmed to Jesus in the first three centuries. The aim was to indicate clearly and concisely which sayings and deeds scholars believe can be historically verified as stemming from Jesus, in distinction from materials that originated in the experience of the early church. The results of the seminar's investigations have been published in two volumes (1993, 1998). Its work has been controversial, both because it accepts the historical-critical method and

because it challenges biblical scholars to indicate how their work affects religious faith. F.'s larger purpose in founding the Jesus Seminar was to elevate the histOrical" Jesus from a religious icon to a culturally significant figure for the modern world.

G

Works: "The Syntax of the Greek Article: Its Importance for Critical Pauline Problems" (diss. Vanderbilt, 1953); (U". and rev.), • A Greek Grammar of the Greek NT and Other Early Christian ' Literature (F. Blass and A. Debrunner, 1961); "Creating an Opening: Biblical Criticism and the Theological CurriculLun," 1m 18 " (1964a) 387-406; "COlloquium on Henneneutics," Tloday 21 (1964b) 287-306; "The Hermeneutical Problem and HistOrical Criticism," The New Hem!eneutic (ed. J. M. Robinson and J. B. Cobb, 1964c) 164-97; Language, Hermeneutic, and Word ofGud: '

The Problem of Language in the NT and in COlllemporary_ ': Theology (1966a); "Saying and Seeing: Phenomenology of lan. guage and tht: NT," JBR 34 (1966b) 197-213; "The Apostolic Parousia: FOlm and Significance," Christian History alld Inter. pretation: Studies Presellled to J. Knox (ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, R. R. Niebuhr, 1967a) 249-68; 'The Form and Struc. ture of II and III John," JBL 86,(I967b) 424-30; "Apocalyptic as " a Historical and Theological Problem in Current NT Scholarship:' .. JTC 6 (1969) 175-91; "Beyond Criticism in Quest of Literacy: , The Parable of the Leaven," 1111 25 (1971) 149-70; A Beginnillg. ' Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek (3 vols., 1972); ''The Good Samaritan as Mt:taphor," Semeia 2 (1974a) 74-81; ''The ., Nmrative Parables," St. Andrews Rel,jew (1974b) 299-323; "Struc· ture in the Narralive Parables of Jesus," Semeia 2 (l974c) 51-73; , "

Jesus m Precllrsor (l975a); "The Significance of Discowse:' Structure for the Study of the NT," No Famine ill the Land: ' Studies ill HOllor of J. L. McKenzie (ed. J. W. Flanagan and A. W. Robinson, 1975b) 209-21; 'The Watershed of the American, ' Biblical Tradition: The Chicago School, Firsl Phase, 1892-1920:' JBL 95 (1976) 4-22; '1·he Narrative Parables: The Birth of a Language Tradition," God's Christ and His People: Studies in HOllour of N. A. Dahl (ed. 1. Jervell t:t al., 1977) 43-50; "The Fornl of the NT Healing Miracle StOlY," Semeia 12 (1978) 57-96; "On Dandelions: The Problem of Language," JAAR Thellwlic ",., Studies 48, 2 (l98Ia) 79-87; "Parable, Paradox, Power: The ' Prodigal Samaritan," JAAR 11!ematic Studies 48, 1 (198Ib) 83-97; . Parables and Presence: Fon/ls of the NT Tradilioll (1982); "From Parable to Gospel: Domesticating the Tradition," Forum 1, 3 (1985a) 3-24; "The Issue of Jesus," FOr/III! 1, 1 (1985b) 7-12; New Gospel Parallels (Foundalions and Facets. NT, 2 vols., 1985c); "Gospel of Mark: Pmables and Aphorisms," FOri/III 4, 3· ' (\988) 124-43; (with B. B. Scott and J. R. Butts), The Parab/e.l", of Jesus: Red Letter Edition (Jesus Semin,ar Series, 1988a); 111l '

Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Foundalions and Facets. LiterBIY' Facets, 1988b); "Unmveling the Jesus Tradition: Criteria and Cri~' : cism," Forulll 5, 2 (1989) 31-62; (with M. H. Smith), The of Mark: Red Letter Editioll (Jesus Seminar Series, 1991); (with It, : W. Hoover), The Five Go:.pels: The Searchforlhe Authelltic WJnh of Jesus (1993); HOliest to Jesus: Jeslls for a New (1996); The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really

L. C.

424

,6._r" ... r'UI
Galatialls: A Commelltary 011 Paul's Letter 10 the Churches ill Galatia (Hermeneia, 1979). F. F. Druce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commelltary on the Greek Text (1982). E, D. ' Durton, The Epistle /0 the Galatialls (ICC, 1921). C, Clemen Die £inheitlichkeit der paulinisehell Briefe an der Hand de; bisher mit bezug allf sie aufgestelltell IlItelpolatiollS- Lllld Com_ pilationshypothesell gepraft (1894). J. Cramer, De Brief Vem PaulLls aan de Galatiiirs ill Zijll oorsprokelijkell Vorlll hers/eld, -.,,' ell verklaard (1890). J, D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC, 1993). J. Friedrich, Die Unechtheit des Galalerbriefes: Eill Beitrag ZLI einer kritischen Gesehichte des UTcI,ristelltU/llS (1891). P. H. Kern, "RhelOlic, Scholarship, and

Bibliography:

Galaterbl'ief naeh seiner Echtheit IIIlterslleht nebst kritischen Bemerkllllgell ZII dell palllinischell Hallptbriefell (1888). A. Suh!, "Der Galaterbrief-Situalion und Argumentation," ANRW II. ~

Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul's Epistle" (diss., University of Sheffield, 1994). J. B. Koppe, NovLln/ Testamen_ tum Graece perpetLla anllotatiolle Ulustratul1l (1778 1; mv. and ed. T. C. Tychsen, 1823). J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle /0 the Galatians: A Revised Text with IntrodLlctioll, Notes, alld Dissertations (1865). R, A. Lipsius, Briefe [III die Galater, Romer. PhilippeT (HCNT II.ii, 1891, 18922). R. N. Longenecker, Gawtians (WBC 41, 1990). W. Liitgert, Gesetz lind Geist: Eille Untersuchllllg ZlIr Vorgeschichte des Galaterbrie/es (BFCT 22, 6, 1919d). J. L. Martyn, Galatians (AB 33A, 1997). F, J. Matera, Galatians (Sacra Pagina 9, 1992). T. D, Morgan, The Moral Philosopher: In a Dialoglle Between Philalethes, a Christian Deist, and Theophalles, a Christiwi lew (1737). J. Munck, Pauills und die Heilsgeschichle (1954; ET Paul alld the Salvatioll of Mankind 1959) . .I. C. O'Neill, The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians (1972); "Glosses . and Interpolations in the Letters of St. Paul," StEv 7 (TU 126,

1982) 379-86; ''The Holy Spirit and the Human Spirit in Galatians: Gal 5:17," ETL 71 (1995) 107-120. F. Overbeck, Vbel' die AujJassung des Streits des Paulus mit Petrus UI Alliiochiell (Gal. 2.11jJ.) bei den Kirchellviitern (Programm zur Rectoratsfeier der Universitlit Basel, 1877; repr., 1968). H. E, G. Paulus, Des Apostels Lehr-briefe all die Galater [/lid ROilier Christen (1831). Heikki Riiisii~en, Paul alld the Law (WUNT 29, 1983). W. M. Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor (1890, rt:pr. 1962); A Historical CO//lmentary 011 St. Paul's Epis.tle to the Galatians (1899, repro 1965). J. H. Ropes, The Singlliar Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians (HTS 14, 1929) 28-42. H. SchUer, Der Brief (III die Galater (Meyer, 1949, 19654). J. J. Schmidt, Prolusio de Galatis, ad quos PallillS literas //lisit (1748); Proillsiollem suam de Galatis-ab objectionibus doctissimorllln virorllm vindicaTe COllalUr (1754). W. Schmithals, Palll and the Gllostics (1965; ET 1972). J, S,

Semler, Paraphrasis epistolae ad Galatas ellm Prolegomellis, Notis, et varieillte Lectionis Latinae (1779). R. Steck, Der

