Jesus and the Politics of his Day

Jesus and the Politics of His Day Jesus and the Politics of His Day EDITED BY ERNST BAMMEL Reader in Early Christ...

Author: Ernst Bammel | C. F. D. Moule

246 downloads 2384 Views 10MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Jesus and the Politics of His Day

Jesus and the Politics of His Day

EDITED BY

ERNST

BAMMEL

Reader in Early Christian and Jewish Studies, University of Cambridge AND

C . F. D . M O U L E Emeritus Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge

The right of the University of Cambridge to print and sell all manner of books was granted by Henry VIII in 1534. The University has printed and published continuously since 1584.

Cambridge University Press Cambridge London

New York

Melbourne

Sydney

New Rochelle

Published b y the Press Syndicate o f the University o f C a m b r i d g e T h e Pitt B u i l d i n g , T r u m p i n g t o n Street, C a m b r i d g e CB2 I R P 32 East 5 7 t h Street, N e w Y o r k , N Y 10022, U . S . A . 296 Beaconsfield Parade, M i d d l e Park, M e l b o u r n e 3206, Australia ©

C a m b r i d g e University Press 1984

First p u b l i s h e d 1984 Printed in G r e a t Britain at the University Press, C a m b r i d g e L i b r a r y o f C o n g r e s s c a t a l o g u e card n u m b e r : 7 7 - 9 5 4 4 1 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data J e s u s a n d the politics o f H i s d a y . 1. J e s u s Christ 2. Christianity and politics I. B a m m e l , E. II. M o u l e , C . F. D. 232-9'oi BT590.P/ I S B N O 521 22022 X

WV

Contents Abbreviations Foreword T h e Zealots and Jesus j.

P.

M.

SWEET

T h e revolution theory from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n E.

BAMMEL

T h e date and character o f M a r k F. F.

BRUCE

S o m e o b s e r v a t i o n s o n Tendenzkritik C. F. D.

MOULE

Argumentum e silentio G.

M.

STYLER

T h e Poor a n d the Zealots E.

BAMMEL

T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism HELMUT

MERKEL

Judaeo-Christianity B.

a n d the Jewish establishment, A . D

REICKE

A.D. 70 in C h r i s t i a n reflection G. W . H.

LAMPE

T h e trial o f J e s u s i n t h e Acta Pilati G. W . H.

LAMPE

C h r i s t as b r i g a n d in a n c i e n t a n t i - C h r i s t i a n WILLIAM

polemic

HORBURY

J e s u s as a political agent in a version o f the Josippon E.

BAMMEL

T h e Feeding o f the Multitude E.

BAMMEL

vi

Contents

T h e coin of 'Render unto Caesar . .

( A note on some aspects o f

M a r k 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 ; M a t t . 22: 1 5 - 2 2 ; L u k e 2 0 : 2 0 - 2 6 ) H. ST J.

241

HART

R e n d e r to C a e s a r F. F.

249

BRUCE

T h e T e m p l e tax

265

WILLIAM

HORBURY

' N o t p e a c e b u t a s w o r d ' : M a t t . 10: 34ff; L u k e 1 2 : 5 i f f MATTHEW

287

BLACK

T h e d e c i s i o n o f the S u p r e m e C o u r t to p u t J e s u s to d e a t h

(John

1 1 : 4 7 - 5 7 ) i n its c o n t e x t : t r a d i t i o n a n d r e d a c t i o n i n t h e Gospel of John WALTER

T h e 'triumphal' entry DAVID

R.

319

CATCHPOLE

T h e t w o s w o r d s ( L u k e 22: 3 5 - 3 8 ) G. W. H.

353 BAMMEL

R o m a n s 13 E.

335

LAMPE

T h e titulus E.

295

GRUNDMANN

3^5 BAMMEL

B i b l i c a l c r i t i c i s m criticised: w i t h reference to the M a r k a n report o f J e s u s ' s e x a m i n a t i o n before the S a n h e d r i n K.

T h e p o l i t i c a l c h a r g e a g a i n s t J e s u s ( L u k e 2 3 : 2) GERHARD

403

SCHNEIDER

T h e trial before Pilate E.

3^5

SCHUBERT

4*5

BAMMEL

' H i s w i t n e s s is t r u e ' : A test o f t h e J o h a n n i n e c l a i m JOHN

A. T.

Index of Authors Index of References

453

ROBINSON

477 4^7

Abbreviations AnBibl ACO AJT ARW Bb BFChTh BJRL BibLeb BLit BZ BZAW BZNW CBQ CCL CRAIBL CSEL DJD DLZ EKK EvK EvTh ExpT FRLANT GCS HAT HThR HUCA IGRR JBL JBR

Jjst JQfi JRS JSS JThSt KuD MThZ

Analecta Biblica Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz (Strassburg, 1 9 1 4 onwards) American Journal of Theology Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft Biblica Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Bibel und Leben Bibel und Liturgie Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenchaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina Comptes rendus de VAcademie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris, 1924) Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan Deutsche Literaturzeitung Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Evangelische Kommentare Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Diegriechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten dreijahrhunderte, hg. v. der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften Handbuch zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Exploration Journal Inscriptions Graecae ad res Romanaspertinentes, ed. R. Cagnat et al. (Paris, 1906) Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Bible and Religion Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Roman Studies Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kerygma und Dogma Munchner Theologische Zeitschrift vii

viii

Abbreviations

NAG NGGG NKZ NovTest NovTestSup NTSt OrChr OGIS OLZ PG PL PW RArch RB RdQ REJ RGG RHPhR RHR RIDA Rd RechSR SAH StANT SB S-B SBA SC StEv SJTh SNTS ST TDNT ThBl ThHK ThLZ ThR ThStKr ThWNT ThZ TU VigChr ZAW ZDPV

Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse Nachrichten der Gottinger Gelehrten Gesellschaft Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift Novum Testamentum Novum Testament um Supplement New Testament Studies Oriens Christianus Orientis Graeci Inscriptions selectae, ed. Wilhelm Dittenberger (Leipzig, i, 1903; ii, 1905) Orientalistische Literaturzeitung J. Migne, Patrologia graeca J. Migne, Patrologia latina Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Revue archeologique Revue biblique Revue de Qumran Revue des etudes juives Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (3rd ed. Tubingen, 1 9 5 7 - 6 5 ) Revue d'histoire et de philosophic religieuses Revue de Vhistoire des religions Revue international des droits de Vantiquite Rbmische Quartalschrift Recherches de science religieuse Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Sources bibliques H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munchen, 1922-8) Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie Sources chretiennes Studia Evangelica Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Studia Theologica Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ET Grand Rapids, 1967(1) Theologische Blatter Theologischer Hand-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Rundschau Theologische Studien und Kritiken G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theologisches Wbrterbuch zum Neuen Testament Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel) Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur Vigiliae Christianae Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins

Abbreviations ZKTh ZNW ZRGG ZSTh ZThK ZWT

Zeitschrift Zeitschrift Kirche Zeitschrift Zeitschrift Zeitschrift Zeitschrift

ix

fur katholische Theologie fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte fur systematische Theologie fur Theologie und Kirche fur wissensckaftliche Theologie

Foreword M a n y a t t e m p t s h a v e b e e n m a d e , p a r t i c u l a r l y in r e c e n t y e a r s , t o i n t e r p r e t t h e life o f J e s u s o f N a z a r e t h in t e r m s o f t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n a l i s t i c m o v e m e n t s o f h i s d a y . T h i s c o l l e c t i o n o f e s s a y s is a i m e d a t t h r o w i n g l i g h t o n t h e e v e n t s , and

the

motives behind

them,

o f those

significant d a y s by a

sober

i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g to J e s u s ' s a t t i t u d e t o a u t h o r i t y , b o t h Jewish and Roman. O w i n g t o u n f o r t u n a t e d e l a y s , it is o n l y n o w p o s s i b l e t o p u b l i s h t h e s e essays, some of which were completed about a decade ago. T h e authors m u s t n o t b e h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e for n o t h a v i n g b r o u g h t t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s u p t o d a t e . T o a l l o f t h e m t h e e d i t o r s a r e g r e a t l y i n d e b t e d , b o t h for t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to u n d e r t a k e a task w h i c h , in s o m e cases, i n v o l v e d c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h , a n d for t h e i r p a t i e n c e i n t h e f a c e o f d e l a y . T h e e d i t o r s w i s h to r e c o r d t h e i r g r a t i t u d e a l s o to t h o s e w h o t r a n s l a t e d c e r t a i n c o n t r i b u t i o n s , to those at the C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press w h o h a v e d e v o t e d skill a n d p a t i e n c e t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e b o o k ; a n d t h e i r s p e c i a l t h a n k s to t h e R e v e r e n d G . M . S t y l e r for m u c h h a r d w o r k i n c o r r e c t i n g t h e p r o o f s a n d t h e R e v e r e n d D r W . H o r b u r y for a s s i s t a n c e w i t h t h e i n d e x . E.B. C.F.D.M. 1983

xi

J. P. M .

S W E E T

The Zealots and Jesus T h e theory that Jesus w a s mixed u p with the m o v e m e n t or party o f armed resistance

to R o m e

commonly

called

the Zealots

has never

lacked

p r o p o n e n t s ( c p . t h e f o l l o w i n g e s s a y ) , b u t l a t t e r l y it h a s a c h i e v e d n e w f o r c e a n d publicity through a c o m b i n a t i o n of factors: the e x c a v a t i o n o f the Z e a l o t stronghold at M a s a d a b y Y i g a e l Y a d i n , a n d the glorification o f Z e a l o t 1

h e r o i s m ; c u r r e n t c o n c e r n as to the a u t h e n t i c C h r i s t i a n role in resistance to o p p r e s s i v e r e g i m e s ; a n d t h e w o r k o f t h e l a t e S . G . F . B r a n d o n . I n h i s Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1 9 6 7 ) , w h i c h b u i l t o n h i s e a r l i e r b o o k , The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church ( L o n d o n , 1 9 5 1 ) , h e c l a i m e d n o t t h a t J e s u s a c t u a l l y w a s a Z e a l o t , a m e m b e r o f t h e p a r t y (if t h e r e w a s s u c h a p a r t y in his t i m e ) , b u t t h a t J e s u s a n d his disciples s y m p a t h i s e d w i t h the ideals a n d aims o f the Z e a l o t m o v e m e n t , a n d so did the earliest Christians. B r a n d o n ' s w o r k w a s taken u p as substantiating his o w n h u n c h b y C o l i n M o r r i s , f o r m e r l y a M e t h o d i s t m i n i s t e r in Z a m b i a a n d a d v i s e r to P r e s i d e n t K a u n d a , i n a p o p u l a r p a p e r - b a c k , Unyoung, Uncoloured, Unpoor ( L o n d o n , 1969). T o quote the s u m m a r y o n the back, its theme is simply that the world is ruled by the Unyoung, Uncoloured and Unpoor and that only violent revolution will overthrow them in order to give the majority of the world's population their due place in the sun. Claiming that the Christian has both the right and the responsibility to take part in this struggle, Morris offers a re-interpretation ofJesus which challenges the traditional view that he was innocent of sedition against the Roman authorities. M o r r i s w r i t e s o u t o f d e e p e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e T h i r d W o r l d a n d its d i l e m m a s , and

tries t o w o r k o u t w h a t J e s u s ' s

attitude would be with

passionate

sincerity. T h e r e are other w a r n i n g s from the T h i r d W o r l d against a too e a s y a c c e p t a n c e o f the non-violent J e s u s . C . R . H e n s m a n (a Sri L a n k a n , w h o h a s t r a v e l l e d w i d e l y in A s i a a n d A f r i c a as w e l l as in the W e s t ) w r o t e a short life o f S u n Y a t - s e n i n 1 9 7 1 i n a s e r i e s c a l l e d ' S i x C h r i s t i a n s ' . I n j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f w r i t i n g in s u c h a series (the others w e r e M a r t i n L u t h e r K i n g , S i m o n e W e i l , K a r l B a r t h , T e i l h a r d d e C h a r d i n a n d G e o r g e Bell) a b o u t o n e w h o to the c h u r c h establishment o f his time w a s a ' b a d ' C h r i s t i a n - a lifelong

1

M a r t i n H e n g e l had already d e m o n s t r a t e d their d e e p roots in J e w i s h theological tradition and h o p e for the future, in Die Zeloten ( L e i d e n , 1961; reprint with corrections a n d additions, 1976). I

2

J. P. M. S W E E T

organiser o f armed

revolution, w h o fought against Western

(including

missionary) interests in East A s i a a n d w e l c o m e d the Bolshevik revolution h e w r o t e this: ' T o l e a d t h e p o o r a n d o p p r e s s e d to rebel a g a i n s t

their

oppressors, a n d to j o i n in the work o f ridding the world o f the violence, injustice a n d e c o n o m i c b a c k w a r d n e s s w h i c h causes i m p o v e r i s h m e n t a n d oppression - these, o n e w o u l d suppose, are revolutionary tasks w h i c h C h r i s t i a n s c a n i g n o r e only b y m a k i n g their faith in C h r i s t m e a n i n g l e s s ' (p. 12). S u n himself h a d remarked: 'I d o not belong to the Christianity o f the churches b u t to the Christianity of Jesus, w h o w a s a revolutionary.' Finally one might

mention

from

South A m e r i c a the admired

and

e v o c a t i v e figure ( e s p e c i a l l y a m o n g s t u d e n t s ) o f t h e C a t h o l i c p r i e s t C a m i l o Torres,

2

w h o joined

the guerrillas

in C o l o m b i a a n d w a s killed b y

G o v e r n m e n t forces in 1 9 6 6 . F o r h i m t o o 'the revolution' w a s not o n l y p e r m i s s i b l e b u t o b l i g a t o r y f o r t h o s e C h r i s t i a n s w h o s e e it a s t h e o n l y e f f e c t i v e w a y t o m a k e l o v e for a l l p e o p l e a r e a l i t y , a n d h e p a i n t e d a p i c t u r e o f C h r i s t w i t h a h a l o b e h i n d h i s h e a d a n d a rifle b e h i n d h i s s h o u l d e r . W e are concerned here not directly with the Christian's duty in the present, b u t with the appeal to Jesus. B r a n d o n , as w e h a v e said, claimed not that J e s u s w a s a Z e a l o t - t h e fact that o n e o f the T w e l v e w a s k n o w n a s S i m o n t h e Z e a l o t d i s t i n g u i s h e s h i m f r o m t h e r e s t o f t h e b a n d (Zealots, p . 355} ~

D

U

t

t

n

a

t

n

e

a

n

d his followers were in fundamental s y m p a t h y w i t h

Zealot principles, the use o f violence not excepted (p. 355, note 3). H e c l a i m e d further that the N e w T e s t a m e n t d o c u m e n t s , written in a n d for t h e R o m a n w o r l d , h a v e d o n e their best to c o v e r this u p a n d project a pacific 3

image of Christ, a n d that Josephus h a s similarly blackened the Zealots as m e r e b r i g a n d s , in o r d e r to l a y o n t h e m the b l a m e , from the J e w i s h side, for the disastrous w a r against R o m e .

4

H i s t h e o r y starts from t w o sets o f facts o n w h i c h m o s t w o u l d a g r e e . (1) J e s u s w a s c o n d e m n e d b y the R o m a n prefect of J u d a e a to the R o m a n f o r m o f e x e c u t i o n f o r s e d i t i o n , a s ' K i n g o f t h e J e w s ' , t h a t is, a s a n a t i o n a l i s t leader w h o denied the kingship o f C a e s a r . H e w a s crucified b e t w e e n t w o b r i g a n d s - o n e o f t h e t e r m s u s e d for w h a t t o d a y m i g h t b e c a l l e d ' f r e e d o m fighters'.

O n e o f his inner circle o f disciples w a s S i m o n 'the C a n a n a e a n '

2

See J o h n Gerassi, Revolutionary Priest-the complete writings and messages of Camilo Torres ( L o n d o n , 1971).

3

O n Tendenzkritik, see C . F . D . M o u l e ' s essay, p p . 91-100. H e d r e w extensively o n the magisterial w o r k o f H e n g e l (see p . 1, note 1) to discredit J o s e p h u s ' s picture and establish their genuinely religious patriotism, but H e n g e l h i m s e l f has b e e n o n e o f the firmest o p p o n e n t s o f B r a n d o n ' s thesis with respect to J e s u s a n d the Christians - see review in JSS 14 (1969), 231-40; War Jesus Revolutionary (Stuttgart, 1970) ( E T Was Jesus a Revolutionist! (Philadelphia, 1971)); Gewaltund Gewaltlosigkeit: zur politischen Theologie'in neutestamentlicher Zeit (Stuttgart, 1971) ( E T Victory over Violence: Jesus and the Revolutionists (Philadelphia, 1973)).

4

(

T h e Zealots and Jesus

3

( M a r k 3: 1 8 ) , w h i c h t h e N e w E n g l i s h B i b l e r e n d e r s a s ' a m e m b e r o f t h e Zealot party', arrested.

5

a n d o n e at least o f the disciples w a s a r m e d w h e n J e s u s w a s

F u r t h e r , J e s u s is r e p r e s e n t e d

in the gospels as c o n d e m n i n g

Sadducees, Pharisees, a n d Herodians but nowhere (explicitly) Zealots. (2) T h i s l a s t p o i n t t a k e s i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e f r o m t h e s e c o n d s e t o f f a c t s : t h a t the G o s p e l s w e r e written for the R o m a n w o r l d , to c o m m e n d J e s u s a s S o n o f G o d a n d S a v i o u r , a n d therefore inevitably h a d a n interest in d e m o n s t r a t i n g Jesus's innocence of the political c h a r g e o n w h i c h h e w a s executed. Further, the R o m a n w o r l d h a d a suspicion a n d hatred o f the J e w s w h i c h w a s e x a c e r b a t e d b y the J e w i s h w a r ; the G o s p e l s therefore h a d a n interest in d i s s o c i a t i n g J e s u s a n d h i s f o l l o w e r s f r o m t h e J e w i s h c a u s e (just a s J o s e p h u s h a d a n interest in b l a c k e n i n g the Z e a l o t s ) . If, t h e n , t h e r e w e r e a n y m e m o r i e s o f J e s u s h a v i n g a t a n y t i m e c o n d e m n e d the

Zealots, surely

these

memories

would

have

been

used

b y the

evangelists, especially M a r k w h o w r o t e in R o m e at a b o u t the time o f the J e w i s h W a r - s o B r a n d o n a r g u e d (see G . M . S t y l e r ' s e s s a y , p p . 1 0 4 - 5 ,

o n

t

n

e

u s e ofargumentum e silentio i n r e v e r s e ) . A l l this d o e s n o t o f i t s e l f g i v e t h e lie t o t h e G o s p e l p i c t u r e . B u t it d o e s s h o w w h y , i f t h e f a c t s w e r e r e a l l y a s B r a n d o n and others suppose, the original picture w a s altered. B r a n d o n ' s picture c a n b e briefly sketched as follows: (1) Jesus w a s a patriotic J e w w h o believed passionately in G o d ' s e x c l u s i v e sovereignty o v e r Israel (the m a i n tenet of the Z e a l o t ' p h i l o s o p h y ' ) a n d t h o u g h t t h a t h e w a s c o m m i s s i o n e d t o p r e p a r e I s r a e l f o r its i m m i n e n t e n f o r c e m e n t . T h o u g h h i s a t t a c k w a s n o t d i r e c t l y a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s , it was against the Jewish hierarchy which collaborated with them: he w a s therefore understandably executed b y the R o m a n s o n a charge of sedition. T h e earliest church w a s d r a w n from the s a m e patriotic anti-collaborationist

c i r c l e s ; it e x p e c t e d J e s u s ' s

anti-Gentile,

imminent

return

as

m e s s i a h , a s l e a d e r o f G o d ' s f o r c e s i n t h e final b a t t l e a g a i n s t h i s , a n d I s r a e l ' s , enemies. (2)

Through

Christianity

the work

became

a

o f Hellenistic J e w s ,

mystery

cult

which

pre-eminently

welcomed

Paul,

Gentiles and

presented J e s u s to them as a divine saviour in entirely non-political terms. P a u l w a s h o u n d e d b y emissaries o f the J e r u s a l e m c h u r c h as a traitor, a n d finally

suppressed.

(3) I n A . D . 6 6 t h e J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s c e n t r e d o n J e r u s a l e m t h r e w i n t h e i r lot w i t h the rebels, a n d w e r e obliterated w i t h t h e m in A.D. 70. T h u s b y a n accident of history the Pauline version of Christianity c a m e out on top. T h e A c t s o f t h e A p o s t l e s l e g i t i m a t e s it b y p a i n t i n g P a u l a s a l o y a l J e w - i n a purely

religious sense o f course -

5

w h o w o r k e d in h a r m o n y

O v e r - c o n f i d e n t l y - see note 8 o n p . 5.

with the

J. P. M.

4

SWEET

J e r u s a l e m 'pillars'. T h e G o s p e l s b y the s a m e token paint out all - or nearly a l l - t h e t e l l - t a l e e v i d e n c e o f J e s u s ' s l o y a l t y t o h i s n a t i o n i n its fight for freedom from h e a t h e n d o m i n a t i o n . H e b e c o m e s the divine emissary o f the u n s e e n w o r l d , i n s u l a t e d f r o m this w o r l d ' s p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t i v e s a n d c h o i c e s , his rejection

b y his o w n p e o p l e a n d

his a c c e p t a n c e b y the

Gentiles

p r e d e t e r m i n e d b y G o d a n d a d v e r t i s e d i n t h e J e w i s h s c r i p t u r e s - for t h o s e w h o can read them aright. H e r e t h e n is a c o h e r e n t i n t e r l o c k i n g p i c t u r e o f C h r i s t i a n o r i g i n s , w h i c h h a s a t first a c e r t a i n a t t r a c t i o n . T h e r e is v e r y l i t t l e c o n c r e t e e v i d e n c e for it, b u t t h a t is o n l y t o b e e x p e c t e d , b e c a u s e t h e p o s t A . D . 70 c h u r c h h a d e v e r y r e a s o n t o s u p p r e s s w h a t d i d n o t p e r i s h i n t h e r u i n s o f J e r u s a l e m . T h e r e is m u c h t h a t p u r p o r t s t o c o n t r a d i c t it, b u t t h a t a g a i n is o n l y t o b e e x p e c t e d since the c h u r c h h a d e v e r y r e a s o n to d e p i c t a peaceful, n o n - p o l i t i c a l J e s u s , a n d t o d i s s o c i a t e h i m a n d i t s e l f f r o m t h e h a t e d J e w s . T h e r e is a s i m i l a r a t t r a c t i o n in s t u d i e s w h i c h s h o w t h a t the c o n v e n t i o n a l p i c t u r e o f R i c h a r d I I I is t h e f a b r i c a t i o n o f T u d o r h i s t o r i a n s w i t h a n o b v i o u s a x e t o g r i n d , a n d p i e c e t o g e t h e r f r o m little s t r a w s o f e v i d e n c e a n a s t o n i s h i n g l y

different

p o r t r a i t . A s t h e b i a s o f t h e s o u r c e s is l a i d b a r e a n d p o i n t e r s t o a d i f f e r e n t s t a t e o f affairs a r e a m a s s e d , t h e s y m p a t h i e s o f t h e r e a d e r a r e e n g a g e d , especially if he h a s no specialist k n o w l e d g e o f the p e r i o d . picture

is

wrong,

it

can

only

be

rebutted

by

a

6

If Brandon's

series

of

detailed

m e t h o d o l o g i c a l , historical a n d e x e g e t i c a l studies s u c h as this b o o k sets o u t t o p r o v i d e . I n d e e d t h e e n q u i r y c o u l d w e l l b e c a r r i e d f u r t h e r . T h e r e is h e r e no detailed e x a m i n a t i o n o f B r a n d o n ' s c l a i m s that the J e r u s a l e m c h u r c h w a s o b l i t e r a t e d i n A . D . 6 6 t o 7 0 a n d t h a t t h e t r a d i t i o n o f its e s c a p e t o P e l l a is pious l e g e n d - see E . B a m m e l , p p . 4 0 - 1 . B u t this has b e e n v e r y t h o r o u g h l y answered by M . Simon.

7

A g a i n , the question o f the J e r u s a l e m

church's

r e l a t i o n s w i t h P a u l a n d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o f C h r i s t i a n i t y is b e y o n d t h i s b o o k ' s s c o p e . H e r e B r a n d o n w o u l d find m o r e s c h o l a r s t o a g r e e w i t h h i m , b u t f e w w o u l d e x t e n d t h e i r a g r e e m e n t to s u p p o r t o f h i s Z e a l o t t h e s i s . A r g u m e n t s for P a u l a s a n i n n o v a t o r p r o v i d e n o d i r e c t s u p p o r t for B r a n d o n : o n t h e o t h e r h a n d a l l t h e s t u d i e s tell a g a i n s t h i m w h i c h b r i n g o u t Paul's Jewishness and fundamental

closeness to the J e r u s a l e m

church

(cp. E. B a m m e l , pp. 4 1 - 2 ) . S i n c e d e t a i l e d professional s t u d y o f e a c h e l e m e n t in the a r g u m e n t

is

n e c e s s a r y , it is n o t t h e r o l e o f t h i s g e n e r a l e s s a y t o i n v e s t i g a t e i n d i v i d u a l i s s u e s . I t w i l l s i m p l y set o u t w h a t s e e m t h e e s s e n t i a l p o i n t s .

6

7

See, for e x a m p l e , Daughter of Time b y J o s e p h i n e T e y ( L o n d o n , 1951). But this, unlike Zealots, was p u b l i s h e d as detective fiction. ' L a M i g r a t i o n a Pella', RechSR 60 (1972), 37-54; c p . S. Sowers, ' T h e C i r c u m s t a n c e s and R e c o l l e c t i o n o f the Pella Flight', ThZ 26 (1970), 305-20.


5

1 The historical background M u s t J e s u s , as a G a l i l a e a n , h a v e shared the Z e a l o t ' p h i l o s o p h y ' , as B r a n d o n s u g g e s t s ? ' I t is l i k e l y t h a t m a n y G a l i l a e a n s h a d t a k e n p a r t i n t h e r e v o l t o f A . D . 6, a n d J e s u s w o u l d h a v e k n o w n s o m e o f t h e s u r v i v o r s a n d t h e f a m i l i e s o f those w h o h a d perished. T o a G a l i l a e a n b o y or y o u t h these m a r t y r e d patriots w o u l d surely h a v e b e e n heroes, a n d d o u b t l e s s he w o u l d often h a v e l i s t e n e d e n t h r a l l e d to t a l e s o f Z e a l o t s ' e x p l o i t s a g a i n s t t h e h a t e d R o m a n s '

(Zealots, p . 6 5 ) . B u t (a) t h e r e w e r e o t h e r m o d e l s for a p a t r i o t i c J e w t h a n t h o s e p r o v i d e d b y t h e M a c c a b e e s o r t h e ' F o u r t h P h i l o s o p h y ' - J e r e m i a h , for e x a m p l e , w i t h w h o m J e s u s w a s c o n n e c t e d b y s o m e , a c c o r d i n g to M a t t h e w ( 1 6 : 1 4 ) ; o r t h e H a s i d i m , a n d t h e p a t t e r n o f s u f f e r i n g fidelity p r e s e n t e d i n D a n i e l a n d t h e Assumption of Moses, (b) M a n y J e w s wanted R o m a n r u l e , i n p r e f e r e n c e t o H e r o d ' s ; o t h e r s s a w it a s a d i v i n e i m p o s i t i o n b e c a u s e o f I s r a e l ' s s i n s , a n d t o b e a c c e p t e d h u m b l y a s s u c h , (c) T h e r e is n o firm e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e w a s a s y e t a ' Z e a l o t p a r t y ' , as a s s u m e d b y B r a n d o n , a n d b y the N e w E n g l i s h Bible a t M a r k 3: 1 8 . T h e t e r m ' Z e a l o t ' c e r t a i n l y h a d c o n n o t a t i o n s o f v i o l e n c e i n d e f e n c e o f t h e L a w , b u t n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y o f a r m e d r e s i s t a n c e to R o m e a n d its 8

c o l l a b o r a t o r s . (d) T h e e x p e c t a n c y o f d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n w a s s o v i v i d t h a t t h e r e w a s d a n g e r to p e a c e i n h e r e n t i n any p o p u l a r m o v e m e n t , h o w e v e r p e a c e f u l its c h a r a c t e r a n d a i m s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f m i r a c l e s a n d

prophetic

utterance were involved - witness Josephus's accounts of rebel leaders, and the

followings they

attracted,

and

the

reasons

h e g i v e s for

Herod's

e x e c u t i o n o f J o h n the B a p t i s t : fear lest his g r e a t influence o v e r the p e o p l e m i g h t l e a d t o a r e v o l t (AJ x v m . 1 1 6 - 1 9 ) . T h e f a c t t h a t J e s u s w a s b r o u g h t u p in G a l i l e e a n d t h a t o n e o f h i s c h o s e n disciples w a s called 'the Z e a l o t ' (and the possibility that others m a y h a v e b e e n c o n n e c t e d w i t h the resistance m o v e m e n t ) p r o v e s n o t h i n g as to his o w n attitude and aims.

2 T h e trial of Jesus It follows from w h a t h a s j u s t b e e n said that the fact o f his e x e c u t i o n b y the R o m a n s o n a c h a r g e o f sedition also p r o v e s n o t h i n g as to his o w n stance. In 8

It is often assumed that w h a t J o s e p h u s calls the 'fourth p h i l o s o p h y ' , s t e m m i n g from J u d a s the Galilaean (AJxvm. 23-5), is to be identified with those he calls ' Z e a l o t s ' . But J o s e p h u s n o w h e r e makes this identification. H e uses the term ' Z e a l o t s ' o f a particular g r o u p o n l y in his a c c o u n t o f the W a r itself. See M o r t o n Smith, ' Z e a l o t s and Sicarii', HThR 64 (1971), 1—19, and M . Borg, ' T h e C u r r e n c y o f the T e r m " Z e a l o t " ' , JThSt n.s. 22 (1971), 504-12. T h e term has in fact a m u c h wider c u r r e n c y . But its use for militant patriots has b e c o m e general and does n o harm p r o v i d e d that the w i d e r sense is not forgotten.

6

J.

P. M.

SWEET

the e x p l o s i v e a t m o s p h e r e of the time the r e m o v a l o f s o m e o n e w h o , h o w e v e r i n n o c e n t l y , m i g h t b e c o m e t h e f o c u s o f a p o p u l a r u p r i s i n g w i t h its i n e v i t a b l e consequences, w o u l d be a natural and intelligible action; c p . the remark o f C a i a p h a s i n J o h n 1 1 : 5 0 . E v e n i f t h e J e w i s h n o n - i n v o l v e m e n t i n h i s t r i a l , for w h i c h W i n t e r a n d o t h e r s h a v e a r g u e d , b e a c c e p t e d , e v e n i f t h e w h o l e affair was merely R o m a n police action and

the C h r i s t i a n s later foisted

the

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o n t o t h e J e w i s h l e a d e r s for a p o l o g e t i c r e a s o n s , t h e r e is still n o t h i n g to p r o v e t h a t the R o m a n v e r d i c t w a s justified - e x c e p t in

the

p r a g m a t i c sense j u s t m e n t i o n e d , as seeking to c u r b p o p u l a r unrest

by

r e m o v i n g o n e m a n , n o t for w h a t h e h a d s a i d a n d d o n e i n i t s e l f s o m u c h a s for t h e effect it m i g h t h a v e o n t h e p e o p l e . T h e f a c t t h a t J e s u s a l o n e w a s p i c k e d o u t a n d t h e T w e l v e w e n t free is e n o u g h i n i t s e l f t o p r o v e t h a t t h e R o m a n s did not see h i m as the leader o f a seditious g r o u p . I n f a c t , h o w e v e r , t h e h i s t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n a b o u t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for J e s u s ' s d e a t h is still w i d e o p e n . R e f e r e n c e s to t h e c o n t i n u i n g d e b a t e a r e g i v e n in the f o l l o w i n g essay a n d in the c l o s i n g essays in this b o o k . F e w scholars w o u l d reject c o m p l e t e l y the C h r i s t i a n version, w h i c h c a n be traced b a c k t o o n e o f P a u l ' s e a r l i e s t l e t t e r s (1 T h e s s . 2: 1 5 ) ; it h a s e v e n b e e n a r g u e d that the J e w s c o u l d t h e m s e l v e s h a v e carried out the crucifixion (see E . 9

B a m m e l , p p . 4 3 1 - 4 5 ) . T h e r e is i n a n y c a s e v e r y w i d e a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e r e w a s i a r e l i g i o u s i s s u e b e t w e e n J e s u s a n d his o w n p e o p l e , w h i c h w e n t far deeper than an attack on the collaborating priestly aristocracy; that he b r o u g h t a theological c h a l l e n g e o f the m o s t fundamental

kind, m a k i n g

c l a i m s for himself, w h e t h e r d i r e c t l y o r indirectly, w h i c h w e r e either true o r false, a n d if false d e m a n d e d his c o n d e m n a t i o n a n d

death.

A s to the e x a c t n a t u r e a n d significance o f the t r i u m p h a l

entry,

the

c l e a n s i n g o f the T e m p l e , the disciples' s w o r d s a n d the arrest o f J e s u s , the Barabbas episode and

t h e t r i a l o r t r i a l s , t h e r e is h o t d i s p u t e a n d

no

c o n s e n s u s is e v e r l i k e l y t o b e r e a c h e d ( s e e t h e c l o s i n g e s s a y s i n this b o o k ) . B r a n d o n ' s v i e w r e m a i n s a possibility, b u t in the e y e s o f the g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f c o m p e t e n t s c h o l a r s t h e probabilities a r e h e a v i l y o n t h e o t h e r s i d e . T h i s m a y s e e m too c a v a l i e r a t r e a t m e n t o f s u c h a c r u c i a l issue as the trial o f J e s u s , e v e n for a g e n e r a l s u r v e y . B u t w h e r e e v e r y a s p e c t o f t h e q u e s t i o n

is

e n i g m a t i c a n d c o n t r o v e r s i a l , it is p e r h a p s e n o u g h to m a k e t h e g e n e r a l p o i n t t h a t e v e n i f t h e t r i a l b e f o r e t h e S a n h e d r i n w a s a C h r i s t i a n i n v e n t i o n , e v e n if, as H . C o h n has recently a r g u e d ,

1 0

t h e J e w s w e r e i n v o l v e d o n l y i n t r y i n g to

g e t J e s u s o f f a n d f a i l e d t h r o u g h his n o n - c o o p e r a t i o n , t h e r e is still n o p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t the R o m a n v e r d i c t w a s justified in the sense that J e s u s 9

10

See also E. B a m m e l , The Trial of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 162-5. T h e view has been i n d e p e n d e n t l y defended b y D r J. M . F o r d , * " C r u c i f y him, Crucify h i m " and the T e m p l e Scroll', ExpT 87 (1976), 275-8. The Trial and Death of Jesus ( L o n d o n 1972); c p . B a m m e l , p p . 49-51.


7

actually w a s a Zealot or para-Zealot. T h i s can only be maintained

by

d e t a c h i n g h i m f r o m a l l t h a t w e k n o w o f h i s p a s t a n d (if w e m a y s o s p e a k ) h i s future.

3 T h e Jerusalem church T h e r e is e v e n l e s s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e first C h r i s t i a n s w e r e i m p l i c a t e d i n violent zealotry than that Jesus w a s . Josephus's accounts of rebel leaders e n d w i t h t h e m a s s a c r e o f t h e i r f o l l o w e r s , b u t t h e r e is n o h i n t o f R o m a n movement

against

any

o f the

followers o f Jesus.

Acts

records

only

a t t e m p t e d J e w i s h c o e r c i o n o n religious g r o u n d s , until the a c t i o n o f A g r i p p a I a g a i n s t J a m e s , s o n o f Z e b e d e e , a n d P e t e r r e c o r d e d in A c t s 1 2 .

1 1

B r a n d o n m i g h t find m o r e a g r e e m e n t w i t h h i s e s t i m a t e o f P a u l t h a n o f J e s u s , b u t a v e r y s t r o n g c a s e c a n still b e m a d e , o n t h e b a s i s o f P a u l ' s o w n l e t t e r s , for h i s f u n d a m e n t a l u n i t y w i t h t h e ' p i l l a r ' a p o s t l e s a t J e r u s a l e m . E v e n i f it c o u l d b e s h o w n w i t h h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e e a r l i e s t P a l e s t i n i a n C h r i s t i a n i t y w a s far m o r e J e w i s h t h a n t h e P a u l i n e v e r s i o n , a n d t h a t it p e r i s h e d i n t h e w a r o f A . D . 6 6 - 7 0 , t h e r e w o u l d still b e n o t o n e s h r e d o f positive evidence that

it w a s

in

any

w a y aligned

with

the

'Fourth

Philosophy'. A s for t h e G o s p e l o f M a r k , w h i c h B r a n d o n h e l d w a s w r i t t e n after A . D . 7 0 i n R o m e a s a n apologia t o e x c u l p a t e J e s u s , a n d C h r i s t i a n s , f r o m t h e i r p r i m a facie

involvement

with

the J e w i s h

national

cause,

there

are

strong

a r g u m e n t s for d a t i n g it b e f o r e t h e J e w i s h W a r a n d e v e n s t r o n g e r a r g u m e n t s for a s s e r t i n g its theological, n o t p o l i t i c a l , c o n c e r n . T h e ' a r g u m e n t

from

s i l e n c e ' - t h a t J e s u s is r e c o r d e d a s c o n d e m n i n g H e r o d i a n s , S a d d u c e e s a n d Pharisees, but nowhere Zealots, and that if any such condemnation

had

b e e n r e m e m b e r e d s u r e l y M a r k m u s t h a v e r e c o r d e d it - is e x a m i n e d b y G . M . S t y l e r in a separate essay ( p p . 1 0 1 - 9 ) . H e a n a l y s e s the logic o f the argument

a s B r a n d o n e m p l o y s it, a n d

s h o w s h o w e a c h link

requires

i n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g i f it is t o c a r r y c o n v i c t i o n - a n d h o w , w i t h e q u a l l o g i c , a d i f f e r e n t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n is p o s s i b l e . H e r e it is e n o u g h t o a s k w h y , i f t h e e v a n g e l i s t s c r e a t e d s o m u c h e l s e for a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e s , t h e y c o u l d n o t have created argument.

such a condemnation

i f it w e r e r e a l l y n e c e s s a r y to

I n a c t u a l f a c t , it w a s not n e c e s s a r y . F e w n o n - J e w s

P a l e s t i n e c o u l d h a v e k n o w n a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e Z e a l o t s (in

the

outside

Brandon's

sense) in the sixties a n d s e v e n t i e s , before J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s w e r e p u b l i s h e d . I t w a s t h e Jews w h o w e r e k n o w n a n d h a t e d , a n d M a r k h a s d o n e m o r e t h a n e n o u g h to d i s t i n g u i s h J e s u s a n d h i s f o l l o w e r s f r o m t h e m . T h e a f t e r m a t h o f J e s u s ' s c a r e e r , t h e n , c a n n o m o r e b r i n g e v i d e n c e for h i s 11

C p . B. Reicke, b e l o w p .

147.

8

J . P. M.

SWEET

Z e a l o t i n v o l v e m e n t than the b a c k g r o u n d from w h i c h he e m e r g e d .

The

interlocking picture dissolves, on inspection, at either end. B u t w h a t o f the m i d d l e ? T h e r e c o r d e d t e a c h i n g a n d b e h a v i o u r o f J e s u s is t h e n u b , to w h i c h we now turn.

4 Jesus's teaching B r a n d o n b u i l d s h e a v i l y o n c e r t a i n p a s s a g e s - for e x a m p l e , t h e t r i b u t e m o n e y q u e s t i o n ( M a r k 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 a n d p a r a l l e l s ) , 'I c a m e not to b r i n g p e a c e but a sword'

(Matt.

10:34), and

the ' a r m i n g ' o f the disciples

(Luke

22: 3 5 - 3 8 ) . T h e s e p a s s a g e s n e e d d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n - s e e t h e e s s a y s b y F. F. B r u c e , M . B l a c k a n d G . W . H . L a m p e ;

1 2

h e r e it is e n o u g h t o s a y

t h a t t h e y c a n h e l p B r a n d o n ' s c a u s e o n l y if o n e shuts o n e ' s ears to the n o t e o f i r o n y in J e s u s ' s t e a c h i n g . T h e far g r e a t e r n u m b e r o f a n t i - v i o l e n c e s a y i n g s a n d a c t i o n s are w r i t t e n off b y B r a n d o n as c r e a t e d later, e s p e c i a l l y b y M a t t h e w , i n o r d e r t o p r o j e c t t h e i m a g e o f a p a c i f i c C h r i s t , s u i t a b l e for a r e l i g i o n for t h e R o m a n w o r l d . B u t m a n y o f t h e s e s a y i n g s , o n t h e c r i t e r i a o f m o d e r n G o s p e l c r i t i c i s m , a r e m o s t l i k e l y to b e o r i g i n a l ; m a n y r e v i e w e r s h a v e noted the arbitrariness o f B r a n d o n ' s critical m e t h o d , a c c e p t i n g w h a t fits h i s c a s e a n d r e j e c t i n g w h a t d o e s n o t , w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o a c c e p t e d p r o c e d u r e s . F o r e x a m p l e , m a n y o f t h e s e s a y i n g s o c c u r in t h e Q m a t e r i a l . A d m i t t e d l y Q h a s its s c e p t i c s , a n d t h e c r e a t i v i t y o f M a t t h e w its c h a m p i o n s . B u t e v e n i f all t h e s a y i n g s l i k e ' i f a m a n in a u t h o r i t y m a k e s y o u g o o n e m i l e , g o w i t h h i m t w o . . . L o v e y o u r e n e m i e s a n d p r a y for y o u r p e r s e c u t o r s ' ( M a t t . 5: 4 1 , 4 4 ) , w h i c h in J e s u s ' s t i m e c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n s a i d w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o t h e R o m a n s , w e r e t h e c r e a t i o n o f M a t t h e w , w e a r e still left w i t h Jesus's

b e h a v i o u r . H i s w e l c o m e for t a x - g a t h e r e r s

and sinners, w h o

to

Z e a l o t s w e r e e v e n m o r e abhorrent than the R o m a n s , a n d w h a t w a s w o r s e , his e a t i n g w i t h t h e m , c a n n o t b e ironed o u t o f the tradition. B r a n d o n m a k e s m u c h o f S i m o n the C a n a n a e a n a m o n g the T w e l v e , b u t nothing e x c e p t one f o o t n o t e o f L e v i o r M a t t h e w t h e t a x - g a t h e r e r (Zealots, possible,

p . 2 0 1 , n o t e 4 ) . I t is

as B r a n d o n hints, that the tax-gatherers w h o m J e s u s attracted

o n c e g a v e u p their profession, w h e r e a s the revolutionaries did not,

at but

a g a i n the p r o b a b i l i t i e s are the o t h e r w a y . J e s u s ' s a t t i t u d e to a n d relations w i t h 'sinners' are decisive e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t a n y link b e t w e e n h i m a n d those w h o m B r a n d o n calls the Z e a l o t s . B r a n d o n ' s theory, then, does provide a coherent picture o f Christian o r i g i n s , b u t it is a t i s s u e o f i n t e r l o c k i n g possibilities

of varying weight, wholly

l a c k i n g in positive e v i d e n c e : m a n y p a s s a g e s c a n b e a d d u c e d w h i c h c a n be c o n s t r u e d in s u p p o r t o f t h e t h e o r y , i f t h e t h e o r y is t r u e , b u t n o n e w h i c h is 12

Pp. 2490°, 287(1 and 3351T respectively.


9

a c t u a l l y e v i d e n c e for its t r u t h . T h e p l e a t h a t t h e p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e h a s b e e n destroyed,

whether

in

the J e w i s h

War

or

by

the

later

church,

is

u n a n s w e r a b l e , a n d w a r n s us against r e g a r d i n g probabilities as certainties. B u t p r o b a b i l i t y is still t h e g u i d e o f life. P r o b a b i l i t y , h o w e v e r , is a g u i d e w h i c h is o n l y t o o o f t e n i g n o r e d b y wishful thinking. T h e p o p u l a r i t y o f the Z e a l o t or revolutionary interpreta t i o n o f J e s u s i n t h e l a s t d e c a d e w i t n e s s e s to m e n ' s p e r e n n i a l p r o p e n s i t y t o l o o k t o h i m for s u p p o r t for t h e i r o w n i d e a l s a n d a i m s . B u t it p r o v o k e s t h e w r y r e f l e c t i o n t h a t o n e c a n find s u p p o r t f r o m J e s u s for v i o l e n t p o l i t i c a l action only b y discounting those aspects of the traditional picture o f him w h i c h g i v e m o s t r e a s o n for s e e k i n g h i s s u p p o r t .

E.

B A M M E L

The revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon i

M i l t o n , in h i s Paradise Regained, p o r t r a y s h i s v i s i o n o f S a t a n t r y i n g to l u r e J e s u s to plot w i t h the P a r t h i a n s to d e l i v e r the ten tribes a n d to establish his r e a l m ' f r o m E g y p t to E u p h r a t e s a n d b e y o n d ' a n d to s e t u p a k i n g d o m t h a t 1

' R o m e or C a e s a r not n e e d fear' a n d , then, i m p r o v i n g o n this b y p r o d u c i n g the yet more

tempting

prospect that Jesus

should expel the

monster

T i b e r i u s f r o m t h e t h r o n e , ' a v i c t o r - p e o p l e free f r o m s e r v i l e y o k e ' a n d a i m ' a t n o less t h a n a l l t h e w o r l d ' .

2

J u s t as a c c o r d i n g to the rules o f the G r e e k s a s a t y r p l a y follows

the

t r a g e d y , so a b u r l e s q u e o f M i l t o n ' s s c e n e m a y p e r h a p s b e f o u n d in S c h i l l e r ' s Die Rauber, w h e r e S p i e g e l b e r g p l a y f u l l y s u g g e s t s t h e i d e a o f s e t t i n g u p a s a d e s c e n d a n t o f H e r o d a n d c a l l i n g forth all those w h o d o not eat p r e t e n d i n g ' d a s K o n i g r e i c h w i e d e r aufs T a p e t z u b r i n g e n ' .

pork,

3

I n this w a y the i d e a o f political m e s s i a n i s m , b o t h in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h J e s u s a n d a p a r t from h i m , attracted the i m a g i n a t i o n o f the poets. O n the p l a n e o f r e s e a r c h , h o w e v e r , it w a s d u e t o t h e w o r k d o n e b y H . S . R e i m a r u s t h a t the p r o b l e m c a m e into focus. H i s essay o n J e s u s ' s a n d his d i s c i p l e s ' 4

g o a l i s , as h a s b e e n m a i n t a i n e d , Jesus.

6

5

t h e first l a n d m a r k o f r e s e a r c h o n t h e life o f

I t is s t a r t l i n g t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f a p o l i t i c a l i n v o l v e m e n t o f J e s u s

a l r e a d y p l a y s a r o l e i n t h i s first a n a l y s i s . J e s u s w a s n o t j u s t a t e a c h e r o f ' m . 384f. 4

5

6

2

i v . iooff.

3

1 . 2.

W h a t b e c a m e geschichtstrachtig, are the Wolfenbuttelsche Fragmente published b y Lessing b e t w e e m 1774 and 1777, w h i c h represent an early stage o f the work o f R e i m a r u s ' s lifetime, o f the Apologie oder Schutzschriftfur die vernunftigen Verehrer Gottes. T h i s latter m a n u s c r i p t was not published in its entirety until 1972 ( b y G . A l e x a n d e r ( W i e s b a d e n , 1972), 2 v o l s . ) . T h e r e are three translations o f the Fragmente: b y C . V o y s e y ( L o n d o n , 1879), b y R . S. Fraser (Philadelphia, 1970; L o n d o n , 1971, ed. b y C . H . T a l b e r t ) , and b y G . W . B u c h a n a n (Leiden, 1970). For R e i m a r u s ' s p h i l o s o p h y c p . H . Sieveking, ' H . S. R e i m a r u s 1694-1768', Zeitschr. d. Vereins f hamburgische Geschichte 38 (1939), i45ff. A l b e r t Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede ( T u b i n g e n , 1906), p . 13 ( E T u n d e r the title The Quest of the Historical Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1910), p . 13); Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung ( T u b i n g e n , 1913), p . 13 (this second edition o f the earlier work - c o n s i d e r a b l y revised and a u g m e n t e d - has not a p p e a r e d in English so far). T h e Schutzschrift s o o n b e c a m e k n o w n a b r o a d . C o l e r i d g e , for e x a m p l e , was m a d e familiar with its views in Bristol; c p . E. Shaffer, 'Kubla Khan'and the Fall ofJerusalem ( C a m b r i d g e , 1975). II

12

E.

BAMMEL

virtues; rather he w a s or b e c a m e the herald o f the ' k i n g d o m ' . Reimarus

emphasises,

implications

must

have

of a messianic

been

well

pronouncement.

aware In

o f the

using

this

7

Jesus,

political messianic

t e r m i n o l o g y himself, he w a s c o n s c i o u s o f a w a k e n i n g the J e w s to the h o p e o f a

worldly

messiah.

8

A l l the

actions

of Jesus

agree

with

such

an

interpretation: his entry into J e r u s a l e m , his 'interruption o f order in the Temple',

9

h i s ' s e d i t i o u s s p e e c h e s to t h e p e o p l e a g a i n s t t h e h i g h c o u n c i l ' .

1 0

His suspicious and seditious actions were such that even more 'ungestiime W e i t e r u n g e n ' w e r e to be e x p e c t e d .

1 1

A certain measure o f force w a s not

f o r e i g n t o h i m - e v e n t h e p a s s a g e o n t h e t w o s w o r d s is a h i g h l y s u s p e c t enigma.

1 2

I t is d u e t o c e r t a i n m i s c o n c e p t i o n s i n s t r a t e g y o n h i s p a r t a n d t o

the fact that he w a s o n l y a g r e e a b l e to the ' c o m m o n r a b b l e ' that

the

J e r u s a l e m a c t i o n d i d not s u c c e e d a n d t h a t he c o u l d b e p u t to d e a t h . I n d e e d , he d e s e r v e d his c o n d e m n a t i o n Regeln'.

1 3

T h e presentation

'nach alien Rechten und

politischen

o f J e s u s ' s g o a l a s s u f f e r i n g a n d d e a t h is a 1 4

' c o n s t r u c t i o n o f his d i s c i p l e s ' w h o are p o r t r a y e d in d a r k c o l o u r s ,

1 5

whereas

t h e t r u e f a c t s g i v e J e s u s a p l a c e a m o n g t h e m a n y m e s s i a n i c p r e t e n d e r s . I t is t o d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e l a t t e r t h a t t h e m a i n i n t e r e s t o f R e i m a r u s is d e v o t e d . S t i l l , f r o m h i s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e m e r g e s t h e s k e t c h o f a J e s u s w h o s e a c t i v i t y is firmly

rooted

in

the

belligerent J e w i s h

tradition.

The

difficulties

of

e x p l a i n i n g , for e x a m p l e , t h e t r i a l o f J e s u s o n t h e b a s i s o f this d o n o t c o n c e r n h i m , s o cjietermined is h e t o d e m o n s t r a t e

t h e rift b e t w e e n J e s u s a n d h i s

disciples. S u b s e q u e n t r e s e a r c h h a d t o d e a l w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n a s it h a d b e e n p o s e d

7

8

9

§4 ( T a l b e r t , Fragmente, p p .

66f).

R e i m a r u s ' s statements are not always consistent. In the Fragmente he affirms with v i g o u r the nationalistic character o f Jesus's message, whereas in the Schutzschrift o w i n g to the influence o f Semler ( c p . A l e x a n d e r , Apologie, i, 31) - he a d m i t s and even praises s u c h 'herrliche L e h r e n J e s u ' ( A l e x a n d e r , Apologie, ii, 516, 173^ 176) as are n o t c o n d i t i o n e d b y J e w i s h particularism, while castigating Jesus's messianic c l a i m s at the s a m e time (e.g. A l e x a n d e r , Apologie ii, 156). T h i s does not, h o w e v e r , m e a n that, as A . C . Lundsteen (H. S. Reimarus und die Anfange der Leben-Jesu-Forschung ( C o p e n h a g e n , 1939), p p . 46f, 146) assumes, in the o p i n i o n o f R e i m a r u s at a certain time there was a turning-point in Jesus's activity. §2 ( T a l b e r t , Fragmente, p . 137).

1 0

§8 ( I b i d . , p .

1 1

A l e x a n d e r Apologie, ii, 176. I b i d . , 165. I b i d . , 161. It is R e i m a r u s ' s intention to s h o w that Jesus's suffering c a n n o t h a v e had a vicarious character. A s far as there is a bias in his w o r k , it is to b e found in this direction; he himself is not at all interested in revolution. T . C h u b b had already attempted to bring out differences b e t w e e n Jesus and his disciples ( c p . L u n d s t e e n , Reimarus, p p . i32ff, 145); but his impressions lack any consistent idea. T h e Schutzschrift attributes a greater m e a s u r e o f b l a m e to the disciples even d u r i n g the lifetime o f Jesus: they staged the scene o f the entry into J e r u s a l e m ( A l e x a n d e r ,

1 3

1 4

1 5

148). 1 2

Apologie, ii, 1591).

T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n b y R e i m a r u s . T w o different solutions w e r e offered. F. V . R e i n h a r d

13 1 6

denied

a n y c o n n e c t i o n o n the side of J e s u s w i t h the idea o f a D a v i d i c m e s s i a h . H e h i m s e l f n e v e r a c c e p t e d this a p p e l l a t i o n . H i s o w n d e s i g n w a s n o t h i n g b u t spiritual. T h e other e x p l a n a t i o n , suggested b y H . E . G . P a u l u s , centres the i d e a o f p o l i t i c a l m e s s i a n i s m in the p e r s o n o f J u d a s : he h o p e d to raise the c r o w d s t o i n t e r v e n e f o r c e f u l l y for t h e i m p r i s o n e d J e s u s . taken by K . H a s e ,

1 8

1 7

A further step w a s

w h o noticed t w o different periods in the ministry o f

J e s u s , o n e in w h i c h he took u p the messianic ideas o f his e n v i r o n m e n t w i t h o u t r e s e r v e , a n o t h e r in w h i c h h e w i t h d r e w in o r d e r to g o his o w n w a y . Without

necessarily

interpreting

the

messianology

of Jesus's

time

politically himself, H a s e nevertheless s h o w e d the direction in w h i c h the sting of a political interpretation could be removed.

1 9

T h e r e t h e m a t t e r r e s t e d for m o s t o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . T h e l i v e s o f J e s u s a n d the detailed investigations o f the p r o b l e m -

the books o f T .

C o l a n i , G . V o l k m a r a n d W . W e i f f e n b a c h - take u p one o f these lines w i t h c e r t a i n q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ; t h e y s e t J e s u s firmly a g a i n s t m e s s i a n i s m , w h i c h t h e y understand

politically.

2 0

It

is i n t h i s r e s p e c t t h a t t h e n e w s c h o o l o f

eschatologists w h o followed the authors mentioned earlier, such as E . Issel, O . S c h m o l l e r , J. W e i s s a n d A . Schweitzer, agree with their predecessors. T h e i r o w n definition o f a n d interest in e s c h a t o l o g y as a

supra-human

16

Versuch uber den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf ( W i t t e n b e r g , 1781).

17

Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentums (Heidelberg,

18

Das Leben Jesu ( L e i p z i g , 1829). A m o r e u n e q u i v o c a l e c h o o f R e i m a r u s ' s theory m a y possibly b e found in a statement o f G o e t h e . H e writes in his Maximen und Refiexionen: ' D i e christliche Religion ist eine intentionierte politische Revolution, die, verfehlt, nachher moralisch g e w o r d e n ist' (Nr. 819 d a t e d 3 F e b r u a r y 1814; 'the Christian religion is an intended political revolution w h i c h , after failing, subsequently b e c a m e an ethical o n e ' ) . It is not absolutely clear w h e t h e r the political d o m i n a n c e G o e t h e detects in Christianity refers to the time o f Jesus o r that o f the apostles. I f the former is the case, the statement has to b e seen as the result o f considerations sparked off b y R e i m a r u s . A s s u m i n g the latter, H . Petsch ( c p . H a m b u r g e r G o e t h e - A u s g a b e X I I , Nr. 82, footnote) had tentatively thought o f the c o m m u n i s m o f the early Christians. T h i s p h e n o m e n o n , h o w e v e r , w o u l d not merit the contrast b e t w e e n political and m o r a l revolution w h i c h is stressed b y G o e t h e . W e will have to think o f the life o f J e s u s and m a y possibly have to link G o e t h e ' s remark with the other reflection w h i c h was found in an unfinished form in his literary remains. A c c o r d i n g to this Jesus c a m e to an end not dissimilar to that o f H a m l e t , and this end was all the m o r e disastrous, since he let d o w n those w h o m he had previously called (Maximen, Nr. 1305). T h e fact that the v i e w o f Jesus expressed in m a n y statements o f different periods o f G o e t h e ' s life ( c p . P. M e i n h o l d , Goethe und das Christentum (Freiburg, 1958)) points to his appreciation o f Jesus's sittliche Hoheit makes it likely that the t w o citations represent tentative reflections w h i c h he did not follow u p .

1828). 1 9

2 0

T . C o l a n i , Jesus Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps (Strassburg, 1864); G . 1882); W . Weiffenbach, Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu (Leipzig, 1873). V o l k m a r , y * H t f Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit ( Z u r i c h ,

E.

BAMMEL

i n t e r v e n t i o n l e d t h e m s o far a s to v i e w p o l i t i c a l m e s s i a n i s m a s a m e r e f r i n g e feature even on the J e w i s h religious m a p , touched Jesus

2 2

2 1

and as something that hardly

a n d is o f m i n i m a l c o n c e r n for t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f h i s

message.

A . R e m b e ' s Christus der Mensch und Freiheitskdmpfer s e e m s to b e a n exception.

2 3

fervently

against

wealth.

2 4

H e pictures J e s u s as a w o r l d r e v o l u t i o n a r y , w h o c o m e s out the w e a l t h y class w i t h o u t ,

however, touching

their

J e s u s is t h e p r e a c h e r o f a n i d e a l s t a t e b e y o n d t h e c l o u d s , w h o

directs h i m s e l f against the T e m p l e a n d the L a w as the institutions that k e e p the p e o p l e in s e r f d o m . fighter

who,

when

2 5

T r i e d for t h i s r e a s o n , h e p r o v e s t o b e t h e t r u e

defeated,

triumphs

over

himself.

26

His

disciples,

i n c a p a b l e o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g h i m , d e v e l o p t h e i r o w n i m a g i n e d i d e a s after his

death.

But

it h a p p e n s

Sozialdemokratie'

2 7

in

the

course

of time

that

this

'geistige

is a m a l g a m a t e d w i t h a n d s w a l l o w e d u p b y t h e s t a t e . I t

is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e p i c t u r e is a n i m p r e c i s e r e h a s h o f R e i m a r u s ' s w i t h o u t a n y n e w i m p u l s e to critical investigation.

II A n e w d e p a r t u r e h a d a l r e a d y b e e n m a d e b y W . W e i t l i n g in 1 8 4 5 .

2 8

Jesus,

l i k e P y t h a g o r a s , w a s s t r i v i n g for a r a d i c a l r e v o l u t i o n i n t h e s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s -

so W e i t l i n g a s s u m e s .

2 9

J e s u s w a s , h o w e v e r , fully a w a r e b o t h o f the

d i f f i c u l t ) ^ expressing himself openly and of the shortness of time available t o h i m . O w i n g t o t h i s w e find s t a t e m e n t s o f c a u t i o n a n d e v e n c a m o u f l a g e .

3 0

N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e m a i n p o i n t is c l e a r : it is a s o c i a l r e v o l u t i o n t h a t h e h a s i n m i n d . I t s a i m is t h e a b o l i t i o n o f p r o p e r t y .

3 1

L u k e 1 4 : 33 is a p o i n t e r t o t h e

kernel o f J e s u s ' s m e s s a g e . T h e c o m m u n a l i s a t i o n o f w o r k a n d o f the m e a n s of p r o d u c t i o n , a n d in c o n s e q u e n c e o f leisure,

3 2

a r e r e q u i r e d . I t s s u c c e s s is

forecast b y J e s u s in the s t a t e m e n t o f L u k e 18: 2 9 X 2 1

2 2

3 3

T h e situation o f the

Schweitzer, Geschichte, p p . 232*! (Quest, p p . 237ft). S y m p t o m a t i c is Schweitzer's discussion o f M a t t . 1 1 : 1 2 (Geschichte, p . 404; Quest, p p . 355Q: even this passage is taken to refer to those w h o try to w r i n g the k i n g d o m from G o d b y p e n i t e n c e . Differently J. W e i s s , DiePredigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes ( G o t t i n g e n , 2nd edn. 1900), w h o links the verse with the Z e a l o t m o v e m e n t ( p . 197).

" L e i p z i g , 1887. ™ Christus, p p . 27ft I b i d . p . 41. I b i d . p . 63 I b i d . p . 75. Das Evangelium eines armen Sunders (Bern, 1845). A m o r e extended edition a p p e a r e d in 1846. It was this edition w h i c h was reprinted in H a m b u r g in 1971 (= Philosophic der Neuzeit 22). Evangelium, p . 25 (1845 e d n . ) . W e i t l i n g assumes that J e s u s like J o h n was an Essene, and he toys with the idea that b o t h m e n had been c o m m i s s i o n e d b y the o r d e r to spread its principles in disguise. W e i t l i n g , Evangelium, p . 62. I b i d . p . 80. I b i d . p . 80. 2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8

29

3 0

3 1

3 2

3 3

T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n early

community

reflects e x a c t l y w h a t

he

had

in m i n d :

15

'even

those

c o m m u n i s t s o f our time, w h o take the most extreme position, could not g o further t h a n this b o d y d i d ' .

3 4

T h e p r i n c i p l e is d e s i g n e d n o t o n l y for J e s u s ' s

o w n f e l l o w s h i p b u t for t h e w o r l d a t l a r g e - a l t h o u g h J e s u s is a w a r e t h a t a l l o w a n c e s h a v e to be m a d e . In the end, h o w e v e r , faced w i t h persecution from the side o f the o v e r - p r i v i l e g e d , he h i m s e l f retaliates in a like m a n n e r : 'dass Extrem gegen Extrem gesetzt werde'.

3 5

T h e 'revolutionary carpenter'

a d v i s e d his d i s c i p l e s to b u y a s w o r d a n d p r e a c h e d w a r .

3 6

W e i t l i n g does not

g o further in interpreting the last p h a s e o f the activity o f J e s u s ;

3 7

but he

e m p h a s i s e s t h a t J e s u s h a d w o r l d l y a i m s - J o h n 1 8 : 3 6 is o n l y d u e t o c a u t i o n - a n d he d r a w s the conclusion that similar actions m a y b e c o m e necessary as l o n g as the 'state o f C h r i s t e n d o m ' has not yet m a t e r i a l i s e d .

3 8

W e i t l i n g s e e s a d e v e l o p m e n t i n J e s u s ' s t e a c h i n g . I n h i s first p e r i o d h e w a s still u n d e r the influence o f n a t i o n a l p r e j u d i c e s .

3 9

T h a t means,

the

d e v e l o p m e n t o f h i s p r e a c h i n g , t h e c i r c u m s p e c t n a t u r e o f its p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d , e v e n t u a l l y , b l u n t c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h the p o w e r s t h a t b e are d u e to J e s u s ' s e n e r g e t i c a n d i n q u i s i t i v e m i n d a n d h i s c o n c e r n for t h e p o o r .

4 0

All

t h i s is d e s c r i b e d i n m o s t e n g a g i n g l a n g u a g e , i n a s t y l e r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h a t o f 4 1

the prophets a n d o f the s a m e dignity as that of H e b e l and B i i c h n e r . >

4 2

T h e s o c i a l a p p r o a c h w a s in k e e p i n g w i t h the feeling o f the y o u n g e r generation

o f the

period.

T h u s Jesus

in W a g n e r ' s s k e t c h o f 1 8 4 3

p o r t r a y e d a s s a y i n g , ' g e m e i n s a m sei e u c h H a b u n d G u t ' ,

4 3

l s

while elements

o f political r e v o l u t i o n a r y a c t i v i t y are a b s e n t from his J e s u s d r a m a o f 1 8 4 8 ^

3 4

3 7

3 8

3 9

4 0

4 1

4 2

4 3

4 4

3 5

3 6

I b i d . p . 64. I b i d . p . 122. I b i d . p p . 1231*. H e gives o n l y a p s y c h o l o g i c a l interpretation o f the betrayal o f J u d a s ( p p . 102-8). In this context he interprets Xan(3dveiv (Luke 11: 10; J o h n 16: 24) as a permission to take. Evangelium, p . 98. W e i t l i n g is genuinely inspired b y the person o f Jesus. His presentation is, h o w e v e r , partly c o n d i t i o n e d b y the fact that the bible is 'the b o o k , w h i c h is to b e found in every h o u s e and w h i c h is still a c c e p t e d with c o n f i d e n c e ' ( p p . 1301), and that apart from it there is n o basis for agitation. F o u n d i n g his c o m m u n i s m o n the teaching o f Jesus is therefore partly a matter o f p e d a g o g i c a l consideration. It seems that the v i e w taken b y J. A . R e i c h m u t h (Die Bibel in sozialistischkommunistischer Beleuchtung ( B a d Lauchstedt, 1921); c p . the s u m m a r y given b y J. L e i p o l d t , Vom Jesusbilde der Gegenwart (2nd edn., Leipzig, 1925, p p . 69Q is similar to that o f Weitling. T h e political revolutionary explanation o f Jesus's life can b e understood as the secularised form o f another o n e , a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h Jesus went u p to J e r u s a l e m in o r d e r to establish the messianic k i n g d o m from the T e m p l e , expecting divine intervention to assist him in this task. T h i s v i e w is not infrequent, e.g. R . v . d . A i m , Die Urtheile heidnischer und jiidischer Schriftsteller . . . (Leipzig, 1864), p . 148. Das Liebesmahl der Apostel in Derjunge Wagner. Dichtungen, Aufsdtze, Entwiirfe 1832-49, ed. J. K a p p (Berlin, 1910), p p . 329^ R . W a g n e r , y * H t f (published Leipzig, 1887). H e clings to the social ideal: ' K e i n e r sage v o n seinen Giitern, dass sie sein waren sondern es sei euch alles g e m e i n ' ( p . 96).

l6

E.

BAMMEL

a l t h o u g h t h e a u t h o r h i m s e l f w a s s o o n t o b e c o m e a fighter o n t h e b a r r i c a d e s . Both

Weitling

nationalism

and Wagner

m a k e Jesus dissociate himself from

o f his environment:

the o n e after

having

allowed

q u a s i - Z e a l o t initial phase, the other without such a concession,

4 5

the

for a

the former

d i s r e g a r d i n g the B a r a b b a s p r o b l e m ( a n d , i n d e e d , the trial itself), the latter s t a t i n g expressis verbis t h a t J e s u s h a d n o c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e B a r a b b a s rebellion.

4 6

A d i c h o t o m y t h e r e b y e m e r g e s w h i c h w a s t o b e c o m e t y p i c a l for

the f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a t i o n s . The

interest changed

after

the

failure

o f the

1848

revolution.

4 7

Professional scholars tended to b e c o m e m o r e cautious, w h e r e a s radicals d i d n o t feel a n y l o n g e r t h e s a m e n e e d t o s e e t h e m s e l v e s a s t h e m o u t h p i e c e o f history a n d to v i e w the w h o l e cultural heritage as leading u p to a n d c u l m i n a t i n g in their o w n p r o p o s i t i o n s .

4 8

H . K . H . D e l f f s p r e s e n t a t i o n is s y m p t o m a t i c . the

4 9

H e reduces the a p p e a l to

P o o r to a G a l i l a e a n feature, w h i l e in his v i e w J e s u s ' s a c t i v i t y in

J e r u s a l e m w a s b y no m e a n s m a r k e d b y a social stance.

5 0

H e even views the

P a r a b l e o f t h e G r e a t F e a s t a s a p o r t r a i t o f J e s u s ' s o w n a c t i v i t y : it is o n l y i n the last i n s t a n c e t h a t he g o e s to the o u t c a s t .

5 1

H e emphasises the need seen

4 5

W a g n e r a d v a n c e s the startling theory that the aristocracy w o u l d have s h o w n interest in a political messiah (Jesus, p . 25).

4 6

In his v i e w a 'matt ausgelaufene M e u t e r e i ' ( W a g n e r , Jesus, p . 25; c p . 46). It was the c o m b i n a t i o n o f social interest with mediating tendencies w h i c h resulted in the p r o p o s i t i o n that a Christian has to b e responsible but anti-revolutionary. T h i s v i e w b e c a m e m o s t influential in nineteenth-century conservative thinking. T h i s was so especially o n the continent, w h i c h had been shaken b y the 1848 revolution a n d the e x p e r i e n c e o f the Paris C o m m u n e o f 1871. T h e formation o f the Christian Anti-revolutionary Party in H o l l a n d in 1849 was a direct result o f such consideration.

4 7

4 8

A reaction to the situation is to b e found in the important b o o k o f R . T o d t , Der radikale deutsche Socialismus und die christliche Gesellschaft ( W i t t e n b e r g , 1877). H e declares that w h e n basing o u r j u d g e m e n t o n the N . T . w e c a n n o t d e n y ' B e r e c h t i g u n g d e m Sozialismus n a c h seinem innersten W e s e n ' ( p . 370). It is his intention to evoke u n d e r s t a n d i n g for socialism as it presents itself in his time and simultaneously to criticise it from the basis o f the N . T . T h a t m e a n s , factors i m p l y i n g a social m o t i v a t i o n in the N . T . are admitted but taken as m o d e r a t i n g factors in an issue that is already v i e w e d as having c o m e into existence i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f the Christian m e s s a g e . It is not that the N . T . is taken as a social challenge a n d manifesto. W h i l e he d o e s not see it as taking the lead, it is certainly the author's o p i n i o n that revelation in history will have the last w o r d - he takes u p the ideas o f S w a b i a n speculation in o r d e r to demonstrate this. A n escape in the o p p o s i t e direction was m a d e at the s a m e time b y E. v o n H a r t m a n n , w h o attributes an asceticism hostile to w o r k , family a n d all possessions to Jesus, and views h i m as a kind o f precursor o f his o w n p h i l o s o p h y o f pessimism (Briefe uber die christliche Religion (Stuttgart, 1870), p . n o (the w o r k a p p e a r e d under the p s e u d o n y m F. A . M i i l l e r ) ; Die Selbstzersetzung des Christentums ( L e i p z i g , 1874), PP- 5°0-

49

Jesus von Nazareth ( L e i p z i g , 1889).

50

51

Ibid. p p . 3i8f. Ibid. p p . 337f.

T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n

17

b y J e s u s for n e w b o t t l e s o r f o r m s , s o t h a t t h e n e w f o r c e m a y n o t d i s p e r s e itself in the 'formlose R e v o l u t i o n a r e ' ,

5 2

into revolutionary a n a r c h y ; a n d he

s e p a r a t e s J e s u s p o i n t e d l y from the a i m s o f his ' Z e a l o t b r o t h e r ' J a m e s equally from every kind o f z e a l o t i s m .

5 3

and

5 4

Ill I t w a s left t o A . K a l t h o f f

5 5

to take u p the g e n e r a l line o f W e i t l i n g , w h o s e

w r i t i n g s , h o w e v e r , w e r e u n k n o w n to h i m . T h e m a n n e r in w h i c h this w a s d o n e s h o w s characteristic differences. W h i l e W e i t l i n g takes the sources as t h e y a r e h a n d e d d o w n a n d e x p l a i n s d i v e r g i n g s t a t e m e n t s b y reference to the a r c a n e discipline a n d the c a u t i o n w i t h w h i c h J e s u s h a d to p r o c e e d ,

5 6

it is

e x t r e m e s c e p t i c i s m vis-a-vis t h e t r a d i t i o n s i n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t t h a t g u i d e s KalthofFs approach.

E v e n t u a l l y he arrives at the conclusion that

the

G o s p e l s w e r e p u r e l y m y t h i c a l in c h a r a c t e r a n d , c o m b i n i n g t h i s w i t h t h e T u b i n g e n i d e a o f the origin o f C h r i s t i a n i t y in the belief o f the c o m m u n i t y r a t h e r t h a n in the t e a c h i n g o f J e s u s ,

5 7

h e g o e s s o far a s t o d e n y t h a t a

p a r t i c u l a r e v e n t l i k e t h e c r u c i f i x i o n o f a c e r t a i n J e s u s , i f its h i s t o r i c i t y is g r a n t e d , or that the person o f a ' f o u n d e r ' importance.

5 9

5 8

could be o f any constitutive

R a d i c a l i s i n g t h e v i e w o f t h e T u b i n g e n s c h o o l i n this w a y

6 0

he

a d v a n c e s a n e w p e r s p e c t i v e b y g i v i n g C h r i s t i a n i t y its s e t t i n g , e v e n its o r i g i n , in t h e s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n o f t h e e m p i r e . I t is t h e p r o d u c t o f c e r t a i n converging

factors

in

the

ancient

world.

The

revival o f the

social

p r e a c h i n g o f the p r o p h e t s in the form o f a p o c a l y p t i c i s m , the p h i l o s o p h y o f the m i d d l e S t o a , the m o v e m e n t o f the proletariat and, m o s t important, the 5 2

5 3

5 4

5 5

I b i d . p . 332. I b i d . p . 333. ' Z e a l o t ' seems to have a wider m e a n i n g in the context. I b i d . p . 340. A n informative sketch o f K a l t h o f f is supplied b y F. Steudel in his preface to the p o s t h u m o u s edition o f KalthofFs Zukunftsideale (Jena, 1907), p p . V - X X X I I . For criticism o f KalthofFs and K a u t s k y ' s views c p . A . D e i s s m a n n , Licht vom Osten, 2nd

edn. ( T u b i n g e n , 1923), p p . 336, 403ff. 5 6

5 7

5 8

59

6 0

W e i t l i n g , Evangelium, p p . 33ff, 43. F. C . Baur, Kirchengeschichte derdrei ersten Jahrhunderte i, 3rd e d n . (Leipzig, 1863), 40; cited b y A . Kalthoff, Entstehung des Christentums (Leipzig, 1904), p . 24 ( E T L o n d o n , 1907, p . 29). T h e e m p h a s i s on the personality o f Jesus is in his o p i n i o n n o t h i n g but an attempt at m o d e r n i s a t i o n ; nay, w o r s e than this, it is 'die A n g s t v o r d e m kirchlichen K o m m u n i s m u s , die in dieser L e b e n - J e s u - T h e o l o g i e nachhinkt'; this theology fears for its 'privat-kapitalistische W e l t a n s c h a u u n g , w e n n es ihr nicht gelingt, in den Evangelien den k o m m u n a l e n Christus d u r c h den individuellen zu v e r d r a n g e n ' (Entstehung, p . 98 etc.; E T p . 123 e t c . ) . K a l t h o f f , Entstehung, p . 108 ( E T p . 139). For B a u r ' s c o n c e p t o f Jesus, c p . W . G . K i i m m e l , Das Neue Testament. Geschichte der Erforschung seiner Probleme (2nd e d n . Freiburg, 1970), p p . 174^ E T ( L o n d o n , 1973), pp. i4if.

l8

E.

BAMMEL

emergence o f semi-secret societies

6 1

brought about something that m a y be

c a l l e d t h e f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e t i m e s , t h e r i p e fruit o f w h i c h w a s p r o d u c e d i n C h r i s t i a n i t y : a l l t h e c u r r e n t s o f t h e t i m e flowed t o g e t h e r i n t o t h i s m o v e m e n t because

each

communism.

of

them

had

already

absorbed

ideas

of

economic

6 2

T h i s m e a n s that the Christian communities inherited a mentality a n d , already to some extent, a p r o g r a m m e o f radical social change. Revolution ary unrest w a s not s o m e t h i n g that i n v a d e d the c o m m u n i t i e s from time to time a n d w a s c o m b a t e d especially b y Paul, b u t w a s the very essence o f these c o m m u n i t i e s - the pointers to the c o n t r a r y in the Pauline letters are v i e w e d b y K a l t h o f f as fabrications o f a later p e r i o d . incarnation, as the C h r i s t - G o d ;

6 4

6 3

T h e c o m m u n i t y is s e e n a s t h e

the absolute unity of the m e m b e r s w a s

already a revolutionary factor within the context o f a totally structure

different

o f t h e p o l i t i c a l w o r l d . T h e agape is c o n s t i t u t i v e for w h a t i s ,

s p e a k i n g in e c o n o m i c terms, a c o m m u n i t y o f c o n s u m p t i o n , the oblations a n d primitiae p r o v i d e c o m m u n a l p r o p e r t y . abandonment

o f private property

6 5

A n e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e is t h e

in favour o f c o m m u n a l

ownership.

C o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h i s is t h e e m p h a s i s o n w o r k , t h a t m e a n s o n c o n s u m p t i o n a n d u s u f r u c t w h i c h is s o l e l y b a s e d o n p r o d u c t i o n . T h i s is a s t e p f o r w a r d compared

with

t h e life o f t h e t h i a s i c

congregations and a

complete

departure from the R o m a n concept o f property (based o n loot or p o w e r ) . W h a t e m e r g e s w i t h C h r i s t i a n i t y is a s t a t e w i t h i n t h e s t a t e , a n e c o n o m i c entity o f co-operation within the agrocapitalistic society. is d e m a n d e d

in so m a n y

Christian

communist economic system.

6 7

6 6

T h e thrift w h i c h

r e g u l a t i o n s is o n l y o n e s i d e o f a

T h e ' p r o h i b i t i o n of interest, the e m p h a s i s o n

the fair p r i c e ( w i t h o u t a n y g a i n ) a r e o t h e r features. I n d e e d , w e o w e to t h e church

'the most

conceived'.

comprehensive communist

manifesto

that w a s ever

6 8

K a l t h o f F s v i e w is e n t i r e l y c o n d i t i o n e d b y t h i s a n a l y s i s o f t h e w h o l e

51

W h i c h , indeed, caused the c o n c e r n o f the state a n d , at times, suppression ( c p . Pliny, Epist. x . 33 a n d 34). For c o m m u n i s t i c tendencies in a p o c a l y p t i c i s m , c p . p p . yyf ( E T p p . o,8fl). P p . 13ff; 11 iff ( E T p p . i6ff, 142). C p . B . Kellermann, Kritische Beitrdge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Christentums (Berlin, 1906), p p . 451T, w h o c o m b i n e s KalthofFs ideas with those o f W r e d e . T h i s particular view w a s anticipated in s o m e ways already b y the radical D u t c h school and R . Steck ( c p . R . Steck, 'Plinius i m neuen T e s t a m e n t ' , Jahrbucher fur protestantische Theologie 17 (1890), 5451T).

6 2

6 3

64

K a l t h o f f , Entstehung, p . n o ( E T p . 141). I b i d . p . 125 ( E T p . 162). I b i d . p p . i05f ( E T p p . 135Q. I b i d . p . 126 ( E T p . 163). C o m m u n i s t ideas were emphasised especially b y the c h u r c h fathers o f the post-Constantinian period, as E. T r o l t s c h (Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen, G e s a m m e l t e Schriften i ( T u b i n g e n , 1912), 51) stated. K a l t h o f f , Entstehung, p . 140 ( E T p . 181).

6 5

6 6

6 7

68

T h e revolution theory from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n

19

p e r i o d . H e t a k e s it a s a s i n g l e e n t i t y a n d d o e s n o t b e l i e v e i n c r u c i a l d i v e r g e n c e s , e i t h e r for t h e b e t t e r o r for t h e w o r s e . T h e r e f o r e h e d o e s n o t b e l i e v e i n J e s u s a s t h e t y p e o f a r e v o l u t i o n a r y ; t h i s i d e a is j u s t o n e f o r m o f a n 6 9

unhistorical, modernising individualisation, '

7 0

a tendency not in keeping

w i t h t h e n e c e s s i t y o f p l a c i n g e v e r y t h i n g i n t h e d e v e l o p i n g fluidum o f Christian culture.

7 1

H a v i n g resisted the temptation to invoke R e i m a r u s or B a u r as patrons a n d t o a d m i t s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g e , h e is c o m p e l l e d t o r e g a r d t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f C h r i s t i a n i t y a s b e i n g o n o n e p l a n e a n d t o shift t h e p i e c e s o f e v i d e n c e s o t h a t t h e y fit i n . H e t h e r e f o r e v i e w s t h e a c c o u n t s o f t h e p a s s i o n a s r e f l e c t i o n s of w h a t h a p p e n e d in the time o f the persecution under T r a j a n , Pliny under the mask o f Pilate, of the R o m a n community,

7 4

7 3

7 2

h e sees

characterises Peter as the personification

takes the G o s p e l reports as reflecting the

struggle o f the masses on the Italian estates

7 5

a n d transfers the P a u l i n e

letters to the s e c o n d c e n t u r y . A t t h e price o f this n e w a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e s o u r c e s h e is a b l e t o s k e t c h t h e p a n o r a m a

he w a s interested in. T h e

high-handed

shows

re-arrangement

of evidence

how much

of an

o v e r - s i m p l i f i c a t i o n it w a s t o b r i n g t h e C h r i s t i a n l i t e r a t u r e u n d e r t h e o n e v i n c u l u m of social tension. Nevertheless KalthofFs venture h a s not only the s u g g e s t i v e n e s s o f b o l d n e s s ; it is f a r s u p e r i o r i n c a l i b r e a n d b r e a d t h t o a n y other attempt at 'social' understanding o f Early Christendom.

7 6

IV (a) P a r a l l e l t o K a l t h o f F s , a n d y e t d i s t i n c t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t , is K a u t s k y ' s v i e w . H i s a p p r o a c h is t i n g e d w i t h s c e p t i c i s m t o w a r d s t h e e a r l i e s t

7 7

Christian

s o u r c e s , h e is d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r it is p o s s i b l e t o find o u t a n y t h i n g c e r t a i n a b o u t J e s u s ' s life a n d t e a c h i n g 6 9

7 0

7 1

7 8

a n d is e v e n n o t a v e r s e t o t h e t h e o r y o f

I b i d . p . 98 (Christ is j u s t the p a t r o n o f the c o m m u n i t y ; E T p . 126); p . 148 ( E T p . 190); c p . Das Christus-Problem (Leipzig, 1903), p p . 38f. In fact m o s t o f the n a m e s o f Christian literature are worthless (Entstehung, p . 92; E T p . 122). H e d r a w s attention to the a n a c h r o n i s m s o f the h a g g a d a (Was wissen voir von Jesus (Berlin, 1904), p . 39). Reflections in the style o f R . R o t h e are to b e found o n p p . 132ft of Entstehung ( E T

p p . i73ff). 7 2

7 3

7 4

7 6

7 7

7 8

KalthofT, Was wissen wir von Jesus, p . 38. Kalthoff, Das Christus-Problem, p . 43. I b i d . p p . 50ff. Ibid. p p . 5 7 ^ KalthofFs mythical theory was taken u p (in a modified form) b y P. Alfaric, Origines Sociales du Christianisme (Paris, 1959; G T D a r m s t a d t , 1963). K . K a u t s k y , Der Ursprung des Christentums (Stuttgart, 1908). T h e r e are t w o English translations: N e w Y o r k , 1925 (repr. 1973) and N e w Y o r k , 1953 ( b y j . F. M i n s ) . T h e p a g e n u m b e r s refer to the former translation. T h e n e w G e r m a n edition ( H a n n o v e r 1968) contains an informative introduction supplied b y K . K u p i s c h . I b i d . p . 25 ( E T p . 43). 7 5

20

E.

BAMMEL

Jesus's unhistoricity.

7 9

I n t h e m a i n , h o w e v e r , h e is i n c l i n e d t o a c c e p t t h e

s o u r c e s a s n o t t o o far r e m o v e d f r o m w h a t a c t u a l l y t o o k p l a c e , a n d

to

a t t e m p t - w i t h p r e f e r e n c e for L u k e a n d w i t h d i s a p p r o v a l o f t h e r e v i s i o n i s t Matthew

8 0

proletariat; name

81

is t h e

to d r a w

a sketch

of Jesus. Jesus's

m i l i e u is t h e

rural

the nearest p a r a l l e l to the c o m m u n i t y w h i c h a d o p t e d

his

Essenes, w i t h the decisive difference, h o w e v e r , that

the

C h r i s t i a n s w e r e essentially a city o r g a n i s a t i o n a n d therefore a b l e to c a r r y on as a secret s o c i e t y . rebellious

mentality,

8 2

8 3

W h a t is m o s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f J e s u s h i m s e l f is h i s which

was

establishment a n d the R o m a n s .

directed

against

both

the

Jewish

8 4

T h e Poor are called b y h i m because they are poor. T h e end, a n n o u n c e d to t h e m in the w o r d s o f the J e w i s h k i n g d o m e x p e c t a t i o n , d e m a n d s v i o l e n t a c t i o n o n t h e i r s i d e . L u k e 1 2 : 4 9 a n d 2 2 : 38ff a r e o f h e u r i s t i c v a l u e for K a u t s k y . Correspondingly he reconstructs

a planned

revolt after

the

successful assault against the T e m p l e , the b e t r a y a l o f w h i c h led to the downfall of Jesus.

8 5

H i s e x e c u t i o n is v e r y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e i f h e w a s a r e b e l ;

o t h e r w i s e it a p p e a r s a s a s e n s e l e s s a c t o f w i c k e d n e s s .

8 6

I t is o n l y l a t e r

t r a d i t i o n , t r a d i t i o n t h a t a r o s e after A . D . 7 0 , t h a t p l a y s d o w n t h e s e f e a t u r e s a n d is p a r t l y s u c c e s s f u l i n t h i s a t t e m p t . T h e p o r t r a i t o f t h e s u f f e r i n g C h r i s t replaces the tradition o f the rebellious J e s u s . I t is d u e to t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n t h a t h e h a d h i m s e l f a l r e a d y f o u n d e d t h a t h i s n a m e s u r v i v e d a n d that the tradition w a s projected into the form o f the r e s u r r e c t i o n m y t h . T h e b e l i e f in t h e c o m i n g C h r i s t g a v e i m p e t u s t o t h e c o m m u n i s t organisation o f the outcasts K a u t s k y had twice before 7 9

8 0

8 1

8 2

8 3

8 4

8 5

8 6

8 7

8 8

8 9

8 9

8 7

a n d m a d e it ' i r r e s i s t i b l e ' .

88

dealt w i t h the origin o f C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d h a d

I b i d . p . 384; c p . p p . 17f, 22f ( E T p . 364: ' w h e t h e r he actually existed o r was merely an ideal figure o f m e n ' s visions . . .'; c p . p p . 35, 40). I b i d . p . 352 etc. ( E T p . 335). H e d r a w s the c o n c l u s i o n that the partisans o f the proletariat are m u c h better e q u i p p e d to c o m p r e h e n d the beginnings o f Christianity than c h a i r b o u n d d o n s ( p . viii; E T p . 12). K a u t s k y , Ursprung, p . 337 ( E T p . 320). I b i d . p . 384 ( E T p . 363): differently M . R o b b e {Der Ursprungdes Christentums (Berlin, 1967), p . 75) w h o emphasises the o p e n , the e m b r a c i n g character o f the Christian c o m m u n i t i e s as contrasted with the Essenes. K a u t s k y , Ursprung, p p . 385ft ( E T p p . 3 6 4 0 ) . I b i d . p p . 387ff ( E T p p . 365(1). I b i d . p p . 389 ( E T p . 368). I b i d . p . 402 ( E T p p . 3 7 9 0 - It has to b e e m p h a s i s e d that, a c c o r d i n g to K a u t s k y ( c p . p . 434; E T p . 409), the c o m m u n i s t city organisation is singular and o f decisive i m p o r t a n c e for the parting o f w a y s with J u d a i s m . K a u t s k y , Ursprung, p . 403 ( E T p p . 380Q. T h e class hatred o f the early Christians was a feature that a p p e a l e d to the non-Jews, while it b r o u g h t the Christians into conflict with J u d a i s m , w h i c h believed in united forces. 0

' D i e Entstehung des Christentums' in Die neue Zeit 3 (1885), 481-99, 529-45; Die Vorldufer des neueren Sozialismus (Stuttgart, 1895), 40, 46ff.


21

stated e m p h a t i c a l l y that the person of Jesus w a s 'of c o m p a r a t i v e l y small importance', was even 'bedeutungslos'.

9 0

T h e i n t e r e s t h e t o o k in t h e J e w i s h

b a c k g r o u n d i n h i s t h i r d a t t e m p t is o b v i o u s . I t s e e m s t h a t t h e s c r u t i n y o f this w o r l d h a d o p e n e d his e y e s to the fact t h a t the d e v e l o p m e n t w a s m o r e c o m p l e x t h a n h e h a d p r e v i o u s l y a s s u m e d . I t w a s i n this b e w i l d e r i n g w o r l d o f J u d a i s m that he w a s a b l e to allot a p l a c e to J e s u s , as a n e x p o n e n t o f the t h e n d o m i n a n t m o v e m e n t . H e is n e i t h e r p l a c e d a t t h e c r o s s - r o a d s b e t w e e n t h e t w o c u l t u r e s n o r v i e w e d a s a homo sui generis. T h e s e a r e t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f K a u t s k y ' s s k e t c h o f J e s u s . E a r l y C h r i s t e n d o m i t s e l f is s e e n e n t i r e l y a s a social m o v e m e n t .

9 1

K a u t s k y h o l d s that m o d e r n times are totally different from the d a y s o f the struggle o f the p e a s a n t proletariat. H e therefore refrains from taking J e s u s a s a d i r e c t e x a m p l e - t h a t is t h e d i f f e r e n c e f r o m W e i t l i n g . H e s e e s J e s u s himself, h o w e v e r , m o r e c l e a r l y t h a n K a l t h o f f w a s a b l e to d o in the s i t u a t i o n o f t h e J e w i s h s t r u g g l e . T h e Z e a l o t f a c e o f it is i n h i s v i e w a f e a t u r e o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n - h e h i m s e l f is n o t a t a l l i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s ( o r o n l y n e g a t i v e l y , in o r d e r to d i s p u t e the C h r i s t i a n portrait o f J e s u s ) . It only p r o v i d e s h i m w i t h t h e m e a n s t o g i v e h i s t o r i c a l c o l o u r a n d l o g i c t o a life, t h e o u t c o m e o f w h i c h a p p e a r s a l m o s t ridiculous if v i e w e d from the basis o f the C h r i s t i a n sources as they stand. T h e a p p e a r a n c e o f K a u t s k y ' s book w a s followed b y a lively discussion. T h e a n o n y m o u s ' A . D . ' held against K a u t s k y that Jesus w a s only interested i n a n d c o n c e r n e d for i n d i v i d u a l s , a n d t h a t t h e r a d i c a l t e n d e n c i e s a r e d u e to an

Umbiegung i n

the

early

communities,

proletariat got control over them.

9 2

which happened

when

the

F. M e h r i n g , on the other h a n d , stated

h i s b a s i c a g r e e m e n t w i t h K a u t s k y w h i l e p o i n t i n g to t h e i n f l u e n c e o f P a u l , w h o - so he holds, citing a famous statement o f Pfleiderer

93

- had succeeded

in o v e r c o m i n g the t e n d e n c i e s hostile to a n y social o r d e r .

9 4

H. Windisch

questioned the picture o f militant Christian beginnings a n d admitted such t e n d e n c i e s o n l y for t h e A p o c a l y p s e , e x p l a i n i n g t h e m a s d u e t o s u b s e q u e n t Judaisation

(nachtrdgliche Judaisierung). I f t h e e a r l y C h r i s t i a n s h a d

been

revolutionaries, they w o u l d h a v e j o i n e d the Z e a l o t m o v e m e n t a n d h a v e

9 0

9 1

9 2

9 3

9 4

Die neue Zeit 3 (1885), 543. H e m o c k s at the aim o f his fellow socialist A . Dulk to recover early Christianity for his o w n belief ( p . 545). C p . the criticism raised against him b y T r o l t s c h , Soziallehren, p p . 1 ' D e r s o g e n a n n t e urchristliche K o m m u n i s m u s ' , in Die neue Zeit 26 (1908), 4820°. O . Pfleiderer, Die Entstehung des Christentums ( M i i n c h e n , 1905, p . 186; E T L o n d o n , 1906, p . 211): Paul rejected e m p h a t i c a l l y the c o m m u n i s t i c fanaticism related to the early Christian t e n d e n c y to w o r l d - a b r o g a t i o n . T h i s statement is found o n c e and again in socialist writings, and was o n l y recently used as a w e a p o n against Paul by K . Farner ( c p . n o t e 394, p p . 6 i f ) . K a u t s k y himself w r o t e a very hostile review o f Pfleiderer's b o o k {Die neue Zeit 25 (1907), ii, 760). ' D e r U r s p r u n g des C h r i s t e n t u m s ' in Die neue Zeit 27 (1909), i, 28iff.

22

E.

BAMMEL

perished with it.

9 5

H e points e s p e c i a l l y to the fact t h a t P s a l m 2 a n d A m o s

w e r e cited in A c t s 4 a n d

1 5 i n a w a y w h i c h is c o n t r a r y to t h e o r i g i n a l

militant m e a n i n g o f the p a s s a g e s . K a u t s k y refuted W i n d i s c h b y d r a w i n g attention

to

comparable

phenomena

in

Bohemian

radicalism

and

c o m m u n i s t sectarian m o v e m e n t s , w h e r e militant beginnings are followed b y a n i n c l i n a t i o n t o p e a c e f u l n e s s . H e f a s t e n s o n t h e title 6 X Q t o r o g : t o c a l l h i m s e l f m e s s i a h w o u l d h a v e b e e n a s a b s u r d for a p e a c e - l o v i n g m a r t y r a s i f T o l s t o i h a d d e s c r i b e d h i m s e l f as a b o m b - t h r o w i n g terrorist. H e Windisch

as h a v i n g a d m i t t e d

three

stages

(Jesus

peaceful,

interprets the

first

c o m m u n i t y rebellious, the later d e v e l o p m e n t peaceful a g a i n ) , and claims that in o r d e r to s a l v a g e J e s u s from the p r e s u m p t i o n o f a rebellious disposi t i o n W i n d i s c h is f o r c e d to a s s e r t J e s u s ' s i n a b i l i t y to e x e r c i s e a n i n f l u e n c e o n his rebellious disciples. H e e m p h a s i s e s that the militant p a s s a g e s in the N e w T e s t a m e n t are ' U b e r r e s t e einer tiefeingewurzelten T r a d i t i o n . '

9 6

(b) S o v i e t h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , i n its p r e s e n t a t i o n o f E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y , is m o r e d e p e n d e n t o n F . E n g e l s a n d his i n d e b t e d n e s s to B r u n o B a u e r other radical Jesus

researcher.

9 7

than on any

K a u t s k y is r a r e l y c i t e d , a n d

Kalthoff,

a l t h o u g h i n t h e c e n t r a l h i s t o r i c a l i s s u e m o r e a k i n to E n g e l s t h a n K a u t s k y , is disregarded almost completely, while A . Drews was mocked by Lenin himself. O n the one hand, Soviet ideologists are attracted by w h a t appears from their point o f v i e w as the parallel b e t w e e n early Christianity a n d v

the

socialist m o v e m e n t , w h i l e on the other h a n d the contents o f the bible are abhorrent

t o t h e m . I t is d u e to t h i s h i a t u s t h a t t h e y felt d r a w n t o t h e

conclusion o f the non-historicity of J e s u s .

9 8

T h e d i v e r g i n g tenor o f the early

C h r i s t i a n s t a t e m e n t s o n force a n d w a r are e x p l a i n e d as p r o d u c t s o f different stages

in

9 5

9 6

the

development

of Christendom.

9 9

The

radical

ones

are

H . W i n d i s c h , Der messianische Krieg und das Urchristentum ( T u b i n g e n , 1909). K . J . K a u t s k y , J e s u s ' 'der R e b e l F , Die neue Zeit 28 (1910), i, 52. T h e o p i n i o n v o i c e d b y Hitler (Jesus is r e c o m m e n d a b l e , while Paul was an 'instigator o f the proletariat'; Monologe, ed. W . J o c h m a n n ( H a m b u r g , 1980), p p . 96°, 150, 412°; the last c o n v e r s a t i o n recorded!) was in all likelihood started off b y his reading o f this controversy.

9 7

It was K a u t s k y w h o d r e w Engels's attention to Bauer, w h o ' b r a c h t e fast das, was ich s u c h t e ' (Fr. Engels Briefwechsel mit K. Kautsky, ed. b y B. K a u t s k y ( W i e n , 1955), p . 179). F o r a critique o f Bauer, c p . E. Barnikol, Bruno Bauer, Studien und Materialien ( A s s e n , 1972), p p . 238f. C p . also J. I r m s c h e r , 'Friedrich Engels u n d das U r c h r i s t e n t u m ' , Studii Clasice 3 (1961), 99ff.

9 8

B . Stasiewski, ' U r s p r u n g und Entfaltung des Christentums in sowjetischer Sicht', Saeculum ii (i960), 169; idem in Sowjetsystem unddemokratische Gesellschaft iii (Freiburg, 1969), 343ff. R o b b e , Ursprung, p . 24, o n the other h a n d , declares the q u e s t i o n a matter o f m i n o r interest: even if he lived it was not he w h o b e c a m e instrumental in starting Christianity but it was a general m o v e m e n t w h i c h g a v e rise to it.

" S t a s i e w s k i , Saeculum, ii (i960) 163; c p . 170.


23

c o n s i d e r e d t o r e f l e c t t h e p r i m i t i v e s t a t e a n d it is for t h i s r e a s o n t h a t t h e R e v e l a t i o n o f J o h n is v a l u e d a s t h e o l d e s t a n d m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t C h r i s t i a n document.

1 0 0

T h e o p i n i o n that the early c o m m u n i t i e s in their social unrest

lacked a w a r e n e s s o f their social position precludes these authors

from

a p p r e c i a t i n g e a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y a s a n y t h i n g t h a t is s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from p r e - M a r x i s t c o m m u n i s m o f the b e g i n n i n g o f the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . T h u s , e v e n the r a d i c a l o r r e v o l u t i o n a r y t e n d e n c i e s f o u n d in e a r l y C h r i s t i a n sources do not dispose them favourably towards it.

101

A s h a d e o f d i f f e r e n c e f r o m t h i s is f o u n d i n S . I . K o v a l e v .

1 0 2

A considerable

d e p a r t u r e i s , h o w e v e r , n o t n o t i c e a b l e b e f o r e M . M a c h o v e c , w h o is t h e b e s t i n f o r m e d a m o n g the eastern M a r x i s t a u t h o r s o f this g e n e r a t i o n a n d w h o s e s k e t c h b e t r a y s s y m p a t h y a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g for J e s u s a n d e q u a l l y for h i s message.

1 0 3

H e s t a r t s w i t h t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t it w o u l d b e s u r p r i s i n g i f

J e s u s h a d n o t d e v e l o p e d a s t a n d e n t i r e l y o f h i s o w n vis-a-vis t h e q u e s t i o n o f force,

1 0 4

a n d t h e r e b y a v o i d s p i n n i n g d o w n J e s u s to o n e o f t h e e s t a b l i s h e d

positions in c o n t e m p o r a r y J u d a i s m . w i t h o u t the use of f o r c e

1 0 6

I t is t h e e m p h a s i s o n a c t i v i t y

1 0 5

w h i c h is s e e n a s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f J e s u s , w h i l e t h e

e s c h a t o l o g i c a l p r o p h e t i c e l e m e n t - a f a c e t to w h i c h M a c h o v e c is a b l e to g i v e considerable value

1 0 7

o f social p r o b l e m s .

1 0 0

1 0 1

102

103

1 0 4

1 0 5

1 0 6

1 0 7

1 0 8

is i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h o u t b e i n g b r o u g h t d o w n t o t h e l e v e l

1 0 8

H i s portrayal o f J e s u s

a s Utopian i s , perhaps,

A v i e w - taken b y F. Engels - is thus repeated (similarly K a u t s k y , Ursprung, p . 380; E T p . 360). R o b b e , Ursprung, p . 1 8 1 , deviates here from the d o m i n a n t line b y e m p h a s i s i n g that the A p o c a l y p s e with its anti-state bias is not typical o f Christian mentality. T y p i c a l is A . B. R a n o w i t s c h , ' D a s U r c h r i s t e n t u m und seine historische R o l l e ' (in Aufsatze zur Alten Geschichte (Berlin, 1 9 6 1 ) p p . I35ff). W h i l e p a y i n g tribute to the idea that Christianity, being a religion, was o p i u m for the p e o p l e ( p . 1 3 5 ) , and s u b s u m i n g it u n d e r the v i n c u l u m o f Sklavenhaltergesellschaft he characterises it as a n e w stage in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f this society ( p . 139) w h i c h m a d e possible, for the first time in history, a w o r l d religion. Its origin is sketched w i t h o u t any reference to J e s u s . Its earliest and foremost d o c u m e n t is the A p o c a l y p s e with its hatred against a ' w o r l d o f suppression' ( p . 1 4 1 ) . T h e mentality o f revolutionary radicalism w h i c h c o n d i t i o n e d certain features in the life o f the c o m m u n i t i e s ( p . 145) remained alive, h o w e v e r , only in the side-branches o f C h r i s t e n d o m , while w h a t b e c a m e the official c h u r c h d e v e l o p e d a hierarchy o f offices and e n c o u n t e r e d the w o r l d with the message o f love instead o f hatred. T h i s olive-branch is a d e v e l o p m e n t o f the s e c o n d half o f the s e c o n d century ( p . 1 5 8 ) ; it reflects the decrease o f messianism and o p e n s the d o o r for an alliance with the w o r l d . S t a s i e w s k i , Saeculum ii ( i 9 6 0 ) , 176f. JesusfurAtheisten (Stuttgart, 1 9 7 2 ; E T under the t i t l e d Marxist looks atJesus, L o n d o n , 1976). I b i d . p . 128 ( E T p . 106). I b i d . p . 133: love y o u r n e i g h b o u r is an iron d e m a n d w i t h o u t any c o m p r o m i s e t o w a r d s yourself ( E T p . n o ) . I b i d . p . 131 ( E T p . 108). H e takes up ideas o f M . B l o c h (Das Prinzip Hoffnung i/ii (Berlin, 1 9 5 5 ) ) . C p . his criticism o f K a u t s k y , p p . 287f ( E T p p . 2161).

24

E. BAMMEL

influenced b y the religious heritage of B o h e m i a

1 0 9

b u t o n t h e w h o l e it is free

f r o m H u s s i t e m i l i t a n c y a n d c o m m u n i s t c l i c h e s . I t is t h e first s o c i a l i s t approach that dispenses with the M a r x i s t economic yardstick.

1 1 0

(c) M a r x i s m i n t h e W e s t h a d g o n e a d i f f e r e n t w a y i n t h e m e a n t i m e . cannot

expect a n y recovery o f the Jesus

reconciled

to the social

order'

is a

1 1 1

'We

o f history in those w h o are

statement

1 1 2

as typical

o f the

c o n s t e r n a t i o n a f t e r t h e first w o r l d w a r a s it is o f t h e s o c i a l t e n d e n c y , a n d still w o r t h c o n t e m p l a t i n g . B y t a k i n g a l e a p f o r w a r d f r o m this p r e s u p p o s i t i o n i t is m a i n t a i n e d t h a t J e s u s ' s c a l l f o r i n n e r r e p e n t a n c e r e s u l t e d o f n e c e s s i t y i n h i s s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t t h e r u l i n g c l a s s e s - t h e r e o r g a n i s a t i o n o f s o c i e t y is h i s real a i m

1 1 3

- while he withstood nationalist suggestions once a n d a g a i n .

T h e c h a s m b e t w e e n socialist a n d nationalist

1 1 5

1 1 4

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f J e s u s is

o p e n e d thereby. T h e difference b e t w e e n these w a y s o f ' e n v i r o n m e n t a l ' understanding is, however, not exclusive: Jesus 'the social revolutionary' holds t h e T e m p l e for three d a y s

1 1 6

- t h e n a t i o n a l i s t t h e o r y is m a d e u s e o f

conveniently. T h e early twentieth-century approach w a s taken u p b y A . Robertson.

1 1 7

H e describes Christianity as a 'mass movement conditioned b y a decaying slave society of antiquity'.

1 1 8

T h i s is t h e n o r m a l s o c i a l i s t s l o g a n . R o b e r t s o n

g i v e s it a s p e c i a l s l a n t b y c h a r a c t e r i s i n g t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f C h r i s t i a n i t y a s ' a r e v o l u t i o n a r y m o v e m e n t l e d first b y J o h n t h e B a p t i s t a n d t h e n b y J e s u s t h e N a z o r e a n , a n d a i m e d at the overthrow o f R o m a n a n d H e r o d i a n rule in '

v___

Palestine a n d the establishment o f a n earthly kingdom o f G o d ' . thereby c o m e s o u t for the historicity of J e s u s ; 1 0 9

1 1 0

1 1 1

1 , 2

1 . 3

1 . 4

l , 5

1 2 0

C p . P. R o u b i c z e k , Warrior of God ( L o n d o n , 1947). F o r the c o n s e q u e n c e s , for the value attributed to Jesus as a m o n u m e n t , as a stimulus to social activity, c p . the s u m m a r y in E. Grasser, ' M o t i v e u n d M e t h o d e n d e r neueren Jesus-Literatur', Verkundigung und Forschung 18 (1973), 34-40. T h e rejection o f Jesus h a d never been as t h o r o u g h g o i n g in the socialist parties o f the W e s t as in the C o m m u n i s t w o r l d o f the East. C p . the statements cited in H . H a r t m a n n , Die Stimme des Volkes ( M u n c h e n , 1920); G . N a u m a n n , Sozialismus und Religion ( L e i p z i g , 1921), p p . 78, 83; L e i p o l d t , Jesusbild, p p . 68f; W . Ilgenstein, Die religiose Gedankenwelt der Sozialdemokratie (Berlin, 1914), p . 195. A n element o f p r o p a g a n d a c a n n o t b e ruled o u t in these l u k e w a r m appraisals. A n instructive defence against the materialistic v i e w is to b e found in H . K o h l e r , Die sozialistische Irrlehre von der Entstehung des Christentums (Leipzig, 1899). J . L e w i s in Christianity and Social Revolution ( L o n d o n , 1935), p . 102. J. M a c m u r r a y , Creative Society. A Study of the Relation of Christianity to Communism ( L o n d o n , 1935), p p . 84f. T h e temptation story a n d J o h n 6:15 are interpreted along these lines. C p . p . 87.

M a c m u r r a y , Society, p . 88. The Origins of Christianity ( L o n d o n , I b i d . p . 209 ( G T p . 235). * Origins, p . 93 ( G T p . 104).

1953; G T Stuttgart, 1965).

1 . 8

n

He

h e is m o s t d e f i n i t e i n t h i s

1 1 6

1 . 7

1 1 9

, 2 0

C p . n. 79, p . 20.


25

c o n c l u s i o n . W h i l e K a u t s k y h a d w a v e r e d , a t l e a s t for a m o m e n t , i n h i s a p p r o a c h to the q u e s t i o n , R o b e r t s o n e v e n m o c k s at the m y t h s c h o o l .

1 2 1

But

it is s y m p t o m a t i c t h a t h i s p o r t r a i t o f t h e B a p t i s t is d r a w n m o r e c l e a r l y t h a n that of Jesus, and that he eventually r e d u c e s

1 2 2

the i m p o r t a n c e o f b o t h o f

t h e m for t h e m o v e m e n t w h i c h t h e y i n i t i a t e d o r o n l y

represented.

1 2 3

T h e 'primitive g o s p e l ' , a d o c u m e n t w h i c h purports to deal w i t h J e s u s , w h e r e a s in f a c t it w a s e m b e l l i s h e d w i t h i n c i d e n t s w h i c h h a d b e e n r e l a t e d o f r e v o l u t i o n a r y l e a d e r s for g e n e r a t i o n s b a c k ,

1 2 4

is a r e v o l u t i o n a r y m a n i f e s t o

for w h i c h it is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t , w h i l e P h a r i s e e s a n d

Sadducees

are

d e n o u n c e d , the Z e a l o t s are not. It w a s c o m p o s e d at the time o f the J e w i s h w a r , in w h i c h the C h r i s t i a n s took p a r t .

1 2 5

I t is to b e m a i n l y r e c o v e r e d f r o m

so-called Q-material w h i c h was deliberately suppressed by M a r k . m e n t a l i t y l i v e d o n in the A p o c a l y p s e .

1 2 7

1 2 6

Its

M a r k w a s w r i t t e n a f t e r 70 a n d tries

to d r a w the sting o f r e v o l u t i o n a r y m e s s i a n i s m .

1 2 8

It does this b y fusing the

p r i m i t i v e gospel w i t h P a u l i n e theology: the old theory of M a r k ' s P a u l i n i s m , rejected

already

by M . W e r n e r ,

1 2 9

is t h u s

revived. Paul himself had

e s t a b l i s h e d a different b r a n d o f C h r i s t i a n i t y , a religion t h a t h a d little or n o t h i n g to d o w i t h J e s u s , t h a t r e p r e s e n t e d m i d d l e - c l a s s s e n t i m e n t s i n t h e E m p i r e a n d w a s thus o p p o s e d to the revolutionary ' v e n o m ' spread slaves a n d the l i k e . confrontation

and

1 3 0

by

T h e h i s t o r y o f t h e n a s c e n t c h u r c h is s e e n a s t h e

reconciliation, and

eventually union

between

these

t e n d e n c i e s : t h e T u b i n g e n t h e o r y , p r o j e c t e d o n t o t h e s o c i a l l e v e l , is t h u s adopted.

1 3 1

A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n from the m a t e r i a l o u t l o o k to a spiritual o n e

w a s t h e r e s u l t for t h e p r i m i t i v e c h u r c h .

1 3 2

C o m p a r e d w i t h K a u t s k y t h e w o r k d i s p l a y s a far b e t t e r c o g n i s a n c e o f t h e sources and a scrutiny o f their respective value. C o i n c i d i n g w i t h B r a n d o n -

121

Origins, 76f. ( G T p p . 8of, 85). C p . Kautsky. '. . . r o u n d confused traditions o f written' ( p . 209; G T p . 235). R o b e r t s o n , Origins, p . 144 ( G T p . I b i d . p p . i4off ( G T p p . 158(f); the contrary are rejected and positive I b i d . p . 150 ( G T p . 170). I b i d . p . 156 ( G T p p . 1761). >28 i b i d . p . 149 ( G T p . 169).

1 2 2

1 2 3

m o r e than o n e leader the original gospel was

1 2 4

163). statements o f Eusebius and Epiphanius to the evidence is found in R e v . 12: 7f; 14: 20; 17: gf.

1 2 5

1 2 6

1 2 7

1 2 9

1 3 0

1 3 1

1 3 2

Der Einflusspaulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium (Giessen, 1923). It was revived at the s a m e time in an even m o r e radicalised form ( M a r c i o n is the author o f M a r k ) b y H . R a s c h k e (Die Werkstatt des Markusevangelisten (Jena, 1924), p p . 31ft). 'Paul's attempts to inoculate the masses against revolutionary Messianism b y spreading the cult o f a purely mystical C h r i s t . . .' ( R o b e r t s o n , Origins, p . 172; G T p . 190). ' H e r e m o v e d the k i n g d o m o f G o d from this w o r l d to the next. T h i s was to cause trouble with the revolutionary Messianists' ( p . 104; G T p . 116). C p . the defence o f F . C . Baur in R o b e r t s o n , Origins, p . 102 ( G T p p . 2461). I b i d . p . 80 ( G T p p . 8 f ) . 4

26

E.

BAMMEL

o f w h o m he d o e s n o t s h o w k n o w l e d g e - in the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the g u i d i n g l i n e s o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t , h e differs i n p o s t u l a t i n g t h a t t h e b u l k o f t r a d i t i o n h a d c o m e i n t o e x i s t e n c e b e f o r e 70, i n e m p h a s i s i n g t h e s o c i a l r a d i c a l i s m a n d in a t t r i b u t i n g a l i o n ' s s h a r e in the o r i g i n o f the m o v e m e n t to the B a p t i s t .