U. Dauer, Die Apostelgesclriclue, eille Aus-

gieichll1l8 des Paulillismlts t/lld des ludentill/ms inllerhalb der christlichen Kin'he (1850); Kritik del' pULllinischell Briefe, pl. I, Del' UrsprLlllg des Galaterbriefs (1850, repro 1972). F. C. DaUl; Tiibinger Zeitschriftfiir TlJeologie 4 (1831) 61-206; repro in Allsgewiihlte Werke ill £illwlausgabe (ed. K. Scholder, vol. 1. His/Orisch-kritische Ul1Iersuchungell zum Neuell Tes/alllellI l1963lJ. 1-1. D. lletz, "Tht: Literary Composition and Function of Puul's Leller to the Galutians," NTS 21 (1974-75) 353-79;

25.4 (1987) 3067-3134. N. Waller, "Paulus und die Gegner des Christusevangeliums in Galatien," L'Apotre Paul: pel'sollllQ/ite, style et cOllceptioll du minis/ere (ed. A. Vanhoye, 1986) 351-56. C. H. Weisse, Philosophi~'che Dogmatik odeI' Philosophie des ChrisrelltituJlJS (3 volso. 1855-62); Beitrage zur KriJik der paulillischell Briefe all die Galutel; Romel; Philippel; ulld

428

0';'

Kolosser (ed. E. Sulze, 1867). S. K. Williams, Galatians, (ANTC. 1997). '1: Zahn, Del' Brie! des Pallius all der GaimeI'

G.'s telescopic observations raised the queslion of how the new discoveries related to the geocentric language of the Bible. Thus the classic confrontation be(1905, 19223) J. C. O'NElLL tween science and religion was born, reaching its climax with the church's condemnation (Mar. 5, 1616) of Copernicanism as "false and completely contrary to the Scriptures" and with G. being admonished by Cardinal GALE, THEOPHlLUS (1628-78) An English dissenter, G. was educated at Magdalen R. BELLARM1NE to accept that judgment under threat of injunction. G. turned to other scientific work until 1624 College, Oxford, but was ejected from his university fellowship at the Restoration (1660). Thereafter he traveled when, with the election of the more tolerant Pope Urban in Europe for several years, returning to conduct a dissentVIII, he felt free to undertake the writing of his Diaing academy at Newington Green, near London. He was Logue Concerning the 1ivo Chief World Systems. Howreputed to be an "exact philologist," and his enormous The ever, when it was published in 1632 the question was COllrt of the Gentiles contains extensive discussion of immediately raised as to whether it violated the decree Hebrew words and cognates and ~uppositiolls deIivatives. and the injunction of 1616. G.'s trial ended June 22, According to his plalOnic theory of language, the original 1633, with his being judged "vehemently suspected of names given by Adam at God's direction disclose the heresy" and with his forced abjuration. He lived under inherent natures of things. Etymology proves that all lanhouse arrest, continuing his scientific work despite guage comes from Hebrew (especially through the blindness (1637) until his death at Arcetri, Jan. 8, 1642. Phoenecians) and that therefore all literalure, philosophy, G.'s views on the Bible and science were formulated and learning derives from Hebrew prototypes, which are i between 1613 and 1616. His fliend B. Castelli informed based on God's original revelation to the Jews, thus achim that the scriptural orthodoxy of his scientific views had been questioned at the court of the grand duke. G:s counting for their tlUths. All elmr, in contrast, is the result of sinful corruptings of the plimeval deposit. G:s viewpoint reply took the form of his Letter to Castelli (Dec. 21, was a strongly Calvinistic (see CALVIN) and biblically 1613), later expanded into his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615, not published until 1636), in which he centered variation of the widespread Renaissance doclline of an ancient wisdom, or prisca theoLogia, and was similar argued that, since God is the author of both nature and revelation, science and the Bible cannot be in conu'adiction, to the views of some of the Camblidge Platonists. At his death he left unfinished a LEXICON of NT Greek. His will provided that each is properly understood. This proviso bequealhed a large collection of Hebraica to Harvard Colapplies especially to the Bible, which, in cal1'ying out its lege. purpose of providing all people with the means of salvation, often accommodates its language to the crass underWorks: The Court of the Gellliles (4 vols., 1669-78). standing of the common person and to the mode of speech of the times in which it was written. As a result the sud'ace Bibliography: J. W. Ashley Smith, The Birth of Modem meaning of Scripture is often not its true meaning. The Education (1954) 41-46. N. Fiering, Moral Philosophy at most frequently debated passages conceming heliocentriSevellteelllh-CeTitury Harvard (1981) 279-94. A, Gordon, DNB cism were Josh 10:13 and Ps 19:4-6. Also, the Bible 20 (1889) 377-78. D. D. Wallace, Jr., Puritans alld Predesti/latioll contains much rnatetial not peltaining to salvation and, (Studies in Religion [Chapel Hill], 1982) 178-80. therefore, not strictly matters of faith. For G. sctiptural remarks about the motion of the heavens are in that D. D. WALLACE, JR. , caLegory; thus his famous quotation from Cardinal Baronius: "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." GALILEI, GALILEO (1564-1642) Thus, if a scientific truth has been conclusively Born at Pisa Feb. 15, 1564, G. received his early proven, G. argued, then we must follow the Augustinian education at the monastery of Vallombrosa. Later he advice to interpret the Scriptures accordingly. But in studied medicine and mathematics at the University of cases where a theory is not conclusively proven (the Pisa (1581-84), but he left without a degree. He held state of Copemicanism at that time), G.'s advice is less the chair of mathematics at Pisa (1589-92) and later at clear. He usually advocated abstention from fixing the the University of Padua (1592-1610), having become true meaning of the Bible in such cases lest later scienpersuaded of the truth of Copernicanism sometime betific proof go contrary to that interpretation, thus comfore 1600. In 1609 he improved on the recently invented promising the Scriptures. And in matters beyond natural telescope and began systematic observations of the heavscience the issue of cont1ict, of course, never ru·ises. G.'s ens; these findings, published in his Siderells mtnviews did not convince the Holy Office in 1616 but were cius (1610), made him internationally famous. In 1610 destined to be accepted by the Roman Catholic Church he returned permanently to Florence under the patronage of the grand duke. by the end of the nineteenth century.

429

GALLING, KURT

"\Vorks:

Gi\I~STANG, JOHN

Sidereus IIllllcillS (1610); II saggiatore (1623); Dia-

logo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, Tolemaico e

temporary historical research related to the OT and biblical archaeology.

Copemicano (1632); Discorsi e demonstrazioni mathematiche intorno a due IIIlOve scienze (1638).

Works:

Bibliography: R. J. Blackwell,

Die Enviih/ulIgstraditioliell lsraels (BZAW 48, 1928); Die is. raelitische Staatsverfassung in ihrer vordel'OrielltalischelZ Um_

G .• Bellarmine. and the

Bible (1991). S. Drake, G. at Work: His Scientific Biography (1978). A. Fantoli, G.: For Copernicanism and for the Church (1994, 19962). L. Geymonat, Galileo GaliLei (Studi

Galileiani 3,1957, 1969 2). J. J. Langford, G., Science. and the Church (1966). E. McMullin (ed.), G.: Mall of Science (1967). G. Morpurgo-Tagliabue, I processi di G. e ['epistem%gia (1963). S. M. Pagano (ed.), I dOClllllellti del

GARSTANG, JOHN (10/0-1956) Born in Blackburn, Lancashire, May 5, 1876, G. was a mathematical scholar of Jesus College, Oxford, as an undergraduate. His interest in ARCHAEOLOGY was aroused by the luins of the Roman camp at Ribchester, which he excavated while still an undergraduate. He also excavated such other Roman sites in Britain as Melandra Castle. When twenty-three he joined W. F. PETRlE in Egypt and took part ,in his excavations at Abydos. In 1902 he became reader in Egyptian archaeology at Liverpool University and in 1907 professor of. the methods and practice of archaeology at Liverpool, a newly created post that he held until 1941. From 1909 to 1914 he excavated Meroe, the capital of ancient Ethiopia, revealing evidence of Roman occupation. He wa~ director of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (1919-26) and director of antiquities under the Palestine government (1920-26). He excavated at Ashkelon in 1920-21 and identified the site of Hazor (Tell el-QedalJ) in 1926. where he made the first excavations. But it is his work at Jericho that is most famous in biblical archaeology. His excavations there, under the patronage of C. Marston, were undeltaken from 1930 to 1936, when he was forced to leave Palestine because of the political situation. His work first revealed the antiquity of the site. something that has been fUlther underlined by the excavations of K. KENYON. G. discovered a double wall that he believed to date from the Late Bronze Age and to have fallen to Joshua, c. 1400 BCE. This fit with the fiiteenthcentury date for the exodus and the equation of the Habiru of the el-Amarna letters with the invading Hebrews, opinions tllen popular. Kenyon's subsequent excavations, however, overturned this conclusion: It emerged that Late Bronze Age remains were few and that the double wall dated much earlier-·from the Early Bronze Age-when there was certainly no wall as is depicted in .loshua. After leaving Palestine G., following his interest in the Hittites (see HlTflTOLOGY AND BIHLICAL STUDIES), undertook important excavations in Turkey at Mersin (1937-47). In addition. he founded the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, serving as its director (194748) and president (1948-56). Throughout his career he was interested in and published on the Hittites; his posthumously published geography of the Hittite Empire (1959) has served as a standard work on the topic.

Der Altar ill dell KulHlrell des alten Orients (\925);

lVelt (AO 28, 3, 4. 1929); Bibfisches ReallexikOlr (HAT 1. I, 1937); Syriell ill del' Politik der Archaemelliden his zlIm Auf stand des Megabyzos 448 v. ChT. (AO 36, 3, 4, 1937); "Der Prediger," Die FUllf Megillot/t (HAT I 18, 1940. 19692); Ter:tbuc/t wr Geschiclrte Israels (1950, 1968 2); Die Buelrer del' Chl'OlIik: Esra. Nehemiah (ATD l2, 1954); Stl/dielZ Gesclrichte Israels im persisclren Zeitaiter (1964).

processo di G. G. (1984). O. Pedersen, "G.' and the Council

of Trenl: The G. Affair Revisited." Journal of the History of Astronomy (1983) 1-29. P. Redondi, G. eretico (1983). G.

Bibliography: M. Weippert, ZDPV 104 (1988) 190-94. P.

de Santillana, The Crime of G. (1955). W. A. Wallace, G.

mellt: Festsclrriji fiir K. G. (ed. A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch.

and His Sources (1984).

1970) 333-47.

Welten, "Bibliographie K. G .... Archiiologie WId Altes Testa-

R . .T. BLACKWELL

T. L. THOMPSON

GALLING, KURT (1900-87) Born June 8, 1900, in Wilhelms haven , G. died July 12, 1987, in TUbingen. G. developed four of the cardinal virtues of his generation: breadth of knowledge, detailed observation, originality of perspective, and integrity. He was educated at Jena and Berlin in ancient history, ancient Near Eastern studies, and OT, with his doctoral dissertation in Jena in 1923 (published in 1925) and his habilitation in Berlin in 1925 (published in 1928), which, strongly influenced by his teacher H. GRESSMANN, has only in the 1980s and 1990s had its full impact. After lecturing on OT in Berlin he went in 1928 to Halle-, where he worked in the administration of the university library through the Hitler years until 1946. During this long hiatus in his scholarly career, G.'s writing turned in the direction of biblical ARCHAEOLOGY, a burgeoning new field that his own work helped to define for European scholarship, especially through his very influential BRL. which with great originality systematically defined the archaeological remains of Palestine independently of biblical traditions. In 1946 G. received his first chair in OT in Mainz, where he began the immense task of editing the third edition of ROO (6 vols., 1957-65). He was called to GOttingen in 1955 to teach OT and history of Palestine and in 1961 accepted the newly established chair in biblical archaeology at the University of Tlibingen, where, until his retirement in 1968, he developed the finest research library in the field in Germany. The research of his latter years concentrated on sludies of the Persian period. Beginning in the late sixties, he drew many students and younger colleagues to his home for the free and open discussions of "Diptychon." This circle of scholars, through the many substantial publications of its members, has profoundly changed con-

GAUDINEU, FREDEUIC (1822-89) Born in Gardiner, Maine, G. graduated from Bowdoin College in 1842. Ordained a priest in the Protestant Episcopal Church, he served several churches in Maine before beginning his teaching career. In 1865 he was appointed professor of Scripture interpretation at the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Gambier, Ohio. He taught OT literature at Berkeley Divinity School (Connecticut) from 1868 to 1882 and NT literature and interpretation from 1883 until his death. He is remembered for his principal role in the conception and organization of the Society of Bib· Iical Literature and Exegesis (see SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE), as it was known in its tirst half century. Together with C. BRIG(~S and P. Schaff he took part in the preliminary meeting in 1880 and called together the organizational meeting in June of that year, drafting the constitution and bylaws, and serving as its first secretary and journal e-dHor (1880-83) and its second president (1887-89). He and his colleagues were cautiously, but favorably, disposed to the higher criticism of German scholars, which made its entrance into American biblical scholarship in the late nineteenth century.

Works: The urst of the Epistles: A Commentary upO/r tire Epistle of St. Jude (1856); The Principles of Textual Critici.!m . (I B76); "Leviticus," 1\ Commentary 011 the Holy Scriptures (ed.

Works: Tire Land of the Hittites (1910); The Hitrite Empire (1929): Jos/rlla-ludges (Foundations of Biblical History, 1931); Tire Helitage of Solomoll (1934); (with 1. B, E. Garstang), The Stall' of Jericho (1940, 19482); 17re Geogrop/zy oithe Hittite Empire (1959).

J. P. Lange, American Lunge Series 2, 1876); "U Samuel" ~nd "Ezekiel," All aT Commentary for English Readers (ed. C. J. Ellicott, 1883) 2:444-511; (1883) 5:203-353.

I~

Bibliography: "Memorial: F. G.." .IBL 9 (1890) vi. E. W.

j:

Saunders, Searching the Scripwres (1982) 3-9. E. W.