V T h e m a i n s t r e a m o f r e s e a r c h o n t h e life o f J e s u s c o n t i n u e d t o m o v e i n a d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n . T h i s is n o t o n l y t r u e for t h e l i b e r a l l i v e s w h i c h g o o n , m o r e o r less, in the tradition o f H a s e . then the

modern

1 3 3

I t is e q u a l l y t h e c a s e w i t h w h a t w a s

theology, the eschatological a p p r o a c h .

Thus

Albert

S c h w e i t z e r s t a t e s t h a t t h e ' a p o c a l y p t i c m o v e m e n t i n t h e t i m e o f J e s u s is n o t connected

with

any

historical

'calculated

to

give

impulse

ringsum.'

1 3 4

event' to

and

that

there w e r e no

eschatological

enthusiasm':

events 'Stille

It m a y be that the p u r e l y a n t i q u a r i a n a p p r o a c h o f Schiirer's

Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes r e p e l l e d a n y a t t e m p t t o b r i d g e t h e g a p b e t w e e n the

political world and

ingenious

searching

the

theological writings. It m a y

of nineteenth-century

scholars

for

be that

the

contemporary

a l l u s i o n s in a p o c a l y p t i c literature h a d b e e n found to h a v e r e a c h e d a d e a d end.

1 3 5

I n a n y c a s e , it w a s o w i n g t o t h i s t u r n i n g a w a y f r o m t h e p o l i t i c a l

scene t h a t a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the m e s s a g e o f J e s u s c o n t i n u e d to

flourish

w h i c h h a d d i s p e n s e d b e f o r e h a n d w i t h the possibility o f a n y reference to contemporary

events.

E v e n t h o s e itfho p r o c l a i m e d a s o c i a l m e s s i a h , a J e s u s i n f e l l o w s h i p w i t h the P o o r - a considerable n u m b e r o f writers did s o

1 3 6

- did not really m a k e

u s e o f t h e p o l i t i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s t h e foil to s e t o f f t h e i r p o r t r a i t o f J e s u s . E x c e p t i o n s , like M . M a u r e n b r e c h e r ,

1 3 7

issues, w e r e torn to pieces b y S c h w e i t z e r . itself w a s

found

incompatible

with

w h o a l l o w e d for p o l i t i c a l s i d e 1 3 8

Indeed, even the social message

the

principle

of

thoroughgoing

133 T y p i c a l for the English scene is the portrait o f j e s u s b y Seeley, o f w h o m it is said that he did not discuss the relation o f this imperium in imperio ( L e w i s , Christianity p . 77). 1 3 4

1 3 5

1 3 6

137

1 3 8

Von Reimarus zu Wrede, p p . 366f; Quest, p . 368; c p . Geschichte, p p . 283f. It is typical that W . Bousset, w h o was in his p e r i o d the o u t s t a n d i n g authority o n a p o c a l y p t i c i s m , felt d r a w n , for a time at least, to the solution o f the unhistoricity o f Jesus; c p . The Modern Churchman (1976), p . 106. For a o n e - s i d e d discussion o f Bousset's motifs, c p . F. R e g n e r , 'PaulusundJesus'im igjahrhundert ( G o t t i n g e n , 1977). L e i p o l d t , Jesusbild, passim. Von Nazareth nach Golgatha (Berlin, 1909). Geschichte, p p . 575f (not in E T ) . A n attempt was m a d e b y the p h i l o s o p h e r W . B r o c k e r to insert the n o t i o n o f a violent Jesus and o f a riot c a u s e d b y h i m in c o - o p e r a t i o n with his followers into the Schweitzerian s c h e m e ( W . Brocker and H . B u h r , Zur Theologie des Geistes (Pfullingen, i960), p p . 6 i f ) . T h e a u t h o r himself leaves b e h i n d this feature in o r d e r to m a k e r o o m for a synthesis o n another level, b y a t h e o l o g y o f the spirit.

T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n eschatology in the interpretation o f j e s u s . n o t u n t y p i c a l for t h i s p e r i o d .

1 3 9

27

Mystical interpretations were

1 4 0

I t is s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e C h r i s t i a n S o c i a l i s t i n t e l l i g e n t s i a i n G e r m a n y b e c a m e i n c r e a s i n g l y a w a r e o f t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f m a i n t a i n i n g its p o s i t i o n . A l r e a d y in 1894 A . v o n H a r n a c k tried to a n s w e r the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r the g o s p e l w h i c h p r o c l a i m s a h o l y i n d i f f e r e n c e vis-a-vis w o r l d l y p r o b l e m s c a n contribute

towards

Naumann,

who

pamphlet,

1 4 2

had

the

solution

o f the

proclaimed

social

'Jesus der

question.

1 4 1

VolksmanrC i n

Friedrich an

earlier

stressed the incompatibility b e t w e e n Jesus's m e s s a g e a n d the

n e c e s s i t i e s o f c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y , a n d left t h e r e a d e r ( a s w e l l a s h i m s e l f ) w i t h the d i l e m m a .

1 4 3

T h e f a m o u s l a s t p a g e o f t h e first p a r t o f W e l l h a u s e n ' s

Einleitung, i n w h i c h h e p o i n t e d t o c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s i n t h e life o f j e s u s t h a t a r e n o t a c c e p t a b l e to o u r o w n t i m e , a n d w h e r e h e w e n t so far as to state: ' W i r konnen nicht ziiruck zu ihm, auch wenn wir wollten',

1 4 4

made a deep

i m p r e s s i o n o n this g e n e r a t i o n . T h e position w a s clarified in the c e l e b r a t e d p a p e r o f W . H e r r m a n n ' D i e sittlichen G e d a n k e n Jesu

in i h r e m V e r h a l t n i s z u d e r

L e b e n s b e w e g u n g der G e g e n w a r t . '

1 4 5

sittlichreligiosen

W h i l e f r a n k l y a d m i t t i n g t h a t t h e r e is

n o t h i n g o f the z e a l o t i s m o f a political or e c o n o m i c reformer in J e s u s ,

1 4 6

he

d e c l a r e s t h a t t a k i n g h i s w a y o f life a s a n e w l a w ( a s w a s d o n e b y T o l s t o i ) w o u l d b e a b e t r a y a l o f j e s u s . H e c h a l l e n g e s u s to e t h i c a l Selbstandigkeit (self-reliance).

1 4 7

eschatology, but 1 3 9

1 4 0

H e d o e s not d e f e n d J e s u s b y reference to his b e l i e f in he sees h i m

a s t h e s o u r c e o f stete Unruhe ( c o n t i n u a l

Schweitzer, Geschichte, p . 574 n. 3. C p . H . W e i n e l and A . G . W i d g e r y , Jesus in the Nineteenth Century and After

(Edinburgh, 1914), p p . 448f. 141

Die Verhandlungen des5. Evangelisch-sozialen Kongresses (Gottingen, 1894), p . 141. C p . the statement o f T r o l t s c h , w h o , pointing to the disinterest o f the Christians in m u n d a n e affairs, holds that this is a revolutionary element but lacks any revolutionary intentions (Willen zur Revolution), Soziallehren, p . 50. Jesus der Volksmann (Gottingen, 1894). Briefe uber die Religion (Berlin, 1903): the conflict, 'dass wir praktisch keine Christen im g e n a u e n W o r t s i n n e des Evangeliums sein konnen, schatze ich . . . fur viel peinlicher als alle Konflikte der L e h r e ' ( p . 58 in the edition o f 1916). T h e gospel o f the P o o r is 'eine unserer L e b e n s n o r m e n , aber nicht die einzige. Nicht unsere ganze Sittlichkeit wurzelt im E v a n g e l i u m , sondern nur ein Teil derselben, allerdings ein ausserst wichtiger und leicht missachter Bestandteil' ( p . 66). H e confines himself to speaking o f mere ' S t i m m u n g e n des E v a n g e l i u m s ' and maintains that they m o v e 'nur wie f e m e , weisse Sehnsuchtswolken iiber allem wirklichen T u n unserer Z e i t ' ( p . 60). H e d r e w the c o n c l u s i o n in his influential address to the Evangelisch-soziale K o n g r e s s in 1908, w h e n stating that the N e w T e s t a m e n t contains neither a political n o r a social doctrine, and for this reason cannot serve as the basis for social politics (Verhandlungen p . 39).

142

143

144

145

Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin, 1911), p . 104. Verhandlungen (Berlin 1903) p p . gff. I b i d . p . 19. I b i d . p . 29.

1 4 6

1 4 7

28

E.

unrest)

1 4 8

BAMMEL

a n d t h e p r o m o t e r o f e t h i c a l a c t i o n w h i c h is c o n d i t i o n e d b y t h e

conscience o f the i n d i v i d u a l .

1 4 9

'

1 5 0

O n l y i n d e p e n d e n t m i n d s v e n t i l a t e d the p o l i t i c a l issue in this p e r i o d . W e l l h a u s e n , rejecting an a p o c a l y p t i c interpretation o f j e s u s , points to the political e x p e c t a t i o n , considers w h e t h e r J e s u s m a d e use o f this, recalls the violence at the c l e a n s i n g a n d at the arrest, w o n d e r s w h e t h e r other traces o f t h i s k i n d m i g h t h a v e b e e n o b l i t e r a t e d , a n d c o n c l u d e s : 'bis zu einem gewissen Grade konnte R e i m a r u s R e c h t h a b e n ' .

1 5 1

I n t h i s w a y h e testifies t o t h e f a c t

that e v e r y c o n c e p t that takes the messianic terminology as constitutive a n d refrains

from

s p i r i t u a l i s i n g it is u n d e r

a c e r t a i n o b l i g a t i o n to

admit

q u a s i - Z e a l o t ingredients in the G o s p e l a c c o u n t s . On

t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h i s is t h e p e r i o d i n w h i c h , c h a l l e n g e d b y

mythological 1 4 8

1 4 9

1 5 0

151

1 5 2

1 5 3

theory

of A. Drews,

1 5 2

scholars,

1 5 3

the

especially classicists,

I b i d . p. n . I b i d . p . 27. C p . K . W e i d e l ' s statement: 'das Soziale liegt ihm liberhaupt fern, er hat stets nur d e n einzelnen M e n s c h e n im A u g e ' (Jesu Persdnlichkeit (Halle, 1908), p . 25; 3rd edn. 1921, p . 49). C p . N a u m a n n ' s confession that J e s u s dealt with the Einzelseele (Verhandlungen, p . 41), while he himself ventured into the w o r l d o f politics w i t h o u t the guidelines given b y J e s u s . F o r general information, c p . G . K r e t s c h m e r , Der Evangelisch-soziale Kongress (Stuttgart, 1972). T h e radical w i n g o f the Christian socialists did not maintain this reserve and e n d e d in an impasse. T h e y used the Bible as a m e a n s o f illustrating present-day p r o b l e m s w i t h o u t qualification; nevertheless, the form o f the sermon p r o v e d i n a d e q u a t e for the p u r p o s e s o f socialist agitation ( c p . W . D e r e s c h , Predigt und Agitation der religibsen Sozialisten ( H a m b u r g , 1971), p p . 69ft). C p . A . Pfeiffer ( e d . ) , Religiose Sozialisten (=Dokumente der Welt?evolution 6) ( O l t e n , 1976).

Einleitung, 2nd edn. p p . 82ff. A . D r e w s , Die Christusmythe I/II (Jena, 1909-11); J. M . R o b e r t s o n , Jesus and Judas ( L o n d o n , 1927); c p . Schweitzer, Geschichte, p p . 444ff. T h e m y t h theory was taken u p b y R a s c h k e (Werkstatt; Das Christusmysterium ( B r e m e n , 1954)) - his a r g u m e n t is far m o r e original than that o f his predecessors - and m o r e recently defended b y the s a m e a u t h o r in K . D e s c h n e r , Jesusbilder in theologischer Sicht ( M i i n c h e n , 1966), p p . 343ff. T h i s a p p r o a c h w a s followed b y G . A . W e l l s (The Jesus of the Early Christians ( L o n d o n , 1971), Did Jesus exist? ( L o n d o n , 1975)). H e tries especially to g i v e an e x p l a n a t i o n o f the m e t a m o r p h o s i s from m y t h o l o g y to history (Early Christians, p . 6). J. K a h l , Das Elend des Christentums ( H a m b u r g , 1968; E T L o n d o n 1971) c o m e s very near to W e l l s ' s position. H e m o c k s at B u l t m a n n ' s emphasis o n the 'that o f J e s u s ' s h a v i n g c o m e ' , finding it ' c r y p t i c and meaningless, indistinguishable from a m y t h ' ( p . 70; E T p . 103), and c o m e s out in favour o f agnosticism a b o u t Jesus: ' w e j u s t d o n o t k n o w ' ( p . 81; E T p . 121). O n the other hand, w h e n he c o m e s to charges against Christianity, he d o e s not spare J e s u s ( p . 49; E T p . 73). T h e m y t h o l o g i c a l inter pretation did not meet with applause a m o n g Jewish students. It was, however, although w i t h a characteristic deviation, taken u p b y J. b . G o r i o n , w h o identified J e s u s with the J e s u s b e n A n a n u s m e n t i o n e d b y J o s e p h u s (Jeshu b.Hanan (Jerusalem, 1959)). K . D u n k m a n n , Der historische Jesus, der mythologische Christus und Jesus der Christus ( L e i p z i g , 1 9 1 1 ) ; E. K l o s t e r m a n n , Die neuesten Angriffe auf die Geschichtlichkeit Jesu ( T u b i n g e n , 1912); J. W e i s s , Jesus von Nazareth. Mythos oder Geschichte? ( T u b i n g e n , 1910); A . J e r e m i a s , Hat Jesus Christus gelebt? ( L e i p z i g , 1911); H . W i n d i s c h , ' D e r geschichtliche J e s u s ' , ThR 13 (1910), i63ff and especially A . v o n H a r n a c k , ' H a t J e s u s g e l e b t ? ' in Aus Wissenschaft und Leben ii (Giessen, 1911),

T h e r e v o l u t i o n theory from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n e x a m i n e d the non-Christian testimonia sagacity.

1 5 5

1 5 4

29

to early C h r i s t e n d o m w i t h g r e a t

E v e n the f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a t i o n benefited v e r y m u c h from this

s c r u t i n y , w h e r e a s t h i s h e r i t a g e a n d i n t e r e s t s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n l o s t to present-day theological researchers. T h e scrutiny of the national m o v e m e n t s led to a better u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the time o f j e s u s a n d a l r e a d y cast certain d o u b t s o n the S c h w e i t z e r theory of a J e s u s w h o w a s not troubled b y p o l i t i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n d e e d , it is u n l i k e l y t h a t h e l i v e d i n s u l a t e d f r o m the political events o f his time. T h i s does not, h o w e v e r , m e a n that he j o i n e d w i t h one o f the forces o f action. T h i s w a s especially the time of investigations into the social conditions o f the ancient w o r l d a n d o f nascent C h r i s t i a n i t y within t h e m , a n d o f at least o n e a t t e m p t to set early C h r i s t e n d o m in the c o n t e x t o f social r a d i c a l i s m . R. 156

v o n P o h l m a n n ' s m a g i s t e r i a l Geschichte dersozialen Frage proletarian w h o addressed co-proletarians,

1 5 7

pictures Jesus as a

as s o m e o n e w h o s e m e s s a g e ,

a l t h o u g h not w i t h o u t a different, a religious b a c k g r o u n d ,

1 5 8

became merely

a c l a s s g o s p e l (Klassenevangelium). I t p r o c l a i m e d t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e existing e c o n o m i c s y s t e m a n d o f the social order. P o h l m a n n holds that J e s u s h a d c o m p l e t e l y lost c o n t a c t w i t h reality a n d t h a t his v i e w s w e r e 159

f a t h e r e d b y Zusammenbruchswahn.

I t is for t h i s r e a s o n t h a t n o p r o g r a m m e

o f social reform c a n be found in the G o s p e l s . T h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f the s p e e d y 1 5 4

C p . K . Link, De antiquissimis quae ad Jesum Nazarenum spectant testimoniis (Giessen,

1 5 5

T h e L o n d o n p a p y r u s o f C l a u d i u s ' s letter to the A l e x a n d r i a n s , a source w h i c h c a m e to light in 1923, was interpreted b y o n e scholar at least as giving direct evidence for the subversive activities o f Christian propagandists ' a n a l o g u e , a ses y e u x , au peril c o m m u n i s t e d o n t b e a u c o u p d'Etats se sentent menaces a u j o u r d ' h u i ' (S. R e i n a c h , CRAIBL, p . 315, subsection ofRArch 5th series, 33 (1931). T h e R e i n a c h theory was s u p p o r t e d b y F. C u m o n t , ' L a premiere allusion au Christianisme d a n s Phistoire',

i9'3)-

RHR 90 (1924), io8ff, and criticised b y H . J . Bell, HThR 37 (1944), i89f. For an e x a m i n a t i o n o f the w h o l e letter, c p . S. L o s c h , Epistula Claudiana ( R o t t e n b u r g , 1930). O f special i m p o r t a n c e is T a c i t u s Ann. x v . 44, the reference to the N e r o n i a n persecution. M . J o e l considers it surprising that the Christians had not been m e n t i o n e d before in T a c i t u s ' s a c c o u n t ; he points to the fact that T a c i t u s ' s report o f the years 29 to 32 is not any longer extant and is inclined to assume that this is d u e to the redactional activity o f s o m e Christians, and that it was in this report that Jesus was pictured as a revolutionary w h o had been executed b y the R o m a n s for this reason, and that the m o v e m e n t started b y him had messianic revolutionary aspects as well (Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte ii (Breslau, 1883), 96ff). For a critical investigation, c p . K . Btichner, ' T a c i t u s uber die Christen', Aegyptus 33 (1953), i8iff, and P. C o r s s e n , ' D i e Z e u g n i s s e des T a c i t u s und Pseudo-Josephus iiber Christus',

Z W 1 5 (1914), n f f . 4

1 5 6

1 5 7

1 5 8

1 5 9

Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Sozialismus in der antiken Welt i/ii ( M i i n c h e n , 1912; cited after the third edn. 1925). I b i d . ii. 467. C p . the similarly s o u n d i n g but substantially different statement o f N a u m a n n : Jesus put o n a fight within the p e o p l e and for the p e o p l e ('im V o l k und fur das V o l k ' ) . P o h l m a n n , Geschichte, ii, 464, 473. I b i d , ii, 472.

E.

30

BAMMEL

e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a n i d e a l w o r l d o n e a r t h is a l l t h e m o r e a r d e n t . T h e r a d i c a l c h a r a c t e r o f the p h e n o m e n o n d o e s n o t consist in i n d i v i d u a l r e v o l u t i o n a r y a c t i o n s b u t in the total a n d f u n d a m e n t a l

denial of any reasonable

and

a d v a n c e d form o f social order. P o h l m a n n points to the m e s s a g e o f the p r o p h e t s a n d states t h a t J e s u s ' s o w n l a c k o f interest in p r o s p e r i t y w a s j u s t p o s s i b l e in his o w n e n v i r o n m e n t : J u d a i s m h a d o n l y b e e n a b l e to d e v e l o p a m

Halbkultur.

H e rejects, h o w e v e r , the possibility o f s e c o n d a r y E s s e n e (or

E b i o n i t e ) influence: the c o m m u n i s t tendencies are g r o u n d e d in the b a s i c i d e a s o f C h r i s t i a n i t y ( a Wahlverwandtschaft - a n e l e c t i v e a f f i n i t y - b e t w e e n C h r i s t i a n a n d p a g a n s o c i a l r o m a n t i c i s m is n o t t h e r e b y r u l e d o u t ) .

1 6 1

True,

the c o m m u n i s t o r g a n i s a t i o n o f the J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y w a s not i m i t a t e d b y t h o s e i n t h e G r e e k w o r l d , b u t it s e r v e d a s a m o d e l a n d w a s c o n s i d e r e d a s h a v i n g b e e n o f c r u c i a l i m p o r t a n c e . P o h l m a n n c i t e s o n e c h u r c h f a t h e r after another

-

especially J o h n

Chrysostom,

whose

optimistic

hope

of

'establishing h e a v e n on earth' does not l a g b e h i n d the 'fantasies o f [ A u g u s t ] BebeP

1 6 2

- a s w i t n e s s e s for t h e a n t i - c a p i t a l i s t s e n t i m e n t s . H e

Christianity

as

the

greatest

mass

movement

in

world

describes

history;

1 6 3

he

c h a r a c t e r i s e s it a s t h e c l i m a x o f s o c i a l m o v e m e n t s i n a n t i q u i t y a n d s e e s it a s a m a s s i l l u s i o n for w h i c h h e h a s little t a s t e . H i s o l i g a r c h i c s e n t i m e n t s dissimilar from M a c a u l a y ' s )

1 6 4

(not

a n d his e c o n o m i c a p p r o a c h c a u s e h i m to

p i c t u r e C h r i s t i a n i t y in a light not a l t o g e t h e r different from portraits - h o w e v e r m u c h he h a d p o u r e d scorn o n the latter's

Kautsky's 165

Halbbildung.

' C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y is t h e g r a n d m o t h e r o f B o l s h e v i s m ' - t h i s s t a t e m e n t o f S p e n g l e r ( m a d e a f t e r t h e first w o r l d w a r )

1 6 6

c o u l d be taken as e c h o i n g

P o h l m a n n ' s c l a i m s . I n d e e d , S p e n g l e r sees the s a m e inclination

towards

e g a l i t a r i a n i s m a n d s o c i a l i s m at w o r k in the C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h e s w h i c h Pohlmann

had

marked

down

and

which

Nietzsche

had

previously

s t i g m a t i s e d . H e o b s e r v e s t h a t all sectarian m o v e m e n t s are in principle hostile to state a n d w e a l t h ,

1 6 7

a n d thereby illuminates an early stage o f the

d e v e l o p m e n t . H e e m p h a s i s e s , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e c h u r c h is a b e t r a y a l o f r e l i g i o n , o f t h e r e l i g i o n o f j e s u s e s p e c i a l l y ; h e p a r a p h r a s e s M a r k 8: 3 6 to s h o w a l a c k o f interest o n the p a r t o f j e s u s in a b o l i s h i n g p r o p e r t y a n d h o l d s 1 6 0

1 6 3

1 6 2

I b i d , ii, 470. is* I b i d , ii, 486. I b i d , ii, 488. I b i d , ii, 497. F o r a critique o f the position o f P o h l m a n n , c p . the remarks o f F. O e r t e l

in the third edn. ii., 567-70. 164 For a m o r e recent form o f a similar a p p r o a c h o v e r against Christianity, c p . the w o r k s o f A . M o h l e r and his p u b l i c a t i o n s in the periodical Criticon. C p . the b l o w administered b y him o n K a u t s k y in 1894 in ' E x t r e m e biirgerlicher und sozialistischer G e s c h i c h t s c h r e i b u n g ' (reprinted in R . v o n P o h l m a n n , Aus Altertum und Gegenwart ( M i i n c h e n , 1895), p p . 391-416 and, in an e x t e n d e d form, in the , 6 5

second e d n . (1911), i, 346-84). '66 O . Spengler, Jahre der Entscheidung ( M i i n c h e n , 1933; E T N e w Y o r k , 1934), p . 93 ( E T P. 129). I b i d . p . 90 ( E T p . 125). 1 6 7


31

t h a t t h e ' c o m m u n i s m ' o f t h e J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y is a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e i r s c o r n for t h e m a t e r i a l w o r l d .

1 6 8

T h e first w o r l d w a r , w h i c h a l t e r e d t h e t h e o l o g i c a l s c e n e s o d e c i s i v e l y i n a g e n e r a l w a y , b r o u g h t a b o u t certain n e w a c c e n t s in the portraits T h e 'militant Christ' w a s only a slogan

1 6 9

ofjesus.

and of ephemeral importance. In

c o n t r a s t to t h i s , t h e e m p h a s i s o n t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n J e s u s a n d t h e i s s u e s o f t h e d a y is a s y m p t o m a t i c f e a t u r e o f t h e p o s t - w a r p e r i o d . I n A m e r i c a a n u m b e r o f studies a p p e a r e d w h i c h took this l i n e . Simkhovitch's essay,

1 7 1

sharpens

1 7 0

O n e of them, V . G.

the issue b y pointing out that J e s u s ' s

p o s i t i o n w a s u n i q u e : it w a s n o n - r e s i s t a n c e n e i t h e r o u t o f p r u d e n c e o w i n g t o H e l l e n i s t i c i n c l i n a t i o n s , a n d it w a s t h i s a t t i t u d e t h a t

nor

brought

a b o u t the ' g r e a t a n d f u n d a m e n t a l c l e a v a g e ' w i t h the s e g m e n t s o f J e w i s h society.

1 7 2

T h e 'heroic J e s u s ' - heroic rather in action t h a n in suffering

1 7 3

-

b e c a m e the w a t c h w o r d that characterised the attempts o f C h a m b e r l a i n a n d o f other G e r m a n nationalists to c o n c e i v e o f a J e s u s w h o w a s c o n g e n i a l to t h e m .

1 7 4

T i n g e s of social colour in the characterisations o f j e s u s retreated

into the b a c k g r o u n d in this p e r i o d a p a r t from J. L e i p o l d t W. Grundmann

1 7 6

and a few M a r x i s t sketches.

1 7 7

1 7 5

a n d his pupil

O n the strictly scholarly

level J e s u s b o o k s a p p e a r e d w h i c h started from the S c h w e i t z e r i a n position a n d i n c l u d e d , in o n e w a y or the other, ideas o f the n e w d i a l e c t i c t h e o l o g y .

1 6 8

Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlands ii ( M i i n c h e n , 1922), 6ofT; ( E T L o n d o n ,

1 7 8

1928,

p p . 2i2fT; abr. E T L o n d o n , 1959, p p . 2801). 1 6 9

Like others o f a later p e r i o d : 'the greatest p r o p a g a n d i s t the w o r l d has ever k n o w n ' ( L o r d B e a v e r b r o o k , The Divine Propagandist, L o n d o n , 1962, p . 39); or 'the greatest revolutionary o f all times' ( F . C . zu S c h a u m b u r g - L i p p e , Dr. G. Ein Portrat des Propaganda-ministers ( W i e s b a d e n , 1964), p . 87; c p . p . 172).

1 7 0

H . J . C a d b u r y , The Peril of Modernizing Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1937), p . 129. Toward an Understanding of Jesus ( N e w Y o r k , 1921; 2nd e d n . 1927). I b i d . p . 14. A . R o s e n b e r g directs himself against the ' e x h a u s t e d ' t h e m e o f the suffering and p r o c l a i m s the ' o l d - n e w ' m o t t o : J e s u s the h e r o (Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts, ed. M i i n c h e n , 1936, p p . 604, 606, 616). R o s e n b e r g holds that an old Phrygian legend a b o u t C h r e s t o s , the saviour o f the p e o p l e in serfdom, w h i c h was given c o l o u r b y the fate o f M i t h r a d a t e s , w a s transplanted to Palestine, linked w i t h the messiah m y t h and the person o f j e s u s . In this he is heavily d e p e n d e n t on W . Erbt, Weltgeschichte auf rassischer Grundlage (Frankfurt, 1925), p p . 134fT. R o s e n b e r g d o e s not take notice o f the fact that the passage in question was omitted b y the author in the s e c o n d edition ( L e i p z i g , 1934).

171

1 7 2

1 7 3

1 7 4

175

H . S . C h a m b e r l a i n , Worte Christi ( M i i n c h e n , 1901); A . Dinter, Das Evangelium ( L e i p z i g , 1923); c p . M E . W i n k e l , Der Sohn, 2nd edn. (Berlin, 1938). Jesusb ild, passim. Jesus der Galilaer ( W e i m a r , 1940). See p p . 24f. R . B u l t m a n n , y « M J ( T u b i n g e n , 1926; E T L o n d o n , 1935); E. Hirsch,Jesus Christus der Herr ( G o t t i n g e n , 1926); M . Dibelius, Jesus (Berlin, 1939; E T L o n d o n , 1963); W . Groenbech, Jesus der Menschensohn (Stuttgart, 1941); E. Seeberg, Christus, Wirklichkeit und Urbild (Stuttgart, 1937).

116

1 7 7

1 7 8

32

E.

BAMMEL

A t h e o l o g i c a l line w a s f o l l o w e d a l m o s t to the e x c l u s i o n o f a n y historical b a c k g r o u n d a n d of the c o n t e m p o r a r y issues.

1 7 9

E i s l e r ' s grosser Wurj'has t o b e

v i e w e d as a r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t this.

VI Robert Eisler's w o r k

1 8 0

is a n e w d e p a r t u r e o f t h e g r e a t e s t i m p o r t a n c e : it is

b a s e d m a i n l y on source material outside the G o s p e l s a n d the revolutionary a m b i t i o n a n d f a i l u r e o f j e s u s is m a d e t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e o f h i s b o o k . T r u e , t h e p a s s a g e s o n C h r i s t i a n origins in the S l a v o n i c v e r s i o n o f J o s e p h u s h a d b e e n initiated,

1 8 1

b u t n o t h i n g o f a c o m p a r a b l e penetration a n d so e n g a g i n g a n

i n g e n u i t y h a d b e e n p r e s e n t e d to t h e l e a r n e d w o r l d b e f o r e . T h e s e p a s s a g e s g o b a c k , i n t h e o p i n i o n o f E i s l e r , b u t for

Christian

m u t i l a t i o n s , to the o r i g i n a l A r a m a i c form o f the J e w i s h W a r . T h e y s p e a k o f a g a t h e r i n g o f j e s u s , o f his 150 servants a n d o f a great multitude o n the M o u n t o f O l i v e s , o f their insistence o n Jesus's defeating the R o m a n s , of J e s u s ' s c o n s e n t , and Caesar,

1 8 3

1 8 2

entering the city

and

the actual rising against G o d

the o c c u p a t i o n o f the T e m p l e area, the d e n u n c i a t i o n b y the

J e w i s h l e a d e r s to Pilate, the latter's interference w i t h the m o v e m e n t led b y J e s u s , the seizure o f the T e m p l e b y R o m a n forces, J e s u s ' s arrest

and

c o n d e m n a t i o n as sorcerer, robber, insurgent and w o u l d - b e ruler/king. T h e G o s p e l a c c o u n t s a r e i n s e r t e d i n t o this s c h e m e : t h o s e o f t h e p a s s i o n w e e k a n d d e t a i l s f r o m e l s e w h e r e , for e x a m p l e L u k e 1 3 : 1 - 9 , w h i c h is v i e w e d as reflecting o n the failure o f the r e v o l t in the T e m p l e a n d , therefore, as h a v i n g b e e n s p o k e n o r r j e s u s ' s l a s t d a y b e f o r e t h e a r r e s t . S o u r c e c r i t i c i s m is n o t i n t h e m a i n l i n e o f E i s l e r ' s i n t e r e s t . H e lists t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n M a t t h e w and L u k e on the question o f f o r c e ,

1 8 4

but he disregards

them

i m m e d i a t e l y a n d p r o c e e d s to his selective use o f sources. E i s l e r c o n s i d e r s m a n y passages as reliable pieces of evidence w h i c h are disputed by critical r e s e a r c h , w h e r e a s h e i g n o r e s s o m e m a t e r i a l , for e x a m p l e t h e c o n t r o v e r s y s t o r i e s o f M a r k 1 1 : 27 to 1 2 : 3 4 . M o s t s t r i k i n g is t h e a b s e n c e o f J u d a s a n d h i s 1 7 9

m

B u l t m a n n ' s radicalism and ahistoric position c o m e out most bluntly in the report o f an e n c o u n t e r at a meeting o f the Alte Marburger given b y H . D i e m , Ja oder Nein ( M i i n c h e n , 1974), p . 267.

'lr\aovq

BaoiXetig oi> paoiXevoag, i/ii (Heidelberg, 19291); The Messiah Jesus and

John the Baptist ( L o n d o n , 1931). T h e English edition contains o n l y certain sections o f the G e r m a n text. For a characterisation o f Eisler, c p . G . S c h o l e m , Von Berlin nach Jerusalem (Frankfurt, 1977) p p . i62ff. 1 8 1

1 8 2

1 8 3

1 8 4

E.g. A . Berendts, Die Zeugnisse vom Christentum im slavischen 'de bello Judaico' des Josephus ( L e i p z i g , 1906); J. Frey, Der slavische Josephusbericht uber die urchristliche Geschichte ( D o r p a t , 1908). Eisler, 'Irjo. Baa. ii, 298. I b i d , ii, 45of. I b i d , ii, 255^ Messiah, p . 364.

The

r e v o l u t i o n theory from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n

33

b e t r a y a l , a s t o r y t h a t , l i k e t h a t o f t h e d e n i a l o f P e t e r , w a s s o e m b a r r a s s i n g to the C h r i s t i a n s

1 8 5

t h a t it c a n n o t h a v e b e e n i n v e n t e d . T h e s e l e c t i v e u s e o f t h e

C h r i s t i a n sources w a s justified, if the S l a v o n i c J o s e p h u s c o u l d b e taken as controlling

evidence. In

fact

the

account

is o f a

mixed

character.

1 8 6

U n d e r l y i n g t h e C h r i s t i a n r e d a c t i o n it c o n t a i n s a J e w i s h a c c o u n t , w h i c h i s , h o w e v e r , b a s e d o n the references to J e s u s in S a n h . 4 3 a a n d w a s e x t e n d e d into a form not dissimilar from the J e w i s h s u b s t r a t u m o f the A c t s o f Pilate a n d t h e A r a m a i c T o l e d o t h J e s h u . I t s e v a l u a t i o n is o n l y p o s s i b l e i f its Sitz im Leben i n t h e J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n c o n t r o v e r s y is r e c o g n i s e d a n d t h e d i r e c t l i n k w i t h J o s e p h u s a n d t h e first c e n t u r i e s a b a n d o n e d . I t is a d o c u m e n t l i k e t h e e l a b o r a t i o n o n t h e b a s i s o f J o s e p h u s w h i c h is c o m m o n l y c i t e d u n d e r n a m e o f H e g e s i p p u s ; t h e o n e is J e w i s h , w h i l e t h e o t h e r is C h r i s t i a n .

the It

s h o u l d n o t b e i m p o s s i b l e t o t r a c e c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s w o r t h c o n s i d e r i n g for t h e s t u d e n t o f C h r i s t i a n o r i g i n s b u t t h e w a y t o t h i s is b a r r e d b y t h e t h e o r y t h a t 187

t h e t e x t r e p r e s e n t s t h e Urform o f J o s e p h u s ' s Jewish War.

T h e p i c t u r e o f j e s u s t h a t e m e r g e s o u t o f E i s l e r ' s v o l u m i n o u s effort is t h e f o l l o w i n g : J e s u s ' s a p p r o a c h is c h a r a c t e r i s e d b y t h e a t t e m p t to p a c i f y

the

w o r l d b y a ' m e r e m e s s a g e ' w h i c h is a n n o u n c e d b y t h e d i s c i p l e s s e n t o u t t o perform the task.

1 8 8

T h e i r l a c k o f f a i t h is a c h a l l e n g e t o h i m t o a d v a n c e to

r a d i c a l a c t i o n , the r e n u n c i a t i o n o f e v e r y t h i n g d e a r to m e n ' s hearts,

the

r e t u r n to t h e d e s e r t o f t h e t i m e o f t h e p i l g r i m a g e : ' n o t r e v o l t , b u t m e r e l y a b r e a k i n g o u t ' . T h i s e x o d u s is t o h a p p e n v i a J e r u s a l e m f r o m w h e r e h e w i l l lead Israel b a c k over the J o r d a n a n d erect the tent of the patriarchal period. A t t h e s a m e t i m e h e is a w a r e o f a f a t e o f i g n o m i n y a n d d e a t h t h a t h e h a s t o encounter.

1 8 9

T h e activists a m o n g his disciples, on the other h a n d ,

sure o f a m b i v a l e n t orders g i v e n b y the m a s t e r

1 9 0

make

and, indeed, o f the w h o l e

j o u r n e y to J e r u s a l e m , i n o r d e r t o g a t h e r t o g e t h e r a l a r g e f o l l o w i n g , to g i v e the entry into the H o l y C i t y the a p p e a r a n c e o f a messianic p r o c l a m a t i o n

1 8 5

1 8 6

1 8 7

1 8 8

1 8 9

1 9 0

C p . H . M e r k e l in The Trial of Jesus. Festschrift C.F.D. Moule (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1971), 66flf. J u d a s is not m e n t i o n e d in o n e b r a n c h o f the J e w i s h lives o f j e s u s . Points o f criticism, different from those a d v a n c e d a b o v e , were raised b y H . L e w y in a famous review in DLZ 51 (1930), c o l . 48iff.; M . G o g u e l , Jesus et le Messianisme politique (Paris, 1930; reprinted from Revue Historique 162 (1929), 217-67); H . W i n d i s c h , ' U n s e r W i s s e n u m J e s u s ' , NeueJahrbucherf. Wiss.u.Jugendbildung 7 (1931), 289-307; W . Stapel, Der christliche Staatsmann ( H a m b u r g , 1932), p p . 451^ W . Bienert, Der alteste nichtchristliche Jesusbericht (Halle, 1936) - his findings were s u m m a r i s e d b y H . W . K a r s , ' D e r alteste nichtchristliche J e s u s b e r i c h t ' , ThStKr 109 (1937), 45ff; c p . J. W . J a c k , The Historic Christ ( L o n d o n , 1933) and C . J . C a d o u x , ' T h e Politics o f J e s u s ' , Congregational Quarterly 14 (1936), 58-67. F o r the evaluation o f the Greek text see Josephus-Studien. Festschrift 0. Michel ( G o t t i n g e n , 1974), p p . 9fT. Eisler, TT]0. Bao. ii, 689f; Messiah, p . 569. 'ITÔ. Bao. ii, 691; Messiah, p . 570. T h i s element o f Eisler's description is not really integrated into his picture. L u k e 22:36; c p . Eisler, 'IT]0. Bao. ii, 268, 691; Messiah, p . 570.

34

E.

BAMMEL

a n d t o s t a g e t h e o c c u p a t i o n o f t h e T e m p l e . J e s u s is d r a w n i n t o t h e s e e v e n t s rather t h a n h a v i n g p l a n n e d t h e m himself. F o r t h e first p e r i o d o f J e s u s ' s a c t i v i t y t h e p i c t u r e is n o t t o o d i s s i m i l a r f r o m the

one

given

by

Albert

Schweitzer.

The

eschatological

influence,

m a i n t a i n e d b y S c h w e i t z e r , in t h e s e n d i n g o u t o f t h e d i s c i p l e s i s , h o w e v e r , a b s e n t a n d it is d u e t o t h i s l a c k o f m o t i v a t i o n t h a t t h e s e c o n d p e r i o d a p p e a r s e v e n less m a r k e d b y J e s u s ' s o w n p e r s o n a l i t y . T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f R e c h a b i t e m o t i v e s w i t h t h a t o f a role to b e p l a y e d o n the s t a g e o f J e r u s a l e m artificial a n d results in the m i n o r p i c t u r e is i n f a c t t h e a t t e m p t

figures

1 9 1

is

d o m i n a t i n g the scene. Eisler's

to synthesise the a c c o u n t o f the S l a v o n i c

Josephus with an enfeebled version of Schweitzer's view. T h e c o n c e p t o f a n e w d e s i g n c o n c e i v e d b y the disciples after the d e a t h o f t h e m a s t e r , w o r k e d o u t b y R e i m a r u s , is a d o p t e d i n t o t h e i d e a o f a d i f f e r e n t g o a l entertained b y t h e m a l r e a d y d u r i n g the lifetime o f j e s u s . I f this p i c t u r e is c o r r e c t w e d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d w h y t h e a t t e m p t t o e x e c u t e t h i s m i l i t a n t intention after the d e p a r t u r e o f the m a s t e r w a s not r e p e a t e d a n d r e p e a t e d more

vigorously. True,

Eisler

links

almost

every

subsequent generations with the following o f j e s u s seen as a scion of Jesus's f a m i l y

1 9 3

1 9 2

militancy

in

the

- e v e n B a r K o c h b a is

- b u t t h i s is m a n a g e d o n l y b y i n c l u d i n g

p e r s o n s w h o , in the o p i n i o n o f Eisler, m a d e use o f the n a m e o f j e s u s , a n d b y leaning on

the

flimsiest

evidence -

the only piece o f e v i d e n c e

c o n s i d e r i n g , E v . Petr. 26, d o e s not r e c e i v e a close e x a m i n a t i o n .

1 9 4

worth It is,

h o w e v e r , e x t r e m e l y u n l i k e l y t h a t a p e r s o n w h o a l r e a d y in his lifetime h a d become more and more a mere

figure-head

should h a v e d r a w n so m a n y

u n d e r h i s v i n c u l u m a f t e r t h e d i s a s t r o u s f a i l u r e o f h i s o w n a t t e m p t . I t is e v e n more unlikely that parallel movements should have made c o m m o n cause w i t h t h e m . It w o u l d b e w r o n g to m a i n t a i n that, in Eisler's v i e w , J e s u s w a s the ' a r c h - r e v o l u t i o n a r y ' .

1 9 5

I t is a l l t h e m o r e s u r p r i s i n g t h a t J e s u s ' s

name

should h a v e served as a focussing point w h i l e the n a m e s o f other persons (e.g. o f the B a p t i s t w h o , a c c o r d i n g to Eisler, h a d d o m i n a t e d the scene twice) h a d not received such recognition. Eisler p l a c e s n a s c e n t C h r i s t i a n i t y in the w i d e r c o n t e x t o f the s o c i a l u n r e s t o f the t i m e .

1 9 6

H i s s k e t c h i s , s o t o s p e a k , t h e b o l d a t t e m p t to f o l l o w t h e l i n e o f

P o h l m a n n - to g o e v e n f u r t h e r t h a n h e d i d - a n d t o g i v e h i s

1 9 1

192

1 9 3

findings

a

It is most significant that a c c o r d i n g to Eisler it was Peter w h o tried to dissuade J e s u s from g o i n g to J e r u s a l e m , whereas Jesus insisted o n d o i n g so flno. Bao. ii, 276). J u s t the o p p o s i t e w o u l d have been in line with the designs attributed to each o f t h e m respectively.

'Ino. Bao. ii, 69iff. I b i d , ii, 717; Messiah, p . 590: 'the clan o f j e s u s w o u l d in that case . . . have p r o d u c e d t w o kings anointed b y the L o r d . '

' " C p . p . 446. A s J a c k , Christ, p . 97, wishes to d o . 1 9 5

spel of John, which represents a quite independent stream o f transmission.

3

While Mark's Gospel consists almost entirely o f narrative, two bodies o f discourse material are incorporated into the contexts o f the Galilaean and Jerusalem ministries respectively: the parables o f the kingdom in the former (4:1-34)

and the Olivet prophecy in the latter ( 1 3 : 3 - 3 7 ) .

It is not

unreasonable to expect that these discourses may illuminate the evangel ist's understanding o f the accompanying narrative. W h e n we come to the detailed material within the broad divisions o f the narrative, such sequence as may be traced is probably topical and literary rather than chronological and continuous. T h e day is long since past when Mark's record could be regarded as so consecutive and watertight that a piece o f non-Markan gospel tradition which could not be fitted into that record must be written off as unhistorical. 3

J o h n 6: 1-14, 66-71.

4

Cp.

4

F. C . Burkitt's c o m m e n t s o n the historicity o f the narrative o f the raising o f

T h e date and character o f Mark

71

T h e death-blow was given to this assessment o f Mark's narrative in 1 9 1 9 by K . L. Schmidt, whose Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin, 1 9 1 9 ) presented his narrative as comprising independentpericopae, transmitted as separate units in primitive Christian tradition and arranged in their Markan order by the evangelist himself, w h o linked them together with 5

short editorial summaries. While Schmidt's thesis greatly influenced later interpreters o f Mark like A . E.J. Rawlinson, it is butjust to recall that many o f his main emphases were anticipated by Allan Menzies, w h o in The Earliest Gospel ( 1 9 0 2 ) expressed the view that what the tradition preserved consisted of detached incidents and sayings; the historical connections were forgotten. Some attempts to collect incidents and sayings together were probably made before Mark wrote his Gospel, but Mark, so far as we know, was the first 'to gather the narrative about Jesus together into a connected history'. T o 'find the cord on which all these pearls were to be placed' and to 'fix their proper position on that cord' he 'must have been guided by one w h o knew the life o f j e s u s not only as a set o f isolated stories but as a 6

connected whole inspired by a growing purpose'. In this last hypothesis Menzies differs from most o f those w h o have more recently interpreted Mark in terms o f form-criticism and redaction-criticism: at times, they allow, tradition may g o back to eye-witness testimony but the idea that redactional material should have a historical basis is so far out of the question as hardly to be considered. Yet if an author, weaving independent units into a connected narrative, had some independent knowledge o f the general course o f events, there was no reason why he should not make use o f that knowledge.

7

C . H . D o d d in 1932 endeavoured to demonstrate that K . L. Schmidt's editorial summaries, when placed together, formed such a consecutive outline o f the Gospel story as could be traced here and there in the New Testament epistles and in some o f the speeches recorded in A c t s .

8

His

demonstration covered only the section from the beginning of the Galilaean ministry to the return o f the Twelve from their mission (Mark 1: 1 4 to 6: 3 0 ) , and was subjected to searching criticism in 1 9 5 5 by D . E. Nineham.

5

6

7

8

9

9

Lazarus in The Gospel History and its Transmission (3rd edn., E d i n b u r g h , 1911), p p . 22 iff. C p . also J. A T . R o b i n s o n , b e l o w p p . 453-76. K . L . S c h m i d t , Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin, 1919), p p . i 8 f f ^ passim. A . M e n z i e s , The Earliest Gospel ( L o n d o n , 1902), p p . 27, 29. T . W . M a n s o n goes farther: 'the title o f the M a r c a n framework to b e regarded as respectable historical material is as g o o d as that o f any detailed story in the G o s p e l ' (Studies in the Gospels and Epistles ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1962), p . 6). ' T h e F r a m e w o r k o f the G o s p e l Narrative', ExpT 43 (1931-2), 396ff; reprinted in New Testament Studies ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1953), p p . iff. ' T h e O r d e r o f Events in St M a r k ' s G o s p e l - an E x a m i n a t i o n o f D r D o d d ' s H y p o t h e s i s ' , Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, e d . D . E. N i n e h a m ( O x f o r d , 1955), p p . 223ft.

72

F. F.

BRUCE

Professor Nineham doubted if any Sitz im Leben could plausibly be posited to account for the preservation o f a skeleton outline o f the ministry. His criticism o f Professor D o d d ' s thesis cannot be lightly ignored, but it would probably be less telling against

the earlier thesis o f Allan Menzies:

individuals - and here we may think either o f Mark himself or an older informant - d o remember the general course o f events which have taken place within their knowledge, even (or indeed especially) forty years before, although they may find it difficult to say when or where certain incidents took place or certain words were spoken. Historical or chronological curiosity, which is commonly denied to the early Christians, does not enter into such a situation.

Ill W e cannot pronounce on Mark's sources with anything like the confidence that characterises much source-criticism o f Matthew and Luke, for one o f the main sources o f these two later evangelists has been preserved independently in Mark. Behind Mark we can trace, in addition to the continuous passion narrative, a collection of controversies and debates ( 2 : 1 to 3: 6 ) and possibly a second such collection ( 1 2 : 1 3 - 3 7 ) ,

1 0 a

collection o f

parables ( 4 : 1 - 3 4 ) , and the Olivet discourse ( 1 3 : 3 - 3 7 ) , which in its present form may represent

an elaboration o f some verba Christi which first

circulated in written form in A . D . 4 0 , when Caligula's attempt to have his image erected in the Jerusalem T e m p l e seemed to portend a re-enactment of Daniel's 'abomination o f desolation'.

11

Mark's record o f the Galilaean ministry includes two parallel series o f incidents (4: 3 5 to 6: 4 4 and 6: 4 5 to 8: 10) each o f which begins with the stilling o f a storm on the lake and ends with the feeding of a multitude. ( T h e second series is missing from Luke's record.) Hilary o f Poitiers suggested that the two feedings symbolise Jesus's communication o f himself to the 12

Jews and to the Gentiles respectively, and numerical and other elements in the vocabulary o f the two parallel feeding-narratives have been thought to 13

confirm this suggestion. M o r e important in this regard is the fact that the 1 0

B . S. Easton, noting that the collection o f M a r k 2: 1 to 3: 6 ends with an alliance b e t w e e n the Pharisees a n d H e r o d i a n s while that o f M a r k 12: 13-37 begins with such an alliance, suggested that M a r k received the t w o as o n e c o n t i n u o u s collection w h i c h he d i v i d e d [Christ in the Gospels ( N e w Y o r k , 1930), p . 35). But the life-setting o f the earlier collection is Galilaean while that o f the latter is in J e r u s a l e m .

11

B . S. Easton points o u t that w h e n the parallels to M a r k 13 in M a t t . 10: 16-23 e x a m i n e d , s o m e o f the elements in the M a t t h a e a n version are earlier than s o m e in the M a r k a n version. ' T h e result is o f c o u r s e a p r o b l e m o f great perplexity' [Christ, p .

a

20). 1 2

1 3

Hilary, Comm. in Matthaeum, M i g n e , PL ix. 999Cff, ioo6Aff. C p . A . R i c h a r d s o n , The Miracle Stories of the Gospels ( L o n d o n , 1941), p p . 94ff.

r

e


73

second feeding is preceded by a controversy between Jesus and Pharisees regarding

purificatory

customs and

other

the

features o f 'the

tradition o f the elders', leading up to a pronouncement in which Jesus effectively abrogated the Jewish food-laws and 'declared all foods clean' ( 7 : 1 - 2 3 ) . Since the food-laws constituted one o f the principal barriers between Jews and Gentiles, it is probably more than a coincidence that Jesus's removal o f this barrier is followed immediately by his healing o f the Syrophoenician woman's daughter and then by a journey with the disciples through the Gentile territory north and east of the Lake, during which Jesus cures a deaf man in the Decapolis w h o has an impediment in his speech. But in the parallel sequence o f 4: 3 5 to 6: 4 4 Jesus bestows blessing in the same Gentile regions: the Gerasene demoniac lives in Gentile territory (as may be gathered

from the part played by the herd o f swine in his

neighbourhood), and he tells the story o f his cure throughout the Decapolis (5: 1-20). T h e possibility o f Mark's dependence on Q , or on the sayings-collection behind Q , has been discussed by some scholars,

14

but it is practically

impossible to reach any conclusion on this, since Q has no existence save in the non-Markan material c o m m o n to Matthew and Luke. It is difficult to talk about Mark's dependence on a postulated document whose primary characteristic is its non-Markan content.

IV In the twofold geographical setting o f the Markan record - Galilee in 1: 1 4 to 9: 5 0 and Judaea from chapter 11 onwards, with chapter 10 providing the transition -

theological significance has been discerned.

For

Mark,

according to Ernst Lohmeyer and others, Galilee is the place o f action and revelation, and Judaea (specifically Jerusalem) is the place of suffering and death; hence the disciples have to g o back to Galilee for the revelation o f their risen Lord (Mark 1 6 : 7 ) .

1 5

If there is any theological significance in

these geographical data, it rests upon historical fact: Galilee was, after all, the main area o f Jesus's public ministry, and Jerusalem was the place where he was crucified. Lohmeyer's view that Jesus's instruction to the disciples to meet him in Galilee (Mark 1 4 : 28; 1 6 : 7 ) points to the expectation of his parousia there is elaborated by Willi Marxsen, w h o links this instruction with Mark 1 3 : 1 4 , where the setting up o f the 'abomination of desolation' is the signal for those in Judaea to 'flee to the mountains'. This is identified with the oracle 1 4

1 5

C p . Easton, Christ, p p . 19X E. L o h m e y e r , Galilda und Jerusalem ( G o t t i n g e n , 1936), p p . iofT; R . H . Lightfoot, Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels ( L o n d o n , 1938), p p . 59^, io6ff.

74

F.

F.

BRUCE

mentioned by Eusebius (H.E. iii. 5. 3) in accordance with which the church o f Jerusalem migrated to Pella before the siege o f their home city began. As Marxsen interprets this, Mark thought o f Pella as belonging to the general area o f Galilee and, publishing his Gospel in Galilee, intended his readers to take the angel's words in 1 6 : 7, 'there you will see him', as a promise that the glorious coming o f the Son o f man ( 1 3 : 26) would be witnessed there.

16

There may, in fact, be more o f a deliberate contrast between Galilee and the wilderness than between Galilee and Judaea. T h e wilderness was the scene o f J o h n ' s ministry but for Jesus it was the scene o f temptation, not ministry. For his ministry he turned his back on the wilderness (with its Zealot associations?) and proclaimed the good news o f the kingdom o f G o d in the populous and fertile region o f Galilee.

17

But so far as the theme o f revelation is concerned, no revelatory moment in Galilee communicates so much o f the truth o f the Gospel as does Mark's account o f what happened at the moment of Jesus's death.

V T h e present arrangement o f the gospel material is generally held to be the evangelist's own work. But Harald Riesenfeld has pointed out that this 'historically stylised' arrangement is crossed or overlaid by another, which he describes as 'theologically systematic', in which the two main divisions are:

The which

(a)

T h e Son o f man and Israel's call ( 1 : 1 4 to 8: 26)

(b)

T h e Messiah as teacherând prophet ( 8 : 2 7 to 1 3 : 3 7 )

second

of

( 8 : 2 7 to

these

falls

into

1 0 : 5 2 ) , beginning

two

subdivisions,

with

the

former

the Caesarea Philippi

of and

transfiguration incidents, goes on to describe Jesus's training o f the disciples, with the situation o f the post-Easter and post-Pentecost church in

1 6

W . M a r x s e n , Der Evangelist Markus ( G o t t i n g e n , 1959), p p . 73flf. T h e L o h m e y e r M a r x s e n line, a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h M a r k 16: 7 points to the parousia and not (as M a t t h e w u n d e r s t o o d ) to a resurrection a p p e a r a n c e o f Christ in Galilee, is specially associated with the v i e w (held also b y s o m e w h o d o not follow that line) that M a r k 16:8 is the original and d e s i g n e d end o f the G o s p e l . Despite all the e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d to s h o w that literary units c o u l d e n d with y&Q ( c p . , e.g., Lightfoot, Locality, p p . iff; P. W . van der H o r s t , ' C a n a b o o k end with y&Q? A note o n M a r k X V I . 8', JThSt n.s. 23 (1972), i72ff), I find it extremely difficult to believe that M a r k intended to c o n c l u d e his record at this p o i n t .

1 7

A different v i e w is expressed b y U . M a u s e r , w h o finds that in M a r k , as in the O l d T e s t a m e n t , the wilderness is 'the p l a c e o f G o d ' s mighty acts, significant for all believers o f all times and all p l a c e s ' (Wilderness, p . 14). A c c o r d i n g to h i m , it is L u k e w h o treats the wilderness as 'a t o p o g r a p h i c a l s y m b o l for the o l d e p o c h w h i c h is superseded b y J e s u s ' ( p . 148); c p . H . C o n z e l m a n n , The Theology of St Luke ( E T

L o n d o n , i960), p . 27.

The

date and character o f Mark

75

mind, while the latter ( n : i to 1 3 : 3 7 ) , beginning with Jesus's entry into Jerusalem, goes on to deal with his teaching in the capital. Now

this second, theological arrangement, giving expression to the

evangelist's theological outlook, is self-evidently redactional; but if that is so, then the 'historically stylised' arrangement is probably traditional, part 18

of what Mark 'received'. A n d indeed a severely compressed form o f the 'historically stylised' arrangement may be recognised in the summary o f Peter's speech in the house o f Cornelius in Acts 1 0 : 3 7 - 4 0 (verse 4 1 is Lukan, but the preceding outline is mainly traditional). If the outline were amplified - if, for example, the statement that Jesus 'went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil' were illustrated by instances o f his healing and exorcising activity - we should begin to have something not unlike the Markan record, 'beginning from Galilee after the baptism

which John

announcement.

19

preached'

and

going

on

to

the

resurrection

Is it a mere coincidence with the second-century tradition

of the Petrine authority behind Mark's Gospel that this outline should be ascribed to Peter?

VI This second-century tradition is first attested by Papias,

20

and appears in

another form towards the end o f the century in the anti-Marcionite prologue to this Gospel.

21

Embellishments of it in Irenaeus and later writers

probably have no factual basis independent o f the testimony o f Papias. O n the authority o f someone to w h o m he refers as 'the elder', Papias reports that: Mark had been Peter's interpreter and wrote down accurately all that he remembered, whether the sayings or the doings of the Lord, but not in order - for he had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but followed Peter later on, as I said. Peter was accustomed to teach as occasion required, but not as though he were making a compilation of the 22

18

1 9

2 0

R i e s e n f e l d , Tradition ( O x f o r d , 1970), p p . 5 i f . C p . C . H . D o d d , Apostolic Preaching, p p . 53H". Q u o t e d b y E u s e b i u s , HE iii 39. 15. It m a y b e that o n l y the first part o f the q u o t a t i o n c o m e s from 'the elder' a n d that the rest, from ' b u t not in o r d e r ' o n w a r d s , is Papias's c o m m e n t .

2 1

C o n v e n i e n t l y accessible in H . G r e e v e n ' s revision o f A . H u c k , Synopsis of the First Three Gospels ( T u b i n g e n , 1981), p . ix; but note G r e e v e n ' s reference in loco to J. R e g u l , Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe (Freiburg, 1969).

2 2

G k . JIQOS t a g X Q ^ 5 - B XQ ^ » also the technical rhetorical sense o f 'a concise and pointed a c c o u n t o f something said o r d o n e , attributed to s o m e particular person o r in keeping with s o m e p e r s o n ' ( T h e o n , Progymnasmata 5 ) , and this m a y b e the m e a n i n g here. See R . O . P. T a y l o r , The Groundwork of the Gospels ( O x f o r d , 1946), pp. 75ff; also M . D i b e l i u s , Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums ( T u b i n g e n , 3rd edn.

e

a

u

t

E

A

n a c

76

F. F.

BRUCE

23

dominical oracles. So M a r k m a d e no mistake in writing d o w n certain things as he called them to mind; for he paid attention to one thing: to omit none o f the things he had heard and to make no false statements in any o f them.

Since Papias derived this information from a man o f the generation preceding his o w n , it may g o back to the end o f the first century. It was composed for a purpose which must now be a matter o f speculation perhaps to explain why Mark deviates in content and sequence from Matthew, or even from the recently published gospel of John. T h e first part o f the anti-Marcionite prologue to Mark is missing; the surviving portion runs: . . . (as) was asserted by Mark, w h o was called stump-fingered, because his fingers were short in proportion to his other bodily dimensions. H e was Peter's interpreter, and after the departure o f Peter himself he wrote d o w n this Gospel in the parts o f Italy.

Whatever the reason was for Mark's being called 'stump-fingered' (xoXo(3o6dxTi)A.05), the explanation given here is probably an unintelli gent guess and could well be Papias's independent contribution. For the rest, all that the prologue adds to the elder's statement is that Mark wrote his Gospel in Italy. W h a t factual element underlies the statement that Mark was Peter's interpreter and aide-de-camp cannot be determined with certainty: it could be an inference from 1 Pet. 5: 13. Its historical value must be assessed on the basis o f internal evidence. C . H . Turner pointed out features in tl>e Gospel o f Mark which, he reckoned, justified the reader in calling it 'autobiographical' in contrast to Matthew and Luke. This Gospel 'records the experience o f an eyewitness and c o m p a n i o n ' . In particular, Turner drew attention to the repeated occasions in Mark on which 'a sentence commences with the plural, for it is an experience which is being related, and passes into the singular, for the experience is that o f discipleship to a Master'. That is to say, we begin with 'they' (the disciples) and pass over to 'he' (Jesus). If, then, 'they' is changed to ' w e ' , the reader 'will receive a vivid impression o f the testimony that lies behind the Gospel' - the testimony being that o f Peter, whose spoken ' w e ' (reflected in Mark's written 'they') means ' m y companions and I ' . 24

1959), p p . i 5 o f f ( w h e r e the XQtio. is related to the ' p a r a d i g m ' ) ; W . R . F a r m e r , ' N o t e s o n a Literary a n d Formcritical Analysis o f S o m e o f the S y n o p t i c M a t e r i a l 2 3

Peculiar to Luke', NTSt 8 (1961-2), 30iff; especially 307ff. G k . ovx (boneg ovvrafciv xti>v xvQiaxwv JIOIOTJIAEVOS Xoyiwv, as ( a c c o r d i n g to Papias) M a t t h e w d i d (ap. H.E. iii. 39. 16); c p . the title o f Papias's w o r k : Xoyicov

xvoiaxdjv &=rjvTioig (ap. H.E. iii. 39. 1). 2 4

C . H . T u r n e r , ' T h e G o s p e l a c c o r d i n g to St M a r k ' , in A New Commentary on Holy


77

T . W . Manson, following up this clue, drew up a 'tentative list o f Petrine paragraphs', comprising those which exhibited 'Turner's mark' along with others which attached

themselves naturally

to these. These

'Petrine

paragraphs', he found, fell naturally into two groups - one set against the Galilaean background, with Capernaum as the principal centre, and the other covering incidents on the last journey to Jerusalem, with events in Jerusalem during Holy Week up to Jesus's arrest and Peter's denial.

25

H o w completely foreign this approach is to more recent studies o f Mark may be seen if we compare it with D . E. Nineham's argument that, since by general consensus some o f Mark's material 'bears all the signs o f having been community tradition', it seems 'only logical' to go on and take the same view about the rest of his material; indeed, in his view all of it bears the 26

same signs. Professor Nineham does not rule out the possibility that some o f the material might ultimately derive from Peter, but he thinks that the evidence rules out direct dependence on Peter. Probably we should recognise sections which bear the signs o f community tradition and others which bear the signs o f more positive Petrine influence, even if Professor M a n s o n over-estimated the extent o f the latter.

VII T . W . M a n s o n took seriously the statement in the anti-Marcionite prologue that Mark composed his Gospel in Italy after Peter's 'departure'.

He

thought, however, that later writers were wrong in thinking that Peter's 'departure' (excessio, probably reflecting Gk. e ^ o 5 o g ) meant his death. He suggested rather that Peter and Mark visited R o m e between A . D . 5 5 and 60, that when Peter moved on elsewhere Mark stayed behind (he was still in R o m e during Paul's period o f house-arrest there, if this is the setting o f Philem. 2 4 and C o l . 4: 10) and, at the request o f members o f the R o m a n church, undertook to compile a written record o f what Peter had told them, amplified by means o f other material to which he had access. If it be asked if there was any circumstance in the history of early R o m a n Christianity which would have brought Peter and Mark to R o m e early in Nero's principate, one answer could be that the church was being reconstituted then after being dispersed by Claudius's edict expelling the Jewish community from R o m e , and a visit from the prince o f the apostles was just what was needed to establish it. Such a visit could explain Paul's language in R o m . 1 5 : 20 about his reluctance to 'build on another man's Scripture, e d . C . G o r e etc. ( L o n d o n , 1928), NT, p p . 481; c p . C . H . T u r n e r , ' M a r c a n

Usage', JThSt 25 (1923-4), 3770°; a n d especially 26 (1924-5), p p . 225fT. 2 5

2 6

Studies, p p . 4ofT. The Gospel of St Mark ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , 1963), p p . 26f.

78

F. F.

BRUCE

foundation'. Professor Manson's suggestion - it was no more - involved a dating for Mark before A . D . 6 0 , 'a few years earlier than is generally thought likely'.

27

A c o m m o n e r view is that it was composed in A . D . 64 or soon afterwards. This, o f course, is in line with the traditional interpretation o f Peter's 'departure' as meaning his death, and with the traditional dating o f Peter's death to the persecution o f the R o m a n Christians in the aftermath of the fire which devasted the imperial capital in July o f A . D . 64. C . H . Turner makes Peter's death ( A . D . 64-5) the terminus a quo for the writing o f Mark, adding that 'it will naturally have been rather soon after the martyrdom that the need made itself insistently felt for a written record o f his teaching'.

28

But, quite apart from the tradition, this date is on various grounds probable for Mark's Gospel. Such a work, appearing on the morrow o f a murderous outburst o f hostility, 'had the character o f a call to Christian 29

loyalty and a challenge to a hostile w o r l d ' . T h e wildest travesties were in circulation about the origin and character of those people, 'loathed for their vices, w h o m the populace called Christians', as Tacitus puts it in his account o f these events. H e himself notes, with greater accuracy but no less unfriendliness, that 'Christ, from w h o m they got their name, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor'; thus, he adds, 'the pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, but it broke out anew, not only throughout Judaea, where the trouble started, but throughout R o m e itself, where all the horrible and shameful rites collect and find a following'.

30

But what did the R o m a n

Christians

themselves know o f the origin o f their faith? W e r e they able to answer current misrepresentations with a confident account o f the real facts? W a s it true that their Founder had been executed by sentence o f a R o m a n magistrate? If so, was not the movement which he founded properly suspect in the eyes o f the authorities? T w e l v e years previously, or a little more, another R o m a n magistrate had given a ruling which worked for a time to the advantage o f the Christian movement. W h e n the leaders o f the Jewish community in Corinth accused

2 1

Studies, p p . 38fT. C p . W . W . H a r v e y ' s note o n Irenaeus, Haer. iii. i. 1. Perhaps this is the p l a c e to m e n t i o n J. O ' C a l l a g h a n ' s thesis that the Q u m r a n Greek fragments 7Q5 and 7Q6.1, from t w o separate manuscripts independently d a t e d o n p a l a e o g r a p h i c a l g r o u n d s n o t later than A . D . 50, exhibit respectively the texts o f M a r k 6: 52f a n d M a r k 4:28 ('tPapiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 d e Q u m r a n ? ' , Bb 53 ( 9 7 ) > 9 A) • T h e thesis has been conclusively refuted, o n the basis o f a study o f the p a p y r u s fragments themselves (as distinct from p h o t o g r a p h s ) , b y P. Benoit, ' N o t e s sur les fragments grecs d e la grotte 7 d e Q u m r a n ' , RB 79 (1972), 32iff. New Commentary, NT, p p . 44f. C . H . D o d d , About the Gospels ( C a m b r i d g e , 1950), p . 2. T a c i t u s , Annals x v . 44. 1

2 8

2 9

3 0

2

1


79

Paul before Gallio, proconsul o f Achaia, o f propagating a religion not countenanced by imperial law, Gallio ruled in effect that what Paul was preaching was a variety o f Judaism, and therefore entitled to the protection which imperial law extended to Judaism - provided, o f course, that public order was not disturbed. Had Gallio ruled against Paul, his ruling would have constituted a most unwelcome precedent for other magistrates. As it was, his refusal so to rule may have served as a negative precedent, thanks to which Paul in particular was able to discharge his apostolic ministry for several years more, until he found himself under house-arrest in Rome, still preaching the kingdom o f G o d and telling the story ofjesus to his visitors, under the eyes o f the imperial authorities. Even so, by this time it was no longer possible for R o m a n magistrates to regard Christianity as one among many varieties o f Judaism, least o f all in a city like R o m e , where the Christian community was now predominantly Gentile. Unprotected by the law, the Christians o f R o m e provided convenient scapegoats when Nero found it advisable to divert suspicion o f fire-raising from himself. Near-demoralised by the sudden attack, they sorely needed to be reassured of their identity. What was better calculated to restore their morale and their sense o f identity than this little book which 'contained the Christian society's own account of the events out of which it arose, and of its martyred Founder'? 31

32

T h e story is based on the main body of apostolic preaching: its intention is not biographical but kerygmatic and theological. It provided Christians not simply with an account o f their historical antecedents but with an understanding o f their identity over against Jews and pagans, especially in its revelation that the recent persecution in R o m e was no strange or abnormal experience, but something all o f a piece with the essence o f their faith, which recognised in the suffering Son o f man the ultimate manifestation o f G o d . Reference has already been made to W . Marxsen's view that Mark is a Galilaean Gospel, composed during the war o f A . D . 6 6 - 7 0 to prepare the followers o f j e s u s for his impending parousia in Galilee. T h e generation between the death ofjesus and the parousia is filled by the proclamation o f the gospel to the nations (Mark 1 3 : 10) - Mark's interpretation o f the 'testimony' spoken of in the verbum Christi o f 1 3 : 9 . A date two or three years later than Marxsen's was proposed by S. G. F. Brandon, according to w h o m Mark's Gospel was written after the collapse of the Jewish revolt and the confirmation o f its collapse in the triumph granted to Vespasian and his two sons in A . D . 7 1 , in order to help the 3 3

3 1

3 3

3 2

A c t s 18: I2ff. D o d d , About the Gospels, p . 2. M a r x s e n , Markus, p . 119. H e rightly links this p r o c l a m a t i o n with R o m . 11:25.

80

F. F.

BRUCE

R o m a n Christians to see where they now stood in relation to an event which, even for them, must have been traumatic.

34

Professor Brandon held

that Jesus, though not a member o f the Zealot party, sympathised with Zealot ideals and was consequently, and not surprisingly, executed by the Romans, and that the Jerusalem church, under the leadership o f his brother James, shared the same sympathies. T h e Gentile churches, and pre-eminently the R o m a n church, would henceforth wish to be completely dissociated from Zealot ideas and policies.

35

T h e crushing o f the Jewish

revolt and the destruction o f the T e m p l e and city of Jerusalem not only meant

the dispersion o f the mother-church

but indicated to Gentile

Christians that the Jews were not G o d ' s peculiar people and that Jerusalem was not - or at least was no longer - the centre o f his work on earth. T h e spectacle o f the T e m p l e furniture carried in the procession to the shrine o f Jupiter Capitolinus (whence it was moved later to grace Vespasian's new 36

T e m p l e o f P e a c e ) proclaimed that the once holy place had been deserted by the divine presence. If some o f them were disposed to think it sacrilege that the purple curtains o f the T e m p l e were now hung in the imperial 37

palace, let them reflect that at the moment of Jesus's death the T e m p l e veil 38

was torn in two from top to b o t t o m . So Mark relates, arguing in effect from this act o f G o d that, despite the Jewish origins o f Christianity, the logic o f the passion o f the Christ

detached

Christianity

from any

essential

dependence on these origins. Even if it had earlier been politic to deny that Jesus had ever spoken against the T e m p l e ,

39

now that the T e m p l e lay in

ruins it was apposite to recall how explicitly he had foretold that one stone of it w o u l d not be left standing on another (Mark 1 3 : 2 ) . W h e n 'on that fateful d a y ' the legionaries offered sacrifice to their standards within the sacred precincts and hailed Titus as imperator, then indeed the 'abomination of desolation' was seen 'standing where he ought not' - but Mark would not make the identification more explicit: 'let the reader understand', he says (Mark 1 3 : 1 4 ) . ^ But, confidently as Professor Brandon presented his reconstruction, it 3 4

3 5

' T h e D a t e o f the M a r k a n G o s p e l ' , NTSt 7 (1960-1), 126ff; c p . his Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p p . 22iff. H e n c e , he suggests implausibly, M a r k (followed b y M a t t h e w ) distinguishes the s e c o n d S i m o n a m o n g the T w e l v e as 'the C a n a n a e a n ' ( M a r k 3: 18), k n o w i n g that the A r a m a i c w o r d w o u l d b e unintelligible to the R o m a n s and less liable to suspicion than its G r e e k equivalent ' Z e a l o t ' ( B r a n d o n , NTSt 7 (1960-1), i4of; Zealots,

p p . 2 3fl). 4

3 6

J o s e p h u s , BJ vii. i^M, 161. J o s e p h u s , BJ vii. 162. M a r k 15:38 (see p p . 87f b e l o w ) . In J e w i s h legend T i t u s sacrilegiously entered the T e m p l e a n d slashed the curtain with his s w o r d ( T B Gittin 56b). M a r k 14: 57-9. ^ B r a n d o n , NTSt 7 (1960-1), 134. 3 7

3 8

3 9

The date and character o f Mark

81

can scarcely stand against the positive evidence that Mark's Gospel, and especially his version o f the Olivet discourse, implies a life-setting earlier than the events o f A . D . 7 0 . Whatever Mark meant by the personal 'abomination o f desolation', his standing 'where he ought not' was to be a signal to those in Judaea to 'flee to the mountains', and months before the T e m p l e went up in flames the time for such flight was past. A n earlier form o f the discourse may well have been circulated to meet the threatened crisis o f A . D . 4 0 , but it is its Markan form that is relevant for the dating o f the Second Gospel. That its Markan form is earlier than A . D . 7 0 is indicated by those modifications o f it in the gospel o f Matthew which reflect the situation after that date. For example, the disciples' question which is answered by this discourse appears thus in Mark: 'Tell us, when will this be [viz. the destruction of the Temple, predicted by Jesus in 1 3 : 2 ] , and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?' ( 1 3 : 4 ) . 'These things' are the events o f the end-time which, especially according to Daniel's visions, attend the desolation o f the sanctuary, culminating in the establishment o f 'everlasting righteousness' ( c p . Dan. 8: 1 1 — 1 4 ; 9 : 2 4 - 2 7 ; 1 1 : 3 i f f ) . In the Markan form o f the question they apparently belong to the same temporal complex as the destruction o f the T e m p l e . But in Matthew the question is re-worded so that the destruction o f the T e m p l e is separated from the events o f the end-time: 'Tell us, when will this be [the destruction o f the T e m p l e ] , and what will be the sign o f your coming and o f the close o f the age?' (Matt. 2 4 : 3 ) . For, when Matthew's Gospel was written, the destruction o f the T e m p l e had taken place, but the parousia and the 'close o f the age' were still future. A distinction which was patent after A . D . 7 0 was not so obvious at an earlier stage, and it is such an earlier stage that is implied in Mark's wording. For Mark, the 'abomination o f desolation' has not yet made his appearance, although he may well be expected imminently. T h e cryptic language seems to point to some intolerable encroachment of Caesar on the things that are God's.

VIII An important milestone in the course o f Markan study was the publication in 1 9 0 1 o f William Wrede's work on the messianic secret in the gospels. According to Wrede, Jesus's commanding silence when he is acknowledged to be the messiah (at Caesarea Philippi, Mark 8: 30) or Son o f G o d (Mark 3: 1 2 ; c p . 1: 2 5 , 3 4 ) does not represent historical truth but is a device by which the gospel tradition (given literary form by Mark) endeavoured to reconcile the church's belief that Jesus was the messiah from the beginning o f his career with the fact that this belief did not emerge until after the

82

F.

F.

BRUCE

resurrection. Jesus was the messiah, so runs the 'traditional' and Markan explanation, but he kept his messiahship dark. Thus, when three o f the disciples were granted transfiguration

a vision o f his true glory on the mount o f

and heard him acclaimed as the Father's dear Son, 'he

charged them', says Mark, 'to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son o f man should have risen from the dead' (Mark 9 : 9 ) . But this vision (according to W r e d e ) , like Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi, was originally related

as a resurrection

appearance

and

was

transposed back into the setting o f the historical ministry.

artificially

41

A realistic assessment o f the 'messianic secret', however, will give it its most appropriate setting in the historical ministry. Jesus placed his o w n interpretation on the designation 'messiah' and, if that interpretation was conceded, he would not refuse the designation. But it was so regularly interpreted in a political and military sense that he preferred not to use it and discouraged its application to him by others. Even when Peter, at Caesarea Philippi, confessed him to be the messiah, he showed that his understanding o f Jesus's messianic mission was far from adequate and had to be sharply rebuked for trying to dissuade his Master from thinking in terms o f impending suffering.

42

During the ministry o f j e s u s its messianic

character was not at all obvious. T h e only parable o f the kingdom o f G o d which is peculiar to Mark, that of the seed growing secretly (4: 2 6 - 9 ) , makes this point. W h e n the seed has been sown, it does not matter that it is not seen: something is going on underground and will appear in due course. So, when once the kingdom o f God

has begun to work, it is a matter o f small importance that its

significance is not appreciated here and now: one day, within the lifetime o f 43

the present generation, it will have ' c o m e with p o w e r ' and its effect will be manifest to all. That the significance o f the ministry was not generally appreciated is indicated further in the quotation o f Isa. 6: 9 f which in Mark 4:1 i f introduces Jesus's interpretation to his disciples of the parable of the sower. W e are frequently invited to penetrate behind the background o f this 'hard saying' and discern in the underlying Aramaic a rather different meaning, related probably to a different context from that which Mark gives it. A n d if we are to determine Jesus's intention in speaking thus, this is probably the right procedure, and it is quite likely that he meant that, whereas the mystery o f the kingdom, the divine purpose implicit in its proclamation, has been divulged to the Twelve and to other believers, it remains a riddle 4 1

W . W r e d e , Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien ( G o t t i n g e n , 1901), p p . S^ttetpassim ( E T The Messianic Secret ( C a m b r i d g e and L o n d o n , 1972), p p . 35ft et passim). M a r k 8: 32f (see p . 84 b e l o w ) . M a r k 9: 1. 0

4 2

4 3


83

to those outside, w h o remain bereft o f perception and understanding, and 44

so d o not repent and receive forgiveness. But if we look for Mark's intention in recording the saying, we must examine his Greek text, not the underlying Aramaic, and view it in the context where he places it. W e may then come to the conclusion that he is concerned, as was Paul, about the problem o f Jewish unresponsiveness to the gospel, and sees in it the effect o f that judicial 'hardening' o f Israel which Paul also discerned, in fulfilment o f prophetic words about unseeing eyes and unhearing ears. understanding o f the 'mystery' was granted,

45

T o some an

but from others it was

withheld, even when it was proclaimed in the graphic language of parable. This is not the only respect in which Mark presents parallels to Paul without being dependent on him. If Paul lays it d o w n that food-restrictions and the observance o f special days are matters o f religious indifference, on which each one must be 'fully convinced in his own mind' ( R o m . 1 4 : 2 - 6 ) , M a r k records the sovereign freedom with which Jesus disposed o f the Sabbath law ( M a r k 2: 2 3 to 3: 5 ) and recognises in his pronouncement on the rules o f levitical purity a declaration making 'all foods clean' (Mark 7: I 4 - I 9 ) -

4 6

IX While Martin Kahler's description of Mark's Gospel as a 'passion narrative with an extended introduction'

47

is an exaggeration, it contains more than a

little truth. T h e record o f Jesus's ministry

4 4

preceding his arrival at

C p . T . W . M a n s o n , The Teaching ofJesus (2nd e d n . C a m b r i d g e , 1935), p p . 75ff; JJ e r e m i a s , Neutestamentliche Theologie i (Giitersloh, 1971), 133^ 243f ( E T New Testament Theology i ( L o n d o n , 1971), i2of, 256).

45

C p . R o m . 11:7ft

4 6

See p . 73 a b o v e . R . P. M a r t i n , ' A G o s p e l in Search o f a Life-setting', EspT 80 (1968-9), 36iff, argues that M a r k ' s G o s p e l w a s published after Paul's death in o r d e r to p r o v i d e a safeguard against t w o tendencies w h i c h Paul's k e r y g m a t i c t h e o l o g y h a d held in c h e c k - o n e w h i c h p r o m o t e d a messiah w h o p e r f o r m e d m a g i c a l signs a n d another w h i c h p r o m o t e d the figure o f a heavenly r e d e e m e r d e t a c h e d from : n a s ! : 1 0 history. M a r k ' s use o f e v c r / Y ^ i - O V (1: 1, 14, 15; 8:35; 10:29; 3 J *4 9) Pauline affinities ( c p . p . 79 n. 33 a b o v e ) . M a r t i n ' s thesis is e l a b o r a t e d in his Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter, 1972). T w o other theses c a n receive o n l y the briefest m e n t i o n here: that o f E. T r o c m e (Laformation de l'£vangile selon Marc (Paris, 1963); E T The Formation of the Gospel according to Mark ( L o n d o n , 1975)), w h i c h h o l d s that the original edition o f M a r k e n d e d with chapter 13 and w a s written a r o u n d A . D . 50 b y s o m e o n e o f the o u t l o o k o f Philip the evangelist, and that o f T . J . W e e d e n (Mark - Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia, 1971)), a c c o r d i n g to w h o m M a r k o p p o s e s the 6 e i o g ovrJQ c h r i s t o l o g y o f the disciples with the suffering messiahship o f Jesus.

4 7

The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, E T (Philadelphia, 1964), p . 80. K a h l e r uses the expression in the plural, with reference to all the gospels, but makes M a r k his c h i e f e x a m p l e .

F.

84

F.

BRUCE

Jerusalem at the beginning o f chapter 11 contains repeated adumbrations of the coming passion. T h e series o f five controversies in Mark 2: 1 to 3: 6 includes a hint that one day the 'bridegroom' will be 'taken away' from his friends ( 2 : 20) and ends with an account o f a plot against Jesus's life by an unnatural combination o f Pharisees and Herodians. T h e list o f the Twelve in Mark 3: 1 6 - 1 9 ends with 'Judas Iscariot, w h o betrayed him'. T h e story of J o h n the Baptist's execution, told as a 'flash-back' in Mark 6: 1 7 - 2 9 , is ominous, for H e r o d Antipas, w h o has put John to death, thinks ofjesus as John redivivus when news o f the mission o f the Twelve reaches him. Later, the parallel between J o h n and Jesus is made explicit: 'Elijah has c o m e ' , says Jesus to the

disciples after

their

descent from

the

mount o f

transfiguration, 'and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him' (Mark 9: 1 3 ) - that is, the recorded threats against the first Elijah's life which his enemies were unable to carry out (1 Kings 1 9 : 2ff) have been fulfilled in the death of the second Elijah at the hands of his enemies. A n d as such things were 'written' concerning Elijah, so it is 'written o f the Son o f man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with com tempt' (Mark 9: 1 2 ) . T h e last words, based in part on the fourth Isaianic Servant Song (probably) and in part on Psalm 1 1 8 : 2 2 (certainly), belong to primitive tradition 17: 2 5 ) .

4 8

(for their transmission

along a non-Markan line c p . Luke

T h e y underlie the recurrent warnings o f the impending passion

which, according to Mark, Jesus impressed on his disciples from Caesarea Philippi onwards. Immediately after Peter's confession 'he began to teach them that the Son o f man must suffer many things, and be rejected . . . and after three days rise again' (Mark 8 : 3 1 ) , but, for all the 'plainness' (jiaQQTjoia) with which he said so, Peter bluntly deprecated such language, expressing himself in terms which Jesus repudiated as a satanic, though well-meant, temptation to deviate from his appointed path (8: 3 2 - 4 ) .

4 9

Later, in Galilee, he repeated the warning: ' T h e Son o f man will be delivered into the hands o f men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise' (9: 3 1 ) . 'But', says Mark, 'they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to ask him' ( 9 : 2 2 ) . Even on the road to Jerusalem they failed to understand him, when he foretold

•

4 8

4 9

5 0

50

his

C p . W . M i c h a e l i s , TDNTv, p p . 9i3fT(s.v. Jidoxw). T h e r e is a striking similarity b e t w e e n Jesus's rebuke o f Peter here ( ' G e t b e h i n d m e , Satan!') a n d his reply to the wilderness tempter in M a t t . 4: 10; p e r h a p s o n b o t h o c c a s i o n s he recognised the s a m e t e m p t a t i o n - to fulfil his mission otherwise than b y suffering a n d death. T h a t these p r e d i c t i o n s are not sheer vaticinia ex eventu is suggested b y the fact that n o n e o f t h e m speaks o f crucifixion; i n d e e d , apart from the reference to the disciples' taking u p the cross in M a r k 8: 34, crucifixion is not m e n t i o n e d in this gospel before the passion narrative p r o p e r . C p . R . H . Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St Mark ( O x f o r d , 1950), p . 36.


85

passion with unprecedented explicitness ( 1 0 : 33f). Indeed, how little they appreciated

what his words involved is emphasised by Mark in the

following pericope, where the sons o f Zebedee still imagine that their Master is about to establish a kingdom in which the chief places will attract such honour as is paid to dignitaries in the kingdoms o f this world. They have yet to learn that their Master's closest associates must drink his cup and share his baptism, that in his fellowship the highest honour consists in rendering the lowliest service: T o r the Son o f man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many' (Mark

10-35-45) • This theme o f the suffering Son o f man so pervades the central section o f Mark's narrative that it must be recognised as crucial to his understanding o f the ministry. T h e suffering o f the Son o f man is, moreover, something that is written concerning him: it is, in other words, foretold in O l d Testament scripture. ' T h e Son o f man goes as it is written o f him', says Jesus at the Last Supper when indicating the presence o f a traitor at the table (Mark 1 4 : 2 1 ) , and later the same evening he submits to his captors with the words: 'let the scriptures be fulfilled' ( 1 4 : 4 9 ) . T h e Son o f man in Mark is the 'one like a son o f man' o f Dan. 7: 1 3 , who comes 'with the clouds o f heaven' before the Ancient o f Days to receive universal dominion from him when the beasts, which represent successive pagan world-empires, disappear from the scene. This is evident from the influence o f Daniel's vision on those Markan passages where the Son o f man is said to come with 'clouds' (Mark 1 3 : 2 6 ; 1 4 : 6 2 ) . But it is difficult to see in Daniel's vision the source o f the concept o f the suffering Son o f man. True, the 'one like a son o f man' is interpreted in terms o f the saints o f the M o s t High, with w h o m the 'little horn' (i.e. Antiochus Epiphanes) 'made war . . . and prevailed over them, until the Ancient o f Days came, and judgement was given for the saints o f the M o s t High, and the time came when the saints received the kingdom' (Dan. 7: 2 i f ) . But nowhere in the vision is the 'one like a son o f man' described as suffering,

51

and while the

modern exegete can see quite clearly that his suffering is implied, the earliest interpreters o f Daniel appear to have distinguished him from the persecuted saints. He is associated but not identified with them: he is their champion and avenger, as he is the j u d g e and executioner o f their persecutors.

52

If those interpreters o f Mark are right who see behind the suffering Son o f 5 1

5 2

F o r the v i e w that D a n i e l ' s ' o n e like a son o f m a n ' is exalted after suffering, see C . F. D . M o u l e , ' F r o m D e f e n d a n t to J u d g e - and Deliverer', SNTS Bulletin 3 (1952), 4off; M . D . H o o k e r , The Son of Man in Mark ( L o n d o n , 1967), p p . 1 iff. E.g. in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 E n o c h 48:4ff et passim); c p . H o o k e r , Son of Man, PP- 33*f

86

F. F.

BRUCE

man the suffering Servant o f Yahweh in Isa. 5 2 : 13 to 5 3 : 1 2 ,

5 3

they may in

some measure be bringing back to light the original intention o f the book o f Daniel to re-present the suffering Servant in the form o f the suffering saints 54

or maskilim o f the persecution under A n t i o c h u s . But whether that is so or not, the suffering o f the Son o f man in Mark demands a more explicit biblical background than Dan. 7: 1 3 can supply. T h e Son o f man's giving his life as 'a ransom for many' (Mark 1 0 : 4 5 ) is in line with the Isaianic Servant's giving his life as a reparation-offering ('ashdm) and bearing the sin of many (Isa. 5 3 : 1 0 , 1 2 ) .

5 5

' H o w is it written o f the Son o f man, that he

should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?' - h o w indeed, if the Son o f man be not equated with the Servant o f Yahweh? Yet before his passion the Son o f man is vested with exceptional authority: he 'has authority on earth to forgive sins' (Mark 2: 10) and claims to be 'lord even o f the sabbath' - evidently as representative of man, for w h o m the Sabbath was made (Mark 2: 2 7 Q . His authority to forgive sins is quite unlike the judicial authority granted to Daniel's 'one like a son o f man'

56

but is not unlike the Isaianic Servant's commission to 'justify the

many' (Isa. 53: 1 1 ) . Jesus's own use o f the designation 'the Son o f man' - a designation almost without exception found on his lips alone - is not our object o f study here. By Mark, the Son o f man, whether exercising his present authority on earth, suffering betrayal, contempt and death, or 'coming in clouds with great p o w e r and glory' ( 1 3 : 2 6 ) , is identified with Jesus himself. T h e Son of man and the kingdom o f G o d are so closely associated that the one implies the other even if the other is not expressly mentioned. This is what might be expected in view of the plain statement in Dan. 7: 1 3 f that the eternal kingdom is bestowed on the 'one like a son of man' - to which might be added the testimony o f the fourth Servant Song that the Servant o f Y a h w e h , after his suffering and death, is to be 'exalted and lifted u p ' and made 'very high' (Isa. 5 2 : 1 3 ) . As the Son o f man exercises his authority in the ministry ofjesus, so the kingdom of G o d is at work in his ministry, as the parables o f Mark 4 : 1 - 3 4 declare. Yet, according to these parables, the kingdom's working is largely hidden at present, like the seed growing

5 3

5 4

5 5

5 6

C p . M a n s o n , Teaching, p p . 227ff; V . T a y l o r Jesus andhis Sacrifice ( L o n d o n , 1937), p p . 3gff; W . Z i m m e r l i and J. J e r e m i a s , The Servant of God, E T ( L o n d o n , 1957), p p . 79fT; for a c o n t r a r y o p i n i o n c p . M . D . H o o k e r , Jesus and the Servant ( L o n d o n , 1959). C p . M . Black, 'Servant o f the L o r d and S o n o f M a n ' , SJTh 6 (1953), p p . iff. C p . C . K . Barrett, ' T h e B a c k g r o u n d o f M a r k 10:45', ^ Testament Essays . . . in Memory of T. W. Manson, e d . A . J. B . H i g g i n s ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1959), p p . iff, for the v i e w that a b a c k g r o u n d to this saying s h o u l d b e sought rather in the M a c c a b a e a n m a r t y r d o m s than in Isa. 52: 13 to 53: 12. T h e j u d i c i a l authority granted to the ' o n e like a son o f m a n ' implies authority to c o n v i c t a n d c o n d e m n rather than to p a r d o n a n d release. e

w


87

secretly; it is unimpressive to outward appearance, like the minute mustard seed. But one day it will c o m e visibly 'with power' (Mark 9: 1 ) , just as the Son o f man, after submitting to suffering and death, will be manifested in glory (8:38; 1 4 : 6 2 ) .

X T h e portrayal ofjesus as the Son of man, commissioned by G o d , exposed to suffering, destined to c o m e in glory, is Mark's way o f presenting him as Son o f G o d . Whatever else he means by 'the Son o f G o d ' , he means the one in w h o m G o d himself is fully revealed. Jesus is hailed by G o d , at the outset o f his ministry, as his 'beloved Son' (Mark 1: 1 1 ) . If we ask what kind o f person G o d ' s 'beloved Son' is, Mark lets us see him in action and teaching, but he brings out the full significance o f his character and mission by portraying him as the Son o f man. So Jesus himself replies to the high priest's question, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?' with the words: 'I am; and you will see the Son of man . . .' (Mark 1 4 : 6 if). A n d when the Son o f man, betrayed and humiliated, has endured his final suffering, the truth about his person is proclaimed in the centurion's words: 'Truly this man was the Son o f G o d ! ' (Mark 1 5 : 39).

57

It is not by chance that, immediately before recording the centurion's confession, Mark tells how, at the moment when Jesus breathed his last, 'the curtain o f the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom' ( 1 5 : 38). It is unlikely that this has anything to d o with the display o f the T e m p l e furnishings in Vespasian's triumph, or with other portents in and around the

sacred

building

which seemed in retrospect

to foreshadow

its

destruction in A . D . 70. For Mark, this is the climax of his narrative. H e may have in mind, like the writer to the Hebrews, the fact that Jesus by his death has opened up for his people a 'new and living way . . . through the curtain' into the presence o f G o d ( H e b . 10: 2 0 ) ; but still more he implies that in the death ofjesus G o d is revealed to men in the fullness o f his grace. O n c e his presence was hidden from them behind the curtain which hung before the holy o f holies, but now it is hidden no more. If in his works o f creation we trace 'but the outskirts o f his ways' (Job 26: 1 4 ) , in the cross ofjesus he has bared his heart. T h e rending o f the veil proclaims the same message as the centurion's confession. T h e centurion, paradoxically and

unwittingly,

divulges the messianic secret, which (as T . W . Manson said) 'is not 5 7

T h e c e n t u r i o n ' s confession sums u p M a r k ' s message as T h o m a s ' s confession, ' M y L o r d and m y G o d ' (John 20: 28), sums u p J o h n ' s . W h a t e v e r the centurion might have m e a n t by vibq 6 e o i ) , M a r k interprets the w o r d s as a confirmation o f his o w n theme ( h e n c e 'the S o n o f G o d ' in the 1962 a n d 1971 editions o f R S V , as against 'a

son o f G o d ' in the editions o f 1946 and 1952).

88

F. F.

BRUCE

58

concerned with the identity o f the Messiah but with the nature o f his task'. W h e n Jesus himself declared it 'plainly', his disciples misunderstood him. They took him to mean, perhaps, that the establishment o f the kingdom would call for toil and tribulation, but that in the end the kingdom, with its power and glory, would be theirs. Their messianic expectations were in essence o f the same order as those o f most o f their fellow-countrymen. Not until 'the Son o f man was risen from the dead' did the truth begin to dawn on them, and even then it dawned gradually: the crucified Jesus is king king in his crucifixion - and the way o f the cross is the way o f the kingdom. In emphasising this, Mark emphasises the heart o f Jesus's mission and ministry. If his readers grasped this lesson, they would greet their own sufferings as a participation in those of the Son o f man; let them confess him thus, and they would find him unashamed o f them at his coming 'in the glory o f his Father with the holy angels'. 59

Additional Note In December i 9 6 0 Morton Smith reported to the ninety-sixth meeting o f the American Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis a discovery which he made in 1 9 5 8 in the monastery o f M a r Saba, some twelve miles south-east o f Jerusalem, while he was cataloguing the contents o f its library. O n the end-papers o f a copy o f Isaac Voss's edition o f six Epistles o f Ignatius, printed at Amsterdam in 1 6 4 6 , he found a manuscript copy o f a Greek letter written in what was most probably an eighteenth-century hand. T h e copy is headed: 'From the letters o f the most holy Clement, author o f the Stromateis: T o Theodore.' T h e actual text of the letter identifies neither the writer nor the person addressed. O n stylistic grounds Professor Smith was disposed to accept the attribution to Clement of Alexandria (fl. c. A . D . 1 8 0 ) ; other scholars to w h o m he showed it varied in their assessment thus A . D . Nock suggested a date o f composition not later than the fourth century; J. M u n c k thought it might have been composed to support the claim o f the church o f Alexandria to have a special association with Mark. T h e text o f the letter was published by Professor Smith in Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Harvard University Press, 1 9 7 3 ) . It refers to a longer edition o f the Gospel o f Mark, preserved at Alexandria, which included 'secret' acts and sayings ofjesus not found in the canonical Mark. Mark, according to the letter, came to Alexandria from R o m e where 5 8

5 9

' R e a l i z e d E s c h a t o l o g y and the M e s s i a n i c Secret', Studies in the Gospels, ed. N i n e h a m , p . 220. W i t h the negative formulation o f M a r k 8: 38 c p . the positive counterpart in L u k e

12:8.

The date and character o f Mark

89

he had already published the shorter edition. At Alexandria he expanded this edition, adding the 'secret' material so as to provide 'a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being perfected'. Carpocrates, says the writer, further amplified Mark's expanded addition with some spurious material. This may be linked with Irenaeus's statement (Adversus haereses i. 2 5 . 5 ) that in the Carpocratean writings it was claimed that Jesus gave esoteric teachings to his disciples and permitted them to transmit these to such o f their adherents as were 'worthy'. According to samples o f the expanded gospel quoted in the letter, it inserted after Mark 10: 3 4 the story of the raising o f a rich young man from the tomb at Bethany - a story with resemblances to thejohannine narrative o f the raising o f Lazarus. James's and John's request to Jesus is next recorded (cp. Mark 10: 3 5 - 4 5 ) . W h e n , at the end o f this incident, Jesus comes to Bethany (Mark 1 0 : 4 6 a ) , the rich young man's sister and mother are there with Salome, 'but Jesus did not receive them'. W e recall that in several Gnostic Gospels Salome plays a larger and more colourful part than in the canonical writings. A preliminary judgement is that here we have evidence o f a Gnostic expansion of Mark, but further study must be devoted to the text, and to the rich apparatus o f annotation with which Professor Smith has equipped it, before firmer conclusions are possible.

C . F. D .

MOULE

Some observations on Tendenzkritik Tendenzkritik is a technique in historical research specially associated with F. C . Baur and A . Schwegler and others of the Tubingen school, since it was they w h o applied it to the reconstruction o f the early history o f the church.

1

In principle, it is a matter o f plain c o m m o n sense, and was already in use a m o n g secular historians before the Tiibingenians adopted it. If it can be established

that a document was written

with a clear

propagandist

purpose, then it becomes probable (other things being equal) that its writer 2

bent the facts, or made a tendentious selection from among them, to fit his purpose; and it is therefore necessary to make allowance for such distortion, in any attempt to get back to the truth about what actually happened. Accordingly,

a

question

o f prime

importance

for the

historian

in

interpreting a document and estimating its worth is, W h a t was this document for? What did its author hope to achieve by it? A classic example o f Tendenzkritik is the estimate o f Acts reached by New Testament scholars over against Galatians. It is a familiar fact that, whereas the Epistle to the Galatians shows Paul at one point taking issue with Peter, and reflects a difference (if not a conflict) between the leaders o f the Gentile and Jewish missions respectively, the Acts presents a picture of basic harmony between Paul and the leading figures in the Jerusalem church. Equally, it is well known that, in certain details, Galatians and Acts are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile. Ergo, a strong case appears to emerge for treating Acts - which, in any case, is later (perhaps much later) than Galatians - as a tendentious re-telling o f the story for the purpose o f papering over cracks which in fact existed between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders. It is upon such assumptions, coupled with a particular chronology for the writing o f the N e w Testament and related documents, that the Tiibinge-

1

2

See, e.g., F. C . B a u r ' s Kritische Untersuchungen uber die Kanonischen Evangelien ( T u b i n g e n , 1847), p p . 7 1 - 6 . F o r a discussion, see P. C . H o d g s o n , The Formation of Historical Theology: a Study of Ferdinand Christian Baur ( N e w Y o r k , 1966), w h e r e it is urged that it is incorrect to associate the m e t h o d with H e g e l i a n i s m . ( S e e , e.g., p . 200.) F o r a c o n v e n i e n t s u m m a r y o f Baur's Tendenzkritik, with excerpts ( a m o n g others illustrating o t h e r points) from Baur's Paulus, derApostelJesu Christi (Stuttgart, 1845) a n d his Kritische Untersuchungen, see W . G . K i i m m e l , Das Neue Testament: Geschichte der Erforschung seiner Probleme (2nd e d n . F r e i b u r g / M i i n c h e n , 1970), p p . i64ff ( E T The New Testament: the History of the Investigation of its Problems ( L o n d o n , 1973), p p . 134ft). O n S c h w e g l e r see ibid. p p . 177f ( E T p . 145). See the note o n 'the argumentum e silentio' b y G . M . Styler, p p . 101-7 b e l o w .

91

92

C . F . D . M O U L E

nian version o f the early years o f Christianity rests. Subsequently to the days o f Baur and his immediate successors, it has become habitual to question, indeed, the chronology o f the Tubingen scholars (not least because o f the massive criticism of it by J. B. Lightfoot and his colleagues), but to endorse their assumption of tendentiousness in Acts, and, indeed, in the Gospels. Baur himself had already applied Tendenzkritik to the Gospels, bringing out Matthew as the earliest and most free from bias; and Redaktionsgeschichte, so fashionable at the present time, has in some respects affinities with the method, although critical opinion today is not wont to set Matthew on any pedestal o f objectivity above his fellows. Form-criticism too employs Tendenzkritik on a miniature scale, in its dealings with the small, independent units o f tradition. O n e o f the assumptions o f form-criticism is that each unit had its own particular purpose in the life o f the Christian church; and when that purpose was an apologetic or propagandic one, then one must reckon with the possibility that the contents o f the unit were shaped and modified so as to enhance its force: the size of a miracle or the effect of a polemical saying may be exaggerated; and so forth. 3

4

5

N o w any man o f integrity and c o m m o n sense will agree that Tendenzkritik is not merely a legitimate but a necessary factor in the process o f getting at the truth. It is on this principle (though not by that name) that the system o f advocacy in a law court rests; and we use it every day, consciously or unconsciously, when estimating the truth of what we are told. Instinctively we make allowance for the fisherman's bias in his description o f the size o f his catch. But the principle ought not to be used uncritically. Tendenzkritik is a delicate tool, not a crowbar. It involves two questions, which may subtly react on one another; and, when all is said and done, the answers to them have only a limited scope: and this needs to be recognised and accepted. O n e question concerns the author's aim and intention, and therefore the a priori likelihood o f distortion; the other concerns the actually demonstrable extent of distortion in his tale. If it be established, in answer to the first question, that the author is indeed dominated by an apologetic or propagandic purpose, the presumption may be that he has distorted facts to gain his ends. If, in 3

4

5

Especially t h r o u g h Lightfoot's edition o f Ignatius. S e e K u m m e l , Neue Testament, p p . 1 7 i f ( E T p p . 1381), referring to Kritische Untersuchungen. But Baur is careful to qualify this j u d g e m e n t (Kritische Untersuchungen, p p . 6201). H e believed that, in its present form, M a t t h e w was not earlier than the s e c o n d century. F o r s o m e recent observations o n this topic, see M o r t o n Smith, ' F o r m s , M o t i v e s , a n d O m i s s i o n s in M a r k ' s A c c o u n t o f the T e a c h i n g o f Jesus', in J. R e u m a n n ( e d . ) , Understanding the Sacred Text (in h o n o u r o f M o r t o n S. Enslin, V a l l e y Forge, 1972), PP- i53*f

Some observations on Tendenzkritik

93

answer to the second question, distortion can in fact be demonstrated, and demonstrated in the expected direction, then the existence o f a dominant purpose is confirmed. A fisherman's story is a priori likely to be told to enhance his prowess; and if a palpable minnow comes out (not from the water, but from the story) as a sturgeon, then this intention is confirmed. But there are strict limits to the effectiveness of the method. If a definite aim is established, it still does not necessarily follow that there must be distortion. Conversely, if distortion is established, it may not invariably be due to bias, unless a whole series o f distortions is detected, all pointing in the same direction. So there are many factors to be reckoned with, and it would not be wise to follow slavishly Baur's principle o f requiring that the veracity o f narrative material should be judged by a writer's tendency rather than by direct comparison with other sources (unless indeed the other sources are suspected o f being themselves untrustworthy). In this, Baur seems to have been over-reacting against D . F. Strauss's divide et impera methods. There are many possibilities which must not be ignored. Suppose the man with w h o m we have to d o happens to be not only a fisherman (and therefore, by definition, tempted to exaggerate) but also a modest and truthful man; in this case, he may successfully resist the temptation to elongate his minnow. And suppose he is as keen a naturalist as he is a fisherman, he will have an added reason for preferring accurate records about his catch to romances about his prowess. O n the other hand, there might still be factors, not included in any o f these circumstances, leading to mis-statements in his story. These are childish parables; but d o but transfer them to the serious matter in hand, and it will be evident what damage can be done to scholarly judgement by the uncritical application o f Tendenzkritik without sufficient regard for its limitations. 6

7

T h e thesis o f Professor Brandon's Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester, 1 9 6 7 ) depends on an estimate o f Mark's Gospel as deliberately tendentious. Brandon believed that this Gospel was written, for use in Rome, immediately after the Flavian triumph o f A . D . 7 1 . This triumph, he believed, profoundly affected the Roman Christians: 'it brought, distur bingly, to their attention the fact that their faith stemmed from this Jewish people who had so fiercely revolted against Roman rule, and it faced them also with the serious possibility that they might be regarded by their pagan neighbours and the R o m a n authorities as being themselves infected with Jewish revolutionary ideas' (pp. 242f). T h e Gospel according to Mark reflects - so Brandon believed - the resulting embarrassment. For instance, Mark renders the disciple's name which, in Luke 6: 1 5 and Acts 1 : 1 3 , appears undisguisedly as Ziu.u)V 6 (xaXoi)|ievog) Zr\kiOxr\(; by the less 6

Kritische Untersuchungen, 7iff.

7

S e e H o d g s o n , Historical Theology, p . 198.

94

C . F . D . M O U L E

easily recognisable Aramaic form Sijxcov 6 Kavovaiog (Mark 3: 1 8 ) . T h i s masking o f the fact', wrote Brandon, 'that one o f the Twelve had been a Zealot indicates that the author o f Mark was not concerned to present an accurate historical record of the career ofjesus, but that he was moved by a definite apologetical motive' (p. 2 4 5 ) . Such argumentation oversimplifies the matter. First, Brandon's estimate of the occasion and purpose o f the writing o f Mark's Gospel is by no means 8

conclusive. Starting from the assumption that Mark was written between A . D . 6 0 and 7 5 (rather than, as many - probably most - scholars would suggest, before A . D . 7 0 ) , he proceeded to look for the date and occasion between these limits which seemed best to explain its contents, and lit on A . D . 7 1 , for the reasons already indicated. But it is difficult to be sure that this is right. Is Mark's reference to the tearing in two o f the veil o f the Temple

so obviously related

to the

sight

o f the

T e m p l e curtains

(presumably intact) being carried in triumph? Were the R o m a n Christians oblivious, till then, o f the fact that the Jews from w h o m their faith stemmed were openly rebellious against the Romans? T h e Epistle to the Romans and Acts 1 8 : 2 (to mention no further evidence) suggests that there had for long been a large Jewish element among them, who must surely have been aware of what had been going on for so long. Again, if it was as vital as Brandon made out that Jesus should be shown as advocating the obedient payment of tribute to Caesar, why are his words in this connection as ambiguous as Brandon subsequently (pp. 3 4 5 - 9 ) makes them out to be? Brandon thinks that the original saying was a strongly pro-Zealot one, and meant that among the things not belonging to Caesar was Palestine, which must at all costs not be 'rendered' to him. But if one is going, to extract this meaning from the saying at all, it is as easy to d o so from the form o f it which now appears in Mark; and it would surely be precarious indeed if the 'innocent' interpretation o f the words could be so easily turned in a 'dangerous' direction by any hearer w h o was 'in the know'. Even if Brandon's answer was that the dialogue would have sounded very different in Palestine, and that Mark has de-fused it by the context in which he has set it, the argument 9

still remains decidedly speculative. O n c e again, if it was so important to establish that Christians were not disloyal to the emperor, why does Mark quote the seditious phrase, 'the Abomination of Desolation' at a l l - e v e n if it is sufficiently oracular to be 'discreet' (p. 2 3 3 ) ? If the presence among the Twelve o f one w h o may (though the term does not actually prove i t )

8

9

1 0

10

have

See F. F. B r u c e ' s essay, p p . 69-89 a b o v e . See F. F. B r u c e ' s essay, p p . 249-263 b e l o w . See M . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten ( L e i d e n , 1961), M . Borg, ' T h e C u r r e n c y o f the T e r m " Z e a l o t " \JThSt n.s. 22 (1971), 504ff, and M . Smith, ' Z e a l o t s and Sicarii: T h e i r O r i g i n s a n d R e l a t i o n ' , HThR 64 (1971), iff.


95

been a Zealot is so damaging to the Christian cause, why risk even an Aramic version o f the term? If Mark 'is not concerned to present an accurate historical record', why does he trouble to preserve the offending term in any form? A n d why did he not, instead, call attention, in the list o f the Twelve (as Brandon himself, for his own purposes, avoided doing), to the fact that they included also one w h o had been a c o l l a b o r a t o r - o n e of the tax collectors so hated by the Jews and so useful to the Romans? It suits Brandon's reading o f the situation to regard as part o f Mark's propaganda the whitewashing of Pilate. But it is generally agreed (and Brandon himself agrees) that, whatever Mark does to Pilate, Luke goes further in this direction. Yet Luke it is who is not embarrassed to call a Zealot a Zealot. Something seems to have gone wrong here in the interpretation o f motives. If Brandon's Sitz im Leben for Mark were correct, Mark's Pilate ought to have been more like Luke's (or, rather, more like the Pilate o f Luke's story of the trial: not the Pilate of Luke 1 3 : 1 ) . Conversely, if Brandon's reason for Mark's use o f Kavavaiog were correct, then Luke ought also to have disguised the offensive Zr]Xo)Trjg. A n d if Brandon's answer were to be that, by the time Luke wrote, the word had lost its dangerous connotations (and, admittedly, Luke freely uses the word and its cognates in a nonrevolutionary sense), this would need a good deal of evidence to establish it. Yet it is these unproved assumptions about the circumstances and purpose of Mark, and about his readers (or hearers), and about his readiness deliberately to misrepresent the facts, that provide the foundation on which rests Brandon's radical reconstruction o f the story o f j e s u s . Whatever tendentiousness there may be in Mark, the evangelist does not appear to have the monopoly o f it. N o doubt, the strength of Brandon's case is his construction of a total situation in which he can interpret Mark as he does. But so many o f the links in his chain are weak that it cannot be accepted in its totality. 11

If one sets aside guesses as to what Mark is likely to have done, what more substantial evidence is there that Mark has misrepresented the facts? The whitewashing o f Pilate has been mentioned; and even if Mark is surpassed in this direction by Luke, it might still be argued that the Pilate even o f Mark is not the Pilate o f Philo and Josephus (or, for that matter, o f Luke 1 3 : 1 ) . But the issue is not as clear-cut as this. In the first place, Tendenzkritik must, of course, be applied to Philo and Josephus, no less than to the Gospels, before it is assumed that they are right and the Gospels 12

11

12

M . H e n g e l suggests that B r a n d o n ' s m e t h o d is 'a reductio ad absurdum o f the o l d e r Tendenzkritik', in his review o f Jesus and the Zealots in JJSt 14 (1961), 231 fT (233, note 1). For a j u d i c i o u s estimate, with full b i b l i o g r a p h y , see E. B a m m e l in RGG 35, S p p . 383^ also W . H o r b u r y , ' T h e Passion Narratives and Historical C r i t i c i s m ' , Theology

75.620 (Feb. 1972), 8ff (65Q. 5

96

C.

F. D.

MOULE

wrong. But what a tangle o f motives there is to be unravelled! Philo's account (Legatio 2 9 9 - 3 0 5 ) , in any case, occurs in a passage purporting to be quoted from Agrippa's letter (see Legatio 2 7 6 - 9 3 ) , and that is hardly likely to be unbiased. Moreover, the story in it is notoriously difficulty to reconcile with that in Josephus.

13

14

As for Josephus's references to Pilate, it is as difficult

to make allowance simultaneously for Josephus the Pharisaic Jew and Josephus the R o m a n collaborator as it is to give a simple account o f the motives

o f the

evangelists.

A n d , when

all

is said

and

done,

the

non-Christian portraits o f Pilate differ from the Christian mainly in no more than that they are explicit about his brutality (though Luke 1 3 : 1 is explicit about this also, in another context). In the Christian accounts, it is only Luke and J o h n who show him as having any serious concern to rescue Jesus. A s for the evangelists' representation o f Pilate as convinced that Jesus was not guilty, this is something that, in any case, has no parallel in Philo or Josephus, and must be j u d g e d independently; and even on this point Mark's emphasis is minimal. A n d even if the Barabbas story sounds implausible, it is a hasty verdict and an illegitimate use o f the argument from silence

15

to declare it an apologetic fiction without more substantial

evidence than that there is near silence elsewhere, and that, in general, the Gospels were probably tendentious. At any rate, even if it were established that Mark has

deliberately

distorted the picture o f Pilate, this would still not serve to eliminate the conflict between Jesus and the Jews as fictitious. O n the contrary: it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, before ever it came to the trial, Jesus's ministry had constituted a head-on collision with the Judaism o f his d a y .

16

Mutatis mutandis, the account in the latter chapter^ o f the Acts o f Paul's position vis-a-vis Judaism and R o m e respectively (see the summary in Acts 28: 17ft) presents a close parallel to what the Gospels, broadly speaking, suggest regarding the position ofjesus: in violent collision with many o f the theological attitudes o f Judaism, but politically and legally difficult to convict. A n d , details apart, this is perfectly plausible in both cases. It is difficult to think where else to look in Mark for evidence of the sort o f

1 3

14

1 5

See E. M . S m a l l w o o d ' s note in her edition o f the Legatio ( L e i d e n , 1961), p . 291. BJ ii. 169-77, AJ xviii. 35; 55-9; 62; 64 - the testimoniumflavianum,p r o b a b l y to b e d i s c o u n t e d ; certainly not to b e read in the S l a v o n i c form, despite B r a n d o n ' s attempt to revive Eisler's theory; 87-9; 177. See o n c e again, G . M . Styler, p p . 101-7 b e l o w ; a n d H o r b u r y , Theology 75.620,

(Feb. 1972), 66f. 1 6

See H . M e r k e l ' s essay, ' T h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n Jesus and J u d a i s m ' , p p . 129-44 b e l o w ; and his J e s u s und d i e Pharisaer', NTSt 14 (1967-8), 1940°; a n d H o r b u r y , Theology 75.620 ( F e b . 1972), 64^ and D . C a t c h p o l e , ' T h e P r o b l e m o f the Historicity o f the Sanhedrin trial' in The Trial ofJesus, ed. E. B a m m e l ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 47ff ( 8fl). 4


97

tendentiousness postulated by Brandon. If we turn from Mark to other N e w Testament writings, one instance o f evident tendentiousness that springs to mind is the devastating attack on the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 2 3 . Even if it can be shown that some Pharisees were guilty o f the offences here described, it is clearly a selective and one-sided account when j u d g e d by the ample evidence from Jewish sources about the character o f Pharisaism. It may, at least in this form, spring from a period subsequent to the time ofjesus himself, and reflect the bitter antagonism that had sprung up between church and synagogue in the latter decades o f the first century.