SAUNDERS ""

~~~

GASTEU, MOSES (1856-1939) Bom in Bucharest in 1856. G. studied at the University of Breslau and at the Jewish Theological Seminary of Breslau. He was ordained and received the PhD in 1881. From 1881 to 1885 he lectured 011 the history of Romanian literature and comparative MYTHOLOGY at the Universily of Bucharest. During this period he puhlished a popular history of Romanian literature and began a chrestomathy of Romanian literature, which was published in 1891. His activities on behalf of .lews in Romania led to his expulsion by the govemment; even though the expulsion was overturned, he moved to England, where he was naturalized in 1893, and never again liveu in his native country. He died Mar. 5, 1939. In 1886 G. delivered the Uchester lectures on GrecoSlavic literature at, Oxford, an appointment he received again in 1891. He became the chief rabbi of the Sephardi Jews in England in 1887 and maintained this post until his failing eyesight forced him oll in 1918. Appointed director of the Judith Lady Monleliore College at Ramsgate in 1890, he resigned in 1896 amid selious differences with the board regarding management of the school. He continued his role as a Jewish activist in England, being founder and president of the English Zionist Federation and serving as vice president of four congresses held in Basel and London between 1898 and 1900. He was insll1lmental in the development oJ'the Balfour declaration of Nov. 1917. A versatile scholar. G. published works on Jewish liturgy, comparative mythology, and lost and obscure Hebrew language texts and was an advocate [or tJle authenticity of the Samaritan religious community. He collected an outstanding selection of manusc';pts, most of which were solei to the BJitish Museum. G. delivered the Schweich lectlll'es in 1925 on the Samaritans, arguing lhat the s~ct represented an authentic Hebrew tradition, with roots reaching back to preexilic Israel. Although his conclusions have not found wide acceptance, his arguments must be considered by any student of the Samruitans.

"\Vorks:

Literatura Poprtlara Romana (1883); JelVish Sources

alld Parallels to Ihe Early English Metrical Romal/ces of King Arthur al/d Merlill (1888); ChrestOIllQtie Romllna (1891): nrc Sword of Moses (/896); The Chronicles o/.lerahmeel (1899); Hebrew Illuminated Bihles of the Nimh and Tellth Centuries (1901); Rumaniall Bird and Beast Stories (1915); The Exempla of the Rabbis (1924); The Samaritans (Schweich Lectures, 1925); Studies alld Texts in Folklore, Magic. Mediel'lll Ro-

I

Bibliography:

AII
Bibliography: A. M. Hymllson,

DNB Sup. 5 (1949) 30910. C. Uoth, EllcJud 7 (1971) 332-34. B. Schindler (ed.). Occident alld Oriellt: Gaster Annil'ersmy l'olrlllle (1936); Gaster Centenary PublicatiOIl (1958).

1. DAY

B.

WHALEY

~;}

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ ~;!}~ . 430

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------431

GAY /LESBIAN INTERPRETATION CASTER, THEODOR HElU:L Several developments within society in general and the realm of biblical interpretation in particular make it possible today to raise the question of a g~y/lesbian biblical interpretation. By the late 1960s the Impact of the sexual revolution, feminism, and lesbian and gay political movements began to be felt in ~hurches and synagogues. Lesbians, gay men, an~ their s~pport.ers increasingly called for a gay-affilmatlve trans~ormalion of Jewish and Christian attitudes toward sexuahty, sometimes using emergent LmERATrON THEOLOGIES as models for articulating such a call. As a result scholars and religious leaders began to reexamine both the traditi?nal religious condemnations of same-sex sex~lUl. relations and the biblical texts usually cited to Justlfy those condemnations. At the same time an increasing interest among biblical scholars in the social wo~ld of the biblical texts opened the door for new questIOns about the similar lines. social and cultural organization of gender and sexuality in the ancient world. Finally, a growing interest in Works: Thespi.l', Ritual, Myth, alld Drama in the Allciellt interdisciplinary biblical interpretation has .taken place Near East (1950); Festivals of the jewish Yea,. (1953); The simultaneously with the appearance of lesblan and gay Dead Sea Scrolls (1956); Myth, Legend, (lIId Custom ill the aT: studies across the humanities and the human sciences, A Comparative Stlldy lVith Chapters from Sir 1. Frazer (1969). allowing for the possibility that lesbian and gay studies will come to have an influence on biblical scholarship Bihliography: R. H. Hires and H. M. Stahmer, "T. H. similar to the influence of LITERARY THEORY, cultural G., 1906-92, A Biographical Sketch and a Bibliographical anthropology, and SOCIOLOG~. Hi~lory of Jdlmtificd published Writings," UF 27 (1995) 59Several trends in biblical interpretation have emerged 114; UF 28 (1996) 277-85. as a result of these factors. First, a number of studies 1. R. PORTER have tried to argue that supposed biblical condemnations of same-sex sexual contact have been overstated or misunderstood altogether. Levitical condemnations of GAy/LESBIAN INTERPRETATION sex between men, for example, are reinterpreted by The phrase "gay/lesbial) biblical interpretation" can some readers as condemnations of the cultic prostitution be understood in both a narrow and a broad sense. A that was long thought to have been practiced among narrow u'se of the phrase would refer to biblical interIsrael's neighbors. Similarly, Pauline statements are repretation caJTied out by individuals identified as lesbian interpreted by some reade~'s as condemnations of crossQr gay. More broadly, the phrase mig~t r~fer to a mode generational sexual activity known to have been of biblical interpretation that deals WIth Issues thought practiced among Greeks and Romans or as condemna- ,e.. to be of special interest to lesbians, gay men, and tions of same-sex sexual activity between heterosexual bisexuals, irrespective of the sexual identity or sexual persons. A number of relationships between bibli~al practices of the individual interpreter. Such issues could characters of the same sex (such as Jonathan and DaVid, include not only the specific topic of same-sex sexual Ruth and Naomi, and Jesus and the .beloved disciple~ relations but also questions about the wider framework have also been reinterpreted as havmg some sort 0 of social assumptions and practices within which sameerotic dimension. sex sexual relations are given certain meanings. By way Flaws in at least some of these interpretations have of comparison, some scholars working in the. humanities become increasingly apparent, however. For exam~le, and the human sciences use the phrase "lesblan and gay the appeal to ancient cultic prostitution as the r~al ?bJect studies" to refer to an academic interrogation of the of biblical condemnation has become less convtncm~ as process whereby sexual meanings (e.g., the ass~mption scholars have increasingly come to question the wlde- . of heterosexuality as a norm and homosexuahty as a spread existence of such cultie practices. The appeal. ~o deviation) are produced and reproduced in culture and Greco-Roman pederasty as an explanation for Pauhne society. In a similar manner a gay/lesbian biblical interstatements cannot adequately account for PAUL'S appar.. (R m 1'26), pretation in the broad sense might focu~ on sexual ent condemnation of female homoerotlclsm a : aI meanings in relation to both the productlon and the since most of our evidence for ancient cross-generatIOn reception of the biblical text but in a manner that makes sexual activity concems males rather than females. To uals whO problematic certain normative assumptions about heterosuggest that Paul intended to condemn heterosex sexuality and homosexuality.

GASTER, THEODOR HERZL (1906-1992) Son of the distinguished Jewish scholar M. GASTER, G. was born in London, July 21, 1906, and educated at the University of London and later at Columbia University. Between 1944 and 1972 he held professorshi~s of religion at Dropsie College, Fairleigh Dickinson UlllversiLy, and Barnard College. He died Feb.. 2, 199~. . Following his father, G. made his maw contnbutlOns to biblical studies in the fields of FOLKLORE and MYTHOLOGY, especially with reference to the ancient Near East, as in his edition of the Ugaritic mytholo~ical texts, Thespis (see UGARIT AND THE BIBLE). He contmued and defended the comparative method of J. FRAZER, whose work on biblical folklore he extended and updated in a major study, Myth, Legend, and Custom .ill the OT (1969). He interpreted Jewish annual festlvals along

432

participate in homosexual activity but not homosexuals themselves is to import into Paul's world a distinction between "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" that does not cohere with the ancient evidence. Perhaps most important, studies that argue that the biblical texts do not themselves condemn same-sex sexual activity frequenLly avoid the crucial question of whether the biblical . texIS, shaped as they are by the assumptions of another time and place, can really provide an adequate foundation for contemporary sexual ethics. On the other hand, through their attempts to question the assumption that the Bible clearly condemns samesex eroticism, scholars have demonstrated both the relative scarcity of such condemnations and the difficulties involved in understanding some of the texts in question. For example, two texts that have often been cited as condemnations of homosexuality, the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 and the story of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19, are now widely interpreted as focusing on rape, violence, inhospitality, and divine retribution, even when it is acknowledged that the threat of some form of same-sex contact also plays a role in these stories. The process whereby the story of Sodom in particular came to be read as primarily a story about the evils of same-sex eroticism has been shown to be extremely complex (see, e.g., M. Jordan [1997]). Moreover, while the argument that the biblical texts do not oppose same-sex sexual contact bas ·not been entirely convincing to most interpreters, attempts to make the argument have led to an increasing interest in the social and cultural assumptions that structure biblical attitudes toward homoeroticism. Thus a second trend in biblical interpretation accepts elements of the traditional view that certain biblical texts look negatively upon same-sex sexual relations; but it insists upon the need 10 understand that negative assessment in the context of ancient sexual and gender codes. FEMtNlST research into the gender notions and gender-related social structures presupposed by the biblical texts has been an important influence in this regard. Biblical condemnations of samesex sexual contact are now widely interpreted in terms of their relation to. a sharp and hierarchical differentiation between culLurally defined male and female gender roles. So, for example, sex between men may have been viewed with hOITor by the authors of the levitical codes (Lev 18:22; 20:13) in part because such activity was thought to involve the symbolic emasculation of one of the male partners. This emasculation was no doubt considered shameful in a society structured by rigid gender categories and hierarchy. Insofar as sexual contact between men was thought to blur the symbolic boundaries between men and women, the inclusion of a condemnation of male homoeroticism in the priestly sections of Leviticus also tits in well with a general t~ndency of that portion of biblical literature to emphaSize the categories and distinctions according to which

433

the world was thought to be ordered. A concern about both procreation and the potentially defiling nature of bodily emissions may underlie the levitical condemnations of male same-sex sexual contact, while the emphasis on procreation in the HB may help to account for the complete absence therein of any reference to female homoeroticism. Since male seed seems to have been considered the crucial substance for conception in the ancient world, sexual activities that did not involve male ejaculation may have been less troubling to some observers than those sexual activities that did. Paul, on the other hand, like some of his Jewish contemporaries (e.g., PHilO, Pseudo-Phocylides), does apparently condemn both male and female same-sex sexual contact. At least in Paul's case, however, such condemnation does not seem to have resulted ti'om a concern about procreation and may have resulted instead from assumptions about proper gender roles. Indeed, Brooten's recent work on female homoeroticism (1996) suggests that such sexual contact may have been troubling for Paul not only because of its blulTing of gender boundaries but also because of the perception that by assuming a man's sexual role a woman was usurping a man's social position or, at least, rebelling against a woman's subordinate social position. While such an interpretation is not accepted by all of Paul's readers, it does seem both to confirm that biblical norms about sexuality are related in complex but significant ways to ancient gender beliefs and to question any simplistic assumptions about the relevance or applicability of such norms to contemporary disputes over sexual ethics. While a great deal of light has been shed on biblical attitudes toward sexual practice, much less work has been done on the production of readings of biblical texts from explicitly lesbian, gay, or bisexual reading locations. This is somewhat surprising given, on the one hand, the greatly increased emphasis among biblical scholars on reading strategies, READER RESPONSE, and social location and, on the other hand, the growing influence of lesbian and gay studies and "queer theory" in the humanities and the human sciences. The relative scarcity of such readings of biblical texts may be due in part to professional and ecclesial factors that discourage biblical scholars from self-identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual or from working on gay-related projects. Most of the available examples of such readings tend to be theologically oriented (see, e.g., G. Comstock [1993]) and give only minimal attention to the important work being done outside the fields of religious and theological studies. Nevertheless, it seems likely that lesbian and gay readings of a whole range of biblical and related texts will constitute the next significant development in gay/lesbian biblical interpretation.

Bibliography:

D. lloyurill, ''Are There Any Jews in the

History of Sexuality?" journal of the HislOl)' of SexlIaliry 5, 3

',~I",.' .·:

GEDDES, ALEXANDER

(1995) 333-55. R. L. Brawley (eel.). Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality (1996). B. J. Brooten, Love Between 1V0mell: Early Christiall Respollses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago Series on Sexuality. History, and Society. 1996). G. D. Com· stock, Gay Theology Withollt Apology (1993). L. W. Country· man, Dirt, Greed and Sex: Se;'Cual Ethics ill the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (1988). D. Good, "Reading Strategies for Biblical Passages on Same-Sex Relations," Theology alld Sexuality 7 (September 1997) 70-82. M. D. Jordan, 11Je Invention of Sodomy in Christiall Theology (Chlcago Series on Sexliality, History, and Society, 1997). D. B. Martin, "HeLerosexism and Ihe Interpretation of Romans 1: 18-32," Biblical Illterpretatioll 3, 3 (1995) 332-55. S. M. Olyan, " 'And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman': On the Meaning and Significance of Lev 18:22 and 20: 13," JOLlmal of the History of Sexuality 5, 2 (1994) 179-206. R. Scroggs, The

prindples. most be applkd ,II the the prevailing reconb. The main ':~ barrier to progress, he felt, towas doctrine of the absolute and universal TNSPIRATION of the Scrip_ '$ tures, which excluded the possibility of error of any '~ kind. Following 1. SEMLER, G. rejected allegorical inter-

t

.' ,:._'~ ·als, The Victoriall "Lives" of Jesus (TUMSR 7, 1982) 94-98,

D. L. PALS

GELL, ROBERT (1595-1665) A scholar of biblical translation who was accused of

being a Familist, G. was born at Pamphisford, Camblidgcshire, educated at Christ's College, Cambridge, and possibly was chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury before becoming rector of st. Mary Aldermanbury in London. G.'s criticism of B. Walton's 1657 POLYGLaf Bible, his suggestions for alternative translations, and his further comments on scriptural meaning (many of which were published after his death by R. Bacon) are an important but almost entirely neglected avenue of seventeenth-centulY theology. His preference for allegorical readings won him the hostility of more orthodox Puritans, and his concern for an absolutely literal rendering of obscure metaphors in the Bible brought charges of incomprehensibility. His range of reference was remarkably rich, and he was the acknowledged intellectual authority in an as yet still largely unknown network of nonconformist "perfectionists."

Works:

Stella Nova (1649);, ,Angelokratia tlieoll, or, A SerTOl/chillg God's COI'emment of the World by Angels (1650); Noflh's Flood Returnillg (1655); An Essay Toward the Amendment uft/le Last English-Translation of the Bible (1657); IlIOIl

Ceil's Remuilles (ed. R, Bacon, \676).

Bibliography:

.{.>\

G. Ii'.

Nuttull, J. Nayler: A Fresh Approach

(JPHS 26, 1954); "The Last of J. Nayler, R. Rich, and the Church of the First-Born," !orientls' Quarterly 60 (1985) 527-

34,

N. SMtTH

GENESIS, BOOK OF

1. Poetry, Drama, Novels. The earliest interpretations of Genesis are found in the biblical CANON itself. Thus Psalms 33 and 136 are poetic retellings of the story of creation; Job 40: 15 begins a long paean that serves as a poetic homily on Gen 1:21; and Isa 54:9-10 evokes the image of the rainbow covenant (Gen 8:2122). This tradition had its successors in Jewish as well as Christian liturgies and has inspired poetry across the centuries, of which J. MILTON'S Paradise Lost (1667) has become the most widely read. In the twentieth century biblical poetry wus spurred by A. Klein and flowered

. • ·.t.·.,:, While all of these are interpretations of Genesis -" themes and evoke them vividly, they develop them .! .,~.:'\! independenlly in their own modes. This is the function of fiction, poetry, and liturgy; but this very function also 'i: removes them from our specific focus, which is the ~: elucidation of the sacred text, its history and setting. 2. Translations. This exclusion applies also to the \..:;?/.~ translations of Genesis that have appeared over the past ,~;. two millennia and more~ To be sure, every TRANSLATION ".;'.;" is a form of commentary; and more often than not it . has been through the medium of translation that the text .\i I, has had its greatest impact. But intelligibility rather than ,;:,'\ interpretation is the primary purpose of most transla- ':: I tions. Thus the SEPTUAGINT holds comment to a minimum, as does the Aramaic version of Tg. Onkelos, although the latter eschews all anthropomorphisms and uses euphemisms when a sense of propriety calls for them. The Palestinian TARGUMIM indulge frequently in homiletical expansions of the text and for this purpose freely employ midrashic materials (see MIDRASH). Tg. Jonathan, for instance, explains the plural verb form describing God's activity in Gen 1:26 (wayyo' mer 'e/ahfm na 'aseh 'adam, literally, "And God said 'Let us make 'adam''') by expanding it into: "God said to the angels who millistered to him, 'Let us make 'adiim.''' In rendering the next verse it adds that God created 'adam with 248 members and 365 nerves, then overlaid them with skin, which God filled with flesh and blood, Tg. Yerus/wlllli also takes liberties with the biblical text and enlarges Gen 1:27 phi\osophically by saying that it was the Word of God that created 'adam. Other translations, especially the VULGATE, the Douay, the KJV, and the LUTHER Bibles, have by their very impact on language shaped the understanding of the text. A small example: Genesis 3 leaves the nature of the-:; fruit that Adam and Eve ate unspecitied, and the rabbis ~t speculated that it might have been the grape. But be- .." cause the Latin malum can mean either "apple" or .» "evil," the notion arose that the fatal fruit had been an" apple. 3. Quran. Islam, although using many Genesis tales and images, did not incorporate the Torah as such into its faith structure and, therefore, did not claim to inte~, pret the biblical text, as did Jewish and Christian tradl~ tions. Rather, the biblical text was reshaped in the Quran . ,It (see QURANIC AND tSLAMIC INTERPRETATION) and sup- ,.,; planted by it, thereby removing it from our purview of,~;t I biblical interpretations. .J\1 4. Early InterpretationS. Along with the written text~:~i; went an oral tradition that preceded the written coUee- .';i;~