17

M u c h the same applies to the strictures on 'the Jews', as they are

generically called, in the Gospel according to St John. These, too, may well reflect actual clashes with opponents o f Christ or o f Christians,

and

epitomise the conflict between legalism generally and the Christian gospel. Such phenomena undoubtedly point to tendencies in these writers; but it is to be noted that the tendency is deduced not from any independent evidence o f the writer's purpose, but from the evidence o f a number o f straws in the wind all blowing in the same direction: it is a matter o f tendencies detected (contrary to Baur's principle) by comparing each relevant passage with some independent source, rather than o f tendencies deduced from knowledge (actual or alleged) o f the writer's purpose. T h e same seems to be true, notoriously, o f the 'heightening' o f Matthew's christology, o f which it is only one familiar example that when, in Mark, Jesus appears to question his own goodness, Matthew seems deliberately to alter the phrase: Mark 1 0 : 1 8 xi \kt XeyEiq dyaBov; Matt. 1 9 : 1 7 t i \IE EQCOtQig JieQt xov &YCX0OX); Similarly, Luke, as is well known, seems fairly consistently to reduce the 'eschatological tension' in comparison both with Mark and Matthew.

18

( O n a more trivial level and in parenthesis, it is possible that Luke is displaying a measure o f tendentiousness when he simply says (in the best text o f 8: 4 3 ) that the w o m a n with the haemorrhage could not be cured by anyone. Possibly they are right w h o think that it was the physician's professional pride that forbade him to reproduce Mark's assertion (Mark 5: 2 6 ) that she had undergone treatment at much cost at the hands o f many doctors with no success. But that is a special and isolated instance o f a guessed Tendenz.) But the main tendencies alluded to, and many besides, are detected by 1 7

1 8

See, for a recent allusion to the question, A . F . J . Klijn, J e r o m e ' s q u o t a t i o n s from a N a z o r a e a n Interpretation o f Isaiah', RechSRbo (1972), 24iff, suggesting (254) that it is the author o f M a t t h e w w h o i n t r o d u c e d the idea o f h y p o c r i s y . F o r a recent treatment o f this theme, see J. M a n e k , ' G e s c h i c h t e und G e r i c h t in der T h e o l o g i e des L u k a s ' , Kairos 3-4 (1971), 243ff.

98

C.

F. D.

MOULE

comparison with other documents, and by the frequency and consistency with which they occur, rather than deduced from generalisations about the writer's purpose. T h e y still d o not constitute examples o f the successful application o f the principle that events may be reconstructed by making allowance

for

distortion

deducible from

apologetic purposes.

conversely, does a demonstrable mis-statement

Nor,

or distortion in itself

constitute evidence for tendentiousness, but only (as has been said) if it is one o f a series all pointing in the same direction. These observations apply - if we now g o back to the point from which we set out - to the Tiibingenian estimate o f the Acts. It was J. B. Lightfoot,

19

replying to the Tubingen scholars, w h o pointed out h o w little solid evidence there was for the alleged antagonism between the apostle to the Gentiles and the Jerusalem apostles, and how the assumption o f the tendentiousness of Acts is thus called in question at the outset. T h e purpose o f Acts might indeed have been to show that it was not the leaders on either side w h o were at variance but only the lesser men w h o were their adherents. But, if so, it might have been no more than the truth that it was showing. It may be added that if, contrary to Lightfoot's judgement, Galatians be assigned an early date, then certain other alleged discrepancies between Galatians and Acts also disappear. But this is not the place to pursue details o f this prolonged controversy.

20

Perhaps it is, however, the place where a

light-hearted aside may be permitted, calling attention to two passages in the Acts where the author seems deliberately to be giving an account o f tendentiousness in others. In the story o f Paul's arrest in Acts 2 1 , the Roman

commandant

(whose name,

it subsequently

transpires,

was

Claudius Lysias) discovers only after the arrest - and that by chance and to his great surprise, when he is on the verge o f having Paul beaten - that Paul is a R o m a n citizen. But the letter that Lysias is represented as writing to Felix when he sends Paul on to him in chapter 2 3 says (verse 2 7 ) : 'This man was seized by the Jews and was on the point o f being murdered when I intervened with the troops and removed him because I discovered that he was a Roman citizen.' T h e N E B is surely right in so translating the last clause: it would need the most improbable syntactical gymnastics to extort from (ia0d)V o n T a ) ( i a i 6 g eoxiv any other tense-sequence; which means that Lysias is deftly represented by the narrator as claiming for himself more merit than the facts warranted: a surreptitious little bit o f tendentiousness

1 9

S e e , for instance, J. B. L i g h t f o o t ' s f a m o u s dissertation o n 'St Paul a n d the T h r e e ' in his c o m m e n t a r y o n Galatians (8th e d n L o n d o n , 1884), p p . 2g2ff; with interesting c o m m e n t s b y C . K . Barrett in J o s e p h B a r b e r Lightfoot', The Durham University

Journal 64, 3 (n.s. 33.3) (June, 1972), 1930". 2 0

See F. F. B r u c e , 'Galatian P r o b l e m s . 4. T h e D a t e o f the Epistle', BJRL 54.2 ( S p r i n g

1972), 250ff.

Some observations on Tendenzkritik in one o f the dramatis personae. Whether we are to believe that it was itself tendentiously introduced by Luke, w h o can say? It certainly looks like an example o f the novelist's imaginative characterisation, which may or may not have been true to life, but is certainly plausible. T h e other passage is in Acts 2 5 : 20, where Festus is represented as telling King Agrippa that he had asked Paul whether he would like to go to Jerusalem to be tried, because Festus was at a loss (ctJlOQOlJjxevog) over details of Jewish religion and over Paul's assertions about the aliveness ofjesus. But the narrative in 2 5 : 9 had already made it clear that Festus's real reason for suggesting that Paul should g o to Jerusalem was to win favour with the Jews, w h o wanted him sent to Jerusalem because they were plotting to assassinate Paul on the way (cp. verse 3 ) . Actually, when it comes to attempting to assess the motives o f New Testament writers, there are not very many instances involving the narration of events when one may be quite sure of them. N o b o d y can doubt that in the little piece o f narrative in Gal. 2: 3 - 5 Paul is struggling hard to establish a point which evidently had been and was being contested. W e can no longer be certain whether Titus was or was not circumcised; but, whichever it was, Paul is evidently telling the story in order to make it plain that it in no way undermines the case for the freedom o f the Gentiles. But it so happens that, whereas we are certain that he had this aim and held to it with passionate feeling, it is almost equally certain that he could hardly have distorted the facts, even if he had wished to, without being detected and ruining his cause. Here, then, is a case o f known apologetic intention where the corollary o f tendentiousness is resisted by the circumstances. There are few other passages of the New Testament involving the narration o f events that can be decisively furnished with a purpose. If Brandon's arguments from contents are not conclusive, there is no support from tradition for the view that Mark's Gospel was written as apologetic to exculpate Christians from complicity in the Jewish revolt. Papias's hackneyed words state that Mark's aim was to record fully and accurately what Peter had said. T h e newly-discovered fragment attributed to Clement o f Alexandria contradicts the 'fully', saying rather that the Gospel represents only a selection o f Peter's reminiscences, intended for the use o f beginners. But in both cases, the motive ascribed to the writer is simply to preserve traditions. Luke's Gospel (and, by implication, the Acts) claims for itself accurate investigation and declares the intention o f instructing the reader ( 1 : 3f). John's Gospel states for itself an evangelistic purpose (20: 3 1 ) . T h e epistles (including those, such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, which may be more in the nature o f treatises or homilies than o f 21

22

2i

Apud

E u s e b . H.E. 3.39.15

2 2

See F. F. B r u c e , a b o v e p p . 88f.

100

C.

F.

D.

MOULE

normal letters) are clearly written with pastoral intentions. A n d the Apocalypse, too, is pastoral, aiming at fortifying those who are under stress and whose faith is in jeopardy. But in only a very few passages of the epistles and the Apocalypse is there narrative in which the course o f history is at issue; and the method o f Tendenzkritik, as originally applied by the Tubingen scholars, is therefore, to that extent, scarcely applicable here. In sum, the technique o f making allowance for distortions due to apologetic intentions, right and necessary though it is in principle, requires to be used with the utmost reserve because o f the number and the complexity o f the factors entering into each situation in actual life, and because o f the large element o f guesswork that therefore enters into the method. T h e instances where a New Testament writer's intentions (beyond the general intention to glorify Jesus Christ) can be ascertained with virtual certainty are rare; and even then it must not be assumed, without further evidence, that he has allowed his intentions to distort his representation o f the facts. It is safer (pace Baur and Brandon) to stick to such direct evidence as may be available for testing his accuracy, and to deduce his tendency, if such there be, from the repeated and consistent occurrence o f demonstrable distortion or selectiveness, rather than from speculations about his purpose.

G.M.STYLER

Argumentum e silentio T h e title o f this note might perhaps be better in the plural: argumenta e silentio. It is not only that Dr Brandon draws attention to a number o f instances o f a surprising silence in the ancient sources, both Jewish and Christian. It must also be noticed that silence can be interpreted in more ways than one, and that different lines o f interpretation rely for their force upon a different logic. It is with a brief glance at the different logical principles that we will begin. First, there is the direct argument, which uses the silence o f a witness to cast doubt upon an alleged, or otherwise attested, fact. It may be schematised like this: (a) X makes no mention o f y; (b) X would surely have known y, if it were true; (c) he would surely have mentioned y; therefore y is not true. This is the argumentum e silentio proper, and it is to this class that the chief arguments to be examined belong. But secondly, there is also the reverse argument, which uses an alleged or agreed fact to cast doubt upon the integrity o f a witness w h o is silent about it. In schematic form it runs like this: (a) X makes no mention o f y; (b) and X must surely have known y; (c) and he ought surely to have mentioned it; therefore, (d) since y is a well-attested fact, or well-established inference, his silence is due to deliberate concealment. Both the direct and the reverse argument are in principle sound. Whether in practice they will carry conviction will depend on the soundness of the individual links, (a), (b), (c) and (d). But if anyone employs both forms there is obviously a danger, if not exactly o f circular reasoning, at least o f an attempt to 'have it both ways', by using the same writer's silences positively at one time, that is, on the assumption o f his general reliability, and negatively at another, that is, to impugn his reliability. O f course, both arguments may be in practice justified. But if so that will be because the individual links and the judgements o f which these consist are 1

1

O r ' p r o b a b l y not true' etc., a c c o r d i n g to the strength o f the c o n v i c t i o n with w h i c h (a), (b) a n d (c) are asserted. IOI

102

G.M.

STYLER

sound. As far as logical form is concerned, it will often be possible for someone else, taking a different selection from the evidence as his starting-point, to employ the arguments from silence to reach the opposite conclusion. Thus - to compress his long and careful reasoning into skeleton form - Dr Brandon holds (i) that the partial or complete silence of the earliest sources (Mark and Q ) in respect o f any open repudiation by Jesus o f the Zealot outlook is to be interpreted directly, that is, as evidence that he did not repudiate it; (ii) that the small pieces o f evidence which can be interpreted as indicating that Jesus in some measure shared that outlook should be handled in terms o f what I have called the 'reverse argument', that is, they have been deliberately played down because o f the writers' apologetic interests; and (iii) that any indisputable criticisms o f the Zealot outlook should likewise be interpreted by the reverse argument, that is, ascribed to apologetic motives. As far as formal validity goes, however, one could start from the opposite end: (i) the slimness o f the evidence for the contention that Jesus accepted the Zealot outlook could be taken positively, and (ii) the silence o f Mark (partial or complete) about his repudiation o f it could be explained on the grounds that it was not necessary for him to emphasise it, or not part o f his purpose. Prima facie, either approach is legitimate. In other words, the mere silence o f witnesses on a vital point is open to more than one interpretation. Dr Brandon is well aware that an argumentum e silentio will by itself prove very little, and he addresses himself very carefully to all the relevant considerations which must be assessed Before a silence can be properly interpreted. N o criticism o f his basic logic is here intended; all that is claimed is that with equal logic a different reconstruction is possible. Granted then that it is logically proper to employ arguments from silence in more ways than one, it will be seen that it is on the strength o f what I have called the intermediate links that the validity o f these arguments will depend. Each o f these has to be established, and tested; any of them may be open to attack by an opponent. Thus - to pick up the letters used in the schematic version o f the arguments given at the beginning o f this note - it must be asked: (a) Is X ' s alleged silence established? (b) Might not X have been ignorant o f y? (c) Might not X have omitted to mention y? (d) Is y sufficiently well established? A full examination o f each o f these intermediate links would range over 2

2

(d) figures in the 'reverse' a r g u m e n t o n l y .

Argumentum e silentio

103

the whole o f Dr Brandon's case, in which he takes great pains in trying to establish each one; other essays in this collection examine individual points in detail. What is emphasised here is that arguments from silence cannot stand in isolation; they take their place and have their force in conjunction with the discussion, interpretation, and evaluation of every relevant piece o f evidence and argument. It will perhaps be of interest to proceed now to a brief summary of the main lines o f investigation followed by D r Brandon in which some use is made o f the silence o f witnesses. As will be seen, in some cases the silence is interpreted by the direct argument, in others by the 'reverse' argument. ( 1 ) Josephus tells us much about revolutionary activities and the fate o f bandits in the period before A . D . 66, but refrains from suggesting that the Zealot movement was clearly defined with an established and honourable place in the outlook and lives o f the people. Philo and Agrippa, on whose evidence he purports to draw, are similarly reticent. Brandon uses the reverse argument here, and attributes the silence to motives of apologetic and prudence. (2) Luke-Acts likewise contains a number o f references to revolution aries, often muddled but substantially authentic; but at several points where the politico-revolutionary background must almost certainly have been relevant to the experience o f the Christian community (e.g. in connection with Agrippa I, with Cuspius Fadus, and Cumanus), Acts gives no hint o f their impact on the Christian community, nor yet o f the Christians' attitude towards them. Again, Dr Brandon applies the 'reverse' argument, and contends that the writer's apologetic motives have led him to conceal or to play down some embarrassing facts. (3) T h e full importance o f Peter and his missionary work is not adequately set out in our sources. Grounds for suspicion are found in numerous passages. For example, what was the 'other place' to which Peter went, according to Acts 1 2 : 17? W h y does Mark say nothing of his restoration by the risen Christ? W h y does Paul skate so lightly over what Peter did and taught? By the 'reverse' argument, Dr Brandon ascribes all such lacunae to embarrassment and deliberate concealment. Similarly we are told much less than we should like about James the Lord's brother. Indeed, if we had to reply on Acts alone we should not know that he was the Lord's brother. O u r sources give us little or no direct and reliable evidence for the theological tenets o f the Jerusalem Christians. What we can reconstruct by oblique inference suggests that all our extant writings, when they have not distorted these tenets, have concealed them. (4) At the heart of Dr Brandon's thesis is his contention that, contrary to general Christian estimate and to a certain strand in the New Testament

104

G . M.

STYLER

itself, Jesus did not openly and definitely repudiate the outlook of zealotism; that, far from repudiating it, some of his actions and above all his execution by the Romans on the charge o f sedition compel us to see him as, at least in some measure, in sympathy with it. With Dr Brandon's positive arguments we are not here concerned. What we here note is his use o f the 'direct' argument from silence: viz. his claim that Mark, in contrast with passages in the later gospels, does not portray Jesus as openly repudiating the use o f force and resistance to R o m e . At most he does so by implication. T h e contrast with passages in the later gospels is significant, and highlights Mark's silence. So too, he claims, is the contrast between the strong criticism which the Jesus o f Mark levels against the Jewish groups - against the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians -

and his silence

concerning the Zealots. (5) Similarly, D r Brandon claims that the other early traditions ofjesus's teaching (i.e. what is generally denoted as Q ) contain no evidence o f the 'pacific' Christ. T h e main passages which explicitly portray him as 'pacific' are found only in the later gospels, and are independent additions to the tradition.

3

(6) Finally, separate mention should be made o f Mark's omission to supply a translation o f the word 'Cananaean'. Dr Brandon uses the reverse argument here, and holds that, contrary to his usual practice, Mark gives no translation, because he does not want to draw attention to the fact that one of Jesus's disciples was a member o f the Zealot party. O u t o f these instances o f the argument from silence it will be seen that items 1, 2 , 3, and 6 employ the 'reverse' argument, and items 4 and 5 the direct argument. A s has already been said, an answer to these arguments would have to cover as many points as Dr Brandon covers in his advocacy of them; and some o f this is attempted in other essays. In particular it may be noticed that much will depend on what was listed as point (c) on page 1 0 1 , viz. h o w strong is the expectation that the writer w h o is in fact silent ought to have spoken, and how strong is his alleged motive for concealment? But an attempt to answer the most direct use of the argument from silence is called for here, and it is to this that the final section o f this note is devoted. H o w complete, then, is the silence o f the most important witnesses on the vital points? T h e three witnesses to be re-examined are Paul, Mark, and Q ; and the vital points are those that define the traditional picture ofjesus as one w h o is essentially opposed to the use o f violence for the sake o f asserting one's rights. If that picture is basically veridical, then, whatever affection

3

C p . especially Matt. 5:3, 5, 9; 26:52-4; Luke 9:52-6; 13:1-3; 19:38b, 42; 22:51; 23: 34; J o h n 18:36-7.


105

Jesus doubtless had for Israel and its national heritage, it follows that he would ultimately be opposed to Zealot activism. T o those brought up in the ordinary tradition it comes as a shock to find that this picture of Jesus is under suspicion o f being a forgery, made for the purposes o f political apologetic, or to underpin a non-historical religious myth. T o many it will remain inconceivable - however the battle o f scholarly argument turns out - that this picture ofjesus can be anything but a true picture of one w h o was uniquely creative, inconceivable that it could have been put together by accident and coincidence out o f apologetic motives. Such judgements are o f course 'subjective'. But perhaps 'intuitive' would be a better word to describe them. 'Subjective' has become a pejorative word, and is too often used to denote a judgement that is hasty or ill-considered. But the intuition which recognises in the traditional picture ofjesus something that is both unique and compelling is neither hasty nor ill-considered. At any rate, the widespread assurance that the character ofjesus is of priceless worth does at the least demand that D r Brandon's assertions and arguments should be subjected to criticism as rigorous as he has applied to the New Testament. T h e evidence o f Paul ought not to be too quickly dismissed as irrelevant. It is true that the harvest o f biographical information about Jesus from Paul's epistles is meagre. But the testimony to his essential character is steady and convincing. Even on the traditional view it is remarkable how brightly the character o f Jesus shines through in Paul's own ethical principles and teachings. It is certainly 'remarkable , in view o f the fact that Paul had not been a disciple ofjesus; but it is not incredible, given that Paul did receive the Christian tradition. What to the present writer would be incredible is that Paul, or his Hellenistic-Christian predecessors, should first have invented a soteriology out o f the fact o f the cross, and then have constructed this picture o f Jesus to underpin that soteriology. If the soteriology alone could win converts, why bother to invent the picture? A n d if the picture is as old as the soteriology, where could it have originated, except in Jesus himself? T h e evidence o f Mark is twofold. First, there is the passage about the tribute-money. Dr Brandon argues that the logion 'Render unto Caesar . . .' stood originally by itself and bore the meaning that no Israelite should concede to a pagan ruler the obedience due only to G o d , that is, it advocated resistance; and that Mark has reversed the original meaning by 4

9

5

4

5

C p . e.g., R o m . 12: 14-21; 1 3 : 1 ; 15: if; 1 C o r . 2: 16; 9 (not asserting o n e ' s rights); together with 11: 1; 13; 2 C o r . 10: 1; E p h . 4:2, 2of; Phil. 2: iff; C o l . 3 : 1 2 - 1 5 . T h e r e is little to be g a i n e d b y e x a m i n i n g every passage in detail, although the quantity o f the e v i d e n c e is i m p o r t a n t to the argument. T h e argument has b e e n vividly stated in the form: ' T h e picture o f dydjiT] painted b y Paul in 1 C o r . 13 is not a self-portrait.'

See p p . 241-63 b e l o w .

106

G.M.

STYLER

giving it its present setting. Against this, it must be argued that the concentration o f attention on an actual imperial coin clearly guarantees a positive teaching that taxes ought to be paid, and by implication that R o m a n rule should not be resisted; and that this very concentration on the coin and its inscription will seem to many, as it does to the present writer, to be highly characteristic ofjesus himself, and his concrete approach to abstract questions. It is hard to believe in either the ingenuity or the perversity which Dr Brandon's suggestion ascribes to Mark. Secondly there is the constant teaching o f the divine necessity that the Son of man must suffer. It is possible, of course, along with D r Brandon and many scholars, to impugn this evidence, to see it as a Pauline or post-Pauline construction, and to deny that Jesus, if he predicted his death, ever did so in these theological terms. But at least it is clear that Mark is not silent about Jesus's central convictions. A n d if there is an essential germ of truth in this picture o f Jesus's understanding o f his vocation, then that confirms the traditional picture o f his character. 6

T h e estimate we make, then, o f Mark's silence will depend on a number of things: how complete we deem that silence to be, how far the exceptions to it can be explained away as motivated apologetically, and how far the situation in Jesus's own lifetime must have compelled him to speak openly if he wished to dissociate himself from revolutionary sympathies. Dr Brandon contrasts Jesus's silence here with his open denunciation o f Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians. H e is right in saying that the Jesus o f Mark openly criticises the Pharisees; but his attitude to the Herodians is less plain, and his attitude to the Sadducees emerges scarcely more frequently than his attitude to revolutionaries. T h e kernel o f any reply to Dr Brandon must be a defence o f the traditional view that Jesus urged a religious dependence on G o d which treated human establishments, rights, and loyalties as secondary. Sometimes the details o f what is implied are spelt out; but the context in which this is done is accidental, and the implications for any one range o f human activity may be made plain only in one passage, and that may be one that occurs in only one gospel. It is when we turn to examine the Q-material that Dr Brandon's case 7

6

7

I f the p r e d i c t i o n s o f his d e a t h are retained, but radically rewritten, then o f c o u r s e a different inference will be indicated. But what h a p p e n s o n a modest rewriting o f t h e m ? E.g., if Jesus predicted that he must die, in line with the fate o f p r o p h e t s before h i m , but without explicit reference to the details, or to the d e e p e r theological m e a n i n g ? D r B r a n d o n seems to m e to be too q u i c k in identifying loyalty to the p r o p h e t i c ideas with a p r o - Z e a l o t o u t l o o k . Surely J e r e m i a h and Deutero-Isaiah m i g h t warrant a different estimate. A s against their attitude to h i m . W h a t is 'the leaven o f H e r o d ' ( M a r k 8: 15)? T h e answer is not o b v i o u s .


107

seems most vulnerable. True, it gives no explicit disavowal o f the use o f force in revolutionary situations. But the general injunctions o f the spirit o f love are so strongly expressed that the pacific implications are surely inescapable. 'Love your enemies; d o good to those who hate you; bless those w h o curse you; pray for those w h o treat you spitefully. W h e n a man hits you on the cheek, offer him the other cheek too; when a man takes your coat, let him have your shirt as well.' Even Q , o f course, is not immune from criticism and the suspicion that the genuine sayings o f j e s u s have been amplified in subsequent tradition. But in the passage quoted the present writer cannot doubt that we are hearing words that substantially represent the mind o f j e s u s , and that are incompatible with active zealotism. Q at least has broken silence. 8

8

C

Luke 6:27-9; P - M a t t . 5:44 and 5:39-40.

E.

BAMMEL

The Poor and the Zealots T h e economic conditions o f Palestine were marked by a sharp rise in prosperity in the Hasmonaean period and a decline in the middle of the first century B . C . , caused by the civil wars, the R o m a n intervention with its financial burden, and the remigration o f such Jews as had been settled by the Hasmonaeans in territories which were separated again from the Jewish commonwealth by the Romans. T h e rule o f Herod, the son o f the financial ejtiTQOJtoS o f the last Hasmonaean, meant a sophistication o f the taxation system and, perhaps, an increase o f the levy, but, by and large, a slow rise in prosperity. T h e many public edifices which were erected under Herod indicate the existence o f certain financial resources and the new possibility o f long-term commitments. T h e expansion of certain crafts and, indeed, the new

establishment o f others

1

must have been the consequence o f this

building wave. T h e economic situation was such that no special reason for discontent existed. T h e same is true for the Roman period. T h e new valuation o f property,

2

3

a certain alteration in the fiscal system, caused

discontent, but there is no substantial evidence for an increase in the 4

burden on the population. Occasional sequestrations, like the appropria tion o f Temple-money for the improvement o f the water supply o f 5

Jerusalem, were for the benefit o f the people, and major wars, such as would have demanded the use o f the resources o f Palestine, did not take place.

6

The

pilgrimages, which were very important

especially for

7

Jerusalem, are likely to have increased considerably in the times o f the Pax Augusta. T h e conditions were different in the tetrarchy o f Antipas, the wealth o f which was minimal compared with that o f the R o m a n province,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

8

C p . H . Kreissig, Dir sozialen Zusammenhdnge des juddischen Krieges, Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike i (Berlin, 1970), 58. E . Stauffer, Die Dauer des Census Augusti Festschrift E. Klostermann, T U 77 (Berlin, 1961), p p . gff. C p . A . G r a n o v s k y , Land Taxation in Palestine (Jerusalem, 1927). T h e details m e n t i o n e d in K e t . 17: 16 a n d B . B . 127b m a y reflect this. T h e c o r r u p t i o n o f the R o m a n administration (for Syria in the time o f T i b e r i u s see T a c i t u s , Ann. ii. 43) w a s p r o b a b l y m o r e than m a t c h e d b y the decrease in costly donations to foreign countries, w h i c h was so very typical o f the H e r o d i a n style o f rule. 5/2§i75fl"T h e r e m o v a l o f the threat o f w a r b y the agreement between the R o m a n s and Parthians in 37 A . D . is o f the greatest i m p o r t a n c e . J. J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, 3rd edn. ( G o t t i n g e n , 1969), p p . 89-98 ( E T L o n d o n , 1969, p p . 77-84). H . H o e h n e r , Herod Antipas ( C a m b r i d g e , 1972), p p . 65.r|[x.

Others have conjectured )iY)(p6fjvai, atao6fjvai, or xa0aioe6fjvai

for

xxioBfjvai. V o n Dobschiitz may be right; on the other hand it is possible to repunctuate

the passage so that it only means that some messianic

prophecies are so old that they antedate the foundation of Jerusalem: xov 'IeQoooXuuxx xxioBfjvai xaBcbg E Y £ Y Q aijxov Jia0eiv . . ., xavxa

ovv tmyvovxeq

ajn:o

JIQO

- tavxa Jtdvxa, a e5ei

ejuoxevoafxev.

Origen quotes Josephus as saying that the events o f 7 0 came as retribution for the death o f James the Just ' w h o was a brother of Jesus who was called Christ, since the Jews killed him w h o was a very righteous man'

168

G. W . H. LAMPE

(C. Cels 1 . 4 7 , c p . Comm. in Matt. 1 0 . 1 7 ) . Eusebius also reproduces these alleged words of Josephus, probably from Origen since he cites them in exactly the same form (H.E. 2 . 2 3 . 2 0 ) . It seems likely that Hegesippus took this view, for his account of the martyrdom of James, excerpted by Eusebius (H.E.

2 . 2 3 . 4 - 1 8 ) , ends: ' H e has become a true witness both to Jews and

Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. A n d immediately Vespasian

attacked

them.' Indeed, it is quite probable that Origen, and Eusebius following him, confused Hegesippus with Josephus. Alternatively, the passage was a Christian interpolation in Josephus AJ 20.200. Origen himself, however, is sure that the idea that the fall ofjerusalem was a punishment for the death of James is wrong: ' H e ought to have said that the plot against Jesus was the reason why these catastrophes came upon the people, because they had killed the Christ w h o had been prophesied.' This theme recurs in Origen's writings. T h e Jews and their city, he says, were destroyed by the wrath o f G o d which was consequent on their treatment ofjesus (C. Cels. 4 . 7 3 ) , and their fall marks G o d ' s purpose o f saving the Gentiles (C. Cels. 6.80 citing Rom.

11:11-12,

2 5 - 6 ) . Celsus himself was sufficiently familiar

with

Christian ideas to know o f their belief that because the Jews had punished Jesus and given him gall (xoXrjv) to drink, they had drawn d o w n on themselves G o d ' s fury (xoXov) (C. Cels. 4 . 2 2 ) . Origen's theory that the events o f 70 were G o d ' s vengeance for Christ's death had been anticipated by Tertullian, who repeats Justin's contention that it was as a just punishment that the Jews had been prohibited from entering Jerusalem and circumcision had become a sign of their contumacy (Jud. 3 . 6 ) . T h e d o o m prophesied by A m o s (8: 9 - 1 0 ) has been fulfilled in the captivity and dispersion which overtook the Jews after Christ's passion (Jud. 1 0 . 1 5 ) ; these things have happened as a punishment for his death (Marc. 3 . 2 3 ) . Hippolytus developed this argument

more fully. Because o f their

treatment of Christ the Jews are condemned to perpetual slavery (fulfilling Ps. 6 9 : 25ff) and the loss o f the T e m p l e . It was not on account o f idolatry (the golden calf), nor murder (of the prophets), nor Israel's fornication that the T e m p l e was destroyed, but because o f the slaying o f the Son o f the Benefactor (Euergetes). All this had been foretold by the Psalmist (Dem. adv. Jud. 6 - 7 ) . Hippolytus (if this treatise is genuine) may have Jewish apologiae for the destruction o f Jerusalem in mind. O n e o f these explanations was that, whereas the first T e m p l e had been destroyed because o f idolatry, fornication

and

murder,

the

second Temple's ruin was caused

by

groundless hatred, which is as bad as those three cardinal sins (Yoma 9 b ) . Another was that the fall o f the T e m p l e was a punishment for eight shortcomings on the part o f Israel: the sabbath was desecrated, the reading of the shema neglected, the education o f children neglected, the inhabitants

A . D . 70 in Christian reflection

169

of Jerusalem showed no respect to one another, small and great were made equal, they did not rebuke one another, scholars were despised, and men o f faith ceased to be (Shabbath 1 1 9 b ) . M o r e generally, it was said that a judgement o f G o d had been executed by the enemies o f Jerusalem (2 Bar. 3 . 5 ) , or, more optimistically, that exile was meant to afford opportunity for proselytising, and that G o d would surely rescue his people (Pesachim 8 7 b ) . Josephus maintained that the destruction was caused by seditious tyrants among the Jews (BJ i . n ) , and that it was not, in any case, a unique disaster; other nations, Athenians, Spartans, Egyptians and others, have suffered likewise (C. Apion 2 . 1 1 ) . Answers on these lines were needed to counter the obvious arguments of pagan polemics: that the fate o f the Jews demonstrated that the one G o d w h o m they worshipped was too weak and powerless to be able to prevent human beings, the Romans, from taking himself and his nation captive (Minucius Felix Octavius 1 0 ) , or Apion's contention that the servile condition o f Israel shows that G o d had abandoned them (Jos. C. Apion. 2 . 1 1 ) . Such arguments had, in fact, appeared long before the Jewish revolt (e.g. in Cicero Pro Flacco 2 8 ) . T h e view that the fall of Jerusalem avenged Christ's death became a commonplace o f later Christian apologetic. It is repeated frequently by Eusebius (H.E. 1 . 1 . 2 , 2.6.8, 3 . 6 . 2 8 ) , who believed not only that the Temple was destroyed as a punishment for the 'murderous killing o f the L o r d ' but that Constantine's church, set up opposite its site, was in some sense a replacement of it, a 'new Jerusalem' (V.Const. 3 . 3 3 ) . It recurs in Hilary: as a penalty for laying impious hands on the Lord and Saviour the Jews are scattered, captives, without Temple, priest or king. They were banned from Judaea, prophecy was silenced, sacrifices ceased, the T e m p l e was made desolate (Comm. in Ps. 5 8 . 7 ) . Jerome (Comm. in Ezek. 3 6 : i6ff), Sulpicius Severus (Chron. 2.30), and Augustine (Civ. Dei 18.46) are among the later authors w h o repeat this standard argument. In earlier apologetic much emphasis had been laid on the importance o f the fall of Jerusalem as a confirmation o f the argument from prophecy. It is treated in this way by Justin (/ Apol. 4 7 ) . T h e Blessing o f J a c o b (Gen. 4 9 : 8 - 1 2 ) showed that after the coming of the Christ there would be neither prophet nor king among the Jews; and 'after the appearance of Jesus our Christ in your race there has been no prophet anywhere, nor now exists, and, further, you have ceased to be under your own kings, and, in addition, your land had been laid waste' (Dial. 5 2 ) . According to Tertullian, the fulfilment o f the prophecies, especially Isa. 1: 3ft , in the destruction o f Jerusalem proves that the Christ has actually come (Jud. 13.246*). So, too, there is now no conceivable alternative to the Christian exegesis o f M i c . 5: 1 - 3 . This prophecy must refer to Jesus, for no leader o f Israel can now or henceforth originate in Bethlehem; it is forbidden territory to all Jews, who 0

170

G. W.

H.

LAMPE

can only 'behold the land from far off (Isa. 3 3 : 1 7 1 ) . Nor can the Jews expect a future messiah, for with the abolition o f the Temple there is now no horn o f oil with which he could be anointed (Jud. 1 3 . 2 - 3 ) . Cyprian's Testimonia included proofs from Isa. 1: 7fT that the Jews would lose Jerusalem in accordance with the words ofjesus at Matt. 2 3 : 3 7 ^ and from 2 Sam. 7: 4 - 5 , 1 2 - 1 4 , 1 6 , with Matt. 24: 2 and Mark 1 4 : 5 8 , that the old Temple was to cease and be replaced by a new Temple which is Christ himself (Test. 1.6, 1 . 1 5 ) . Eusebius ascribes the banning of Jerusalem to the Jews primarily to the command o f G o d , proclaimed beforehand by the prophets, and only secondarily to the Roman legislation (Chron. A . D . 1 3 5 ) . It was because the prophecies indicated that the Temple had been predestined to lie in ruins till the end o f time ( c p . Eus. D.E. 8.2.241) that Julian's project for its rebuilding aroused so much excitement. Christian apologists could also derive some telling arguments from the cessation o f the sacrifices. Tertullian merely noted the fact that Vespasian's conquest put an end to the cultus (Jud. 8 . 1 7 ) , but Justin had already used it as part o f his demonstration that the sacrifices had been intended to be temporary: to typify Christ and to cease at his advent. Thus it is no longer possible to sacrifice the Passover lamb, a type of Christ, because Jerusalem is in the hands o f the Jews' enemies (Dial. 4 0 ) . According to the Clementime Recognitions ( 1 . 6 4 ) , the destruction o f the Temple, the setting up o f the abomination of desolation, and the preaching o f the gospel to the Gentiles, have c o m e about because of the failure o f the Jews to recognise that the time when sacrifices were to be offered had been completed. Barnabas goes further. T h e sacrifices were annulled by G o d so that in the new law o f Christ there might be an offering not made by men ( 2 . 6 ) . It was a heathenish mistake o f the Jews to set their hopes on the T e m p l e building instead o f on G o d w h o made them to be his true house. T h e y consecrated God in the Temple, almost like Gentiles; and so, 'because they went to war, it was destroyed by their enemies'. ' N o w ' , says Barnabas, 'the very servants of their enemies shall build it up.' He means, of course, not that the material Temple is to be rebuilt but that the Gentile church is to replace it. He goes on to explain that the 'delivering up' o f the city, the Temple and the people of Israel was shown forth in prophecy (he cites Enoch 8 9 . 5 6 , 6 6 ) , and that the community o f believers is now being built up as G o d ' s real T e m p l e (16.1). In his argument against T r y p h o Justin pointed out that since the cultus had ceased it had become impossible to keep the entire Law (Dial. 4 6 ) . Some apologists went on to argue that the Law is binding in every part ( c p . Gal. 5 : 3 ) . Therefore, the impossibility o f observing some o f its precepts demonstrates that the whole Law has been abrogated. T h e Apostolic Constitutions ( 6 . 2 5 ) even maintain that because the Jews can no longer

A . D . 7 0 in Christian reflection

171

observe the cultic Law they have incurred the curse pronounced by Deut. 2 7 : 2 6 , and the Christians have inherited the Deuteronomic blessings since, through the gospel, they are in fact adherents o f the Law and the Prophets. Chrysostom argued along similar lines (Jud. 4 . 6 ) . T h e conclusion o f all these arguments, however, had been summed up briefly, long before this time, by Tertullian (Apol. 2 1 ) : the Jews are scattered wanderers, excluded from their own land ofJudaea; this shows how they erred and forsook their calling, and how Judaism has been, therefore, superseded by Christianity. 14

1 4

[ T h e late Professor L a m p e w a s asked b y the editors to d o a study o f early Christian reflection o n A . D . 70. It scarcely needs to b e said that the sentiments he reports are not to b e taken as they stand as a record o f a present-day Christian's v i e w s . - E d . ]

G. W . H. L A M P E

The trial of Jesus in the Acta Pilati It is probable that an official record o f the trial ofjesus before Pilate was made at the time and preserved. T h e authentic acta of the Christian martyrs are among the evidence which suggests that this would have been done, and they may indicate in a general fashion the form which it would have taken. W e d o not know, however, whether the prefect of Judaea would have sent a copy o f the record to R o m e , but that he should have reported the trial and execution ofjesus to Tiberius seems inherently probable, especially in view o f the fact that it was the general belief in antiquity not only that Pilate would have done this but that his acta must be extant in the archives o f the imperial government. Several Christian writers mention the 'acts o f Pilate', and Justin gives the impression o f referring to an actual document, the contents o f which he knows himself and which the emperor and his associates, to w h o m his Apology is nominally addressed, can be invited to consult. In the course o f developing an argument from prophecy Justin enumerates those details o f Christ's passion which fulfilled prophetic passages in the O l d Testament. These include the piercing o f the hands and feet o f Jesus and the distribution o f his garments, as foretold in Psalm 2 2 , and also the setting o f Jesus on the judgement seat (bema), as part o f the mockery, with the cry J u d g e for us.' This last incident is based on a possible interpretation o f John 1 9 : 1 3 which takes the verb transitively and supposes that the mockers made Jesus sit on the judgement seat during the trial before Pilate. This is seen by Justin as a fulfilment o f Isa. 58: 2. T o confirm his argument from these incidents Justin adds, 'And that these things took place you can learn from the acta o f the things done under Pontius Pilate' (/ Apol. 3 5 ) . It is, however, highly unlikely that Justin had in fact either seen or obtained actual information about such a document. T h e inclusion in the mockery o f Jesus o f this act o f setting him on the seat of judgement appears also in the Gospel o f Peter ( 3 ) , and it is conceivable that this was Justin's source. If not, then both Justin and the Gospel o f Peter (which gives it in the form: ' T h e y put on him a purple robe, and made him sit upon the seat o f judgement, saying, " G i v e righteous judgement, thou king o f Israel" ' ) must presumably derive it from a current exegetical tradition o f the Johannine text. It seems probable that Justin believed that the incidents in the passion which were narrated in the canonical Gospels and embroidered in church tradition must also have been recorded in Pilate's official acta, and that he 173

174

G. W . H. LAMPE

could therefore make a good propaganda point in the confidence that his imperial readers could plausibly be asked to verify from official sources the facts that were familiar to Christians from their own literature. T h e idea that Pilate reported to Tiberius is developed by Tertullian. He maintains that Tiberius recommended to the senate that Christ should be admitted among the gods o f R o m e , on the strength o f a report from Palestine which disclosed the truth o f his divinity, and that, although the senate refused, Tiberius did not alter his opinion; consequently, he threatened to punish those who brought accusations against Christians (Apol. 5 ) . Tertullian also asserted, more specifically, that the eclipse at the crucifixion was recorded in the R o m a n archives, and that the facts concerning Christ's death and resurrection were reported to Tiberius by Pilate who was already 'pro sua conscientia Christianus' (Apol. 2 1 ) . It is not at all probable that either Justin or Tertullian had in mind the extant Christian book known as the Acta Pilati or, with the addition o f an awkwardly attached T a r t I I ' on the Descent into Hades and Christ's activity there (mainly contained in Latin M S S and absent from the oriental versions o f the Acta), as the Evangelium Nicodemi. This almost certainly belongs to a much later date, and it is worth notice that neither the setting o f Jesus on the judgement seat nor the piercing of his hands and feet is mentioned in it. It is quite possible, however, that the composition o f the Acta Pilati may have been suggested by Tertullian's idea that Pilate must have reported not only Jesus's death but also the resurrection, that he would have done this from the standpoint of a Christian believer, and that, as Tertullian implies, the central theme o f his report would have been the divinity of Jesus. T h e claim that Jesus is the Son of God, vindicated by the fully attested fact o f his resurrection, is the main point which the Acta Pilati are designed to establish. Nor need we necessarily suppose that when Epiphanius mentions 'acts of Pilate' he is actually referring to this book. He tells us that the Quartodecimans based their claim to accuracy in the dating o f the passion on the authority o f 'acts o f Pilate' which mentioned the fact that it took place on 2 5 March (Haer. 5 0 . 1 ) . T h e Acta Pilati d o in fact begin with an elaborate date: the fifteenth year of Tiberius, the nineteenth year o f Herod of Galilee, the 2 5 t h o f March, the consulship o f Rufus and Rubellio, the fourth year o f the two hundred and second Olympiad, the high-priesthood of Caiaphas. These dates, however, were traditional. Tertullian gives the same year and the same consuls, and specifies the 2 5 t h o f March. Similar dating is given by Clement (Strom. 1 . 2 1 . 1 4 6 ) , Hippolytus (Dan. 4 . 2 3 ) , and Lactantius (Inst. 4 . 1 0 . 1 8 , Mort. Persec. 2 ) , and after the time of Epiphanius it

The

trial o f j e s u s in the Acta Pilati

175

reappears in Augustine (Civ. Dei 1 8 . 5 4 ) . T h e date may well have been arrived at, not through an independent tradition but by reflection on a combination o f Luke 3: 1 ('the fifteenth year o f Tiberius') with Luke 4: 1 9 ('the acceptable year o f the Lord') which Clement explicitly states that he takes to mean a single year which included the events from Christ's baptism to his death. T h e day o f the month may have been a guess, or possibly the result o f an early attempt to combine that particular year with other New Testament data: that the crucifixion took place on a Friday which was either the eve or the day o f the Passover. It is possible that Epiphanius is alluding to the date given in our Acta Pilati, but it is more likely that the Quartodecimans had followed an early and widespread tradition and, assuming that Pilate's official record must have been preserved, supposed that this traditional date, like the rest o f the Christian narratives o f the passion and resurrection, must have been derived from it. The assumption that acta o f Pilate would naturally be extant was not confined to believers. It was pressed into the service of pagan propaganda, according to the well-known account given by Eusebius (H.E. 9 . 5 . 1 , 9 . 7 . 1 ) , by Maximin Daia in the last stage o f the final great persecution. 'Memoirs of Pilate' were forged, Eusebius tells us, containing every kind of blasphemy against Christ, and sent round for public exhibition and to be learned by children in the schools. This is notable as the only attempt by a hostile emperor, apart from Julian, to reinforce persecution o f the church by the dissemination o f officially produced anti-Christian propaganda. So obvious a step had been strangely neglected by the pagan state in spite of the great volume o f Christian apologetic which was in circulation at all times and the effective use of the acts of the martyrs to recruit sympathy and support. It may have done some damage, even at this very late date, for Maximin's 'Memoirs o f Pilate' were evidently not allowed to survive after the persecution ceased. W e have, therefore, practically no evidence about what they contained. O n e clue, however, may be found in the account of the martyrdom o f Lucian o f Antioch which Rufinus adds to his version of Eusebius's history at 9 . 6 . Rufinus speaks o f Christ not deceiving by his death us for w h o m he rose on the third day - not like the falsely composed Acts of Pilate. This observation, together with Eusebius's description o f these Acts as full o f blasphemy against Christ, may lead us to infer that Maximin's object was to discredit the Christian claims concerning Christ's divinity and the truth o f the resurrection. From at least as early as the time of Tertullian Christian apologists had tried to cite Pilate as a witness to these two claims. It is very probable that Maximin sought to turn their own weapon against the Christians by producing, as the actual record which they had always believed to exist, acts o f Pilate which denied these cardinal points in the Christian argument. There is no evidence whatever that these

176

g. w .

h.

lampe

'memoirs' sought to embarrass the Christian movement by presenting Jesus as a nationalist agitator or any kind o f political revolutionary; the argument in the fourth century, and, indeed, at all times when 'acts o f Pilate' were appealed to, moved in quite a different area from that, and was concerned with the religious question whether Jesus was divine. If this was the purpose o f Maximin's publication, it is tempting to think that the Christian Acts of Pilate may have been composed as a counter-blast to it. It is, however, unlikely that the work as we have it is earlier than the fifth century, although it is just possible that it may be a re-working o f a somewhat earlier composition. Its argument, too, though concentrated on the themes o f Christ's divinity and resurrection, is developed in a way which suggests that it is directed against Jewish rather than pagan opposition. T h e Acts proper, excluding the appended 'Descent into Hades', are preserved in their earlier form (Recension A ) in Greek and in Latin, Coptic, Syriac and Armenian versions. A late re-working (Recension B) adds further legendary material, including stories which became very popular in the M i d d l e Ages, such as those relating to Judas's wife and her cock and to Dysmas, the penitent thief. T h e wide currency which was achieved by the former led T . M o m m s e n to suggest that the work, though subsequently re-worked, perhaps many times, must have been o f early origin; but it is more probable that the number o f versions and manuscripts reflects its popularity rather than antiquity. A prologue prefixed in some manuscripts asserts that the Acts, or rather, according to the wording o f the title, the 'Memorials o f our Lord Jesus Christ done in the time o f Pontius Pilate', were compiled by Ananias, or Aeneas, a protector o f praetorian rank and a iuris peritus, in the seventeenth year o f Theodosius I I , and that they were translated from memorials written in Hebrew and deposited with Pilate. T h e Acts draw most o f their material from the canonical Gospels, using them eclectically for the most part, but naturally depending mainly on the Fourth Gospel for the interrogation o f Jesus by Pilate and taking the narrative o f crucifixion from Luke. T h e non-canonical material, which predominates in the opening chapter and in the long section which deals with the resurrection, and is interspersed through the rest o f the work alongside matter derived from the Gospels, is often very awkwardly harmonised with the latter and sometimes involves inconsistencies. 1

This author's picture o f the trial o f Jesus represents an extreme development o f tendencies that were already present in the Fourth Gospel. There is only one trial: that before Pilate. T h e Jewish trial or trials have altogether vanished from the story and Pilate is the sole j u d g e o f Jesus. He is 1

' D i e Pilatus-Akten', ZNW 3 (1902), 198-205.

The trial o f j e s u s in the Acta Pilati

•77

actually the j u d g e , trying the case from beginning to end, and his task is in no way concerned with confirming or rejecting the findings o f another court. Jesus is a free agent when he is summoned to appear, and it is implied that there was no arrest, though later the author's familiarity with the New Testament leads him into an inconsistency on this point: Pilate sentences Jesus to be crucified in the garden where he had been arrested. T h e effect is to eliminate the Jewish leaders from any role but that o f prosecutors. Jesus is a defendant in a trial which is purely R o m a n throughout; Herod plays no part. Yet the charges are religious. Kingship appears only as one aspect o f divine Sonship, though the Acts follow the Gospels in making Pilate sentence Jesus because his nation has 'convicted him as a king'. T h e real issue is Christ's blasphemous claim to divinity, to which other charges are secondary: profanation o f the Sabbath, seeking to destroy the Temple, being a sorcerer, being 'born of fornication', fleeing with Mary and Joseph to Egypt 'because they had no confidence among the people', and being the cause o f the slaughter o f the children at Bethlehem. These are issues familiar in the history o f Christian-Jewish controversy over a period o f centuries. Celsus makes his Jewish objector traverse most o f this ground: that Jesus was born o f adultery, that he fled to Egypt and became a magician there, that the massacre at Bethlehem was discreditable to him, that Christians regard him as Son o f G o d because he healed the lame and the blind but he really did these things by sorcery (Origen, C. Cels. 1.28, 3 2 , 38; 2 . 4 8 - 5 3 ) . T h e y recur constantly in rabbinic and Christian literature; and the concluding sections o f the Acts deal with objections like those o f Celsus's Jew when he is made to complain that there were no witnesses to the resurrection, which ought to have been publicly manifested, except one w o m a n and some of Jesus's own friends (C. Cels. 2 . 7 0 ) . These are the topics o f later polemics between Christians and Jews which the Acts incongruously make the subjects o f an enquiry conducted by a R o m a n governor in the reign o f Tiberius. T h e Sanhedrin does not come into the picture at all as a judicial body until Joseph o f Arimathaea and other followers ofjesus are persecuted by the Jews after the burial ofjesus in scenes which owe a good deal to reminiscences of the early chapters of the Acts o f the Apostles. T h e Jewish authorities play no role in the earlier part o f the story except as accusers, solely responsible for bringing about the death ofjesus. In the later part, after the burial, it is even suggested that the crucifixion was carried out by the Jews (cp. John 1 9 : 1 6 ) ; Joseph, defending his action in burying the body ofjesus, tells the Jews: ' Y o u did not repent when you had crucified him, but you also pierced him with a spear' ( 1 2 . 1 ) , though this is inconsistent with the narrative o f the crucifixion itself (cp. John 1 9 : 2 3 , 3 2 , 3 4 ) which is mainly a condensed version o f Luke's account and speaks o f 'the soldiers' and the centurion, who is named as Longinus.

178

G. W . H. LAMPE

Not that the blame is thrown indiscriminately upon the Jewish people; among them are many supporters of Jesus and witnesses for the defence, and the first part of the book ends with a Christian apologist's dream o f the ideal outcome o f the controversy between church and synagogue: the recognition o f the truth by the Jewish leaders and the singing o f a psalm o f praise by all the people. In these Acts Pilate is more than a sympathetic judge. He is virtually a Christian. He is 'circumcised in heart' ( 1 2 . 1 ) . T h e author does, indeed, make him go through the motions o f paganism; he uses the conventional language o f polytheism, calling Helios to witness that he finds no fault in Jesus ( 3 . 1 ) and, in answer to the accusation o f the Jews that Jesus casts out devils by Beelzebub, declaring that 'this is not to cast out devils by an unclean spirit, but by the god Asclepios' ( 1 . 1 ) . Even so, it is interesting that the gods named by Pilate, the Sun and the Healer, are the two w h o were least offensive to post-Constantinian Christians and lent themselves most readily to assimilation to Christ; there is no question o f Asclepios being himself regarded as a demon. Pilate is also made to swear a pagan oath, and to ask the Jewish sympathisers with Jesus to take it also, which they refuse to d o because they are absolutely forbidden to swear; but it is not the regular pagan formula, 'by the genius [ivx*]) of Caesar' (cp. M. Polyc. 9.2, M. Scillit. 3 and 5), but the modified form xaxa xfjc; aa)XT)Qtag xaiaaoog which came to be generally acceptable to Christians (cp. A Jo. 10, Cod. Theod. 2.9.3). Apart from these artificial touches o f partial verisimilitude Pilate looks very much like an official o f the Christian empire. He is virtually a believer, asking in all seriousness, ' H o w can I, a governor, examine a king?' ( 1 . 2 ) , echoing the words of John 10: 3 2 - 3 : 'For a good work d o they desire to put him to death?' (2.6), speaking as an advocate for the defence rather than a j u d g e (8), and making a speech to the Jews on the lines o f Stephen's apology in Acts 7, reminding the Jews of the days of the Exodus, the manna, quails and water from the rock, and accusing them o f being always a seditious and rebellious nation which has angered G o d by its idolatry from the time o f the golden calf onwards (9.2). O f course, in the end, when the Jews say that Caesar alone is their king, and not Jesus, and recount the story o f the visit o f the magi, Herod's attempt to slay Jesus, and his massacre o f the children, Pilate's opposition collapses suddenly and implausibly, and he condemns Jesus to death because his nation has convicted him o f being a king. Having represented Pilate as virtually conspiring with the followers of Jesus to outwit the prosecution, the author has given himself an impossible task to explain at all convincingly how it came about that Jesus was after all crucified. H e has to d o what he can with two lines o f explanation. O n e is the threat, taken from the Fourth Gospel, 'You are not a friend o f Caesar if you let this man go; for he called himself

The

trial o f j e s u s in the Acta Pilati

179

the Son o f G o d and king' ( 9 . 1 ) . T h e other is that Jesus told Pilate that he was predestined to condemn him. It had been 'given him'; and to Pilate's question, ' H o w has it been given?', the answer is, 'Moses and the prophets foretold my death and rising again' ( 4 . 3 ) . In any case, although Pilate has to c o n d e m n Jesus, the story o f the crucifixion is passed over in a brief summary o f Luke's narrative and

the author

hurries on, after

first

describing the distress o f Pilate and his wife at what has been done, to the much longer section o f the book which deals with the resurrection and ascension. The Acts begin with the Jewish leaders, for w h o m Annas and Caiaphas are the chief spokesmen, coming to Pilate and presenting their charges: that Jesus, the son o f Joseph and Mary, claims to be Son of G o d and king, defiles the sabbath, and destroys the Law. H e heals on the Sabbath, and exorcises by

sorcery. Pilate, however, ascribes his exorcisms to the power o f

Asclepios, and resists the demand that Jesus be brought to trial by asking how he, as a governor, can j u d g e a king. Pilate then sends a cursor to bring Jesus without violence, and on meeting Jesus this messenger removes his turban and spreads it for Jesus to walk upon, afterwards explaining to Pilate that he is following the example of those w h o greeted Jesus as 'he that comes in the name o f the L o r d ' at the entry. Pilate asks the Jews for a translation o f the Hebrew words which were used on that occasion, and on hearing their meaning he asks how the messenger can have offended in repeating in Greek what the crowd had then said in Hebrew. Jesus is accordingly summoned to the court in royal dignity, and the R o m a n standards, or rather the images on the standards, miraculously b o w in reverence as he comes in. This episode, one of the few wholly non-canonical episodes in the earlier chapters, is drawn out at some length. It serves to introduce the central theme o f Christ's divinity. Conceivably it may have been suggested by a reminiscence o f the story o f Pilate introducing R o m a n standards into Jerusalem (Jos. AJ 18.556"), perhaps combined with Pliny's account o f Pompey's visit to Posidonius: 'forem percuti de more a lictore vetuit, et fasces litterarum ianuae summisit is cui se oriens occidensque summiserat' (NH 7 . 3 0 . 1 1 2 ) . O u r author is not concerned with historical accuracy here, nor with the fact that, even though the relation of military to civil authority in the provinces is not always clear, there would have been no standards, as opposed to the fasces, in Pilate's court. That this is so was 2

made clear by M o m m s e n w h o pointed out, in reply to von Dobschutz's attempt in the same volume (pp. 8 9 - 1 1 4 ) to claim that the Acts reflect authentic R o m a n judicial procedure, that on many other points as well, such as the relation of the bema to the praetorium, the function of the velum, the 2

ZNW

3 (1902), 198-205.

l80

G. W . H. LAM PE

credibility o f a dialogue between witnesses and judge, and many matters o f procedure, the author shows himself ignorant or confused. T h e story is a fantasy, but it provides a popular-dramatic prologue to the trial proper. T h e incident o f Pilate's wife's dream follows. Here it serves to introduce the question o f sorcery, for the Jews ascribe the dream to Jesus's magic. They also bring in the other charges relating to his illegitimate birth, the destruction o f the Bethlehem children, and the flight to Egypt. T h e first accusation is repudiated by twelve friendly Jews who, denying that they are themselves Greek-born proselytes who have turned Christian, affirm that they are true Jews and that they were present at the espousals of Joseph and Mary. Pilate then enters into an implausible consultation with these witnesses, asking why the prosecution want to kill Jesus. T h e reply is 'Jealousy, because he heals on the sabbath', which elicits Pilate's protest that they should wish to kill Jesus 'for a good work.' H e goes out o f the praetorium and acquits Jesus, calling Helios to witness. T h e narrative then follows the Fourth Gospel fairly closely, the Jews pointing out, in answer to Pilate's 'Take and judge him according to your law', that it is not lawful for them to put any man to death; but this prohibition is taken to refer to the Sixth C o m m a n d m e n t , for Pilate replies: 'Has G o d forbidden you to kill and allowed me?' T h e dialogue concerning Jesus's kingdom and truth proceeds as in the Johannine story, with some additions, after which Pilate again acquits Jesus. T h e Jews' response is to introduce at this point the charge o f claiming to be able to destroy the T e m p l e and build it in three days. T h e Acts thus bring one o f the charges laid against Jesus at the trial before the Sanhedrin, according to the synoptists, into this Roman case; they also suppose that it was Solomon's T e m p l e which took forty-six years to build. Pilate then declares himself guiltless of the innocent blood and the Jews cry, 'His blood be on us and on our children.' This is an episode which the Acts are anxious to emphasise strongly, for they repeat it later at the hand-washing. Pilate does not pursue the theme o f the Temple. He narrows d o w n the charges to healing and profaning the Sabbath, and again acquits Jesus; but now the main charge from the synoptists' Sanhedrin trial is introduced: blasphemy. Although this is a religious charge its introduction in Pilate's court is made slightly less implausible by the way in which the Jewish leaders lead up to it: ' I f a man blasphemes against Caesar, is he worthy o f death?'; ' I f a man be worthy o f death if he blasphemes against Caesar, this man has blasphemed against G o d . ' Pilate again tries to hand the case over to the Jews, but they insist that Jesus must be crucified, because he called himself the Son o f G o d and king. T h e Acts supply an obvious deficiency in the New Testament narratives

T h e trial o f j e s u s in the Acta Pilati

181

o f the trial: the absence o f any defence or witnesses to testify for Jesus. Nicodemus takes the part o f Jesus's advocate, arguing, with an echo of Gamaliel, that 'ifihe signs which he does are o f G o d they will stand, but if they are o f men they will come to nothing', and a procession o f witnesses speak o f the miracles: the paralytic, the man born blind (both of these being composite characters from the Johannine and the synoptic traditions), one w h o was made straight, a leper, the woman with the issue (named as Bernice or Veronica), and a multitude who testify to the exorcisms. If the devils were subject to Jesus, asks Pilate, 'why were your teachers not also subject to him?' T h e incident o f Barabbas follows here, after which Pilate makes his speech rebuking the Jews for their age-old provocation of G o d by idolatry and disloyalty, a speech which is, strangely, followed immediately by the threats o f the Jews concerning another king besides Caesar, and the sudden collapse o f Pilate's resistance. There is the washing of the hands, the repeated cry, 'His blood be on us . . .', and the sentence to scourging and crucifixion. There is no mocking before the crucifixion. T h e crowning with thorns takes place at the execution, which otherwise follows the Lukan narrative closely. After the burial o f j e s u s the story develops into a complex series o f testimonies to the resurrection. Joseph of Arimathaea is imprisoned by the Jews and miraculously released in the manner o f Peter and the apostles in Acts 5 and 1 2 . Then the guards from the tomb report to the Jewish leaders the descent o f the angel, the rolling away o f the stone, and the words of the angel to the women. A priest and a teacher arrive from Galilee and tell o f Jesus and his disciples sitting on a mountain and the commission to ' g o into all the world' being given to them (from the longer ending o f Mark). These messengers also testify to having seen the ascension. T h e Jewish leaders institute a search for Jesus, modelled on the search for Elijah in 2 Kings 2: 1 7 , which results in the discovery of Joseph, who in due course testifies to having received a visit from the risen Christ; not a ghost, as Joseph knows, for he applied the test o f reciting the commandments, which would cause a ghost to flee. Subsequently, at a meeting of the teachers, priests and levites, a rabbi, Levi, speaks o f Jesus's Godfearing parents and tells the story of the Presentation in the Temple. Lastly, when the witnesses o f the ascension have again been sent for from Galilee the Jewish leaders are given a detailed account o f the way in which Jesus was taken up. These naive and somewhat jejune stories were evidently thought by this author to be highly important for his main purpose, which was to confirm the truth of the resurrection and ascension by producing public evidence for those events, which had been actually communicated to the Jewish leaders w h o had brought about the death ofjesus. T h e narrative of the trial is more interesting: not because it has any historical value or throws any light on

182

G. W . H . LAMPE

the problems presented by the canonical accounts, but for the way in which it transposes the N e w Testament material into a framework constructed out of the Christian-Jewish theological controversies o f a much later age, and enlists the advocacy o f Pilate as a Christian apologist.