reting 14:28 came to be held as orthodox. ("the Father is greater than I") he reached beyond the The early literature also shows an awareness of the trinitarian confines of earlier interpreters (e.g., TertulIian Gospel's distinctiveness when compared with the Adv. Pmx. 9.2 [CC 1168]) and, following CYRll.. OF Synoptics (see SYNOPTIC PROBLEM). Tertullian faced the ALEXANDRlA (Joh. E1'., ad loco [PG 74, 316ff.]), sugfact that the CHRONOLOGY of the Fourth Gospel was gested that Jesus' subordination to the Father reflected difficult to hannonize with the Synoptics (Adv. Marc. his servanthood (Trac. Joh. Ev. 78.2-3 [CC 524f.]). His 4.2 [CSEL 47:426]). Clement of Alexandria in the late interpretation of 21: II (Trac. Joh. Ev. 122.8 [CC 673second century is credited with first labeling it the 74]) has shaped even contemporary efforts to read that "spiritual Gospel," suggesting that the Synoptics were passage. His theological exposition is perhaps the epitmore concerned with the "material facts" and implying ome of patristic interpretation (cf. M. Comeau [1930]). that John's Gospel was written as a supplement to the 2. The Middle Ages. Whereas salient and formative others (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.7). Origen similarly turns in the interpretation of the Gospel mark the earliest stressed i.ts spiritual value. This early assessment of the period, the contributions of the expositors of the Middle Gospel's character continued to dominate interpretations Ages are far less creative. They exhibit a detennination for centuries. to honor and continue the patristic interpretation. HerOrigen's influential commentary took the literal sense i meneuticaUy (see HERMENEUTICS), the period generally of the text seriously in order to ward off interpretations nuanced the ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL (especially Origen) the church sought to combat. He was, however, bold and its understanding of the three senses-literal, moral, enough to suggest that the literal sense could, on occaand spiritual. In the pre-scholastic period the new comsions, be rejected when it seemed abused. His concern mentaries reproduced the themes of their Greek and to find a "spiritual" sense through the use of allegory Latin parents. Therefore, the Gospel continued to be is evident in his christological and eschatological interappreciated for its theology. pretations; aware, for instance, of the difference between Two interpreters of the Gospel of John silggest the the Synoptic and Johannine placements of the cleansing character of its treatment during the period. In his of the Temple (John 2: 13-21), he followed Heracleon in commentary (SC 91, 1969), John Scottus ERnJGENA took seeing the discrepancy as occasjon for an allegorical the Greek text seriously and understood the Fourth Evantreatment of the passage. Heracleon had made the nar- I gelist as a person of contemplation and knowledge who distinguished between "mysteries" and "symbols." ralive into a representation of the story of salvation. In contrast, Origen understood that the cleansing might The fOlmer were historical events that. perish with the address several different matters: Christ's eradication of passage of time, whereas symbols reported non-historical matters but reflected eternal and spiritual realities. error from his church, his triumphant ascension into heaven afler his victory over the forces of evil, or the Thus, for instance, he took John 1: I to speak in symbolic process of salvation in the human soul. However, language of that which stands outside history and used Origen's student DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (bishop, c. the reference to Jesus as the Lamb of God in 1:29 as a basis for the doctrine of original sin. The Christ Lamb, 247-64) introduced a critical note foreshadowing things prefigured by the HB lamb, destroyed original sin by to come by arguing that Revelation was not written by the same author who produced the Fourth Gospel and his sacrifice. This concern for the symbolism of the Gospel the lOHANN1NE LETTERS. anticipated the prolonged effort of interpreters throughout the ages to penetrate Johannine language and images. The ANTIOCHENE tradition is perhaps best represented by THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (CSCO 115-16, 1940) In its treatment of the mother of Jesus, ALCUIN'S with his christocentric aLtention to literal meaning. He I commentalY (PL 100, 737-1008) illustrates the use of held that the Gospel was both historically reliable and the Gospel in the developing Mariology of the period. The changing of water into wine in chapter 2 signals theologically profound, but at his hand the Johannine Christ came more to resemble the Nicene Christ than the transformation of the OT to the NT. The six jars the JESUS of history. Armed with the conviction that represent the six ages of the world, and their filling with Christ was both divine and human, Theodore explained ! win.e symbolizes Christ's filling of the law and prophets with grace and truth. In spite of such examples as these, some of the puzzling speeches of the Johannine Jesus by supposing that he spoke sometimes out of one nature theological advancement was generally restrained by the emphasis of the interpreters of this period on spiritual and sometimes out of the other. AUGUSTINE'S tractates (FOTC 78-79, 1988) are some interests.

610

Doubtless one of the com Jtions of the medieval period was the use of the scholastic method, with its I clear arrangement and logic and its allegiance to the I literal sense of the text. THOMAS AQUINAS'S commentary on John, based on his lectures given at the University of Paris during his second tenure at St. Jacques (126972), was subsequently widely used and illustrates a scholastic but sensitive treatment of the text (ET in Aquinas Scripture Series 4, 1980). A controversial example is his reading of 17:3, in which he argued that the knowledge of God referred to in the verse is cogni- i tive in nature as opposed to a heavenly vision (John 17, I Lee. 1:3 [Cai 2186]). On the other hand, he followed the simple explanation of Jesus' prayer in 11:41b, saying that it arose from Christ's humanity and the unity of his will with the divine will (Cai 1553). He found the spiritual sense of Scripture in words that connote things and acts beyond the historical or liter~ry (cf. C. Black [1986]). . 3. The Reformation. The period of the Reformation and the rise of humanism brought a new convergence of influences to bear on the reading of the Fourth Gospel. Among those disparate forces were a concern to preserve the tradition of interpretation established in the patristic period and continued through the Middle Ages. a new interest in rhetoric and philology arising from the humanism of the era (e.g., H. Grotius [164lJ), and the theological themes of the Reformation movement. ERASrvnJS (1991) noted the obscm1ty of Johannine language, which made paraphrasing difficult, if not impossible; and he concluded that the language is filled with riddles (a conclusion still echoed in contemporary scholarship). The Gospel's subject matter (the divinity of Christ) was also something of a riddle for Erasmus. The Reformers sought to clarify those riddles, reflecting Erasmus's interest in the Fourth Gospel's rhetoric (cf. M. Hoffmann [19971). The Reformers brought to the Johannine text newly revived theological issues. They also dared, however, to assess critically the relative value of the canonical books, not holding them to be of equal worth. LUTHER (UY, 35:362) cherished the Fourth Gospel as "the one, fine, true, and chief gospel, and is far, far to be preferred over the other three and placed high above them." Among other things, Luther premised his view on the simple fact that this Gospel offered more of Jesus' words than did the others. He thought Scripture had one simple meaning and functioned to arouse faith in the reader by means of both law and gospel-that is, by both killing human self-confidence and bestow·ing new life. A contrast of faith and reason also figured prominently in his treatment of John. Luther persistently tended to refer the text to faith, e.g., he insisted that the sin refelTed to in 16:8 is unbelief. The themes in CALVIN's commentary (1949) are simi-

lar. He maintained that the Gospel of John deals more with doctrine than with the narrative of Jesus' life and suggested that while the Synoptics disclose Jesus' "body," John reveals his "soul." Thus the Fourth Gospel provides the key for opening the first three. Thereby, the Reformation continued the emphasis on John as the "spiritual" Gospel. As well as stressing salvation by grace and the conflict of revelation and reason, Calvin was predisposed to find in the Gospel the sovereignty of God rather than the futility of human existence. However, both Luther's and Calvin's work on John betray apologetic and polemic features. Not unlike its initial interpretation to define and defend proper doctrine against heresy, the Reformers found in the Gospel of John some of the biblical basis for their efforts to redirect the church. John 6, for instance, figured prominently ill the debates over the Eucharist in 1520. Both Luther and Calvin insisted that the discourse in 6:22-71 was concerned with faith and denied that it was appropriately interpreted in the light of the Lord's Supper. They also disallowed the use of 3:5 as authority for the church's practice of baptism. Thus they opened an ongoing discussion over the symbolism of lhese two passages and the general problem of the role of the sacraments in 10hannine thought. . Two examples of Reformation interpretation of John are found in the commentaries of P. MELANCHTHON and W. MUSCULUS. Influenced by Luther's writing, Musculus left the monastery, became a pastor in Augsburg, and eventually settled in Zlllich. His exegetical work C0I11menlariOI"UIIl in EVGngelislam loanl/em (1547) displays the use of both patristic and medieval interpretative methods yet also shows the influence of humanism (see C. Farmer [1997]). When a passage proved diflicult, Musculus frequently sought insights from tradition. He seems to have regarded the text as rich in meaning and thick in reference, much as his predecessors had. AIthough appreciative of medieval interpreters, he was critical of how quickly they allegorized Johannine passages. He justi tied his own use of allegory only when he believed the literal meaning and context called for it; e.g., he treated the feeding of the crowd in chapter 6 allegorically because Jesus later in the chapter speaks of himself as "bread." Still, his allegorization of John is greater than that of other Reformation commentators, ' although the influence of humanism is evident in his careful consideration of linguistic matters. Clearly and profoundly affected by Erasmus, the only one of his , contemporaries named in the commentary, Musculus was willing, however, to disagree with him. Most significant about Musculus's interpretative melhod is his concern to identify the relevance of a passage for his contemporary readers. Always regarding the text as a resource for individual Christian life and faith, he represents the best of Reformation interpretation. Musculus's commentary also demonstrates his differ-