W.HORBURY

Christ as brigand in ancient anti-Christian polemic T h e ancient world described Christ in language also readily associated with criticism of government. Christian apologists used words such as 'prophet', 'teacher' or 'wonder-worker' to present Christ as a divinely-authenticated philosophical guide. Domitian's expulsion of philosophers and astrologers from R o m e is simply one instance o f a general recognition that such teachers might be significant politically. Their followers' terms o f praise had well-worn pejorative counterparts suggesting deception and subver sion. T h e very words which offered the apologists c o m m o n ground with paganism could therefore facilitate their opponents' depreciation o f Christ's teaching. Justin's teacher and doer o f mighty works, Tertullian's illuminator and guide of humanity, is Lucian's crucified sophist and Celsus's charlatan and leader of sedition 1

2

3

This polemic claims attention here in so far as it links Jesus with Jewish nationalism or, in its own terms, with the sedition considered characteristic o f Jewry. Robert Eisler took early antichristiana o f this kind to confirm his own derivation of Christianity from a messianic independence movement. This chapter is devoted to one such pagan criticism singled out by Eisler. 4

5

6

1

2

3

4

For a p o l o g e t i c based o n Christ's predictions see Justin, i Apol. i. 1 2 , Dial, xxxv, li (ed. J. C . T . O t t o (Jena, 1843) i> ^ 2 : ii, 1 1 8 , 1 6 4 ) , with the title prophet at O r i g e n , Contra Celsum ii. 13f ( c p . In Jo. xiii. 54, o n 4 : 4 4 ) G C S , O r i g e n e s 1, p p . 1 4 3 ^ 4, p . 285, and Eusebius, D.E. ix. 1 1 , PG xxii, 689; for teacher Justin lApol. i. I2f, xxxii, p p . 162, 164, 204, O t t o , Justin ii. 5, and Apollonius x x x v i - x l i in H . Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs ( O x f o r d , 1972), p p . 42, 100, A r n o b i u s , Adversus Nationes i, 63, ii. 11 ( C S E L 4, p p . 44, 5 5 Q , Lactantius, Div. Inst. iv. 24f ( C S E L 1 9 , p p . 3 7 1 - 7 ) ; with wonder-worker (in a defence o f the cursing o f the fig-tree), C h r y s o s t o m , Horn, in Matth. 67: 1, o n 2 1 : 18 (PG 5 8 . 6 3 3 ) . For a p o l o g e t i c o n the miracles, G . W . H . L a m p e and M . F. W i l e s in C . F. D . M o u l e ( e d . ) , Miracles ( L o n d o n , 1 9 6 5 ) , p p . 2 0 5 - 3 4 . For p o l e m i c against philosophers, magicians and prophets see R . M a c M u l l e n , Enemies of the Roman Order ( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , 1967), p p . 4 6 - 1 6 2 . J u s t i n , n. 1 a b o v e and / Apol. x x x , p . 200 O t t o ; Tertullian, Apol. xxi. 7 ( C C L 1, p . 1 2 3 ) ; L u c i a n , Per. xiii ( L o e b Classical Library v , p . 1 4 ) ; O r i g e n , C. Cels. i. 7 1 , etc., viii. 14, ( R . Bader, Der A A H 0 H Z AOrOZ desKelsos (Stuttgart-Berlin, 1940), pp. 62, 197).

' N o n cessat gens ilia habens seditiones, et h o m i c i d i a , et latrocinia', O r i g e n , Comm. in Matth. 1 2 1 , o n 27: i 6 f ( G C S 38, p . 2 5 6 ) ; c p . J.Juster, LesJuifs dans TEmpire Romain (Paris, 1 9 1 4 ) , i, 1 4 7 , n. i and 220, n. 8: ii, 182, n. 2. R . Eisler, I H Z O Y Z B A Z I A E Y Z O Y B A Z I A E Y Z A Z ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 ) , i, x i i i - x x x v ( E T The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist ( L o n d o n , 1 9 3 1 ) , p p . 3 - 2 1 ) . E i s l e r , I H Z O Y Z i, xxvf, E T iof; further references in section I I I b e l o w . 9

S

6

183

184

W I L L I A M HORBURY

Cited in Lactantius, DI v. 3, 4 , it attaches to Christ's ministry the heavily-loaded term of brigandage. Someremarks on the historical context of this charge (I) may serve to introduce an examination o f the text ( I I ) , followed by an estimate o f its significance ( I I I ) .

I Assertions about Christ such as this occur in polemic which is anti-Christian, concerned primarily not with history but with the contemporary church. T h e Christian secta, like others, might be expected to imitate its founder; 'they worship their crucified sophist and conform their lives to his precepts' (Lucian, Per. x m ; see p. 1 8 3 , n. 3 ) . T w o facts of Christ's life freely admitted by Christians proved especially useful to their opponents: his crucifixion and his gathering o f disciples. Sources ranging from a rabbinic text o f the tannaitic period to Celsus, an oracle ascribed to Apollo and the anti-Christian Acts of Pilate view the cross as a just punishment. T h e consequent labelling o f the crucified as a criminal - xaxov JIOICOV, (3io6avf|g, xaxouQY°S> noxius - was easily transferable to his followers; 'they worship what they deserve' (Minucius Felix, Oct. ix. 4 ) . Again, on the call o f the disciples, Tertullian and Christians in general stress that 'a vast multitude' turned to Christ, while rabbinic sources see him as, inter alia, the leader-astray o f whole communities, and for Celsus he is the initiator o f stasis. T h e contemporary force o f these historical claims appears when we find the church likewise designated factio, and the judicial estimate o f St Cyprian's episcopal work related as ' Y o u have gathered to yourself many other vicious men in a conspiracy'. Such early non-Christian interpreta tions o f Christ's ministry were offered in a period when persecution was c o m m o n p l a c e . It is a paradigm o f the close relationship which could 7

8

9

10

11

7

8

9

1 0

11

Sarin. 43a; O r i g e n , C. Cels. ii. 5, p . 63 Bader, Kelsos; Porphyry in A u g u s t i n e , Civ. Dei xix. 23 ( e d . B . D o m b a r t a n d A . K a l b ( L e i p z i g , 1929), ii, 393); Rufinus's version o f Eusebius, H.E. ix. 6 ( G C S 9.1, p p . 813, 815). F o r the epithets see J o h n 18: 30, Martyrium Cononis iv. 6 ( p . 188 M u s u r i l l o , Martyrs), Acta SS. Tarachi, Probi et Andronici in T . Ruinart, Acta primorum martyrum sincera et selecta (2nd e d n . A m s t e r d a m , 1713), p . 442, and M i n u c i u s Felix, Octavius xxix. 2 ( e d . J. P. W a l t z i n g ( L e i p z i g , 1912), p . 50); for the passage cited in the text see W a l t z i n g , Octavius, p . 12. Tertullian, Apol. xxi. 18; ( C C L 1, p . 126); for a 'multitude' o f disciples see already L u k e 6: 17 (contrast M a t t h e w 4:25, M a r k 3:7). T h e multitude fed with loaves and fishes are disciples at O r i g e n , C. Cels. ii. 46, iii. 10 ( G C S p p . 168, 210). F o r J e s u s as leader-astray o f c o m m u n i t i e s see Sanh. 43a; the offence is d e s c r i b e d in M . Sanh. vii. 10, D e u t . 13: 13-18, E V V . 12-17. Celsus is cited at n. 3, p . 183 above. Tertullian, Apol. xxxix. 1 ( C C L 1, p . 150); M i n u c i u s Felix, Octavius viii. 3, p . 10 W a l t z i n g ; Acta . . . Cypriani iv. 1, p . 172 M u s u r i l l o , Martyrs. T h e c h i e f e v i d e n c e for this v i e w is s u m m a r i s e d in K . A l a n d , ' T h e Relation b e t w e e n

Christ as brigand

185

obtain between assertions about Christ and attacks on the church that the fabricated Acts of Pilate were circulated to support the persecution under Maximin Daia.

12

T h e claim that Christ practised brigandage, a further hostile interpreta tion o f the gathering of disciples, should therefore be considered in relation to anti-Christian charges. It specifies Christ's offence unusually. T h e general term 'evil-doer' was commonly particularised with words like those already noted applicable to dubious teaching and wonder-working (see 1 3

p. 1 8 4 , n. 8 ) . Here Christ is identified as a violent criminal. That remains damaging to the church, however brigandage is understood; but, as Eisler 14

did not fail to note and as recent study has amply d o c u m e n t e d , the charge o f brigandage may o f course in ancient usage amount to that o f sedition. The

innuendo

o f sedition

readily

adhered,

as

noted

above,

to

anti-philosophical and anti-Christian charges o f deception and magic. It already figures alongside deception and magic in the Gospels as an express allegation ( p p . 4 0 3 - 1 4 in this volume). Brigandage, however, although it may overlap with sedition in usage, remains distinct. Stasis in this sense and seditio commonly retain some reference to faction, lesteia and latrocinium to robber-like activity. Thus in polemic stasis may be used o f the church's emergence from Jewry (Celsus, see n. 3 , p. 1 8 3 ) , seen as the revolt and secession o f a new party, while latrocinium typically denotes brigand-like political violence (so in Cicero o f 15

the Catilinarian c o n s p i r a c y ) , misgovernment (St Leo the Great had many precedents in pagan political satire when he applied it to a church s y n o d ) ,

16

or misappropriation (as in critiques o f territorial gains in R o m a n or Jewish origins).

17

It accords with this usage when jurists treat pretenders

as

brigands (n. 1 4 , above). Josephus touches this range o f meaning, but

C h u r c h a n d State in Early T i m e s : a Reinterpretation',y7jkft, n.s. 19 (1968), 115-27

(120-2). 1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

Eusebius, H.E. i. 9, i. 1 1 , ix. 5 ( G C S 9.1, p p . 72, 80, 810). W . Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (repr. D a r m s t a d t , 1967), p p . 484^ R . M a c M u l l e n , ' T h e R o m a n C o n c e p t o f R o b b e r - P r e t e n d e r ' , RIDA 3rd series, 10 (1963), 221-6; M . H e n g e l in O . Betz, K . H a a c k e r a n d M . H e n g e l ( e d s . ) , Josephus-Studien ( G o t t i n g e n , 1974), p p . 176f, n. 7. C i c e r o , Pro Murena 39 (84) ' h o c Catilinae nefarium l a t r o c i n i u m ' , cited a m o n g other passages b y I. O p e l t , Die lateinischen Schimpfworter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1965), p . 132. L e o , Ep. x c v . 2 (ACO 2. 4, p . 51); parallels in M a c M u l l e n , RIDA 3rd series 10 (n. 14 a b o v e ) a n d O p e l t , Schimpfworter, p p . 132^ i68f. R e c e n t l y ' M P likens leadership to thugs', part headline in The Times o f 13 M a r c h 1976, p . 1. F o r R o m e parallels to A u g u s t i n e , De Civ. D. iv. 4 (i, p . 150 D o m b a r t - K a l b ) are c o l l e c t e d b y M a c M u l l e n , Enemies, p . 350, n. 30; for J e w r y see Ber. R . 1. 2 ( e d . A . A . H a l e v y ( T e l - A v i v , 1956), p . 2) discussed with parallels in W . B a c h e r , ' T h e S u p p o s e d Inscription u p o n " J o s h u a the R o b b e r " \JQR 3 (1891), 354-7.

186


remains close to the literal sense o f the word, when he calls rebel-bands 18

lestai.

With this distinction in mind it can be understood that up to the time o f our citation brigandage is not prominent in anti-Christian charges o f sedition.

19

T h e necessary points o f comparison were not well marked.

Unlike Josephus's rebels or the factions o f the late R o m a n republic, Christians were not notorious for resort to arms, being indeed well-known for the numbers o f women and children in their churches.

20

Unlike

emperors, imperially-summoned synods at a later date, or pretenders to power, the third-century church did not exercise what was recognisably established government or tyranny. Unlike R o m e or Jewry, it had no territorial claims. It looked to hostile observers like a people scattered everywhere,

comparable with

exclusiveness,

21

the Jews

in

atheistic

and

anti-social

22

or like a network o f secret societies, or like a quarrelsome

religio-philosophical party.

23

Words like genus, stasis,/actio, conspiratio suited

these points o f view better than latrocinium. A n instance in which Christians were accused as brigands shows the unusual circumstances in which the charge might become plausible. A b o d y o f Syrian Christians, according to Hippolytus, followed their bishop into the desert in expectation o f Christ's coming and were in danger o f being massacred persecution.

24

by the governor as brigands and arousing

general

It can be inferred that enthusiastic groups, especially where

Christianity had penetrated the countryside, ment from within the c h u r c h

26

25

might despite discourage

sometimes lay themselves open to the charge

o f brigandage by looking like robber-bands. T h e failure o f brigandage to 1 8

1 9

F o r the i m p o r t a n c e o f the literal sense in J o s e p h u s see M . Smith, ' Z e a l o t s a n d Sicarii, T h e i r O r i g i n s a n d Relations', HThR 64 (1971), 1-19 (14); S J . D . C o h e n , Josephus in Galilee und Rome ( L e i d e n , 1979), p p . 2 1 1 - 1 4 . Its a b s e n c e from Celsus (see p p . i89f b e l o w ) and M i n u c i u s Felix is especially striking. F o r p o l e m i c o n Christians as p u b l i c enemies see A . H a r n a c k , Der Vorwurf des Atheismus in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten ( T U 28.4, Leipzig, 1905), p p . 8-15 a n d Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (4th edn. L e i p z i g , 1924) i, 281-9: E T The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries ( L o n d o n ,

1908) i, 266-78. 2 0

L u c i a n , Per. xii, L o e b Classical L i b r a r y v , p . 12; M i n u c i u s Felix, Octavius viii. 4, p . 11 W a l t z i n g . ; O r i g e n , C. Cels. iii. 55f ( G C S p p . 2501).

2 1

H a r n a c k , Mission i, 28if ( E T i, 266-8). Celsus in O r i g e n , C. Cels. i. 1, viii. 17, p p . 39, 198 Bader; M i n u c i u s Felix, Octavius ix. if, p p . 1 i f W a l t z i n g . Celsus, n. 3, p . 183 a b o v e . H i p p o l y t u s , In Dan. iv. 18 ( G C S 1, p p . 230-2). T h e extent o f rural Christianity at the end o f the third century is estimated b y H a r n a c k , Mission ii, 948f ( E T ii, 327). H i p p o l y t u s , In Dan. iv. 18; Eusebius, H.E. v. 16, 18 (episcopal attempts to restrain M o n t a n i s m ) , VII. 24 ( D i o n y s i u s o f A l e x a n d r i a rebuts chiliasm in A r s i n o e ) ( G C S

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

9.1, pp. 459-68, 472-8, 684-90).

Christ as brigand

187

bulk large in anti-Christian polemic nevertheless indicates that such cases will have been exceptional. Brigandage is however mentioned when Christians complain, and their opponents stress, that Christ and members o f his church have been put to 27

death in a way appropriate to robbers (see, with other examples, Origen, C. Cels. ii. 4 4 , p. 1 9 0 , n. 5 1 below). T h e tone o f the complaints (p. 1 8 6 , n. 2 6 ) confirms that the point at issue is the moral disgrace implied in such a death and emphasised in the polemic on the cross discussed above. T h e innuendo o f sedition may be present, but is unexpressed. T o assert Christ's brigandage would certainly have contributed to the general impression that Christians were seditious. J. A . Fabricius c o m pared our passage with Suetonius on the R o m a n Jewish riots impulsore Chresto, understood as a reference to Christians.

28

However Suetonius is to

be interpreted, the comparison identifies the damaging aspersion o f threat to public order cast by this polemic. O u r passage might even recall, although the likelihood has not seemed great, an instance o f Christians being charged with brigandage. Yet in view o f its failure to correspond to any frequently-attested form o f the anti-Christian charge o f sedition, its value to the polemist seems likely to have lain principally in its moral denigration (p. 1 8 4 , n. 8 ) . W e may then compare the eagerly-pressed claim o f the anti-Montanist writer Apollonius that Alexander the Montanist martyr had once been convicted not for his faith but as a brigand (lestes) P It is relevant here that the universally-encountered brigand

30

held a sure

place in popular imagination. Robbers are the villains o f the Midrash and the New Testament A p o c r y p h a as well as o f pagan romance. resemblances to established government are a standing j o k e

32

31

Their

and their 33

rivalry with it may win sympathy from those w h o feel oppressed, but they remain the archetypal evil-doers. W h e n Clement o f Alexandria tells o f a Christian youth w h o defects to become a brigand-chief, his bishop is made

2 7

28

2 9

3 0

3 1

3 2

3 3

Eusebius, H.E. vi. 41 ( m a r t y r d o m o f N e m e s i o n ) ( G C S 9.1, p . 608); Lactantius, DIv. 20, 6 ( S C 204, p . 242). J . A . Fabricius, Salutaris Lux Evangelii ( H a m b u r g , 1731), p . 15811. Eusebius, H.E. v. 18 ( G C S 9.1, p p . 474-6). T o the rich material in M a c M u l l e n , Enemies, p p . 255-68 a d d the a d o p t i o n oUestes as a l o a n - w o r d in H e b r e w , A r a m a i c and Syriac: S. P. Brock, ' G r e e k W o r d s in the Syriac G o s p e l s ' , Le Museon 80 (1967), 389-426 (406). S. K r a u s s , Griechen und Romer ( M o n u m e n t a T a l m u d i c a V . i, repr. D a r m s t a d t , 1972), p p . 161-3, n o s . 383-90; R . S o d e r , Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte Literatur der Antike (Stuttgart, 1932), p p . i68f. Eisler, I H Z O Y Z , i, x x v ( E T 10) and n. 17 a b o v e ; c p . Stith T h o m p s o n , Motif-Index of Folk-Literature (revised e d n . C o p e n h a g e n , 1955-8), v, 418 U 1 1 . 2 : ' H e w h o steals m u c h called king; he w h o steals little called r o b b e r . ' O n Palestine before the First R e v o l t see J o s e p h u s , BJ\\. 253 with A . Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus (Gutersloh, 1932), p . 171.

l88

WILLIAM HORBURY

to say that the young man is 'wicked, abandoned, and more than all, a robber'.

34

For the wicked man and shedder o f blood par excellence o f Ezek.

1 8 : 10, where the Greek versions render parts with words for evil-doer in general ( L X X has loimos, applied to St Paul at Acts 24: 5 ) , St Jerome keeps 35

the specific latro.

In Cena Cypriani, when the biblical characters attend a

fancy-dress party, it is Cain w h o comes attired as a brigand.

36

II A n anti-Christian work by a writer w h o later helped to implement the Diocletianic persecution affirmed, according to Lactantius, 'that Christ, driven out by the Jews, gathered a band o f nine hundred

men and

committed acts o f brigandage': 'Christum . . . a Iudaeis fugatum collecta nongentorum hominum manu latrocinia fecisse.'

37

T h e writer, not named by Lactantius here, is probably to be identified with Sossianus Hierocles, governor o f Bithynia in 3 0 3 and prefect o f Egypt in 3 0 7 .

3 8

H e led the persecution in both provinces. His work addressed to

the Christians appears like that o f Celsus to have attacked the N e w Testament

both by criticism and -

as our passage indicates -

by

counter-assertion. Eusebius wrote a reply in which he claimed that, apart from its comparison o f Christ with Apollonius o f Tyana, the book was entirely derivative.

39

Internal evidence at any rate suggests that the passage

cited by Lactantius here did not originate with Hierocles. It consists o f three articulated statements: Christ was expelled by the Jews, he gathered his band, he committed acts o f brigandage.

40

T o be

'driven out by the Jews' implies withdrawal by Jesus some time before the

3 4

3 5

3 6

3 7

3 8

3 9

4 0

C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a , Quis Dives Salvetur, xlii. 9 cited in E u s e b i u s , H.E. iii. 23 ( G C S 17, p . 189). J e r o m e , In Ezechielem vi, o n 18: 10 ( C C L 75, p . 242). A . H a r n a c k , Drei wenig beachtete cyprianische Schriften und die 'Acta PaulV ( T U 19.3b, L e i p z i g , 1899), p p . 5 (dating the w o r k c. 300-600), 12 (text). F o r C a i n as b r i g a n d c p . J o s e p h u s , AJ i. 61, 66. Lactantius, DI v. 3, 4; P. M o n a t , Lactance: Institutions Divines, Livre V, 2 v o l s . , S C 204-5 (Paris, 1973) i, i4of: ii, 44, 50. A . H . M . J o n e s , J. R . M a r t i n d a l e a n d J. M o r r i s , The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire ( C a m b r i d g e , 1971), p . 432, s u m m a r i s e e v i d e n c e for the identification further discussed b y M o n a t , Lactance, ii, 44 and T . D . Barnes, ' P o r p h y r y Against the Christians: D a t e and the A t t r i b u t i o n o f F r a g m e n t s ' , JThSt n.s. 24 (1973), 424-42 (437f, 441). J. Geffcken, Zweigriechische Apologeten ( L e i p z i g a n d Berlin, 1907), p . 291 n., not d i s c u s s e d b y the foregoing, d o u b t s the identification b e c a u s e Eusebius (see following n o t e ) says that Hierocles admits Christ's miracles a n d calls h i m a m a n o f G o d ; but p o l e m i c is not always consistent, a n d admission o f the miracles is regularly allied as in C e l s u s with g r a v e moral charges. E u s e b i u s , C. Hieroclem \ (PG X X H . 797). Eisler, I H Z O Y Z , i, x x v : E T 10 o b s c u r e s the o r d e r o f events b y a mistranslation.

Christ as brigand

189

end o f the ministry as a result of opposition from the nation as a whole. Such collective opposition at an early stage is envisaged at John 5 : 1 6 , 1 8 ( c p . the opposition

from

more limited

circles at

Mark

2 : 6 and

parallels).

Withdrawal, at a later stage in the Johannine tradition as we have it, but before the end o f the ministry, is described at John 1 1 : 5 4 .

4 1

Retrojection o f

collective opposition is as natural to the narrator as it is useful to the polemist. Hostile accounts from that o f the J e w o f Celsus onwards link it with the withdrawal.

42

T h e closest parallel to our statement is in Toledoth

Jeshu where Jesus flees from Israel, represented by the Wise, near the 43

beginning o f his ministry, and gathers a band o f evil disciples. This first statement in Lactantius is then one instance o f a development o f traditions which received a different treatment in the Gospels as we now have them. T h e gathering o f nine hundred stands in contrast with the minimising o f the disciples' numbers in Celsus (i. 6 2 , 6 5 ; ii. 4 6 ; iii. 1 0 ; p p . 5 8 , 7 6 , 8 6 Bader). It may perhaps have arisen from the early emphasis on large numbers (p. 1 8 4 , n. 9 ) . This emphasis reappears in Christian sources up to Hierocles's time, Origen replying to Celsus that there were not merely ten disciples, nor only a hundred, nor only a thousand

44

and Eusebius

envisaging many apostles in addition to the twelve and the seventy.

45

In

Jewish tradition large numbers are assumed in one o f the charges against Jesus formulated in the tannaitic period (n. 9 , p . 1 8 4 ) . Samuel Krauss compared with our passage the number 3 1 0 or 320, or general references to large numbers, found in descriptions o f the disciples in Toledoth Jeshu.

46

Here again the statement in Lactantius is a not unparalleled instance o f development o f tradition attested in the New Testament. Acts o f brigandage, the theme o f the third statement, are not clearly asserted of Christ in earlier polemic as now preserved (cp. p . 186, n. 1 9 ) .

4 7

It

has however been claimed, in line with Eusebius's judgement of the work in general, that Hierocles simply took over the charge from Celsus. 4 1

4 2

4 3

48

The

E. B a m m e l , ' E x ilia i t a q u e d i e c o n s i l i u m f e c e r u n t . . . ' , in E. B a m m e l ( e d . ) , The Trial of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 11-40 (35, 38). B a m m e l , in Trial, p p . 30-2. P. 191 b e l o w a n d the texts printed in S. K r a u s s , Das Leben Jesu nach judischen Quellen

(Berlin, 1902). p p . 4of, 68f. ^ O r i g e n , C. Cels. ii. 46; c p . iii. 10 ( G C S p p . 168, 210). Eusebius, H.E. i, 12 ( G C S 9.1, p . 82).

4 5

4 7

^ K r a u s s , Leben Jesu, p . 173. Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 468. G . L o e s c h e , ' H a b e n die spateren neuplatonischen Polemiker gegen das Christent h u m d a s W e r k des Celsus b e n u t z t ? ' , Z W T 2 7 (1883), 257-302 (284) finds the g e r m o f the idea in C. Cels. ii. 12, viii. 14; Geffcken, Apologeten, 291 also pointed to ii. 12; Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 468 saw it as impossible to identify the source, but referred in a footnote to C. Cels i. 30, ii. 12 a n d 44, iii. 59. A m o n g the passages cited b y these scholars, i. 30 ( G C S i, p . 81) is O r i g e n ' s o w n statement that Christ's persuasiveness was not that o f a tyrant, a r o b b e r , o r a rich m a n ; the others, all from Celsus o r his source, are s u m m a r i s e d in the three following notes. 4 8

190

WILLIAM HORBURY

Alethes Logos in fact appears to preserve Celsus's own view o f Christian origins,

49

50

together with the independent view o f his Jewish source - both

close to our passage in different ways - as well as incidental remarks from both Celsus and the J e w likening Christ or Christians to robbers.

51

None o f the passages concerned, however, can be said to offer an exact parallel. T h a t most closely related to our citations is likely to be i. 6 2 , where the J e w o f Celsus claims that the disciples were ten or eleven infamous men w h o got their living by disgraceful and importunate beggary. It belongs to the same class o f narrative polemic and, like the two statements o f Hierocles 52

already considered, finds a parallel in inner-Jewish tradition. Yet it seems improbable that Hierocles has himself adapted the text in Celsus. That would have meant not only changing beggary to robbery, but

also

contradicting the argument on numbers to which Celsus clung ( p . 1 8 9 a b o v e ) . It is more likely that Hierocles reproduces an existing variant o f the J e w o f Celsus's story. This third statement, based on an existing narrative as it thus appears to be, nevertheless lacks the degree o f contact with New Testament traditions noted in the two preceding clauses. It makes both Christ and the disciples men o f habitual robber-like violence. T h e New Testament shows the disciples as (to begin with) multitudinous

(p. 1 8 4 , n. 9 above, and

M o n a t , Lactance ii, 5 0 ) , ready to use arms for defence at Christ's arrest (Luke 2 2 : 3 5 - 8 , 4 9 ; J o h n

1 8 : 1 0 ) , expecting an earthly kingdom and

opposed at least in Peter's case to Christ's will to endure (Mark 8: 3 2 , p p . 53

3 9 3 - 4 in this v o l u m e ) . For Christ himself, however, we can only compare his suffering a robber's death, as is underlined by the Barabbas

story

( M o n a t , ii, 5 0 ) and the crucifixion between two robbers or malefactors 'in the same condemnation', Luke 2 3 : 4 0 (Eisler and Bauer, p . 188, n. 4 0 and p. 1 8 9 , n. 4 7 ) . T h e narrative o f the two swords, Luke 22: 2 5 - 3 8 (pp. 3 3 5 - 5 1 in this volume), linked with our statement by Eisler, ii, 270: E T p. 3 7 0 , needs

4 9

T h e faction-ridden c h u r c h (iii. 10, 12; viii. 49, p p . 86, 205 B a d e r ) b e g a n from Christ's stasis against J e w r y (iii. 1, 5; viii. 14, p p . 85, 197 Bader, c p . p . 184 a b o v e ) ; the few early Christians (iii. 10, p r e s u m a b l y i n c l u d i n g the disciples, see next note) must then b y inference b e regarded as seditious, but this is not m a d e explicit.

5 0

T h e disciples n u m b e r e d ten o r eleven (i. 62,65; ii. 46, p p . 58, 76 B a d e r ) and lived b y b e g g i n g (i. 62). Christians b e i n g self-confessed sinners are the sort o f p e o p l e a r o b b e r w o u l d call, Celsus in iii. 59, p . 97 Bader, perhaps d e p e n d e n t o n ii. 12, 44, p p . 65^ 76 B a d e r , w h e r e the J e w claims that Jesus d i d not keep his followers' loyalty even as well as a lestarchos m i g h t have, and that a n y o n e as shameless as the Christians c o u l d assert that a p u n i s h e d r o b b e r a n d murderer w a s a g o d , because he foretold his sufferings to his syllestai. For the m o r a l b u r d e n o f this p o l e m i c see p . 187 a b o v e .

5 1

5 2

5 3

J . J . H u l d r i c u s , Historia Jeschuae Nazareni ( L e i d e n , 1705), p p . 5 1 - 3 . C . H . D o d d , Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel ( C a m b r i d g e , 1963), p p . 77-80.

Christ as brigand

191

drastic exegesis (two swords for each disciple, Eisler, ii, 2 6 8 : E T p . 3 6 9 ) before it gains close resemblance. Christians continue to admit the disciples' sinfulness (Barn. 8: 9) and the shame o f the cross, and polemists fasten as seen already on these points (p. 1 8 4 , n. 8 ) . In the fifth-century Altercatio Simonis et Theophili™ as E. Bammel notes, the Jewish debater is depicted as drawing an implicit comparison between Christ and Absalom the parricide. Yet apart from our citation surviving polemic does not attach the charge o f brigandage to Christ or the disciples in the ante-Nicene period. 55

For passages o f more marked similarity we must turn, as Eisler and M . Lods both observed, to later Jewish material. Huldrich's text o f Toledoth Jeshu ( p . 1 9 0 , n. 5 2 ) makes the ministry begin when Jesus kills his father. Israel refuses to associate with him, 'vain and wanton men', 'violent men' (parisim), and finally a brigand chief (r'osh beryonim=archilestes) j o i n him, and he flees with 'his men' to the desert. In other text-forms, as Eisler noted, Jesus's numerous followers (n. 4 6 above) use force against the Jews, attempts to rescue him during the ministry developing into a war after his death. T h e standard designation o f the disciples in these texts is parisim, which in biblical Hebrew, as in Jer. 7: 11 ( L X X OJir|Xaiov Xfloxdrv, cited at Mark 1 1 : 1 7 and parallels), may denote robber, but also comes to mean ( c p . the Greek versions o f Ezek. 1 8 : 1 0 , p. 1 8 8 above) any violent transgressor. T h e same word is applied to 'Jesus and his companions' who 56

57

58

encourage Gaius Caesar to impose emperor-worship on the Jews in a story related to Toledoth Jeshu found in two texts ofjosippon (see pp. 1 9 7 - 2 0 9 in this v o l u m e ) . Dan. 1 1 : 1 4 , where the word is used for ' T h e men o f violence', is regularly applied to Christians by Jewish writers from Saadia (tenth century) o n w a r d s . Thus used it was no doubt often taken, as by Jefet b . Ali (tenth century), o f breach o f religious law; but its wider 59

60

61

5 4

B. B l u m e n k r a n z , Les auteurs Chretiens latins du moyen age sur lesjuifs et lejudaisme (Paris,

1963), p p . 27-31, n o . 13. 5 5

5 6

5 7

5 8

E. B a m m e l , 'Christus Parricida', VigChr 26 (1972), 259-62. Eisler, I H Z O Y Z ii, 253, n. 3 ( E T p p . 363 n. 2, 370 n. 1); M . L o d s , ' E t u d e sur les sources j u i v e s d e la p o l e m i q u e d e Celse contre les Chretiens', RHPhR 21 (1941), i - 3 3 (*8f). H u l d r i c u s , Historia, p p . 35f. Eisler, I H Z O Y 2 ii, 516-18, citing K r a u s s , Leben Jesu, p p . 42, 45, 47, 76f, 82, i2of; further texts in W . H o r b u r y , ' A Critical E x a m i n a t i o n o f the T o l e d o t h J e s h u ' (Diss.,

C a m b r i d g e , 1970), p p . 188, 192, 195, 242-4, 246f, 291, 295. 5 9

6 0

6 1

Eisler, I H Z O Y Z i, 498; I. Levi, 'Jesus, C a l i g u l a et C l a u d e d a n s une interpolation du Y o s i p h o n ' , REJ 91 (193O, i 3 5 " 5 4 ( i 3 9 ) T h e list in J u d a h R o s e n t h a l , Studies and Texts in Jewish History, Literature and Religion (2 vols., J e r u s a l e m , 1967) i, 204 includes a m o n g others M a i m o n i d e s , Rashi, I b n Ezra and A b r a v e n e l . D . S. M a r g o l i o u t h , A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by Jephet ibn Ali the Karaite ( O x f o r d , 1889), p p . 6if.

192


application is illustrated by Josippon's use o f it for Josephus's

62

lestai.

Latrocinia in the sense o f highway robberies are not specified o f Christ in these sources; but the disciples use violence during the ministry, although, at this stage of the narrative, as opposed to that dealing with events after the crucifixion, the theme is subordinate to the ruling emphases on miracle and false teaching. These thematically-related

passages may be held to

strengthen the likelihood that the source o f Hierocles's third statement is Jewish. T h e three statements may now be considered as a unity. T h e y look like a fragment o f a longer story. A comparable fragment-like series, relating events from the conception to the first self-predication o f j e s u s , occurs among the passages ascribed by Celsus to the Jew (ii. 28, p . 5 3 Bader) and is fully paralleled in inner-Jewish sources.

63

Similarly the statements in

Hierocles are only paralleled with the same interconnection in inner-Jewish sources. Recalling other patristic evidence for Jewish accounts o f Christ

64

we may propose an ultimately Jewish source for this citation. T h e narrative could then have reached Hierocles directly from a Jew or through a pagan, and it could have arisen at any time up to shortly before the date of his book. Its potential in the hands o f a polemist was obviously considerable. T h e Jews, to whose writings Christians constantly appealed, could be shown to have lost no time in rejecting Christ's claims. T h e numerous disciples vaunted by the Christians were engaged in nothing else than brigandage. As already noted, the charge o f sedition was thus reinforced; and, most importantly, both Christ and his followers were branded with the mark o f the most cordially detested class o f violent evil-doers (section I a b o v e ) . In the context o f the present enquiry the historical value o f the story especially concerns us. T h e first two items in the narrative may be considered as hostile interpretations o f traditions which also entered the Gospels (notably J o h n 1 1 : 5 4 , Luke 6: 1 7 , see p . 1 8 9 above). Brigandage, the third item, whether taken as robbery or insurrection, by contrast necessarily implies habitual acts of violence on the part ofjesus. It thereby conflicts with the range o f New Testament traditions on his character. T h e Pauline epistles already presuppose a portrait o f the earthly Christ with which this implication would be wholly inconsistent. Appeals to the self-abnegation and gentleness of Christ such as those o f R o m . 1 5 : 3, 1 C o r . 10: 3 3 to 1 1 : 1, 2 C o r . 10: 1, even if they allude to the condescension o f the nativity as well as to the ministry, would have been stultified, as C . K . 6 2

6 3

6 4

G . D . C o h e n , 77?* Book of Tradition by Abraham Ibn Daud ( L o n d o n , 1969), p . x x x i x . L o d s , RHPhR 21 (1941), 3if. E.g. H . L . Strack,y«t/j, die Hdretiker und die Christen nach den dltesten judischen Angaben ( L e i p z i g , 1910), p p . 8*-i 1*, 14*; B . B l u m e n k r a n z , DieJudenpredigt Augustins (repr. Paris, 1973), p p . 87f.

Christ as brigand

193

Barrett points out, had it been known that the life o f Jesus differed in character from what the Gospels now depict. This discord with the range o f New Testament evidence, then, makes it probable that we have here later invention, perhaps in a development, out o f contact with Christian tradition, of the tale of beggary cited by the Jew of Celsus (i. 6 2 ) . T h e crime o f the crucified has been made to fit his punishment. 65

66

Ill 67

For Eisler Hierocles stood pre-eminent among ancient non-Christian witnesses to Christ, Josephus o f course excepted. Eisler linked our passage with the charge o f magic in Celsus and Lucian, and with Celsus's phrase leader of sedition (p. 1 8 3 , n. 3 and p . 190, n. 4 9 ) , as typifying the pagan estimate of Jesus. He valued our passage especially, however, because he took it as a clear exposition o f the R o m a n view of Jesus as a rebel, and the best commentary on Pilate's titulus. Eisler took latrocinia here in the legal sense o f high treason. He pointed out that for the jurists (p. 1 8 5 , n. 1 4 ) a pretender is latronum dux, his adherents latrones. Elsewhere in his book he gathered modern instances o f the same nomenclature, including contemporary newspaper reports o f the Nicaraguan independence movement. H e thrice suggested in passing that the passage illuminated other aspects o f the ministry. Thus he thinks, as noted already (p. 1 8 3 above), that armed disciples would have been called sicarii by Josephus, just as Hierocles terms them robbers. Indeed, Christ's several hundred followers begging their way must have been called latrones, their importunity being comparable with that o f mediaeval 'sturdy beggars'. Lastly, he sees general agreement between our citation and the report in Slavonic Josephus that a hundred and fifty helpers and a multitude o f the people joined Jesus on the Mount o f Olives. In this instance Eisler's mistranslation (p. 188, n. 4 0 ) , that Jesus 'was defeatedby the Jews when he had been committing robberies', may by wrongly referring our passage to the arrest have caused him to see a greater resemblance between 68

69

70

6 5

6 6

6 7

6 8

69

7 0

C . K . Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians ( L o n d o n , 1973), p . 246, o n 10: 1. F o r Paul's c o n c e r n with the character o f the earthly Jesus see G . N . Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, S N T S M o n o g r a p h s 27 ( C a m b r i d g e , 1974), p p . 99-110. C p G . M . Styler, a b o v e p . 105. P. 187 and p . 190, n. 51, and B a m m e l in Trial, p . 165. Eisler, I H Z O Y Z , i, xxvi: his w o r d s o n the i m p o r t a n c e o f this passage are omitted in E T p . 11. I b i d , i, 194, n. 3 (this section omitted in E T ) . E i s l e r , I H Z O Y Z , ii, 253^ n. 3 ( E T p . 363 (lacking the m e d i a e v a l a n a l o g y ) ) . I b i d , ii, 440, n. 51, omitted in E T p . 457.

WILLIAM HORBURY

194

the two texts than really obtains. His rendering does not, however, seriously affect the argument for his main contention, that the passage rightly expounds Jesus's offence under R o m a n law. While Jews saw Christ as

a leader-astray,

for pagans,

Eisler

claimed

(over-estimating

the

distinctiveness o f their polemic), he was a magician, an instigator o f rebellion, and a leader o f robber bands. This pagan

interpretation,

especially as exemplified in our passage, closely approximated in Eisler's view to a true estimate o f Jesus's ministry. Eisler's keen eye for whatever might support his theory rightly discerned that this passage deserves attention. It is his merit to have shown that, so far from being a wholly isolated absurdity,

71

it has links with the c o m m o n

anti-Christian charge o f sedition and with the sketch of the disciples as men o f violence in Toledoth Jeshu. O u r present study o f the passage in the same context o f pagan and Jewish polemic has suggested that it is older than Hierocles, forming in all probability a fragment o f an originally Jewish narrative o f Christ's life taken up, like the stories o f the J e w o f Celsus, by a pagan polemist. Y e t is has also seemed probable, in contrast with Eisler's view, that as polemic the passage aims more directly at moral denigration than the charge o f sedition, and that as historical assertion it rests in its most important detail, latrociniafecisse, on hostile invention. Its significance for the historian lies rather in its interconnected but fragmentary character, suggesting the existence o f a fuller story and confirming that narrative polemic on Jesus, comparable with that current in later Jewish-Christian debate, must be reckoned with in any account o f contacts between Jews, pagans and Christians in the ante-Nicene period. T h e N e w Testament evidence on the questions raised by our passage is examined elsewhere in this volume. Within the limits o f the present study we may note one final consideration arising from the material under review. Early anti-Christian polemic as preserved to us in respect o f the life ofjesus concentrates to a marked degree on teaching and wonder-working. So already where the N e w Testament records corroborative evidence for the charge 'king o f the Jews' it refers to what an opponent would have called charlatanry or deception rather than brigandage, y o T ] T £ i a or an&zr] rather than X r ] O t e i a . 7 1

7 2

72

Luke 2 3 : 2 , 5 , 1 4 speak of teaching such as might raise

S o for e x a m p l e P. d e Labriolle, La Reaction paienne (Paris, 1942), p . 310. F o r the distinction see J o s e p h u s , BJ ii. 254-64, w h e r e the sicarii, 'another kind o f Xnoxai' (254), differ from ' a n o t h e r b o d y o f villains, with purer hands but m o r e i m p i o u s intentions' (258) w h o pretend to inspiration but are JiXdvoi. . . av6Q0)Jioi x a i ajiaxearveg (259); 261-3 deal * e Egyptian false p r o p h e t {yor\ /vnîn I D D Historia Jeschuae Nazareni ( L e i d e n , 1705), p . 43) states bluntly that Jesus commanded ( ) that the L a w be abolished ( minn m buib)G i n z b e r g text 2a, line 24. G i n z b e r g text 2b, line 6. J . D . Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim ( N e w Y o r k , 1915), p p . 215a, line 28f. T h e H u l d r e i c h version a d o p t s o n the w h o l e the s a m e style ( p p . 59, 96f, 125!), while in a few p l a c e s (100, 122) D'sns refers to relatives o f Jesus. W a g e n s e i l (Tela ignea, Altorf, 1681), p . 16; V i e n n a text ( K r a u s s , p . 76); Y e m e n i t e text ( K r a u s s , p . 120). O b v i o u s l y motifs o f the post-Easter stories had been inserted into the J e s u s story o n a s e c o n d a r y level. T h e claim o f Hierocles - see p . 199 - is neither a narriscker Einfall ( G . L o s c h e , ' H a b e n die spateren neuplatonischen P o l e m i k e r g e g e n das C h r i s t e n t h u m das W e r k des Celsus benutzt?', ZWT 27 (1883), 284; c p . Geffcken, Apologeten p . 291: 'das Historchen v o n Christus d e m R a u b e r ' ) n o r his ureigene Erfindung ( H . Kellner, Hellenismus und Christenthum ( K o l n , 1866), p . 222) but d e d u c e d from stories o f this kind. T h e s e T o l e d o t h passages were referred to recently b y H . J . Schonfield (Jesus, L o n d o n , 1939; 2nd edn. 1948, p . 254), taken as historical e v i d e n c e that points to a revolutionary activity o f the disciples o f J e s u s carried o u t with the intention to set free the already i m p r i s o n e d Jesus. T h e J o s i p p o n interpolation uses the phrase VIP").

Jesus as a political agent

203

'head o f the insurgents' (•'•snOT « m ) but John the Baptist. Another text, the addition to Josippon, gives the impression that the 0*»2n& had c o m e into existence almost independently from Jesus; it uses the formula 'the O ^ I D and Jesus' and lists the latter only once as a f together with two other D ^ I Q w h o are executed at the same time. It emerges that D^viD i the majority o f cases depicts the turning away from Judaism by establishing new laws etc. It is equally capable of indicating a violent clash which happened in consequence o f this. T h e term, as it is mainly used, carries a meaning not very different from D'Hft'HPB. 43

n

T h e reluctance to apply the term to Jesus is all the more significant as the Wagenseil version starts by characterising Jesus's putative father as a warrior (nBrf?B 11331) and as someone w h o engaged in robberies and licentiousness. 44

T h e case ofjesus is treated as a domestic affair in the Jewish references. T h e offence he gave and the verdict passed on him are described in Jewish terminology, and equally the authority that had to deal with him is taken to be the normal Jewish court. This is almost an ubiquitous feature in Jewish sources. But there are also subsidiary factors worth mentioning. Ulla explains the long time gap between the verdict and the execution o f j e s u s , a time which made it possible to call for mitigating circumstances by reference to Jesus's connections with the government (rYDVfc) implying that these connections made it desirable for the court to proceed with the utmost care and to allow for as many interventions as possible. T h e general picture is the same: it was entirely a Jewish matter, but the case is justified vis-a-vis the non-Jewish world. T h e remark may be taken as the defence against assertions to the contrary, claims which are likely to have circulated already at the beginning o f the Constantinian era. 45

O n the other hand, in one branch o f the Jewish lives o f j e s u s , mainly in the Aramaic tradition, a direct involvement o f the Romans is claimed. A confrontation between the rabbis on the one side and Jesus and John on the other takes place before Caesar. As the result is not in Jesus's favour the Jews are permitted to take Jesus and John and to proceed with them according to their law. That means, the checking of the evidence takes place before the judgement is passed. T h e emperor, as a neutral witness, is viewed as involved in the fact-finding process, but the judgement and execution are still in the hands o f the J e w s . Tiberius (and Pilate) are peripheral persons. 46

4 3

4 5

4 6

4 4

H u l d r e i c h , p . 36. 0»m ( W a g e n s e i l p . 3). Sanh. 43a. C p . p . 360 n. 52. T h e texts were edited b y L . G i n z b e r g , Ginze Schechter i ( N e w Y o r k , 1928), 324fTand c o r r e c t e d b y W . H o r b u r y , Festschrift C.F.D. Moule (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1971), p p . 1 i6ff. T h e report o f A g o b a r d , b a s e d o n a type o f T o l e d o t h not dissimilar to this,

E. BAMMEL

204

T h e matter is different in a story which is found in two manuscripts o f the Josippon,

47

although it is not o f a piece with that chronicle.

48

A n encounter

between Jesus and Caesar dominates the central section o f the story. It is, however, not the accused or already condemned Jesus w h o is met by the emperor and given a chance to redeem himself, but a Jesus who is a commanding figure and eager to establish an influence on his counterpart. Pretending to be a messenger o f G o d

4 9

he hails Caesar - his name is Gaius -

as G o d o n earth ( ] H * D " T V ^ K ) and advises him to erect altars to himself as to a g o d . T h e story goes on with the account o f the likeness o f the emperor being sent to Jerusalem and the resistance o f the Jews against giving it a place in the holy city. Herod sends an embassy to R o m e - the names o f the rabbis w h o act as emissaries are given - but without any success. Gaius decides to destroy the country o f the Jews and he is supported by 'the impudent ones ( D ^ I B

) and Jesus and many o f our nation'.

50

T h e Jews

hold a fast and implore G o d ' s intervention. Gaius is killed as a result o f this - cut to pieces which are eaten by the dogs - and Claudius, who had intervened on behalf o f the Jews already during his predecessor's

rule,

speaks actually o f T i b e r i u s ' s verdict (Tiberiijudicio in carcerem retrursum), but it is not clear whether this includes the c o n d e m n a t i o n to death because o f magical activity w h i c h is m e n t i o n e d subsequently. It m a y b e that the s u m m a r y o f A g o b a r d is not c o r r e c t in every respect ( c p . S. K r a u s s , Das Leben Jesu nach judischen Quellen (Berlin,

1902), p . 6). 4 7

4 8

4 9

A critical edition o f the passage was presented b y I. Levi, 'Jesus, C a l i g u l a et C l a u d e ' , REJ 91 (1931), iff. A n e w edition was undertaken b y A . A . N e u m a n , ' A N o t e o n J o h n the Baptist and Jesus in J o s i p p o n ' , HUCA 23 2 (1950-1), i37ff; the interpretation the author offers is w i d e o f the mark. T h e text was studied b y R . Eisler, Jesous Basileus ( H e i d e l b e r g 1930/1), passim (Eisler's thesis is s u m m a r i s e d b y S. G . F. B r a n d o n , The Fall of Jerusalem (2nd edn. L o n d o n , 1957), p p . 12if), a n d b y W . H o r b u r y , ' A Critical E x a m i n a t i o n o f the T o l e d o t h J e s h u ' ( u n p u b l i s h e d thesis, C a m b r i d g e , 1971), i34ff. T h e story is not as u n i q u e as was assumed b y Eisler. T h e H u l d r e i c h version o f the T o l e d o t h contains the narrative a b o u t the attempt o f the inhabitants o f A i , i.e. the Christians, to put u p a statue o f j e s u s a n d M i r j a m in a w a y w h i c h offended the J e w s and especially the son o f king H e r o d , a n d tells h o w the king o b j e c t e d to it and issued a warning to the Christians, that these Christians a p p r o a c h e d the e m p e r o r and asked for his support and that they had to s u b m i t to the J e w s and b u r n the statue b e c a u s e they had been d e n i e d the help they had c r a v e d ( Z u r i c h , 1705, p . 122). T h e similarity is o b v i o u s . Different, h o w e v e r , are t w o points. T h e event is s u p p o s e d to h a v e taken place in the period o f the early c o m m u n i t y . T h e effigy is that o f j e s u s and his mother, w h i c h means the initial c o n n e c t i o n with the R o m a n sphere is lacking. Both destruction and replacement are features o f a s e c o n d a r y d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e story is a kind o f a p p e n d i x to the H u l d r e i c h text. It m u s t have r e m a i n e d in circulation and arrived eventually in a distorted a n d d e v e l o p e d form in the milieu where the H u l d r e i c h version h a p p e n e d to b e compiled. T h e J o s i p p o n a c c o u n t displays o n the w h o l e an anti-Herodian tendency ( c p . Eisler, Basileus i, 48of), while it is different here: H e r o d is pictured as a stern defender o f Judaism. ">7ibit E d . Levi, p . 140, 1.1 if. 5 0


205

rehabilitates the members o f the Jewish embassy who had been sent away in disgrace by Gaius. H e gave the Perizim into their hands, took three o f them w h o had fled, killed them and gave their corpses to the dogs in order to exclude the possibility that their wandering followers should steal them at night. T h e backbone o f the story is the incident at the time o f Caligula known from Philo and Josephus. It is narrated in a way which includes Jesus and makes him the dominant figure behind the external pattern o f historical events. Consequently it is upon his own and his companions' downfall that the interest is focussed. Caligula's Casarenwahnsinn is explained (and in some ways excused) by the claim that he acted at the instigation ofjesus. It is said o f the latter that he had advised Gaius against Herod and that he was responsible for the emperor's decision to destroy the holy land. Jesus appears as a political activist whose whole ambition is geared to actions detrimental to the Jewish nation. His sly machinations to this end are dominant, while his intention to alter the interpretation o f the l a w is only an incidental feature without any consequences in the story. 51

52

53

T h e picture that emerges o f his activity is the following: utmost submissiveness to the emperor, ruler-worship in its most outrageous form is not Caligula's own invention but almost forced upon him from outside, by Jesus. Equally the abhorrent suggestion to erect altars for him, for example in Jerusalem. It is probably the view o f the narrator that Jesus made his (false) claim and put the idea into the head of Caligula in order to provoke the Jews who had no choice but to resist. Caligula's decision 'to destroy the holy land' is a reaction o f stupidity possibly again instigated by Jesus. T h e emperor's death by an act o f G o d brings Jesus's machinations to a quick end. H e is, it seems, executed in the capital. T h e activity takes place in R o m e but it is geared to Palestine, where those live w h o m he persecutes with his hatred. This account is framed by another in which the 'impudent ones' play the main role. T h e y are made to appear before the court o f the judges o f the Jews. T h e y appeal to the R o m a n overlords - the account speaks o f E d o m while the main section refers directly to R o m e - and claim that they are tried because they had revolted against 'their law' and adopted Caesar's

5 1

T h e execution is understood as having taken place in R o m e . T h u s , the m o t i f k n o w n from the Mart. Petri ( ' R o m a m v e n i o iterum crucifigi'; Lipsius-Bonnet, Acta Apost. Apocr. i. iff) appears here in a very different f o r m .

5 2

Plural formulation in the text. H e acts together with a w h o l e b a n d o f followers in the capital as well as in Palestine. T h i s is the basic difference from the Petersburg text published b y A . H a r k a v y (Hebraische Bibliographic x v (Berlin, 1875), P-

5 3

206

E. BAMMEL

law. T h e y did so successfully. T h e Romans gave them protection when they swore by the life o f Caesar. At the end we are informed that Joshua and his companions - the members o f the Jewish embassy - had returned to Jerusalem and brought the rest o f the Perizim before the Sanhedrin. Judas Iskariot enquires on the orders o f the king which verdict is appropriate for those w h o had advised the emperor against him. He actually hangs them on the tree. In consequence o f this others are stoned. But the action is carried out only with partial success. It is not possible to wipe out the Perizim because they act in secrecy. T h e rest continue to exist and even convert many to follow them in secret. Beginning and end are not entirely o f a piece: the protecting Romans have disappeared, while the motif that the Christians hold on by means o f acting secretly is introduced. T h e basic story o f the ups and downs o f the Christian community is, however, the same. T h e link with the middle section consists mainly in the introductory remark according to which Jesus and his companions' went to see the emperor. In the story Jesus appears almost single-handed. N o reference is made to the Jewish threat and the R o m a n protection. This suffices to show that the framework and central portion are entities which did not belong together originally. T h e framework is constructed out o f elements each of which is paralleled 54

in the Hebrew T o l e d o t h . T h e central part o f the story is interlarded with features mainly reminiscent o f the Aramaic part o f the Toledoth. T h e names o f the Jewish messengers, Jesus's claim o f divine sonship, the intention attributed to him to alter the interpretation o f the law, the fast o f the Jews for three days, the motif o f the hindrance o f childbirth, the fear o f the improper use o f the corpses of the executed ones - all this is paralleled in the Toledoth, although the individual elements are sometimes given a slant different from the one they have in these texts.

55

O n the other hand,

Caligula's name appears surprisingly at the end o f the Aramaic Toledoth text published by G i n z b e r g

56

and this very name seems to figure slightly 57

disguised in the Hebrew text o f Strassburg, which stands somewhat apart from the rest of the Hebrew part and displays Aramaic features. This shows 5 4

5 5

5 6

5 7

It is this b r a n c h w h i c h takes an interest in the Christian c o m m u n i t y and its relation to J u d a i s m . E.g. Jesus is a messenger o f G o d in o r d e r to p r o c l a i m Gaius g o d o n earth. Page 2b, line 3: ]i»an oia'Vpi "icp Oianatt a c c o r d i n g to W . H o r b u r y , ' T h e Trial o f Jesus in J e w i s h T r a d i t i o n ' in The Trial of Jesus, Festschrift C . F. D . M o u l e , L o n d o n , 1970, p . 120. C a l i g u l a a p p e a r s here, together with Pilate, as an official o f T i b e r i u s . In this w a y t w o traditions are c o m b i n e d . T h e Strassburg M S m e n t i o n s , besides »o VDON NTim , a s e c o n d person w h o b e c a m e instrumental in the tracing and c a t c h i n g o f j e s u s : NO^ ( K r a u s s , Leben Jesu, p . 44). T h e term signifies a c o m p o s i t e p e r s o n : elements o f J u d a s , w h o very often is given the b y n a m e HW'l , seem to b e m i x e d with ova (the n a m e s are often rendered with A r a m a i c endings in this text; c p . K r a u s s , p . 49).


207

that a cross-fertilisation must have taken place, a fact which makes it impossible to dismiss the two texts as fanciful products o f an ingenious 58

mind o f a time as late as the renaissance period. T h e varying provenance, extent and degree o f the influence give an indication o f different strata. If one concentrates on the central piece the temptation has arisen to think o f a replacement o f Apion by J e s u s

59

carried out by a scribe with whimsical

inclinations. Certainly the influence, direct or indirect, o f the accounts by Philo and Josephus o f the Jewish embassies sent to R o m e is noticeable, although - this must be emphasised - the main point that someone else had instigated Gaius to send his statue to Jerusalem is absent from both Philo and Josephus. But there is more to be said. Already Irenaeus expresses the opinion that Jesus was crucified when he was in his forties and he dates this event expressis verbis as having taken place under Claudius; he refers for this to the view taken by the elders o f A s i a .

60

T w o fragments, one from Milan

and another from Padua, even give A . D . 4 6 as the date o f the crucifixion. A b o v e all Pilate's letter to Claudius points in the same direction. Is there a connection? In all the sources apart from Victorinus o f Pettau which favour the view that Jesus died at an advanced age, that view is linked with the synchronism o f Luke 3: 2 ;

6 1

that means, it occurs in an already mutilated

form. It is likely originally to have existed independently and to have been more widespread. T h e references we possess point to the East as the region o f origin,

62

from which it spread to the West. It cannot be ruled out that,

somewhere on this route, this view o f the dates ofjesus was picked up by a Jewish controversialist.

63

Claudius was famed as an upholder o f good old R o m a n tradition, and likewise he was recommended by Josephus as one keen to give due honour to the Jews. T o link such a person with the execution ofjesus was certainly a construction which was inviting for a Jew. It was equally inviting to view Jesus's activity as having taken place in collaboration with Caligula who 5 8

5 9

6 0

6 1

6 2

6 3

T h u s N e u m a n , HUCA 23 2 (1950/1), i48f. T h u s Levi p . 150. Haer. 2.22.For a treatment o f the question c p . E . v o n D o b s c h i i t z , Das Kerygma Petri ( L e i p z i g , 1894), p p . 136f; W . Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen ( T u b i n g e n , 1909), p p . 292ff; A . Strobel, Ursprung und Geschichte des jruhchristlichen Osterkalenders (Berlin, 1977), p p . 281 ff. Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 295. For Irenaeus c p . n. 60. V i c t o r i n u s d e p e n d s o n A l e x a n d e r o f J e r u s a l e m . Justin, w h o m a y have shared the v i e w {Dial. 88; c p . Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 293), was himself a native o f Palestine. T h e v i e w taken in t h e j o s i p p o n passage c o r r e s p o n d s especially to that o f the 'very o l d ' ( B a u e r 293) interpolation in the Daniel c o m m e n t a r y o f H i p p o l y t u s (iv. 23.3), a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h Jesus died in the first year o f C l a u d i u s . T h e Christian claim o f an aetas perfecta - an idea w h i c h influenced Justin and Irenaeus - m a y have been partly b r o u g h t a b o u t b y the J e w i s h accusation that p e o p l e like Bileam (an alias for Jesus) will not see the half o f their days.

208

E.

BAMMEL

belongs to the category of evil princes, as even eulogistic historiography was very ready to admit. Jesus's association with him meant justification o f the condemnation pronounced by his successor. Still, the association is described in such a way that the main guilt is on the side o f j e s u s rather than the emperor. T h e Christians are called

OÎB

and this appellation is applied once

to Jesus as well, and to the two w h o are executed together with him. Still, their rebellious mind is presupposed rather than made explicit. Their rejection o f the T o r a h did not lead to anarchism but, on the contrary, to an eager embracing o f the law o f Caesar. N o attempt is made to picture Jesus and his followers as a conspiracy after the model of Catiline. T h e desertion o f the ancestral law led o f necessity to utmost submissiveness vis-a-vis the emperor. Still he was seen through by Claudius whose function it was to represent the true R o m a n tradition. By this means the story reconciles two motifs: Jesus on the side o f the government and Jesus acting against the government. T h e one is his pretence, the other expresses the real state o f affairs. H e did indeed, as the Aramaic Toledoth put it, act 'against G o d and king'.

64

T h e story is in fact the Jewish reply to the Christian claim that it was only the bad Caesars w h o turned against Christianity, and that they only did so because they had been exposed to the influence o f wicked advisers.

65

T h e dramatis personae utilised in the story are different from those in the talmudic accounts; they direct the reader's mind to the world outside Judaism. So d o certain details. O n e is led to suspect that it may have played a role in the Jewish-Christian controversy. T h e features are not without parallels. T h e Aramaic Toledoth, which are extant in an abbreviated form redacted for h o m e consumption, derive from a probably Greek Vorlage, which has striking similarities with the anti-Christian Acts o f Pilate which circulated in the time o f Maxentius.

66

These Acts were likely to have been

influenced by the Jewish accounts. T h e Christian Acts o f Pilate reflect the judicial machinery o f the time around A . D . 3 0 0 .

67

T h e y are to be seen as an

answer to the Acts o f the time o f Maxentius and they d o indeed refute 68

details o f the Jewish accounts. T h e Acta Silvestri

and similar accounts

direct themselves to the same task. T h e parallels show that the Jewish picture o f the life ofjesus had been an issue in the ancient world for quite a time. 6 4

6 5

6 6

6 7

6 8

G i n z b e r g , fo. i b line 26. T h e s a m e phrase is used in the S l a v o n i c J o s e p h u s ( c p . Eisler Basileus ii, 454). M e l i t o a c c o r d i n g to Eusebius, H.E. 4.26.7-11. E u s e b i u s , H.E. 1.11.9. E . v. D o b s c h i i t z , ' D e r Prozess J e s u n a c h d e n A c t a Pilati', ZNW 3 (1902), 89flf. C p . a b o v e , p p . 173fT. C p . W . L e v i s o n , Aus rheinischer und frankischer Fruhzeit (Diisseldorf, 1948).


209

T h e assumption that the central section o f the narrative, in its original form at least, found its shape in this period and atmosphere gives it a Sitz im Leben which is more plausible than any other hypothesis. Certain individual features may lend a measure o f support to this suggestion: Fourth-century R o m a n historiography was well aware that Caligula belonged to the 69

number of evil princes. T h e contorniates, the medallions issued in order to 70

spread propaganda for the R o m a n tradition and against Christianity, give special attention to scenes connected with the circus and were possibly 71

distributed amongst the audience at the beginning o f a s h o w . A narrative that enlarges on Caligula's end in the circus must have been greeted with interest in this world. T h e c o m m a n d o f the emperor to worship his statue, while otherwise protecting the Jewish religion ('your feasts and your Sabbaths - keep t h e m ' ) ,

72

presupposes a state o f affairs in which the Jews

enjoyed guaranteed religious freedom. Such a guarantee was given in the form o f an exemption from emperor worship in the otherwise notorious 73

decree o f Diocletian. T h e consequences o f this licence are noticeable in the politics and legislation o f the following generations. Taken this way the little story is not without interest. It shows how Judaism liked to explain Christian origins to the non-Jewish world, when it was completely at liberty to d o so. Branded as Jesus is, he is portrayed as the evil genius o f an emperor, as, so to speak, a negative Josephus.

74

His and

his followers' revolt against the T o r a h is presupposed but no attempt is made to shift this to a political level and to denounce the Christians as revolutionaries in the strict sense o f the word. 6 9

7 0

7 1

7 2

7 3

T h e portrait o f C a l i g u l a in the e p i t o m e to Origo Gentis Romanae is entirely negative (Epit. 3.4; 5 a n d 7): c p . J. S c h l u m b e r g e r , Die Epitome de Caesaribus ( M i i n c h e n , 1974). T h e s a m e is true o f the sketch in the Historia A u g u s t a ; c p . J. Straub, Heidnische Geschichtsapologetik in der christlichen Spdtantike ( B o n n , 1963), p . 131, n. 7. A . A l f o l d i , Die Kontorniat-Medaillons i (Berlin, 1976). C p . J . W y t z e s , Der letzte Kampf des Heidentums in Rom ( L e i d e n , 1976). C p . J . M . C . T o y n b e e , JRS (1945), n s f f (review o f A . Alfoldi, Die Kontorniaten ( B u d a p e s t , 1943))T h e p r o v i s i o n is a stock feature in those T o l e d o t h w h i c h deal with the early c h u r c h as well. It is there that the a d v i c e to give freedom to the J e w s to exercise their o w n w o r s h i p is put into the m o u t h o f Peter, indicating a different situation, in w h i c h the v o i c e o f the c h u r c h rather than that o f the political authorities b e c a m e to b e o f crucial i m p o r t a n c e . F o r the e x e m p t i o n o f the J e w s c p . J. Juster, LesJuifsen Empire Romain i (Paris, 1914), n. 1. D . D a u b e , Josephus ( M i i n c h e n , 1978).

247 7 4

E.

BAMMEL

The Feeding of the Multitude

i

T h e Feeding o f the Multitude is represented in no less than five different places within the tradition o f the canonical Gospels, as well as in a variety o f 1

forms in that o f apocryphal sources. This is a surprising state o f affairs in Gospel tradition and, especially as two versions are to be found in one and the same Gospel, it hints at a bifurcation o f the traditions concerning the Feeding already at a pre-literary stage. It is this fact that makes it a priori unlikely that a simple solution can be advanced, or that a reduction o f the reports to one or two versions would be 2

possible in this case. Mark 8 cannot simply be styled as a doublet o f Mark 3

6 , nor can Matthew 1 4 and Luke 9 just be considered as reformulations o f Mark 6, let alone John 6 be viewed as an offshoot o f the Markan account. T h e differences are too marked to allow acquiescence in the kind of solution which has proved advisable in many other cases. T h e Markan account is part of a pre-Markan composition, as the parallel in chapter 8 shows. T h e Feeding is followed there by the journey over the lake (verses 1 3 - 2 1 ) , the Pharisaic demand for a sign from heaven (verses 1 if) and, finally, a healing story (verses 2 2 - 6 ) . All these elements are present in chapters 6 and 7 as well. Lake stories are reproduced in 6: 4 5 - 5 2 ( 5 6 ) , the Pharisees appear in 7: iff, a healing is narrated in 7: 3 1 - 7 .

4

The

scheme is the same, with the single exception that the items in 8: 1 1 - 2 1 are interchanged. T h e scheme is preserved in its integrity in the second composition, whereas different material came to be included in the first 5

o n e . T h e existence o f the parallel formations shows that the Feeding story

1

2

A collection o f this material is to b e found in E. Stauffer, 'Antike Jesustradition und J e s u s p o l e m i k i m mittelalterlichen O r i e n t ' , ZNW 46 (1955), iff. A different v i e w is taken b y I. Buse, T h e G o s p e l a c c o u n t s o f the F e e d i n g o f the

Multitudes', ExpT4. (1962/63), i67ff. 3

4

5

N o r is it possible to take the tradition a b o u t t w o feedings as original b e c a u s e it is a n a l o g o u s to the Elijah story (thus W . Erbt, Das Markusevangelium ( L e i p z i g , 1911), p . 32). T h e similarity b e t w e e n the t w o healing stories - and this is especially true for the first part - is striking. It is likely that 7: i f f j u s t indicates the h e a d i n g o f the p r e - M a r k a n c o m p o s i t i o n whereas the actual p o i n t o f c o n t r o v e r s y w a s c h a n g e d w h e n the formation c a m e to b e i n c l u d e d in the G o s p e l . F o r the latest investigation o f the M a r k a n version c p . R . M . F o w l e r , Loaves and Fishes ( C h i c a g o , 1978).

21 I

212

E. BAMMEL

cannot be viewed in isolation but receives its interpretation in part from its context.

6

T h e Markan account is introduced by a section which speaks (a) o f a gathering or return o f the

&JIOOTOX.OI

to Jesus; (b) o f his suggestion that

they should withdraw and rest for a time away from the crowds; and (c) the claim that the crowds counteracted this by assembling in the place o f the multiplication o f the loaves. This is too much for the purposes o f an introduction. Furthermore it does not hold together. T h e reason given for the withdrawal into solitude (in verse 31 b) is all the more strange in that the disciples are supposed to have c o m e back from a period o f public activity. Verse 3 3 defeats the purpose o f verse 3 1 and is a most artificial bridge between the introduction and the feeding story. This means that what we find here is not just a filler, designed to link two pericopes, but rather a conglomeration o f different material which was combined not entirely successfully. A redactional level is indicated by the term djtoaToA.05 which 7

is foreign to the b o d y o f the gospel and the use o f which is intended to establish a link with 6: 7, where however the term 5co5exa is used. Something similar is the case with verse 3 1 b p (ovbk qpayetv e u x a i Q O i r v ) . It is an attempt to establish a bridge to the following pericope and thereby 8

points to a similarly late level. T h e matter is different in 3 1 a P (deuxe . . . 9

T O J I O V ) . It is a piece of advice given to others, which is interpreted in verse 32 as referring to a joint undertaking. It is this remark which seems to be the membrum archaeum o f the tradition.

10

W h o were the original recipients o f the advice? It seems that the redactional addition o f imooxdkoi

has distorted the original context. T h e

advice appears to be given to men w h o d o not normally stay with Jesus. T h e

6

T h i s w a s n o t e d in a general w a y b y M . G o g u e l , La vie de Jesus (Paris, 1932; G T Z u r i c h , 1934, p . 230; E T L o n d o n , 1933, p . 359).

7

E v e n in 3: 14 the term seems to b e s e c o n d a r y . It is not u n i m p o r t a n t to see that M a t t h e w uses a less stylised formulation at this p o i n t than L u k e , for w h o m the identification o f (xaS^xai and djiooroXoi is characteristic ( c p . 6:13; 17:5; 22:14). T h e redactional touches seem to h a v e been a d d e d to the M a r k a n g o s p e l in m o r e than o n e stage. It is not at all i m p o s s i b l e that 6: 30 w a s formulated with k n o w l e d g e o f Luke.

8

A l m o s t the s a m e formulation is g i v e n in 3: 20, in a passage w h i c h s h o w s the marks o f redactional activity as well. W . Erbt, o n the other hand, maintains that the w h o l e o f verse 31 is redactional (Markusevangelium, p . 29). T h e m e a n i n g o f 6et3xe b e c a m e w e a k e n e d in Hellenistic Greek. Is it the r e m a i n d e r o f a fuller formulation (6evxe dyete)?

9

1 0

T h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n that the vision o f Ezek. 34 p l a y e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e role in the s h a p i n g o f the Feeding scene and the fact that d v a J i a t 3 e o 6 a i is already used in that c h a p t e r (verse 14) gives s u p p o r t to the v i e w that dvcuiaveoOai b e l o n g s to the original stock in verse 31 as well. O f course not in the present form (6X,iyov!), b u t p e r h a p s in a w o r d i n g a n a l o g o u s to that o f M a t t . 11:29 ( e t J Q T J o e x e

dvdjiavoiv).

T h e Feeding o f the Multitude

213

counsel has to be given to them expressis verbis: their following is not the normal way o f life of those w h o are accustomed to accompany their master. It is therefore likely to be advice given to a group o f men who are not identical with the Twelve. sin

A narrower identification o f this body is given in the reading o f sy , according to which the disciples (sicl) had c o m e and told Jesus what 'he' had done and taught. This is in all probability John the Baptist, and thereby the disciples are defined as his followers. T h e reading is, however, so close to Matt. 1 4 : 12 that it is difficult to consider it as genuine within the Markan context. T h e state o f the Markan passage is such that it must be assumed that the original opening, which gave details about the arrival and the intentions of the men addressed by Jesus, was detached. Jesus's answer is likely to have contained a redirection o f some kind o f those w h o are spoken to. T h e original account is likely to have continued with a remark that Jesus himself follows in the same direction subsequently. The supposed original wording was worked over in order to obliterate any notion o f flight. 11

12

13

14

15

O n e of the characteristic features o f the Markan report on the Feeding is 3 4 a : EorikayxvioQ*] xxX. It is a surprising statement in the light o f verses 3 0 b , 3 1 b , and even 3 3 ; but it is very likely if taken together with the reconstructed beginning o f the scene; the puzzled few on the one side, the helpless crowds on the other. T h e citation from Ezek. 3 4 , which is not likely to have been added at a later stage, underlines this motif. 16

17

This is especially true for the Matthaean and Lukan parallels to the Markan account. T h e y contain a number of agreements over against Mark: 11

T h e heritage o f the reading is still noticeable in D ; and A . M e r x (Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem altesten bekannten Texte (Berlin, 1897), p p . 242f; Matthaeus (Berlin, 1902), p . 233) c o m e s out in favour o f the genuineness o f the reading.

1 2

T h i s d o e s not rule o u t the possibility that it was inserted in the k n o w l e d g e o f oral tradition, as indeed Syriac Christianity knew m o r e o f the Baptist than w a s taken u p b y the authors o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t ( c p . NTSt 18 (1971/72), 119ft). S u c h a p r o c e d u r e in stages is typical o f Z (John 7: 3ff; 11:3ft). A s is the case in c h a p t e r 6:45ff. T h e r e d a c t o r rather g a v e the impression o f a success story: verses 30, 31b, taken together with 7b, 13 lead o n e to e x p e c t a c r o w d w h i c h is eager and d e v o t e d to Jesus. O f seminal i m p o r t a n c e is an o b s e r v a t i o n o f W e l l h a u s e n : the original s e q u e n c e ('der ursprungliche P r a g m a t i s m u s ' ) , a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h H e r o d h a d caused the flight o f J e s u s across the lake, had b e e n destroyed b y M a r k (Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (2nd e d n . (Berlin, 1911), p . 48). T h e o p p o s i t e v i e w is taken b y E. M e y e r , Ursprung undAnfdnge des Christentums i (Stuttgart, 1921), 137. C p . M a r k 9: 33, where the reference to C a p e r n a u m is at variance with 9: 30 and results in the obliteration o f the impression o f a flight o f j e s u s . E. H i r s c h , Fruhgeschichte des Evangeliums i (2nd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1951), 76, h o w e v e r , considers it as addition o f M a r k I I . E. S c h w a r t z , Aporien im vierten Evangelium iv, N G G G (1908), 498.

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

E. BAMMEL

214

18

Matt. 1 4 : 1 3 d v e x c b Q T i a e v / L u k e 9 : 1 0 i>Jiex(0Qr|O£v, oi o x ^ o i

1 9

instead o f

Markan JTOXX.01 (Matt. 1 4 : 1 3 , 1 5 , 1 9 ; Luke 9: n , 1 2 , 1 6 ) . A reference to the boat voyage ( M a r k 6: 3 2 ) is lacking in both Gospels.

20

O n the other hand

they both emphasise Jesus's healing activity, while they omit the contents of M a r k 6: 3 4 b .

2 1

T h e reference to the five loaves and two fishes (Matt.

1 4 : 1 7 b , Luke 9: 1 3 ) comes from the disciples o f their own accord and is introduced

by

OVK exoêv/etoiv r\\iiv.

Both

Gospels

speak

of T O

JieQiaoeOov (-oav) at the end o f the account and both reports too place (boei in front o f the calculation o f those present at the occasion (Matt. 1 4 : 2 1 , Luke 9: 1 4 ) . T h e agreements over against Mark are such that the influence of a second source apart from Mark must be taken for granted.

22

is very likely that certain features which occur only in one o f the

two

accounts derive also from this same source.

23

It

This result is all the more

important as the influx o f a second source is already noticeable in the first 24

half of Matthew's account of the beheading o f the Baptist, a narration the end o f which too is completely at variance with M a r k

25

and which

-

different again from Mark - runs directly into the beginning o f the story o f the Feeding o f the Multitude. It is reasonable to take these features as deriving from one entity, which 18

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

23

2 4

2 5

T h e evangelist himself a d d e d a g e o g r a p h i c a l location w h i c h is s o m e w h a t at v a r i a n c e with the v e r b . M a t t h e w presents the plural formulations, while L u k e gives the singular twice, p r o b a b l y for stylistic reasons. C p . J. S c h m i d , Matthaus und Lukas (Freiburg, 1930), p . 117 - *OxA.O£ is a Q w o r d , as appears from L u k e 3: 7; 7:24; 9:1 if, 16. In M a t t h e w 14:13 a c c o r d i n g to the reading o f T s y , w h i c h is to b e preferred here. sc

Is this a p o s t - M a r k a n addition? Similarly H . H e l m b o l d , Vorsynoptische Evangelien (Stuttgart, 1953), p p . 33ff.

drto&eldfievog (Luke 9:11), PaoiAeia as the object o f teaching ( n ) , the s u b s e q u e n t description o f the location as e o n u o g tdjiog (12; is verse 10b n o t any longer in its original state?), the a b s e n c e o f the 200 denarii, the c h a n g e from 6x^.05 totaxdg (13), the addition o f avxovg to e ^ d y i i o e v (16), the n u m b e r o f those present in verse 14 already - these details have to b e taken into consideration. It is a passage w h e r e the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between M a r k a n d M a t t h e w is less m a r k e d than in m o s t p e r i c o p e s (see G . Styler in C . F. D . M o u l e , The Birth of the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1962), p . 229; W . B u s s m a n n , Synoptische Studien i ( H a l l e , 1925), 81 f). T h i s is especially the case in verses 3 to 5 and verse 12, whereas the intervening verses s h o w a M a r k a n influence (especially verse 9 A.UJiT)0Eig; c p . M a r k 6:26). It is reasonable to s u p p o s e that the M a t t h a e a n a c c o u n t is a c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f a special s o u r c e with the M a r k a n description. T h e M a r k a n report itself poses a p r o b l e m . Its style d o e s not agree with that o f the first half o f the G o s p e l (see L . W o h l e b , ' B e o b a c h t u n g e n z u m Erzahlungsstil des M a r k u s e v a n g e l i u m s ' , (1928), 192; c p . M . Z e r w i c k , Untersuchungen zum Markusstil ( R o m e , 1937), p . 22). T h e p e r i c o p e b e l o n g s to the redactional level o f the G o s p e l . W e l l h a u s e n ' s criticism o f M a t t . 14: 12, that he a c c o m m o d a t e d M a r k to his o w n design and turned the s e q u e n c e o f p e r i c o p e s into c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r (Das Evangelium Matthaei (Berlin, 1904), p . 75; similarly Fr. Spitta, Die synoptische Grundschrift ( L e i p z i g , 1912), p . 217), w o u l d have to be subscribed to, were it not that M a t t h e w already p r o d u c e s different information in 14:3ff.

The Feeding o f the Multitude

215

was - with difficulty - pressed into the Markan framework. W h a t is characteristic o f this sequence is the direct link between the two stories: the disciples o f J o h n recount the execution o f their master to Jesus and it is in consequence of this that Jesus avexcbgrjaev. T h e report can only mean that by taking this action the disciples recognise Jesus as the successor o f John, that they adopt him as their own master. Jesus's reaction is characterised as well: d v a x c o Q T j o i g is a term that describes the refuge one takes from fiscal or some other form o f oppression. It thereby establishes a bridge between H e r o d ' s punitive measure against John and the course o f action taken by Jesus, a decision which may be seen as comprehensible on the assumption that the action taken by Herod is not necessarily limited to John but may be extended to other persons as well. It is in keeping with this that Antipas's action against the Baptist is described as being undertaken after deliberation (Matt. 1 4 : 5 ) and not as the unfortunate result o f a weak moment. It is the kind o f action that is likely to lead to consequential measures. T h e fact that the crowds are not excluded from knowledge o f Jesus's abode fits in with this scheme: it is important that Jesus is secure from Antipas, whereas the masses are not, as is the case in Mark, taken as something to keep aloof from. 26

27

T h e Johannine account agrees more closely with the synoptic parallel than any other pericope o f the G o s p e l . Apart from introducing a few subsidiary motifs which result in a disproportionate presentation, it contains three distinct features over against the synoptic reports: (a) the OQ05; (b) the mention o f the impending Passover; (c) the sentiments of the people and Jesus's o w n reaction thereto, which is spelled out in verses I4f. The motif o f the mountain is o f central importance in Ezek. 3 4 (verses 6, I3f, 2 6 ) and inserted here - although at variance with verses i 6 f f - in order to establish a link with that locus classicus of Jewish eschatology. It is in the 28

29

2 6

2 7

2 8

2 9

30

C p . E . B i c k e r m a n n , 'Utilitas C r u r i s ' , RHR 112 (1935), 2\\{. J o h n 21: iffis to b e seen as b a s e d o n the story o f the Feeding; it is a s i d e - p r o d u c t o f the tradition (J. W e l l h a u s e n , Das Evangelium Johannis (Berlin, 1908), p . 97). C p . h o w e v e r R . T . Fortna, The Gospel of Signs ( C a m b r i d g e , 1970), p p . 87fT. T h e d i a l o g u e with the disciples (verses 5bff) brings o u t s o m e t h i n g that is typically J o h a n n i n e : the sovereignty o f j e s u s in every situation ( c p . 11:42). T h e m e a n s b y w h i c h this is highlighted, the test o f the disciples, is a m o t i f that m a y h a v e been d e v e l o p e d o u t o f the idea alluded to in M a r k 6:37. T h e Jiaid&Qiov that possesses the five loaves a n d t w o fishes is i n t r o d u c e d b e c a u s e o f the sacrificial overtones: o n l y a child c a n serve such bread as is fit to b e used for bread o f life. T h e t w o h u n d r e d denarii, k n o w n from M a r k , are said to b e inadequate, a feature that is inserted in o r d e r to heighten the miracle. T h e gathering together o f the multitude takes place at the c o m m a n d o f j e s u s and already symbolises the gathering in o f the nations. The

names

o f t w o disciples,

the

Jtai&dfJiov

and

the

eucharistic

phrases

etJXaQioxrjoag a n d tva xxX. 3 0

' D e r reale H i n t e r g r u n d d e r G e s c h i c h t e ging v e r l o r e n ' ( S . M e n d n e r , ' Z u m P r o b l e m " J o h a n n e s und d i e S y n o p t i k e r " ' , NTSt 4 (1957/58), 287).

2l6

E. BAMMEL

same chapter that the Davidic aQxoav is announced: xai eoxai afixdrv JTOl|J,r|V (231). This salvation came to be expected at Passover in Late Judaism. Verse 4 is to be viewed in this context. Far from being a tiresome chronological notice introduced by the redactor, it is an essential indication, the function o f which is to heighten the tension. It serves the same purpose as the mention o f the miracles wrought by Jesus that we find in Q , but the Johannine detail is an even more telling pivot, its meaning is an even more precise indication of what is expected to happen. T h e most important feature is verses I 4 f . T h e remark is so extraordinary that it is considered by most scholars out o f keeping with the preceding story. Different explanations are given. T h e verses are seen either as a redactional addition or as a text that had originally followed verse 2 a or interestingly - as the only remaining fragment of a different story which had been replaced by the multiplication of the loaves. T h e answer is, however, not as easy as that. Verse 1 5 a (Tnoofig oiiv yvoug yak.) bears unmistakably the marks o f Johannine theology; by its interpretation it gives a new direction to the context and thereby suggests that the rest o f the verse belongs to an earlier level. Verse 1 5 c avexd)QT)oev or rather yevyzi™ JidXiv is at variance with the beginning o f the chapter, where nothing had been said about a movement o f this kind by Jesus. O n the other hand it contains an admission that is hardly reconcilable with the bold claim the redactor made in verse 6, and thereby evinces an earlier layer of the tradition. So it is an indication o f an introductory notice not entirely consistent with the one which n o w opens the chapter. T h e evidence shows that verses I 4 f belong in part at least to a pre-redactional level o f the pericope. 31

32

33

34

3 5

36

37

This view could be reconciled with the theory according to which the Feeding story is an addition on the redactional level. Is it, however, a foregone conclusion that verses 1 4 f are unrelated to the story? Verse 1 4 starts with a reference to one particular a r ] u x i o v which is at variance with the plurality o f signs mentioned at the beginning. T h e pointing out o f a 39

3 1

3 2

3 3

3 4

3 5

3 6

37 38

3 9

C p . A . S t r o b e l , Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzbgerungsproblem ( L e i d e n , 1961). W e l l h a u s e n , Johannes, p . 28; W . W i l k e n s , Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangeliums ( Z u r i c h , 1958), p . 29. It m a y b e for this reason that the headings are o m i t t e d ( o r rather shifted to the b a c k g r o u n d ) . A n o t h e r reason is possible as well: the p r o p h e t (verse 14) is e x p e c t e d to perform o n e qualifying miracle. R . B u l t m a n n , Das Evangelium des Johannes ( G o t t i n g e n , 1941), p p . I57f ( E T p . 213!). M e n d n e r , NTSt 4 (1957/58), 296. S c h w a r t z , N G G G iv (1908), 501.

C p . 2: 25; 6:6; 11:42; 13: 11. K * lat sy - 'AvexcbQTjoev m a y be c

d u e to s y n o p t i c influence. T h e a c c e p t a n c e o f the reading m a y been facilitated b y the parallel, chapter 11:54. T h e theory o f J. Draseke that J o h n 6: 1-29 is a later interpolation ( ' D a s J o h a n n e s evangelium bei Celsus', NKZg (1898), 139ft) did not meet with applause in his time.


217

difference between a miraculous border region o f the activity o f j e s u s and 40

the cmfxeiov that calls for action - it is typical for the Z s o u r c e - demands the description o f a special sign in the preceding verses. Does the Feeding story meet this demand? It is most certainly not an ordinary miracle in the eyes o f the person w h o wrote down the account of John 6. It is a miracle that is wrought in the presence o f the multitude and the divine origin o f which was thereby guaranteed as had been the case in the time o f M o s e s .

41

The

efficacy o f the miracle is vouchsafed by the existence o f the 'remainder'. It can indeed be called a miracle in the highest sense, much more so than the cures mentioned in verse 2 . It is hardly possible to think o f another story that might have fulfilled this demand more effectively.

42

T h e appreciation o f the crowds is defined as an evaluation o f Jesus's personal status and as a declaration o f the role they wished him to play for them. T h e former - whether 6 e p x ^ E V O g xxX. belongs to the source or n o t is an allusion to Deut. 1 8 : 1 5 ; the latter is based on the interpretation o f N u m . 2 7 : 1 7 , which is found in Ezek. 3 4 .

4 3

It agrees with the emphasis on

the mountain and the Passover period and points to an understanding o f the scene by the people in the light o f the desert imagery, which resulted in 44

the attempt to nominate Jesus as messianic king. This triangle of motifs is all the more important as it is not underlined by the redactor: he is much more interested in the subsidiary motifs o f the narrative. W e encounter a picture o f the Feeding according to which the event was such that the imagery o f Israel in the desert impressed itself on those present, and did so to such a degree that people felt bound to see in Jesus the antitype o f those events. The

description

o f Jesus's

reaction

to this endeavour

has

been

characterised as due to revisionary activities, as an attempt to bring out the concept o f the pacific Christ 'at this p l a c e ' .

45

Oetiyet is, however, hardly

congruent with the portrait o f Christ which is presented by the evangelist: when referring to Jesus's withdrawals he uses terms like e^fjXSev with or without ex xfjg

XEiQOC,

sovereignty o f Jesus. 40

avx(bv

(8:59;

1 0 : 3 9 ) , indicating thereby

the

46

4 1

Miracles, e d . b y C . F . D . M o u l e ( L o n d o n , 1965), p p . i95ff. Miracles, p . 192. M e n d n e r ' s statement: ' o n e c a n n o t see h o w such an action a l o n e c o u l d have resulted in the p r o c l a m a t i o n as king' (NTSt 4 (1957-8), 296) is m o r e rash than c o n s i d e r e d . Motifs deriving from this tradition can b e found in a n u m b e r o f places in the s y n o p t i c G o s p e l s apart from the feeding stories, e.g. in M a t t . 8:34; 10:6; 18: 12; M a r k 14: 27. x a i &va6eixvx)vai, the reading o f K * ( q ) , r e c o m m e n d s itself. It is m o r e Semitic in character than the reading starting with i'va and it agrees with the role the multitude is e x p e c t e d to play in the eschatological events. S. G . F. B r a n d o n , Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p . 353. It m i g h t b e possible to argue that this m o t i f belongs to a pre-Johannine Urform o f the story.

4 2

4 3

4 4

4 5

4 6

2l8

E. BAMMEL

T h e story o f the Feeding has a firm place in the apocryphal

47

and even

48

in the J e w i s h tradition. T h e occasion for the reference to it is normally a summary o f the life o f j e s u s . It is certainly seen as one o f the distinctive features, although less frequently mentioned than the walking on the water. Both features are, however, introduced as elaborations o f the scheme o f Matthew 1 1 . It may be due to this that in the Syriac Acts ofJohn we have a combination where the healings o f Matthew 14/Luke 9 are interpreted as performed vis-a-vis sick, lepers, lame and blind, and this is followed immediately by the orders given by Jesus for the Feeding. T h e miracle is mentioned in O r . Sib. 1.356ft as the climax ofjesus's messianic deeds, and the form in which it is enacted is not based on the Gospel reports. It is the cardinal event, belief in which is decisive for salvation and condemnation in the great scene o f Sur. 5 o f the K o r a n . T h e Feeding is described as the banquet table sent down from heaven, as a miracle that proves that Allah is the best guardian and confounds those unwilling to believe. This again is a form which is not directly dependent on the Gospel reports. 49

50

0

51

52

53

54

A very particular view is taken in the encomium in praise o f the Baptist, which is attributed to John Chrysostom. This text, which is probably o f Judaeo-Christian origin, describes the Feeding as a love-feast, arranged by Jesus, for his 'friend and kinsman' J o h n . 55

56

57

4 7

T h e representation o f the scene in Christian art, especially in the paintings o f the c a t a c o m b s , w h e r e it figures p r o m i n e n t l y ( c p . A . G r a b a r , Christian Iconography ( P r i n c e t o n , 1968), pi. 6; J. Stevenson, The Catacombs ( L o n d o n , 1978), p . 93) d e m a n d s an investigation o f its o w n .

4 8

E.g. the standard form o f the T o l e d o t h (J. C . W a g e n s e i l , Tela Ignea Satanae (Altorf, 1683), d i v . 11 v. 57). T h e H u l d r e i c h version o f the T o l e d o t h contains a scene with J e s u s and t w o o f his disciples in the desert (Sepher Toledoth Jeschua ha-Notzri (1705), p . 54). It is b a s e d , directly o r indirectly, o n the J o h a n n i n e report, w h e r e t w o disciples, Philip and A n d r e w , are singled out. O r i g e n , Contra Celsum i. 68, a passage cited from the p a m p h l e t o f the ' I o v & o u o g , is the oldest piece o f evidence for a J e w i s h tradition o n the Feeding.

4 9

E.g. Act. Thorn. 47; Acta Pauli 79 ( H e n n e c k e E T ii. 382). Differently in Epist. A p o s t . 5, w h e r e a s u m m a r y o f the miracles (especially the walking on the water) is followed b y a m o r e detailed a c c o u n t on the Feeding and its explanation as a s y m b o l o f the five elements o f Christian belief.

5 0

C p . R . H . C o n n o l l y , ' T h e O r i g i n a l L a n g u a g e o f the Syriac A c t s o f J o h n ' , JThSt 8

5 1

T h e r e f o r e it follows after the walking o n the water. Similarly v i . 15f. C p . M . M o n t e i r o , As David and the Sybils Say ( E d i n b u r g h , 1905), p . 56. T w o points where it is different: o n l y o n e fish is served (the s a m e in v m . 275) and the r e m a i n d e r is d e s c r i b e d as destined etc; JiagSevov dyvrrv. 5 . 1 1 2 - 1 5 - For interpretation c p . E. Stauffer, 'Antike Jesustradition', ZNW 4b

(1907), 572.

5 2

5 3

t

n

e

(1955), 2off. 5 4

5 5

I s l a m i c tradition has it that 1,300 persons were healed o n the o c c a s i o n ( E . M . W h e r r y , A comprehensive Commentary on the Quran ( L o n d o n , 1896), ad Sure 5.112-14). E d . W . D . T i l l , Mitteilungen d. Dt. Arch. Inst. Abteilung Kairo 16, 2 (1958), 322!!

*>Cp. NTSt 18 (1971-2), i27f. 5 7

Till, Mitteilungen, p . 323.

The

Feeding o f the Multitude

219

II While clearly pointing to the same event and coinciding in quite a number of details, the four branches o f the tradition diverge in other respects. So it appears; but there are several details where a closer connection seems to exist. Mark mentions that the multitude sat d o w n ev x^WQCp XOQTO). T h e remark agrees with the Passover reference in John 6:4 and militates against the theory

58

that the first part o f the verse is not a constitutive part o f the

Johannine account. J o h n points to the ooog as the place of Jesus's activity. T h e word does not occur in the direct synoptic parallels. If its meaning is area,

59

= open, hilly

it is the same as expressed by the Markan EQrifioc; TOJiog.

60

"Oqoc;

itself is, however, prominent in Matt. 1 5 : 29, where it seems to be the kernel and starting point o f the First Evangelist's elaboration on the narration o f the Feeding o f the Four Thousand. N o indication o f a direct dependence either way is noticeable. Matthew and Luke mention the miracles wrought by Jesus, a reference which seems to derive from Q . This feature is outstanding within Q . While narrating the one inaugural miracle o f j e s u s (Luke 7: 1 fF) and referring to the multitude o f 6wd(i£ig performed by him (Luke 10: 1 3 , 2 3 ; 7: 2 1 , if the verse derives from Q ) , Q refrains from outlining Jesus's healing activity. The exception must have been conditioned by the form o f the tradition as it became known to the compiler o f Q . Matthew has the feature in his own explanation in 1 5 : 3 0 . J o h n is not without it, but it is presented in the account o f what immediately preceded the event - very similarly to Matt. 1 5 : 2 9 ^ This is probably a more developed, a standardised

61

form o f the

same feature. Mark, however, has the puzzling remark on the sheep without a shepherd (6: 3 4 ) . Surely, it was the opinion o f the evangelist that Jesus did not leave the multitude in this state - eojiXayxvioBT) must have been taken by him as a sufficient indication o f what in his view Jesus was about to d o . Q/John on the one side and Mark on the other side seem to reproduce parts o f what had originally been a whole. 58 w. W i l k e n s , Entstehungsgeschichte, p p . 2 5 ! ! T h e festival references o f the Fourth G o s p e l normally o c c u r in c o n n e c t i o n with J e r u s a l e m . T h i s is not the case here. It is, h o w e v e r , likely that the second part (r\ EOQTT) xd)V ' I o v d a i o j v ) c a m e in through the redactor. E. K l o s t e r m a n n , Das Matthausevangelium ( T u b i n g e n , 1 9 2 7 ) , p . 135; A . M e r x , Markus und Lukas (Berlin, 1905), p . 62. T h e parallels M a t t . 18: 12 and L u k e 1 5 : 4 s h o w clearly that OQog, which is used in the former, and £Qr)u,og, w h i c h is used in the latter, have the same meaning. fci V e r y suggestive is B. H . Strceter's explanation (The Four Gospels ( L o n d o n , 1924), pp. 4131). 5 9

w ,

220

E. BAMMEL

T h e OQog-motif is reminiscent not only o f the Sinai tradition but also o f i Kings 2 2 : 1 7

6 2

and above all o f Ezek.34 where the word occurs no less

than five times. 'Sheep without shepherd' figure in both these passages. While the first (1 Kings 2 2 : 1 7 ) is a prophecy o f doom, the second (Ezek. 34: 5, 8, 1 2 ) is a prophecy o f divine favour. It is in keeping with this that miracles are alluded to in Ezek. 34. AijAog will be absent (verse 2 9 ) - the central event o f the New Testament story could be taken as foreshadowed by

this.

Besides, G o d

is

seen

as

the

one who will sustain

the

owT£TQi|4ievov (verse 16) and the exXeiJtov (verse 16; c p . 2 1 ) and will be on the side o f the d o 0 E v r | g (verse 2 0 ) . T h e miracles could be seen as a dramatic enacting o f this promise. This is a sufficient indication o f the influence of the concept o f Ezek. 34 on the presentation o f the Feeding story in different branches o f its tradition. W h a t appeared to be different at first sight turns out to be interrelated if viewed in the light o f Ezek. 34. This underlying unity is even more important than the convergence o f individual features in the reports. T h e 'Ezekiel 34 tradition' must have developed in different ways -

probably inadvertently. It was taken as self-evident

that elements o f the tradition mentioned here and there were not isolated fragments but parts o f a continuous whole, the knowledge o f which could be taken for granted. These points o f allusion came to be handed d o w n in tradition as individual items at a time when their context was not any longer known. W h a t is absent from Ezek. 34 is the reference to Passover. This element, which is already closely linked with the Sinai tradition, had become an integral part o f late Jewish eschatology: 'the second will be like the first' and therefore take place at the same time.

63

It was the Sinai tradition that was

enriched by claims o f miraculous events: a full restoration o f health is supposed to have happened while Israel was standing round the mount o f Sinai

64

- later tradition extended these miraculous features to the whole

desert p e r i o d .

65

T h e desert tradition, which had exercised its influence

already on Ezek. 34, in a later form enriched the response to this chapter which is found in the narrative o f the Feeding. T h o s e features which reflect theological ornamentation are less likely to represent original tradition. This may be the case for the remarks on the healing activity o f j e s u s , 6 2

6 3

6 4

6 5

6 6

66

while 6 9 0 5 should be taken as a stylisation o f

C p . W . A . M e e k s , The Prophet-King ( L e i d e n , 1967), p . 97.

A . Strobel, Z M 4 9 (1958), p p . 1 6 4 ^ 1 8 3 ^ L e v . r. ad 15: 2 ( S i m o n b . J o c h a i ) ; M e k . E x . 20: 18 ( E l i e z e r b . H y r k a n o s ) ; Pes. 106b (Jehuda b . S i m o n ; c p . W . Bacher, Die Agada d. pal. Amor'der I I I (Strassburg, 1899), p p . 207Q; N u m b . r. c h . 7 (Joshua b . L e v i ) ; S h a b b . 88b (Joshua b . Levi; o n l y an allusion o n the motif). L e v . r. ad 15:2 (18.3) (Eliezer the G a l i l a e a n ) . A l t h o u g h the fact that Q , apart from the standard inaugural miracle e x p e c t e d from

T h e Feeding o f the Multitude eQTjîog TOJiog. It is different with

x^WQO^

221

TO

xoQ S- T h e mention takes place

without theological elaboration and is therefore likely to be a Restuberlieferung which happened to survive and which supports the Passover remark in J o h n 6 : 4 . T h e puzzling notice on the seating order x a x a e x a x o v xxX. in the same verse o f Mark receives momentum in this context. T h e figure fifty is constitutive, all the more so as it is the only one mentioned in Luke (or 6 7

Q ? ) . While the relation

1—»10—M O O - » 1000 seems to be normal, and

indeed the R o m a n army is based on this progression,

68

it is different in

Jewish tradition. This is clear from the regulations set out in Exod. 1 8 : 2 5 , Deut. 1 : 1 5 and 1 Sam. 8: 12 ( c p . Isa 3 : 3 ) . It is true for the order o f the Q u m r a n community as w e l l found in PsPhilo.

70

69

and the idealised picture o f the past as it is

It occurs again in Chag. 1 4 a and, interestingly, in 1

Clem. 3 7 : 3 . Fifty is the constitutive figure which recurs together with 71

various multiples and, as an appendix, the smaller figure ten. That means, this detail

emphasises

the

'true' Jewish

character

underlines the exodus motif in its presentation. On

o f the event

and

72

the other side, the eucharistic overtones were brought out by the

early church in its interpretation. This happened both in the synoptic in the J o h a n n i n e

74

73

and

tradition. It is all the more important to notice that the

above-mentioned features, although capable o f a eucharistic interpreta tion, were not used in this way. A kernel o f the tradition is discernible, in which an event is described as having taken place in the desert, in the m a n o f G o d ( L u k e 7: iff), refers to Jesus's &uv&[A£ic; only in general terms ( L u k e 7: 22 - if the remark derives from Q ; 10: 13), while it refrains from sketching Jesus's w o r k i n g o f miracles, should m a k e o n e cautious in assuming this. I f L u k e d i d not m a k e u p JievTTJxovia o u t o f antiquarian interest. Even the a r m y o f insurrectionaries led b y J o s e p h u s was formed in this w a y , as QWfiaixcoxeQog OTQaxia (BJ 2 §578). T h e o r d e r o f the T a r t a r a r m y is the s a m e ( H . D o r r i e , Drei Texte zur Geschichte der Ungarn und Mongolen, N A G (1956), p . 176). 1 Q S 4: 2; 6: 1 1 . C p . E n o c h 69: 3 (leader o f 100, 50 and 10).

6 7

6 8

6 9

70

27:3-5. 15-

71

sin

7 2

7 3

T h e reading o f s y is |*B?»Tn = 150. T h e figure o c c u r s in Slavon. J o s e p h u s in the a c c o u n t o f the disciples o f j e s u s (ii. 9.3). Fifty is the standard figure in the Iranian e d u c a t i o n a l societies ( G . W i d e n g r e n , Feudalismus im alten Iran ( K o l n , 1969), p p . 85, 92); 150 o c c u r s as well ( W i d e n g r e n , Feudalismus, p p . 89, 99). F o r the latest attempts to give a m e a n i n g to the description see the theories o f H . W . M o n t e f i o r e ( ' R e v o l t in the Desert?', NTSt 8 (1961/62), p . 137) and D . Derrett ( ' L e e k - b e d e s a n d m e t h o d o l o g y ' , BZn.s.19 (1975), i o i f i ) . M e r x ' s o p i n i o n (Markus und Lukas, p . 60) that the phrase points to 50 c o m p a n i e s o f 100 a n d indicates the overall figure does not take into a c c o u n t M a r k 6:44 w h i c h w o u l d b e unnecessary if he were right. G . H . B o o b y e r , ' T h e Eucharistic Interpretation o f the L o a v e s in St. M a r k ' s Gospe\\JThSt n.s.3 (1952), i6iff; B . v. Iersel, ' D i e w u n d e r b a r e Speisung u n d das A b e n d m a h l in der synoptischen T r a d i t i o n ' , NovTest 7 (1964/65), 1670°; G . Schille, ' Z u r Frage urchristlicher K u l t a t i o l o g i e ' , Jahrbuch fir Liturgik und Hymnologie 10

(1965). 35*f 7

4

C H . D o d d , Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel ( C a m b r i d g e , 1963), p p . i88ff.

222

E. BAMMEL

springtime, an occasion for which the crowds gathered together and on which they felt fed miraculously. Such an event was o f necessity understood messianically. T h e gathering of crowds in the desert as a starting point for messianic ventures is 75

well-known from contemporary history. That is what is described in J o h n 6: i 6 f . There is nothing in this remark that appears unlikely from a general point o f view. This outcome is, however, mentioned only in this Gospel. It is an integral part of the report,

76

while, on the other hand, the motif expressed

in these verses is not in the forefront o f the evangelist's presentation. T h e reaction o f the people is, on the whole, in this Gospel not a feature that sets events in motion. It is either a reaction o f belief or o f unbelief without, however, causing Jesus to let himself be influenced by this in words or actions. T h e occasions where other people act at the forefront o f the stage are very rare, particular source.

78

77

and these indications appear to belong to one

T h e messianic-political perspective is almost c o m

pletely absent from the Gospel. It only occurs in the form o f an allusion in chapter 1 0 and in a more general way in 18: 33ff. T h e terminology is not typically Johannine either.

79

80

T h e substance o f the verses is not redactional but rather pre-Johannine. It has no direct parallel in the synoptic accounts, although the sequel, Jesus's withdrawal over the lake, is expressed equally clearly in both Mark 6 : 4 5 and 8: i o ( c p . Matt. 1 6 : 5 ) , while the traces o f the Q report disappear at this point. There are, however, several traces which point to something more specific. T h e enigmatic statement in Mark 8: 1 5 belongs to a pericope which is in part an appendix

81

to and development o f the Feeding story.

While the surrounding verses deal with the possibility o f a continuation o f 82

the miraculous Feeding, this verse directs itself against an understanding of the event which must have been alluring for the disciples. If it is not to the 7 5

7 6

7 7

C p . p . 230. T h e attempt to link it solely with verses 1 to 3 and to take the narrative o f the F e e d i n g as a later ingredient is a desperate o n e . C p . C . H . D o d d , ' T h e P r o p h e c y o f C a i a p h a s ' , Neotestamentica et Patristica, Festschrift C u l l m a n n ( L e i d e n , 1962), p p . 1340°. C p . p . 232. BaoiXeiJg is used in a different w a y in 1:49. r i v c o o x e i v is used with a personal o b j e c t (it is Jesus apart from 2:24) apart from here. E Q X ° 0 a i n o r m a l l y has a heightened m e a n i n g a n d is not used elsewhere in an everyday c o n t e x t . ' A v a x c o Q e i v and a v a d e i x v v v a i are hapax legomena in the Fourth G o s p e l . T h e o n l y J o h a n n i n e phrase is found at the e n d o f verse 14: 6 e g / O M ^ ? xxX., c o n s p i c u o u s l y similar to 4:42 (and 1: 29). T h e terminological relationship to 10: 12 is surprisingly close ( E Q X ° t i > d Q J t d t e i v , ysvyeiv). It seems that the passage, w h i c h is s e c o n d a r y in the context ( c p . W e l l h a u s e n , Johannes, p . 49), is based o n 6: i4f. 7 8

7 9

v

e

0

e

8 0

8 1

8 2

ai

T h u s B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p p . 157f. ( E T O x f o r d 1971, p . 213). J. W e l l h a u s e n , Das Evangelium Marci 2nd edn. (Berlin, 1909), p . 61. Similar to J o h n 6: 26: there it is d e s c r i b e d as a reaction o f the p e o p l e , here o f the disciples.

The

Feeding o f the Multitude

223

expectation o f further acts o f a similar kind that the verse refers, it must be to a reaction which is presented from a negative point o f view in the fragment o f a parallel

83

tradition in 8: 1 1 : while the Pharisees are not (yet)

convinced by the miracle and demand the sign from heaven as convincing proof, the disciples are. What is in c o m m o n between the reference to the Pharisees and the one to the disciples is the question o f messiahship that had arisen in consequence o f the multiplication o f the loaves. Additional evidence had been demanded by one side, whereas the other must have hailed the event enthusiastically. T h e answer returned by Jesus describes the whole attitude as t,V[ir\,

as something that is normally viewed as

84

negative by Jewish eyes, as a speculation that is typical for the Pharisees 85

and H e r o d . That means, Jesus turns against messianism according to this 86

tradition as w e l l . J o h n 6: I 4 f concentrates this understanding ofjesus on the crowds, whereas Mark 8:

I4ff

thinks o f the disciples. It is in keeping

with and in consequence o f this that Mark brings to the fore the problem o f messiahship in what is virtually the next pericope, in 8: 2 7 - 3 3 . T h e passage, in its present form, is his own creation; but the significant sequence o f themes must be viewed as rooted in tradition. Besides, the pericope hints at a detail which is lacking in the other strands. T h e Pharisees e ^ f i ^ 0 O V . This is not a redactional feature 'noch viel ungeschickter'

87

than so many others, but the remainder o f a tradition

according to which the Pharisees went out in order to inspect the situation. It is a feature parallel to the one mentioned in 3: 2 2 , 7: 1 and John 1 : 1 9 , 2 4 . which is given a redirection by Mark by the insertion o f JteiQ&ÔVTeg, a label typical for his treatment o f the Pharisees.

88

This tradition is independent of the Johannine report, but converges with it on a different plane: the question o f questions, the one as to the messianic status o f Jesus, is supposed to have been raised in consequence o f the Feeding; not only by the crowds but by the disciples and by critical observers as well. W h a t follows the Feeding in Mark is as enigmatic as the introduction. 89

Jesus brings the scene to an end by forcing ( T f i v a y x a o e v ) the disciples to

8 3

C p . the introductions in verses 10 and 13. T h e disciples are still o n the w a y (only M a t t h e w alters this).