611

"~I JOHN, GOSPEL OF

ence with the Roman Catholic interpreters of the time. His theological commitments surface in his discussion of the Sabbath controversy in 5:9-18 in which he carefully defined the true nature of Sabbath obedience and stressed the moral obligations of the healed man. Going fUlther than his Catholic contemporaries, he allegorized the healing into a statement of human salvation and even the whole history of God's saving activity. His Reformation beliefs led him to see the paralyzed man lying near the pool as representative of the weakness of the human will to win its own salvation; he viewed Christ's healing as symbolic of God's grace and mercy. Melanchthon's small commentary (Annotationes in Johulll1em l1523]) is equally representative of the interpretation of John during the Reformation (see T. Wengert [1987]). Called the tirst "Protestant" commentary on 10hn, it masterfully combines humanism, Luther's Reformation principles, and the patristic and medieval traditions of interpretation. Like Musculus, Melanchthon extensively used the early writers; like medieval exegetes he allegorized the text where tradition had done so (e.g., the Lamb of God). However, where the patristic interpretations and those of the Middle Ages had tended to concentrate on the christologica( meaning of passages, Melanchthon shifted attention toward the soteriological implications of the text, often thereby honoring the simpler meaning. As the church had before him, he founu trinitarian language in 1:1-18~-.however, along with Luther he emphasized that the Word is life that slays death and that divine grace motivated the incarnation, thus exemplifying the theological thrust of the Lutheran movement. Similarly, he parted company with medieval interpretations and their influence on the dominant church of the day most notably on two issues: first, the power of free will and the merit of human behavior as opposed "Lo jllstitioation by faith alone, and second, the Itllthority of the papal office for Christian faith and piety. For example, he interpreted 15: 16 in terms of the election of all Chi'istians through grace and not the election of the apostles to their office. He expressed his humanism in attention to the rhetoric of the text and philological concerns as well as to the oratorical qualities of the Johallnine Jesus. But always he favored Lheological issues; for Melanchthon the Fourth Evangelist was both a histo;·ian and a teacher of right doctrine. The period of the Reformation reinforced the role of the Gospel of John as a source for sound theology, as the earliest interpretations had done. But the int1uence of humanism broadened the scope of Johannine interpretaLion once and for all. It anticipated the freeing of the Gospel from the grasp of the church by posing its AUTH01HTY over the church and its teachings. Moreover, the influence of humanism hinted at the possibility that John was valuable beyond the shaping of proper doctrine; hence it opened the way for the Enlightenment.

JOHN, GOSPEL OF

4. The Enlightenment. This period brought a stream of critical questions and ushered in a period of interpretative creativity equalled only by the patristic era. Among the most vital questions, the pursuit of which occasioned pivotal points in the reading of the Fourth Gospel, are the apostolic authorship and historical reliability of the Johannine nUlTative, the relationship of the Gospel to the Synoptics, and the religious and philosophical set'ting for the origin of the Gospel. The new issues first erupted around the questions of the apostolic origin and historical reliability of the Johannine representation of Jesus. R. SIMON'S TEXTUAL CRITICISM (1689) combined with DEISM to open the discussion of these issues. Simon, sometimes named "the founder of the science of NT introduction" (T. Zahn, RE, 5, 263), sought to defend the teachings of Roman Catholicism against the assault of the Reformers but was in due course expelled from the pliesthood. His insight that the names attached to the Gospels were not the work of the evangelists themselves invited study of the identity of the Fourth Evangelist. Eighteenth-century interpretation of the Gospel, however, continued the early view that John was the "spiritual" Gospel penned by the apostle John. H. S. REIMARUS expounded this view, contending that John knew but corrected the Synoptics and that the two could not be harmonized; in fact, the historical reliability of each was dubious (1972, 2:582). Lessing expanded this view in Nelle Hypothese iiber die EV(lngelisten als blosse menscJlliche Geschichtsschreiber betrachtet (1777-78). In the last decade of the eighteenth cemury, both Lessing and 1. G. HERDER (Christliche Schriften 3 [1797]) were the first to question the apostolic authoriship of the Gospel; they argued that, compared with the Synoptics, the Gospel of John enhanced Christ's dignity.· Herder saw John as an "echo" of the Synoptics· that nonetheless clarified them. John stretched the reaches of Jesus' message beyond Judaism Lo the whole world. In the nineteenth century the histOlical reliability of the Gospel of John received further attention. A former Anglican priest who had moved toward Unitarianism, E. EVANSON (1792, 1805 2) challenged the Gospel's apostolic origin and boldly used Luke-Acts to reject the reliability and apostolic origin not only of the Gospel of John but also of Matthew and Mark and other NT writings. In his anonymously published Der Evangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger 1'01' dent jiingsten Gericht (2 vols., 1801-4), E. Vogel (1750-1823) continued the argument against the traditional authorship of the Gospel. In his 1820 work K. Bretschneider (17761848) summarized the arguments against the Gospel's authenticity and for identifying its author as an Alexandrian gentile Christian of the second century; however, in light of F. SCHLEIERMACHER'S (1837) and others' defense of the Gospel, he later recanted his view. Schleiermacher staunchly defended the Gospel on which

612

he had constructed his christo logy, seeing in the Fourth Other scholars, however, disagreed. Schleiermacher Gospel a Jesus who was at the same time both human staunchly maintained the apostolic origin of the Gospel and divine. and granted it priority over the Synoptics, regarding 1: 14 D. F. STRAUSS (1835) questioned the historical credibility alone as the basic text for the whole of theology. W. DE of the Fourth Gospel and insisted that the Evangelist had WE'ITE (18524 ) defended the authenticity of the Gospel, imposed his own speech in the style of Hellenistic philosoeven though he believed that portions of it had been phy on Jesus and John the Baptist. He offered, furthermore, revised by a later figure. K. Frommann (1839) made a a detailed analysis of the points at which the Synoptics and gallant effort-however imprecise-to distinguish beActs disagreed with the Fourth Gospel on historical mattween the transmitted accounts of Jesus and the Johallters, concluding that the Gospel of John was wrong (e.g., nine Christ by isolating what he thought might be lesus did not have a mission among the Samaritans as 10hn redactional additions to the discourse materials. Even 4 suggests). Of the four Gospels, 10hn's is the most more gallant was the defense of the claim, mounted by mythological (i.e., ideas represented in objects) and hence F. Biichsel (1928), that the FOUlth Evangelist was an suffered the most at the hands of Strauss's Hegelian coneyewitness expressing genuine ChrIstian ideas. He even struction. He posed an either/or alternative for interpreters: ventured to assert the historical superiority of the Fourth Follow either the Synoptics or John, for no harmonization Gospel to the other three. Still others sought to strike a between them is possible. compromise by claiming histOlical reliability for the Other scholars also questioned the historical credibilnmTatives but not the discourses. Among these were B. ity of the Fourth Gospel. A. LOISY (1903, 1921 2), not WEISS, W. BOUSSET, and E. RENAN. unlike W. WREDE (1903, 1933 2 ), argued that the Fourth Inevitably bound up with the question of 10hn's Evangelist was more a theologian and apologist against authorship and historical reliability was its relationship Judaism than a historian. The Gospel cannot be taken with the first three Gospels. The common view thm John as a complement to the Synoptics but needs to be represented a "spiritual" Gospel implicitly supposed that understood as an ecclesiastical witness indifferent to it was written as a conscious supplement to the Synophistory. According to Loisy, the Evangelist uses an tics. Now that view was challenged. Even without necallegorical method, provides a spiritual and mystical essarily casti ng doubt on historical reliability or portrayal of Christ, and makes Christ into a theological apostolic authorship, reservations or outright denials that dogma. C. Wiezsacker (1902 3) advanced the theory that the Fourth Evangelist knew and made use of the Synopthe Fourth Evangelist was a secondhand disciple of the tics came from several corners (e.g., J. Semler [1771, one called "the disciple whom lesus loved" and, re1772], G. Lessing, 1. Wegscheider, Schleiermacher, and moved from an immediate relationship with the historiH. Weisse). The pursuit of a resolution to the uncertain cal lesus, repressed his life into an entirely didactic relationship between the Synoptics and the Gospel of work. A. JUUCHER (1894) understood the Gospel of John carried well into the twentieth century, where its John to be a "philosophical prose-poem" without value ' most vigorous debate is still found. as a source for discovering the historical lesus. C. Other scholars raised questions that were also desWEISSE (1838) argued that the ]ohannine discourses tined to be continued in the twentieth century. The OT actually originated from the apostle John and were scholar 1. WELLHAUSEN (1907, 1908) questioned the written down after his death. They were personal images unity and alTangement of the Gospel. Noting that l4:31 of the apostle's view of Christ rather than historical should be immediately followed by 18:1, he theorized reminiscences (so also D. Schenkel [1813-85] and A. that the discourses between the two passages were misSchweizer [1808-88]). placed. The Gospel was, he concluded, the product of With increasing success in demolishing apostolic a process involving several stages. E. Schwartz (1907, authorship came a movement to date the Gospel as late 1908) studied the aporias in the Gospel and concluded as 130-135 CE (Liitzelberger) or even 170 CE (F. C. that it is composed of numerous overlapping strata, Baur). AlLhough BAUR thought John contained nothing although he despaired of the possibility of ever reconhistorical and was a post-Pauline (see PAUL) Christian stmcting its earliest form. The proposals of Wellhausen reflection, he valued it because of its power to compel and Schwartz were later pursued by F. SPinA and H. readers to make a decision for or against God. However, WENDT. The former postulated a foundational Gospel B. BAUER (1840) appreciated its literary qualities in spite written by John, son of Zebedee, which an editor exof its unreliability as a historical document. The Fourth panded. Wendt favored the discourses over the nalTative Evangelist was an artist, even though the work is flawed. material, believing that the sayings of Jesus betrayed the The discourses in particular demonstrate evidence of knowledge of one who personally. knew the historical careless editing, Bauer argued. From his reading of 10hn lesus. These studies launched what became a more he developed a fanciful portrait of lesus that led him widespread theory in the second half of the twentieth tinally to assert that Jesus was not a historical tigure at century. all (1852). The rise of the RELIGlONSGESCHICHTLlCHE SCHULE

613

JOHN, GOSPEL OF

JOHN, GosrEL OF

propelled Johannine interpretation into the question of myth that lacks the full identification of the redeemed the Gospel's religious and intellectual milieu. As a rewith the redeemer. The Evangelist is interested only in sult, a general but not unanimous shift occun'ed away the fact of the revelation, not its content. from proposals for a Jewish setting toward those sug5. 1Wentieth Century. Bultmann provides a bridge from the energetic scholarship of the nineteenth century gesting Hellenistic or oriental contexts. A. von HARNACK (1927) continued to maintain that the Gospel was de- ! to that of the mid-twentieth century since, although he was in lTlany ways a product of the nineteenth century, rived from Palestinian Judaism and that its author was doubtless born a Jew, but he conceded that Johannine his influence cast a long shadow into the contemporary period. In large part the previous period set the agenda theology is Christian mysticism. Early in the nineteenth for Johannine interpretation in the twentieth century, and century de Wette classified NT literature into Jewish, Bultmann's contributions to that agenda can hardly be Christian, Alexandrian or Hellenistic, and Pauline and overemphasized. He proposed that a pre-Christian Gnoslocated the Gospel of John in the second of his categoticism shaped the environment out of which the Gospel ries. The Gospcl is rooted in the soil of Hellenistic was written and accentuated the Gospel's polemic mysticism, claimed Bousset (1905). Out of those roots it presents a mysticism that seeks a vision of God against the followers of John the Baptizer, a group that most clearly manifested oriental Gnosticism. leading to divinization. With this assumption Bultmann fashioned an influenJ. D. MICHAELIS (1788 4) was apparently the firsUo tial theory for the sources employed in the Gospel's see a positive relationship between Johannine thought and Gnosticism. Loisy thought that the Fourth Evangelcomposition (see D. M. Smith [1965]). Appealing to stylistic, contextual, and content evidence, he argued for ist had been trained in Gnosticism before becoming a the existence of three primary sources: For the disChristian and that in the second century the first form courses the Fourth Evangelist used a collection of Of of the Gospel underwent revision to make it compatible fellbarungsreden similar to the Odes of Solomon; the with dominant Christian thought. H. GUNKEL (1903) Sel1leia source resides behind the nan'ative of Jesus' proposed that Johannine thought is syncretistic in conwonders; and a passion source (independent of the trast to the simple message of Jesus. Given the JohanSynoptic narratives) underlies the story of Jesus' death nine emphasis on knowledge and dualism, the Fourth and resurrection. Beyond these three basic sources, as Evangelist must have had contact with an "oriental gnosis." well as others, Bultmann posited a serious disruption of A new but related candidate for the setting of the the arrangement of the original Gospel (e.g., chaps. 4, 5, 6, and 7) and additions by an "ecclesiastical redactor" Gospel arose in the form of the Mandaeans, born in the (e.g., 6:51-58). This hypothetical redactor attempted to work of W. Brandt (1855-1915), who argued that Mancorrect the theology of the Evangelist and to harmonize daeanism had Jewish roots. It Will? furthered first by R. the Gospel with the Synoptics, especialty in passages HalTis's publication of the Syriac Odes of Solomon concerning the sacraments, eschatology, the eyewitness (1909) and therrby M. LIDZBARSKI'S publications of and attestation of the Gospel, and the beloved disciple. reflections on the Mandaean literature (1915, 1925). The Equally important among Bultmann's contributions is Odes attracted immediate attention since there were his effOlt to construct a sachlich theology of the Gospel obvious parallels between them and the Johannine dis(e.g., his insistence that Jesus reveals no more than that courses. Harris argued that they were extant in their he is the Revea1er), at the heart of which is Bllltmann's present form at the time of the writing of the Gospel, hermeneutic. At the point of convergence among his while von Harnack maintained that a Christian had . Lutheranism, Heideggerian existentialism, and Rerevised them at a later time. R. REITZENSTEIN (1919) and ligiol1sgeschichtliche Schule commitment, Bultmann forW. BAUfm (1925 2) were among the forceful proponents mulated his demythologization scheme. For him the of the theory that Mandaeanism and the Odes were Fourth Evangelist represented the first demythologizer influential in the composition of the Fourth Gospel. of the Christian message, producing a document that Building on the work of Reitzenstein and Lidzbarski, emphasizes existential decision in response to revelation. R. BUI.:fMANN (1919) argued that the Gospel was based The nineteenth century ignited the doubt that the on a redeemer myth taken over from Mandaean and Fourth Evangelist knew and used the synoptic Gospels, Manichaean sources. The content of 10hannine theology and BulLmann seems to have shared that doubt. In the is shaped by oriental MYTHOLOGY, proving how orientaltwentieth century the sparks of doubt were fanned into Gnostic speculation penetrated early Christianity in gena roaring fire of controversy (see Smith [1992]). In the eral. The Fourth Gospel represents a special and unique first quarter of the century H. WINDISCH, B. STREETER, form of Christianity focused on a revealer figure. Rcand B. BACON advanced convincing arguments for the lTlarkably, however, the central thesis of this form of Fourth Evangelist'S use of at least Mark and Luke, a early Christian thought is that Jesus reveals nothing view that temporarily comprised something of a consenmore than the fact that he is the revealer. Behind that, sus. Shortly, however, P. Gardner-Smith (1938) amassed Buitmann was persuaded, is a pre-Christian redeemer

an impressive yet simple case for the independence of John is not as uncertain as scholarship had argued in John from the Synoptics. While not unanimously sucthe nineteenth century. Dodd (1963) contended that the cessful, his study moved Johannine interpretation deciFOlllth Evangelist (independently of the Synoptics) emsively away from the assumption that the Evangelist ployed an oral tradition that was the source from which knew and used the Synoptics to write a supplementary all the evangelists drew material and represented the Gospel. For a time the relationship of the Synoptics and earliest Christian tradition. Consequently, the narratives the Fourth Gospel seemed almost settled, but arguments of the Fourth Gospel are potentially as historical as are for dependence continued to persist (e.g., C. Barrett those of the Synoptics (so also B. Lindars [1972]). The [1978 2]). Nonetheless, the formation of a consensus discourse material may also be understood in quite around Gardner-Smith seemed firm and was substantidifferent ways than often proposed in the nineteenth ated near the midpoint of the century by the work of century. They may be homiletical treatments of some C. H. DODD (1963). The consensus, however, was to be kernel having its source in the historical Jesus (e.g., short-lived and began to unravel in stages. Lindars [1972]; Brown [1966]). The Gospel is not comThe first stage of the demolition of agreement ocmonly regarded a