8 4

B. T . D . Smith, The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels ( C a m b r i d g e , 1937), p . 122. T h e messianic interests o f the Pharisees are well-known. Inclinations to messianic claims in the house o f H e r o d are equally d e m o n s t r a b l e ( c p . R . Eisler, Tr|O(y0g

8 5

(taoileijg 1 (Heidelberg, 1930),348, nn. 3-7). 8 6

8 7

8 9

D o e s L u k e 9:11 (eXdXei Tixk.) reflect something similar? Is the link with the healings an unfortunate L u k a n arrangement? T h e phrase itself (eXdXei JIEQI) is rather p r e - L u k a n than L u k a n . W e l l h a u s e n , Evangelium Marci, p . 60. C p . 10:2; 12: 15. T h e G e o r g i a n Martyrdom of Eustathius of Mzketha ( D . M . L a n g , Lives and Legends of the 8 8

E

224

- BAMMEL

embark in a boat and by despatching (djiOTa^d(ievog) the crowds. T h e verb used for the dismissal of the crowds would have been more appropriate for the commissioning o f the disciples, whereas dvayxdêiv is a term most unusual for Jesus's dealings with the Twelve. Besides, two reasons are given for the sending away o f the disciples, one o f which is identical with what is said in Mark 8 : 9 . T h e difficulties are such that the verses are considered as a mixture of tradition and redaction. It is hardly possible to take 6: 4 6 b (djtfjXBev xxX,.) as the starting-point which called for the additions. O n the contrary, the motif of the prayer on a hill is well-known; the short remark is possibly patchwork, whereas the two unusual verbs are to be seen as the poles o f the old tradition. T h e present context in which they function is as pale as it is unsatisfactory. T h e 'forcing' is only justified if it was preceded by something else that either culminated in the forcing or was answered by this action. As djioxa^d(jievog auxoig probably referred to the disciples in the substratum o f the verses, it is likely that dvayxdÊiv described the action that was answered by Jesus by the dispatching o f the disciples. So it must have been an action o f the masses, by which they (plural) forced the disciples to fall in with their intentions. Something must have preceded verse 4 5 and something else was omitted in verse 4 5 itself. 90

91

92

93

Ill T h e problem the interpreter is faced with at the end o f the story appears, although with different emphasis, at the beginning as well: while the Johannine report seemed to say more at the end it remains silent at the beginning. T h e matter is, however, different, if the view is accepted that chapter 6 follows chapter 4

9 0

9 1

92

9 4

and if allowance is made for the possibility that even

Georgian Saints ( L o n d o n , 1956), p . 107) obliterates the difference: Jesus a n d his disciples walk together o n the lake. H a r n a c k held that the report is based o n s o m e form o f the Diatessaron. R . B u l t m a n n , Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition 3rd e d n . (Gottingen, 1955), p . 231 ( E T ( O x f o r d , 1972), p . 216); c p . W . B u s s m a n n , SynoptischeStudien iii (Halle, 1931), p . 83. T h i s seems to be the line taken b y E . L o h m e y e r , Das Evangelium des Markus ( G o t t i n g e n , 1937), p p . 13if. r i ( ) 0 & Y £ i v is a variation o f JiQOEQX£°0 (verse 31), djioXtieiv coincides with c h a p t e r 8:9. P. W e n d l i n g , Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliums ( T u b i n g e n , 1908), p . 83 lists a n u m b e r o f remarks o f interpreters a n d persuades himself to assert: 'rrv&Yxaoev ist . . . aus d e r Psyche . . . des R e d a k t o r s zu verstehen'. J . W e l l h a u s e n , Erzveiterungen und Anderungen im Vierten Evangelium (Berlin, 1907), p p . 150°. C p . J. J e r e m i a s , DLZ 64 (1943), c o l . 416 (review o f B u l t m a n n , Johannesevangelium).

9 3

9 4

ai


225

verses 5 to 4 2 o f chapter 4 were moved from a place later in the Gospel by the redactor. T h e passages 4: iff, 431T are full o f historical detail. They describe Jesus's removal because o f the Pharisees and point to his contact with a paoiXixog. It is implied that this happened after the arrest o f the Baptist. T h e statement in its general outline is similar to that of Mark and Q : a striking change o f the whereabouts ofjesus caused by influences from outside. T h e persons mentioned in the different sources are very similar: the Pharisees and the PaoiXixog in the passage o f the Fourth Gospel, Herod and, as it seems, the Pharisees in the synoptic accounts. T h e designation o f the actual force that was instrumental in making Jesus move is different in the two strands o f tradition. T h e stray notice o f Luke 1 3 : 31 points to a laudable attitude on the side of xiveg OaQioaioi. It had been found puzzling that the officer with Roman rank o f the Q account appears as a PaoiXlxog in John. T h e riddle finds its natural explanation if the source John made use o f intended to point to a contrast between the PaoiXixog w h o put his hope in Jesus and the paoiXeiig himself who had done the opposite. T h e closeness o f the story, which already in Q had been given a most crucial although different significance, to the notice o f the Baptist's 'decrease' makes this likely, quite apart from the fact that the inclination to draw attention to positive exceptions to the rule in the segments o f society that surrounded Jesus is noticeable quite often in the Gospel literature. That means, the actual text of John contains a faint echo o f an earlier, more precise statement according to which the Feeding scene happened in consequence o f the death o f the Baptist. 95

96

97

98

IV T h e later the Gospel traditions are, the more they lose interest in the Baptist or concentrate their interest in special points o f a theological or hagiographic nature. T h e most valuable sources are found in Q and Z . " It emerges from these that the contact between Jesus and John continued beyond the one day o f the baptism o f the former in the presence o f the latter. Indeed, Jesus himself carried on with the rite administered by the 100

9 5

9 6

9 7

9 8

W e l l h a u s e n , Evangelium Johannis, p . 20. T h i s is b r o u g h t o u t b y part o f the Western text o f c h . 3: 36. T h e A r a b i c T a t i a n and the C o d e x Fuldensis, o n the other hand, p l a c e the remark o n the Baptist in the w o r d i n g o f L u k e 3: 20 after J o h n 4: 3. C p . p . 228. T h e description o f the Pharisees as emissaries o f H e r o d ( W . G r u n d m a n n , Lukasevangelium (Berlin, 1969), p . 288) is based o n a one-sided interpretation o f verse 32.

" C p . NTSt 18 (1971/72), i22ff. 1 0 0

S o the reading o f D o f L u k e 3: 7.

226

E. BAMMEL

Baptist:

101

he set up an order o f close followers, similar to that o f those w h o

surrounded J o h n and partly consisting of his former disciples, he gave them rules, in part coinciding with and in part differing from the rules of J o h n , and above all he proclaimed a message that could be summarised in the same words as are found in tradition as characterising John's preaching (cp. Matt. 3 : 2 with 4: 1 7 ) . T h e Baptist himself must have exercised a lasting influence on this neophyte of h i s .

102

After John's execution it came to

pass that people viewed Jesus in the light o f the figure o f the Baptist, and even considered him as the reincarnation of J o h n ;

103

indeed Jesus himself

more than once compared his own mission with that o f the Baptist. I f the community o f the Baptist wanted to continue, it had to look for a new representative. It must have been the obvious course for part o f John's followers at least to turn to Jesus, since he had established himself already and had succeeded in exercising an influence that rivalled Baptist.

105

104

that o f the

T h e indication given by Q is in tune with this: it only supports

what would otherwise have been deduced from circumstantial evidence. Josephus, in his sketch o f the Baptist, gives a reason for H e r o d Antipas's action against J o h n that differs at first sight from the one stigmatised in the New Testament. According to his report the excitement o f the masses and Herod's fear that something o f a revolutionary character

106

might arise

from this were responsible. Both reasons coincide if John's criticism o f the leading representative o f the Jewish nation was meant to be an initial stage in the cleansing o f the house o f Israel, an action that had to precede the final events.

107

T h e excitement o f the masses must have been eschatological j o y

in anticipation, such as is alluded to in the New Testament as w e l l .

108

It is

evident from this that Antipas, once he had taken action, became entangled in the movements stirred up and influenced by the Baptist

109

-

Mark

6: 1 4 - 1 6 gives pictorial expression to this. Close surveillance ofjesus and o f his circle must have been imperative; even more so, as Jesus had taken Galilee as the centre o f his ministry, while John, after having left Peraea (chased out by Antipas?), had stayed in Samaria and had entered Antipas's 1 0 1

l 0 2

J o h n 4: if. C p . L u k e 7: i8£T. M a r k 6: 16; c p . C . H . Kraeling, ' W a s Jesus a c c u s e d o f N e c r o m a n c y ? ' , JBL 59 (1940), i46ff; E. Stauffer, Jesus. Gestalt und Geschichte (Bern, 1957), p . 150. C p . M e r x , Johannes, p . 6 5 . J o h n 4: if. , 0 6 4 / I 8 § I I 8 : v e c b t e f j o v . . . yevtoQai. C p . Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 8.7.13: v e c b i E Q a J t Q & x x e i v - the accusation against A n t i p a s . C p . / / 7 M 5 1 (1958), i o i f f . J o h n 5: 35; c p . the ingenious transposition o f JIQ05 tt)Q(XV suggested b y E. S c h w a r t z (Aporien iv, 522). T h e information w e have o f Baptistic c o m m u n i t i e s c o m e s solely from the d i a s p o r a . T h i s s h o w s that the Baptistic m o v e m e n t , in so far as its m e m b e r s d i d not j o i n the Christian c h u r c h , had been s t a m p e d o u t successfully in Palestine.

1 0 3

1 0 4

1 0 5

1 0 7

1 0 8

1 0 9


227

territory only in a last provocative bid. A n d indeed, it was from this time that Jesus, to all appearances, avoided the country o f H e r o d . (Mark 6 : 4 5 ; 8: 2 2 ) ,

1 1 1

110

Bethsaida

the region o f Tyre ( 7 : 2 4 ) , the Decapolis

(7:31),

Caesarea Philippi (8: 2 7 ) , the region on the other side o f the Jordan ( 1 0 : 1) are mentioned as his abode, while only a speedy journey through Galilee is related (9: 306*). This change is indicative and points to Jesus having felt himself to be in a state of danger after the beheading of his baptiser.

112

Mark

6: 3 o f f notes this change, while Matt. 1 4 : 1 3 produces the reason as well since axouoag in the phrase axovoag . . . avex(i)Qr]OEV . . . eig £Qr][iov TOJIOV

not only gives the date but also the motive:

impending persecution of his sovereign.

114

113

he flees from

the

W h a t was meant to be an escape,

1 1 0

It was J. G . H e r d e r w h o was the first and for a l o n g time the o n l y scholar to have had a feeling for the crucial nature o f the execution o f the Baptist in Jesus's p u b l i c life. H e states in his Vom Erlbser der Menschen. Nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien ( R i g a , 1976): 'Fortan w a r fur J e s u m in Galilaa keine b l e i b e n d e Sicherheit mehr; H e r o d e s stellte ihm n a c h d e m L e b e n ' (Werke, ed. B . Suphan, xix (Berlin, 1880), 179). C p . J. W e l l h a u s e n , Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1911), p . 40. V a l u a b l e remarks are found in M . M a u r e n b r e c h e r ' s Jesus von Nazareth (Berlin, 1909), p p . 23of. M o s t important are M e r x ' s observations o n M a r k 6:55: ctJte&Qau.OV (sy) indicates a text different from the present o n e . T h e original text had referred to the disciples' flight, not to the healing scene (Markus, p p . 641). F. Spitta g o e s further and takes it that the c o m m a n d to silence followed closely the question o f H e r o d a b o u t the character o f Jesus in the s y n o p t i c Grundschrift; he draws the c o n c l u s i o n that the c o m m a n d was essentially a measure o f precaution vis-a-vis the inquiring action o f A n t i p a s (Grundschrift, p p . 214ft). Spitta is right in positing a historical situation for Jesus's reaction. T h e direct link with the H e r o d passage is, h o w e v e r , a questionable hypothesis, while the Feeding p r o v i d e s a setting w h i c h explains Jesus's answer and allows for a m e a n i n g w h i c h exceeds b y far the e p h e m e r a l o n e suggested b y the link with the H e r o d i a n scene.

1 1 1

Is the Gennesaret scene (6:53) a variant o f 5:21, 25ft? A different s c h e m e is p r o p o s e d b y M a u r e n b r e c h e r : Jesus d i d not start his activity before the e x e c u t i o n o f the Baptist. W h a t did he d o in c o n s e q u e n c e o f the event? 'er stiirzte sich in die N a h e des Fiirsten, der d e n Gottesgesandten hatte e r m o r d e n lassen': there was the p l a c e w h e r e he had to p r o c l a i m the arrival o f the k i n g d o m (Jesus, p . 220). A . P l u m m e r , Matthew ( L o n d o n , 1909), p . 46. Contra A . Schweitzer, Leben-Jesu-Forschung, p p . 574f ( c p . E T p p . 3501). T h e reason given in the earlier part o f M a r k (e.g. 1:441) for Jesus's staying outside the inhabited area d o e s not a p p l y here. It is the merit o f Spitta and still m o r e o f M . G o g u e l to have realised the i m p o r t a n c e o f A n t i p a s for the d e v e l o p m e n t o f Jesus's activity. T h e latter suggests that L u k e 9:9 originally contained a statement a b o u t A n t i p a s ' s intention to kill J e s u s (La vie de Jesus, G T p . 226; E T p . 354) and that it even g a v e the reason; he assumes that it was the c o m m i s s i o n i n g o f the T w e l v e that alarmed A n t i p a s a n d that, o w i n g to the warning given b y s o m e Pharisees, J e s u s was able to escape the net spread for h i m ( p . 228; E T p . 357). T h e masses are aware o f this a n d rush to the desert, b e c a u s e they k n o w that Jesus will not be able to return to their a b o d e ( p p . 233, 235; E T p p . 365, 367). T h e hostility o f Antipas will have increased Jesus's popularity and kindled the expectation o f his c o m i n g forth like a new M a c c a b e e in battle with an A n t i o c h u s ( p . 236; E T p . 367). T h e d e m a n d e d sign - it had been asked for not b y the Pharisees but b y the followers o f j e s u s - w a s meant as the signal for the messianic uprising, while Jesus's o w n c o m m a n d o f secrecy is

1 1 2

1 , 3

1 1 4

228

E. BAMMEL

a matter o f life and death, turned out to be at this stage at least a triumph beyond all imagining: the fugitive is followed by an innumerable multitude. T h e multiplicity o f sources

115

reflects the singularity o f the event.

T h e crowds had been roused into a state o f agitation by the activity o f John. T h e circumstances o f his death must have increased the impetus he had given to them - as indeed evidence shows that the nature o f the figure he presented remained as a subject o f discussion for a long time.

116

The

precursor's violent end could be viewed on the apocalyptic plane as the necessary step before the ushering in o f the final events. It is clear that people looked for guidance in this situation and that it was possible for a determined person to establish himself and to further his cause. O n the other hand, the complexities o f the interactions o f the Jewish parties made a 'coming and going' necessary. T h e spreading o f news, the channelling o f information, the exploiting o f the situation for particular purposes were part o f the game. T h e Pharisees were in a crucial position: while they had connections with the Herodian h o u s e ,

117

they were able to

exercise influence on the masses as well, and above all they had had contact with both John and Jesus. T h e stray notice o f Luke 1 3 : 3 1 according to which TiVE£ 4>aQioaioi warned Jesus against the intentions o f Herod Antipas - a detail which is unlikely to have been invented - fits this situation, whereas the claim tha.t the Pharisees and the H e r o d i a n s council in order to destroy Jesus (Mark 3: 6 )

1 1 9

118

took

is likely to reflect the result o f

the realignment that developed after the execution of J o h n .

120

This was the situation in which the gathering took place. W e have to differentiate

between the movements o f a group o f people w h o are

redirected by Jesus into the desert, Jesus's o w n withdrawal, and

the

c o n d i t i o n e d b y the persecution o f A n t i p a s ( p p . 2470°; E T p p . 381ft). G o g u e l is basically correct in his estimate o f A n t i p a s ' s position with respect to J e s u s . H e greatly overestimates, h o w e v e r , the significance o f this feature b y m a k i n g it the e x p l a n a t i o n for the attitude o f the masses and b y r e d u c i n g the F e e d i n g to s o m e t h i n g o f minor importance. G . Schille is even o f the o p i n i o n that the reference to 500 brethren in 1 C o r . 15 is based o n this event (Das Judenchristentum im Markusevangelium (Berlin, 1970), p . 48). J o s . AJ 18 §116; M a r k u:3off. T h e y had already s u c c e e d e d in establishing r e a s o n a b l e relations with H e r o d the G r e a t a n d w e r e to b e o n very g o o d terms with A g r i p p a . It is a priori likely that they also had w o r k i n g arrangements with A n t i p a s . T h e o p i n i o n that ' H e r o d i a n s ' is a c o v e r n a m e for Zealots ( Y . Y a d i n , The Temple Scroll i (Jerusalem, 1978), A p p e n d i x I I , p p . n i f f hardly r e c o m m e n d s itself. T h e verse is the climax o f a set o f controversy stories w h i c h is i n d e p e n d e n t o f the s e q u e n c e o f events sketched o u t in the G o s p e l . A different historical o c c a s i o n is a s s u m e d b y Stauffer, Jesus, p . 71 ( E T p p . 75Q. i2o W h i l e the i m p o r t a n c e o f the Baptist for the m o v e m e n t s o f j e s u s is passed o v e r b y m o s t researchers, it w a s R . Reitzenstein w h o w e n t so far as to maintain that Jesus w a s c o n d e m n e d in J e r u s a l e m as a disciple o f J o h n (Das mandaische Buch des Herrn der Grosse und die Evangelienuberlieferung ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1919), p p . 68f; c p . p p . 7of.

1 , 5

, 1 6

1 , 7

1 1 8

1 , 9


229

surprise event o f a mass gathering out o f the towns (of Galilee). It is this coming together o f different groups and the interaction o f tendencies which did not wholly coincide that is the significant feature o f the day. T h o s e w h o had been redirected by Jesus d o not come into the open at the event. They had probably mingled with the crowds and become their mouthpiece in the way that is described in John 6:

T h e masses

themselves are viewed by Jesus as men in the state o f a flock without a shepherd. T h e remark is often taken as a reflection of the state of despair the masses were in. This does not, however, mean that they themselves were filled only by such thoughts. T h e fact that large crowds coming from different places all went in one direction suggests the existence o f hopes, expectations and even demands which, although vacillating, may have been expressed pointedly. Even if elements of despair were not absent from their minds, the main direction is different: it is the call for a shepherd, based on the apocalyptic idea that the death o f the Baptist must have its meaning in the process o f ushering in the world to come. T h e speeding up o f the events that seemed to be indicated by John's martyr death meant that the person w h o was to follow him could have an even greater task than the one with which he had been entrusted - if not the final eschatological commission. T o all appearances the experiences o f the day lent support to this view and raised expectations to the highest degree. T h e distribution o f food and the blessing

121

administered by Jesus showed him performing a

priestly function like the one every Jewish father o f a family performs at Passover

122

and which is, in one way or the other, a prefiguration o f the

eschatological

meal.

This

became

suggestion: ctX.T]8d)g 6 JiQOcprrr/ng.

the

starting-point

for

the

bold

123

It is in keeping with Jewish tradition that the truth about a man of G o d is brought out not by himself but by others. Samuel knew that G o d had selected Saul.

124

T h e presence o f the multitude was already important on

the occasion o f the promulgation o f the Torah and rose in prominence in late Jewish tradition. T h e progression prophet-king is equally based on the Saul story: he proves to be o f royal stature by being able to prophesy with the prophets. Similarly the first claims about Jesus are made by persons

1 2 1

T h e r e is n o blessing o n the grass. T h i s militates against the theory o f J. H . A . Hart ( ' A Plea for the R e c o g n i t i o n o f the Fourth G o s p e l as an historical A u t h o r i t y ' , The

Expositor (1906), 377; (1907), 48ff), w h o , taking 2 M a c e . 5: 27 as a parallel, thinks that XOQT05 was actually used as food. 1 2 2

Philo, De Deed. §159 ( . . . leococnjvTjv xov vouxn? xctQioauivou xw eGvei Jiavxl

xaxd uiav riuioav eâioexov avd exog eig ai'xouQYiav 6void>v). 1 2 3

Is the actual text a conflation o f t w o readings? D o e s the text o f D (ouxog eoxiv 6 JiQOcprjxTig) represent o n e o f them?

1 2 4

Motifs o n 1 S a m . 8ff are noticeable especially in t h e j o h a n n i n e presentation: the Jiai&dfJiov ( c p . 1 S a m . 9: 71), w h o happens to possess what is n e e d e d .

23O

E. BAMMEL

from his environment. John designates him as the lamb that carries the sin o f the world and Nathaniel hails him as the king o f Israel - a designation which is supplanted by a different one from Jesus himself. True, the influence o f 1 Sam. gf is noticeable in the story; but the motifs are applied in such a way that they cannot be taken just as a literary scheme. W h a t this amounts to is a threefold office: priest, prophet and king,

125

and

thereby the consummation of offices. It is this ideal o f perfection, indicated by the accumulation o f offices, that plays an important role in late Judaism.

126

Moses is already seen in this function,

127

the high priests o f the

Hasmonaean period invest themselves with this dignity. took root in Christian

tradition

as w e l l .

129

128

T h e concept

It clearly lies behind

the

narrative, but it is not brought out demonstratively and therefore not likely to be a theological embellishment. While the appreciations given to Jesus are normally confined to one title,

130

it is here that much more is

maintained. This is said on the basis o f an act he himself had performed. Such an appreciation should - one would think - have met with the approval

o f Jesus.

What

happens

is, however, the opposite. Jesus

withdraws. T h e narrator phrases it in such a way that Jesus's prophetic quality is brought out once again: he knew beforehand what they were preparing to d o . That means, the point at issue was in his view the kingly role attributed to him. It cannot have been different on the historical plane, as a prophetic quality was never disclaimed by Jesus.

131

T h e messianic king is to 'redeem' Israel. This function o f the messiah is dominant in all branches o f Jewish eschatology. It was this form o f expectation that flared up in these very years and led to scenes not dissimilar to the events surrounding the Feeding. Theudas persuaded a large multitude to follow him to the Jordan with their possessions.

132

Several 'deceivers' who appeared in the time o f Felix lured people to migrate to the desert. wilderness.

134

The

133

Jonathan was to lead the Jews o f Cyrene into the

migration

to the

desert

was in these

cases

the

starting-point for further actions. It is an open question, whether J o h n 1 2 5

1 2 6

J o h n 6: 11 (evxciQiCfTY\oaq) indicates the priestly element. C p . ThLZ 79 (1954), c o l . 35iff. F o r the three offices in the tradition o n the T e a c h e r o f Righteousness see P. Schulz, Der Autoritdtsanspruch des Lehrers d. Gerechtigkeit in

Qumran ( M e i s e n h e i m , 1974), esp. p p . 2i4f. 1 2 7

Philo,

Vit. Mosis 2. 6; his prophetical status is s u b s u m e d u n d e r that o f the

vono9exr|g. 2

• « J o s . AJ 13 §299; BJ 1 §68. C p . I. A . D o r n e r , Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi i, 2nd e d n . (Stuttgart, 1845), 26iff. T h e exceptions are A c t s 2: 36; 3: 14; 5: 31; H e b . 3: 1. C p . R . M e y e r , Der Prophet aus Galilda (Leipzig, 1940), passim. ' J o s . AJ 20 § f . A J 20 §167. ' " J o s . BJ 7 §438. 1 2 9

1 3 0

1 3 1

3 2

1 3 3

9 7


231

himself had announced the coming o f the Lord or o f a messenger, but it is clear that his activism was the point he had in c o m m o n with the messianic pretenders. It was only too natural for the crowds who had been greatly influenced by the Baptist to view Jesus in this light and, possibly, to test him, since he was reluctant to reveal himself

135

to those w h o surrounded

him, while, on the other hand, it is equally possible that the proof a person has given o f his prophetic status raises the expectation o f a forthcoming political r o l e .

136

Luke 2 4 : 1 9 , 21 is typical of this view; it is, so to speak, an

expanded form o f what is concentrated in the hopes said to have been expressed on a single day in John 6: I4f. It is equally clear that the problem o f messiahship must have posed itself to the self-consciousness ofjesus. Knowing about his commission he must have wondered which o f the forms indicated in his bible G o d required him to take upon himself. T h e hints to be found in the oldest tradition about Jesus give the impression that this pondering was not the contemplation o f one hour alone, but a question that accompanied his whole ministry and, perhaps, found its answer and expression only in the period when he approached passion and death. T h e opinion other people had of him cannot have been without relevance for Jesus. Not so much what the sages thought, but the view taken by simple individuals and also that o f the crowds in general mattered to him. This was in keeping with the Jewish tradition.

137

T h e messianic proposition put

forward to him by the crowd, by a multitude that could be viewed as representing the nation, presented him with an inviting prospect. Besides, J o h n had already attributed to him a role which lent itself to messianic 138

interpretation. Jesus's reaction may be understood as a refusal

139

or as the

expression o f his decision to remain in the waiting position o f a Messias m

incognitos.

T h e suggestion made by the crowds was already the second

invitation - an even more demanding one and not u n c o m m o n in this milieu.

141

Jesus, however, decides not to take up this c h a l l e n g e . 1 3 5

1 3 6

1 3 7

1 3 8

I 3 9

, 4 0

1 4 1

1 4 2

142

'

143

Whatever may

C p . E. StaufTer, ' A g n o s t o s C h r i s t o s ' in The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (Dodd-Festschrift) ( C a m b r i d g e , 1956), p p . 287^ F o r e x a m p l e s in Late J u d a i s m c p . A J 20 §97f 169!!. C p . Miracles, ed. b y M o u l e , p . 192. L u k e 7: 19; M a t t . 1 1 : 3 . T h i s interpretation is actually supplied in M a t t . 1 1 : 2 . C p . ThWNTvi, 907, note 212 ( E T p . 908). A different line w a s taken b y E. R e n a n , w h o put forward the interesting idea that Jesus met the Baptist after having p r e a c h e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y before and that J o h n exercised an unfortunate influence o n Jesus (Vie de Jesus (9th e d n . Paris, 1864), p . 76; G T Berlin, 1889, p . 92). C p . J o h n 2:23ff. F o r the m o t i f c p . M a t t . 21:32; L u k e 7: 33ff. T h e a n a l o g y to the Saul story breaks d o w n here (a different view is taken b y D . D a u b e , N.T and RabbinicJudaism ( L o n d o n , 1956), p . 19). W h i l e Saul oi>x etJQioxexo

232

E. BAMMEL

have been the case at the beginning o f his ministry, shows Jesus and the people miles apart.

145

144

the outcome here

His retreat from messianology

and the introduction o f the concept o f transfiguration and suffering - both together - are the characteristic ideas o f the following period. J o h n adds to the scene the significant notice: 'from that time many o f his disciples . . . walked no more with him' (6: 6 6 ) .

146

T h e same is presupposed

in Mark 8: 3 4 . In both cases the close circle o f the disciples is referred to. T h e crowds have disappeared from the scene already, but the ventilation o f what had happened continues. T h e division among the disciples underlines two facts: that the course Jesus had taken was not something that could have been expected and, secondly, that the decision he had made was seen as irrevocable.

147

Is it to be assumed that some o f those disciples who had

been closely attached to the Baptist went away? T h e Gospel tradition is united in the suggestion of a turning-point during the ministry o f j e s u s an echo o f this.

149

148

- even the Jewish accounts of the life ofjesus contain

It seems that this happened on the day of the Feeding and

(1 S a m . 10: 21), before he is traced and m a d e king, Jesus's flight from kingship is final and decisive and the t e r m i n o l o g y is different. T h e early c h u r c h felt uneasy a b o u t the flight as the alleviating reading s h o w s . It w o u l d have been possible to c o v e r u p the matter b y repeating the language o f 1 S a m . 10: 2if. T h i s was not d o n e . R e i m a r u s eliminates the i m p o r t a n c e o f J o h n 6: 14 b y pointing to the Entry and stating: ' I n d e r abgelegenen Wiiste . . . w a r es nicht die Zeit . . . sondern dieser solenne A c t u s sich fur einen K o n i g ausrufen zu lassen, w a r d e r H a u p t s t a d t J e r u s a l e m v o r b e h a l t e n ' (Schutzschrift ii, 159). 1 4 3

1 4 4

1 4 5

1 4 6

1 4 7

1 4 8

1 4 9

T h e end o f the story is so strange that W a g n e r , o b v i o u s l y in all i n n o c e n c e , d e c i d e s to alter it: having m e r c y o n the multitude that detains h i m , Jesus delays his d e p a r t u r e a n d teaches the c r o w d s a b o u t the k i n g d o m etc. T h e story is m a d e the m a i n teaching o c c a s i o n in his ministry {Jesus (Leipzig, 1887), p p . 7f; is the sketch o n p p . 5f to b e taken as an alternative?). D o w e have to allow for an activity m o r e in line with the p o p u l a r e s c h a t o l o g y ? Differences in the attitude o f j e s u s vis-a-vis the messianic question have b e e n ventilated here and there. G o g u e l is right in positing a d e v e l o p m e n t {Jesus, note 623; E T p . 366 n. 2), not h o w e v e r in his estimate that Jesus m o v e d towards an awareness o f his future messianic role ( G T p p . 234°, 248; E T p p . 366, 383). T h e o p i n i o n that verse 14 s h o w s the p o w e r o f attraction Jesus had o v e r the Z e a l o t s ( O . C u l l m a n n , Jesus und die Revolutiondren (2nd edn. T u b i n g e n , 1970) p . 22; E T N e w Y o r k , 1970, p . 8) is already o n e - s i d e d . T h e c o n c l u s i o n that it s h o w s partial a g r e e m e n t with the Z e a l o t s ( G . Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation ( N e w Y o r k , 1973), p . 227) is certainly a m o r e than forced interpretation. H . G . W o o d in his penetrating n o t e 'Interpreting this T i m e ' , NTSt 2 (1955/56), 265) sees in M a r k 6:45 an indication for Jesus's d e c i s i o n to break off the p u b l i c ministry. T h i s is not, h o w e v e r , the p r i m a r y p o i n t . T h e fading a w a y o f mass s u p p o r t is c o n d i t i o n e d b y the negation o f messianism. V e r s e s 60 and 66 are parallel formulations. T h e latter represents early tradition ( c p . F. Spitta, Das Johannes-Evangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu ( G o t t i n g e n , 1910, p p . i6off), whereas the former c a m e in b y w a y o f a n a l o g y . T h i s is c o m p l e t e l y disregarded b y R e i m a r u s ( c p . note 142). F . C . Burkitt, J*™* Christ ( L o n d o n , 1932), p . 66. C p . NTSt 13 (1966/67), 325ft . Certain m o d e r n J e w i s h writers recognise a difference 0


233

150

in connection with it. Mark, who differentiates so emphatically between those outside and those inside, was almost forced to move an event o f this calibre o f significance to a pericope dealing exclusively with the disciples. His scheme, which has become so important since the emergence of critical scholarship, obliterates reason and place for the change, although it retains indications of the older tradition. It is not Caesarea Philippi that points to the location o f the turning, it is not so much the Leidensgeheimnis itself that is the new departure; the Feeding o f the Multitude must be viewed as the occasion where the break with the popular messianism and, indeed, the baptistic eschatology took p l a c e . What is called the Leidensgeheimnis is only the other side of what was enacted by Jesus when his way parted from those w h o m he had fed. 151

152

V T h e theme o f the feeding o f a multitude occurs in another passage o f the Gospels as well, in the temptation story. It has been taken as surprising that a tradition according to which Jesus did refuse to perform such a miracle was handed d o w n side by side with an account o f an actual multiplication o f l o a v e s . It is, however, not so easy to drive a wedge between the two traditions. In Mark 8: I 4 f f Jesus does not submit to performing a repetition o f the miracle, while in John 6: I 4 f he avoids letting himself be lured into certain consequences. T h e matter is even more intriguing, if it is true that Q itself contained not only the temptation story but an account of the Feeding as well. 153

b e t w e e n the attitude o f j e s u s and that o f the c r o w d s and try to interpret this b y assuming a d i v e r g e n c e o f intention and action that c a m e into the o p e n during the passion week. T h e feeling expressed in these sentiments is right. T h e o c c a s i o n , h o w e v e r , at w h i c h the rift appears to have c o m e to the surface is a different o n e : it is the F e e d i n g . 1 5 0

W . R . Farmer, w h o s e c o n c e r n it w a s to set Jesus against the b a c k g r o u n d o f b o t h J e w i s h nationalism and a p o c a l y p t i c i s m , argued that the fact that Jesus allowed himself to b e arrested indicated his final break with Z e a l o t i s m (Maccabees, Zealots, andJosephus ( N e w Y o r k , 1956), p . 198). T h i s w a s , h o w e v e r , rather the c o n s e q u e n c e o f the break w h i c h h a p p e n e d after the Feeding. Farmer argues that J e s u s never d e t a c h e d himself from J e w i s h nationalism ( p . 191). T h e e v i d e n c e to b e found in Jesus's attitude in the trial ( c p . p . 421), however, leads o n e to qualify this statement. Illuminating remarks a b o u t the suggestiveness o f the ' Z e a l o t o p t i o n ' for Jesus are found in J. H . Y o d e r , The Politics of Jesus ( G r a n d R a p i d s , 1972) and in A . N o l a n , Jesus before Christianity ( L o n d o n , 1976), p p . 9iff.

151

C p . p. 238f.

1 5 2

D i d M a r k ( o r s o m e o n e before h i m ) m o v e the X Q i o r o g response from the m e a l to the Caesarea Philippi scene? R . M e y e r , Prophet, p . i56f. F o r the spectrum o f interpretations o f the passage see P. Keller, Die Versuchung Jesu nach dem Bericht der Synoptiker (Miinster, 1918) and E. Fascher, Jesus und der Satan ( H a l l e , 1949).

1 5 3

234

E- BAMMEL

Early

Christian

tradition

understands

the

temptation

as Jesus's

successful effort 'to overcome the Adversary by means o f d e c e p t i o n ' ;

154

he gives ambiguous answers, so as to prevent the Devil from getting a clear idea o f his identity.

155

T h e story is thus lowered to the level o f

a farce, in which one side attempts to trap the other.

156

It is clear that

this cannot be the original meaning. T h e matter was very much more serious. W h a t is at stake is implied by the protasis et m o g ei xov 6 e o v ( 4 : 3 ) , repeated in Matt. 4 : 6. C o u c h e d in the Son o f G o d terminology which is conditioned by the juxtaposition with the baptism story

157

the phrase poses

the messianic question. T h e messiah in his capacity as prophet like Moses is expected tradition

159

to perform

the

latter's miraculous

works.

158

As an

which is embodied in Pes. R. 3 6 puts it: a miracle

qualifies the messiah

161

160

old that

will take place at the moment when he announces

the glad tidings. It is with the third

162

suggestion that the possession o f the

1 5 4

W . Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen ( T u b i n g e n ,

1 5 5

T h e J e w i s h interpretation o f the temptation as a victory w o n b y Satan c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d from this b a c k g r o u n d . T h e r e is n o need to think o f a Hellenistic ingredient. B u l t m a n n , Tradition, p p . 272f ( E T p p . 254!), w h o , following Schlatter, directs h i m s e l f against a messianic interpretation, is unaware o f the fact that the p r o b l e m o f a m a g i c a l miracle is o f i m p o r t a n c e o n l y in the context o f the question o f messiahship. It is not the temptation o f e n g a g i n g in the activity o f a m a g u s w h o usurped d i v i n e p o w e r (thus S. Eitrem, Die Versuchung Christi ( O s l o , 1924), p . 18) that is d e s c r i b e d here, but the tempting suggestion m a d e b y the D e v i l pretending to b e an agent o f G o d . T h e theme o f the prefiguration o f j e s u s giving u p his life that G e r h a r d s s o n ( c p . n. 164, p . 235) p p . 61, 83 d i s c o v e r s in the a c c o u n t o n the s e c o n d temptation is less obvious. C p . M . F r i e d m a n n , Pesiqtha rabbathi ( W i e n , 1880), p p . iff.

1909), p . 147.

1 5 6

1 5 7

1 5 8

1 5 9

1 6 0

1 6 1

1 6 2

T h e miracle itself ( c p . o n this O . M i c h e l , ' T h e light o f the M e s s i a h ' , Donum Gentilicium, Festschrift D . D a u b e ( O x f o r d , 1978), p . 49) is different from the o n e suggested in M a t t . 4:6; but this is o f s e c o n d a r y i m p o r t a n c e . C p . Miracles, e d . b y M o u l e , p p . i88f; c p . 4 Esd. 14: 50. T h e p r o b l e m o f the qualifying m i r a c l e d o e s i n d e e d play a role in the Jesus tradition. Q r e p r o d u c e s o n e miracle after Jesus's s p e e c h o n the plain ( L u k e 7: iff); it is performed in p u b l i c , under the surveillance o f the representatives o f the s y n a g o g u e ; it is r e c o u n t e d as the o n e qualifying m i r a c l e . M a r k emphasises that Jesus's first miracle w a s performed in a s y n a g o g u e (1: 23) and that o n e o f the following healings was to b e c h e c k e d b y the priestly authorities. P a p . Egerton 2 1.4off presupposes that such a miracle was a c c e p t e d as e v i d e n c e b y the persons c o n c e r n e d and that it led to subsequent questions. T h e J e w o f Celsus, o n the other hand, claims that Jesus, w h e n challenged to perform a miracle in the T e m p l e (so as to e x c l u d e the e m p l o y m e n t o f m a g i c ) w a s u n a b l e to c o m p l y with the request (c. Cels. i. 62). Justin states that Jesus's qualifying action consisted in his entry into Jerusalem (Dial. 88); c p . A . v o n H a r n a c k j a ^ w t a m undJudenchristentum in Justins Dialog mit Trypho (Leipzig, 1913); p . 77. T h e M a t t h a e a n s e q u e n c e seems to b e original; c p . A . v o n H a r n a c k , Spruche und Redenjesu ( L e i p z i g , 1907), p . 34; E T p . 44).

T h e Feeding o f the Multitude lands shown to h i m ,

163

in other words full power over the earth,

164

235 is offered

165

to Jesus. While the first two suggested actions are only o f a preliminary nature - they are meant to be indications o f the character o f the person presented to the nation - it is in the third one that the final goal o f the messianic venture is expressed. O n e may wonder whether Matt. 4: 9b (eav jceawv JiQoax'UVTJcmc; (lot) reflects a theological development o f the narrative by which is interpreted in advance what is expressed in Jesus's answer in verse 1 0 . Jewish tradition has it that, after the destruction of the peoples, the messiah will be placed by G o d on a high mountain, that he will step on the peak o f M o u n t Z i o n , in order to proclaim glad tidings to Israel. T h e presupposition ei vibe, nxk. is not any longer necessary, because the proposition made to Jesus takes his messiahship for granted. It is in this context that an u n a m b i g u o u s answer ofjesus is reproduced: xmayz, oaxavd. T h e one who was up to this moment a devil in disguise - in the guise o f a Zealot rabbi - is exposed thereby. T h e bestowing o f worldly power gives evidence for the diabolic character o f the one who claims to possess this power. Even if ' M a c h t an sich' - to cite Burckhardt's famous phrase - is not considered as evil, the opinion is certainly held that power with messianic overtones is o f a diabolic nature. That means, the rebuff which is addressed to Peter in Mark 8: 3 3 and, in a less direct form, to the Baptist in Matt. 3: 1 5 is put into the mouth o f a superhuman figure in 1 6 6

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

1 6 3

1 6 4

1 6 5

1 6 6

1 7 5

C p . D . D a u b e , Studies in Biblical Law ( C a m b r i d g e , 1947), p p . 24ff. It is not so m u c h the temptation o f wealth ( B . G e r h a r d s s o n , The Testing of God's Son ( L u n d , 1966), p p . 646*) that is m e a n t in the story. S i m k h o v i t c h surprisingly interprets the &YYeta)i ( L u k e 4:10) as referring to the battle against R o m e , whereas the PaoiXeiai signify in his o p i n i o n the H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n civilisation as an alluring possibility. H . P. K i n g d o n , o n the other h a n d , sees in verse 9b the main p o i n t and interprets it as a s y m b o l for the H e r o d i a n p o l i c y o f feathering o n e ' s nest with the b r a n c h e s o f R o m a n imperialism ( ' H a d the Crucifixion a Political Significance?', The Hibbert

Journal 35 (1936-7), 561). 167

4 Esd. i3:6f.

1 6 8

Pirqe M a s h i a h ; c p . S - B iii. 10; 4 Esd. 14.35^ 169 T is obliterated in the L u k a n version, where the tempter appears as an agent o f G o d , w h o gives (a share of) his c o m m i s s i o n to other persons. T h e t w o p r e c e d i n g answers c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d within the framework o f J e w i s h controversy, as answers w h i c h d o not d e n y the messianic supposition. T h e term didpoXog had a p p e a r e d so far only in the narrative part o f the p e r i c o p e . It m a y b e assumed that an earlier form o f the temptation story h a d only c o n t a i n e d the term 6 Jteigd^wv. In M a r k it is Peter w h o acts as s e d u c e r ( S a t a n ) . H e is addressed b y the same VJiaye; the a d d i t i o n o f 6JUOU) \iov d o e s not alter the m e a n i n g , it 'fiigt d e m vnaye . . . nichts h i n z u ' ( W e l l h a u s e n , Evangelium Marci, p . 66; c p . E. K l o s t e r m a n n , Das Markusevangelium ( T u b i n g e n , 1926) ad l o c ) . T h i s is not seen b y N o e l (see p . 57). A d e e p e r understanding o f the p e r i c o p e is given b y S. Liberty, The Political Relations of Christ's Ministry ( O x f o r d , 1916), p p . 43ff. T h e r e is a parallelism between M a t t . 3: 15 (TOTE & W . L . K n o x suggests that, for an expression to b e r e g a r d e d as , typically M a t t h a e a n , it s h o u l d b e used in M a t t h e w a b o u t twice as often as in M a r k o r L u k e , a n d that w h e r e a w o r d o c c u r s less than ten times there should b e a clear majority o f five in M a t t h e w , except p e r h a p s w h e r e a w o r d is p e c u l i a r to h i m a n d the o t h e r evangelists use a different w o r d . See W . L . K n o x , The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels ( e d . H . C h a d w i c k ) ii ( C a m b r i d g e , 1957), 123-5. 1 8

a

1 9

2 0

n

2

F o r the c o n c l u s i o n ( r e a c h e d apparently w i t h o u t consideration o f textual variants) that, despite M a t t h a e a n characterstics, the w o r d i n g o f the p a r a g r a p h c a n n o t b e ascribed to the evangelist in its entirety see A . F u c h s , Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Matthaus und Lukas ( A n B i b l . 49, R o m e , 1971), p . 132. C p . in general the c o n c l u s i o n in K n o x , Sources, ii, 125, a n d his rebuttal o f a stylistic objection to the search for sources (in this case in M a r k ) ibid, i ( C a m b r i d g e , 1953), 1. O r i g e n , In Matth. xiii. 14, o n 18: 1 ( G C S 40, p p . 213-16); A . M . Farrer, St Matthew and St Mark (2nd e d n . W e s t m i n s t e r , 1966), p . n 8 n .

T h e T e m p l e tax remove from the milieu o f his traditional material.

21

269

H e is, however,

unlikely to have placed the passage solely from thematic considerations, for it is internally limited to Galilee. As K n o x points out, it has to occur where 22

Peter can conveniently be sent to catch a fish.

Moreover - although any

influence o f this point upon the story might perhaps have been felt more strongly at an earlier stage than that o f the evangelist himself - it seems likely that the T e m p l e tax was collected in communities before being forwarded by them in bulk to Jerusalem.

23

Collectors would thus be met at a

man's place o f residence. According to tradition utilised in Matt. 4: 1 3 (cp. 9: 1 with the Markan parallel), but attested also in Mark and, probably independently, in the third and fourth Gospels, during the Galilaean ministry Jesus resided at C a p e r n a u m .

24

T h e story would thus tend to locate itself by the sea o f Galilee and at Capernaum where both Jesus and Peter lived for a time. I f a form o f Mark with a reference to Capernaum like that in our Mark 9: 3 3 already lay before the evangelist, it could in view o f such possibilities have affected the placing o f the passage at least as strongly as thematic considerations. Equally, the degree o f prominence which the story enjoys in its position immediately before an important discourse may be fortuitous. Care is therefore needed in arguing from the position o f the passage to its date. If, for instance, the evangelist's wish to emphasise teaching relevant to a contemporary problem could be said to have gained this prominence for the passage, an origin for the story near to the time o f the Gospel's composition might be made to some extent more probable; but the other considerations involved make it hazardous to infer that the placing o f the passage results from such a wish. Again, it has been noted that the evangelist does not juxtapose the stories o f the T e m p l e tax and the tribute money, whereas some ante-Nicene Fathers (see n. 2 on p . 2 6 5 ) gave these scenes the same reference. This interpretation, as T . W . Manson points out, could most easily arise after 7 0 , when the T e m p l e tax became the 25

R o m a n fiscus iudaicus. 2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

M a y the fact that such an interpretation has not

C . F. D . M o u l e , 'St M a t t h e w ' s G o s p e l : S o m e Neglected Features', in F. L . C r o s s ( e d . ) , Studia Evangelica ii ( = T U 87, Berlin, 1964), 9 1 - 9 . K n o x , Sources ii, 101. Shek. ii. 1 ' I f the p e o p l e o f a t o w n sent their Shekels [to the T e m p l e ] and they were stolen o r lost . . . ' ; c p . M a i m o n i d e s , Mishneh Torah 111. vii. 2, par. 4 ( e d n . A m s t e r d a m , 1702-3, V o l . I, f. 285b foot ( E T in S. G a n d z a n d H . K l e i n , The Code of Maimonides, Book Three: The Book of Seasons ( N e w H a v e n , 1961), p . 414)). T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f this point for the location o f the story is e m p h a s i s e d b y Schlatter, Matthdus, p p . 538, 542f. D o d d , Historical Tradition, p p . 235f. M a n s o n , loc. cit. in n. 2, p . 265. T h e fact that O r i g e n , w h o k n o w s that the J e w s still p a y the d i d r a c h m a to R o m e (Ep. ad Africanum 14 (PG n . 81)), takes the G o s p e l passage to deal with R o m a n taxation, m a y b e a r o u t this o b s e r v a t i o n .

270

WILLIAM HORBURY

affected the evangelist's placing o f the story indicate that he is working before 7 0 ?

2 6

T w o considerations seem to speak against this possibility. T h e tribute debate is placed by all synoptists in Jerusalem, whereas the T e m p l e tax incident, as noted already, is internally limited to Galilee. Literary reasons would therefore forbid juxtaposition. Secondly, the exegesis o f Melito and his followers (see n. 3, p . 2 6 5 ) shows that the interpretation in question, although widespread (see n. 2, p . 2 6 5 ) , was not universal either early or later in the patristic period. That

the evangelist should have been

unaffected by it is conceivable either before or after the Jewish W a r .

(3) Literary analysis Bultmann, w h o classifies the story as a 'legend', notes that verses 2 5 f have a primitive ring.

27

C . G. Montefiore therefore allows for the possibility that

this old logion - perhaps, as Bultmann suggests, originally bearing a different meaning - was used in the composition o f a story which arose only after Jesus's death, even though it may be true that Jesus paid the tax. M o r e definite suggestions are made by G. D . Kilpatrick.

29

28

H e sees the old

core, verses 25f, as combined secondarily with a Petrine dialogue; thirdly, to meet the post-70 situation, verse 2 7 was introduced; lastly, the evangelist attached

the story to its present setting by using Mark 9: 3 3 . H . W .

Montefiore likewise treats verse 2 7 as an accretion, but sees the earliest form o f the story as a question to Jesus about the tax, with a reply as in verses 25f, and in conclusion a c o m m a n d to pay. This earliest represents an incident in the life o f j e s u s .

form

30

It is worth noting that the morphological distinction between the logion and its context need not imply a post-Easter origin for the latter. If the story preserves a genuine reminiscence, the saying will have been preserved by the hearer, he will have recounted it, and other tradents will have described both saying and scene. After transmission the characteristic distinction between a saying and its setting would be observable, irrespective o f the setting's historical value. Secondly, as H . W . Montefiore points out, the c o m m a n d in verse 2 7 fits the situation before 7 0 , and the period before Jesus's death, as well as (or better than) the post-war period. It will be suggested below that the allusion to miracle is not necessarily secondary.

2 6

2 7

2 8

29

3 0

T h e q u e s t i o n is raised with caution in M o u l e , Birth, p . 174 n. 1. R . B u l t m a n n , Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (6th e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1964), p p . 34f ( E T The History of the Synoptic Tradition ( O x f o r d , 1963), p p . 341). C . G . M o n t e f i o r e , Synoptic Gospels ii, 243-5. K i l p a t r i c k , Origins p p . 4if. H . W . M o n t e f i o r e , NTS 10 (1964/65) 64-8.


271

These analyses d o not therefore permit any conclusion on the age o f the story.

(4) The Temple tax 31

With occasional exceptions, exegetes agree that the interest governing the transmission

(some add, the o r i g i n )

32

o f the story was the question o f

Christian Jews' liability to the T e m p l e tax or its successor, the focus iudaicus. T h e relevance o f the passage to relations with R o m e in general is also stressed.

33

These observations would be consistent with an origin o f the

story at any time up to the composition o f the Gospel itself. Wellhausen, however, argued that the story could not be later than 7 0 .

3 4

Verses 2 5 f draw an implied analogy between the 'kings of the earth' and the divine king o f Israel. T h e y must thus refer to a tax being levied in G o d ' s name (the T e m p l e tax was paid 'to G o d ' )

3 5

on his own people - w h o , by

analogy with earthly practice, should be exempt. T h e saying cannot therefore (Wellhausen concluded) apply to the focus iudaicus. This view has been challenged as introducing 'an unsuitable scientific 36

precision into a midrashic p e r i c o p e ' . It is true that some early interpreters (see n. 2 , p. 2 6 5 ) applied the verses to taxation o f any kind. Still - to anticipate the exegesis o f the saying - such an application makes them comparatively clumsy. Instead o f the parallel

between earthly

and

heavenly kings being implied from the first, the analogy n o w only becomes clear as such when the word 'sons' is reached. That word will still keep the undesirable associations o f its literal meaning 'sons o f a Gentile K i n g ' , and its metaphorical application to Israel will be harsh and sudden. It seems better

to retain Wellhausen's

explanation,

whereby

the

verses

are

consistently metaphorical from the beginning, and plainly recall the 3 1

L o e w e , 'Render unto Caesar', takes seriously the possibility - since espoused b y A . N . S h e r w i n - W h i t e , Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament ( O x f o r d , 1963), p . 126 - that a R o m a n tax is in question. J o h n Lightfoot, In Evangelium Sancti Matthaei Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae ( C a m b r i d g e , 1658), p . 211, ad l o c , hesitates to d e c i d e b e t w e e n tribute and T e m p l e tax: the tendency o f later study emerges from c o m p a r i s o n o f verse 24 A V 'tribute (moneyY with R V 'half-shekel'.

3 2

Eisler, H i r s c h , Flusser (see n. 13, p . 267). Eisler, Orpheus, esp. p p . 95-100; W . D . Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount ( C a m b r i d g e , 1964), p p . 389-91; R . W a l k e r , Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium ( F R L A N T 91, G o t t i n g e n , 1967), p p . 101-3, 134. J . W e l l h a u s e n , Das Evangelium Matthaei (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1914), p p . 85f. J o s e p h u s , 4 / X V I I I . ix. 1 (312), T W 6ecp ( c p . BJ v\. 335); M e k i l t a , Yithro, Bahodesh,

3 3

3 4

35

3 6

i, o n E x o d . 19: 1 ( c p . p . 280 b e l o w ) , ww*? . D a v i e s , Sermon, p . 391, criticising E. K l o s t e r m a n n , w h o r e p r o d u c e s W e l l h a u s e n ' s v i e w . B . W . B a c o n , Studies in Matthew ( L o n d o n , n . d . ) , p p . 228f, to w h i c h Davies refers, d o e s not meet W e l l h a u s e n ' s point. Kilpatrick, Origins, does not discuss Wellhausen's argument.

272

WILLIAM HORBURY

c o m m o n midrashic comparison o f G o d with a ' K i n g o f flesh and b l o o d ' .

37

It is argued, again, that verses 2 5 f can only refer to the focus iudaicus, and were probably composed in R o m e under Domitian, since the Jewish half-shekel was neither paid to 'the kings o f the earth' nor due from 'strangers' rather than sons, whereas the Caesars were 'kings o f the earth' and their taxes were due from conquered 'strangers' rather than legally immune R o m a n citizens. T h e 'sons' on this interpretation are Christian R o m a n citizens, w h o are acknowledged in this composition to be free according to law but are urged for the sake of peace with the government to pay like their Christian Jewish brethren and indeed on behalf o f the paupers and the clergy (Matt. 1 0 : 8 - 1 0 ) among them.

38

This attractive

theory also seems less than convincing because, like the Ambrosian exegesis on which it builds (n. 2 , p . 2 6 5 ) , it fails to recognise the metaphorical character o f the saying. Three other datings o f the passage proceed from the treatment of the tax. It has been urged that the problem o f liability would arise only for Christians w h o no longer felt themselves

to be within

the

Jewish

community. It would have been unlikely to impinge on a church such as that o f the early chapters o f Acts, and is still less conceivable in the life o f Jesus. This point is seen as confirming suspicions o f late origin.

39

Yet

considerations apparently neglected here are the fact that the tax was disputed in pre-Christian Judaism (see section II b e l o w ) , and the likeli hood that this comparatively light exaction, the p o o r ,

41

40

which was not reduced for

would raise practical problems o f payment only or especially

in ' p o o r ' communities such as those o f Jesus's disciples and the early Jerusalem church.

42

43

Lohmeyer's conclusion, that the passage represents a

late compromise reached after an initial struggle with Judaism, seems to depend rather on an overall view o f primitive church history than on anything in the story itself. Lastly, Flusser, w h o starts from the position 3 7

3 8

3 9

4 0

4 1

4 2

4 3

F o r the c o m p a r i s o n with r a b b i n i c p a r a b l e see D o d d , Historical Tradition, p . 38m. (with a different v i e w o f the ' m o r a l ' ) ; Flusser, Tarbiz 31 (1961/62), i 5 i f . Eisler, Orpheus, e s p . p p . 94-7. C . H . D o d d , History and the Gospel ( L o n d o n , 1938), p p . gof: a similar view in D . F. Strauss, Das Leben Jesu fur das deutsche Volk bearbeitet ( L e i p z i g , 1864), p p . 487f ( E T A New Life of Jesus ii ( L o n d o n , 1865), 239). F o r first-century E g y p t i a n J e w s the Jiscus iudaicus w h i c h r e p l a c e d the half-shekel has b e e n estimated as, despite an apparent surcharge, not in itself financially b u r d e n s o m e . See V . T c h e r i k o v e r , The Jews in Egypt in the Hellenistic-Roman Age in the Light of the Papyri (2nd e d n . J e r u s a l e m , 1963), p p . X I I (English s u m m a r y ) , p . 94 ( H e b r e w ) ; V . T c h e r i k o v e r and A . Fuks ( e d s . ) , Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum ( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , 1957) i, 8if. E x o d . 30: 15: a charitable m a n m i g h t p a y o n b e h a l f o f the p o o r , Shek. i. 7. S o J. K r e y e n b u h l , ' D e r A p o s t e l Paulus u n d die U r g e m e i n d e ' , ZNWy (1907), 180. E. L o h m e y e r , Lord of the Temple ( E T , E d i n b u r g h , 1961, o f Kultus und Evangelium ( G o t t i n g e n , 1942)), p . 56.

T h e T e m p l e tax that the story is a church creation, finds its origin in the

273 Qumran

community, which had reservations (see p . 2 7 9 below) on the payment o f the tax. T h e church transferred the teaching to Jesus and added the miracle.

44

This conjecture depends on the initial assumption, which has no

sufficient grounds in the story itself.

(5) The provenance of the stater Widely disparate arguments are brought to bear on the dating o f verse 2 7 and o f the passage as a whole in the light o f that verse. (a) Critical considerations prompt the suggestion that, since the story here touches a c o m m o n motif o f folklore, a current legend may have been reapplied.

45

Still within this sphere it is conjectured that verse 27 was meant 46

as a humorous hint to raise the money by selling the fish, or even making a wealthy convert,

47

or that its present form is secondary and results from

misunderstanding o f an original injunction o f this kind.

48

Historical considerations such as those noted in the previous section may be allied with these literary-critical suggestions in an argument that the verse is a later appendix.

49

(b) A different range o f arguments from philosophy and theology can be adduced to show that if, as is probable, the text means to imply a miracle, the implication is baseless. A prominent consideration o f this sort is the claim that such a miracle would lack moral justification.

50

Hence, once.

again, the verse would be in large part deprived o f evidential value, although of course it could still be maintained that payment was made in an ordinary way (so, for instance, H . W . Montefiore, see n. 1 4 , p . 2 6 7 ) . O n the other hand, the moral point is used by Johannes Weiss (n. 5 0 , p . 2 7 3 ) to

^ F l u s s e r , Tarbiz 31 (1961/62), 150-6. R i c h material from folklore is gathered b y Eisler, Orpheus, p p . 100-5; for J e w i s h traditions see R . M e y e r , ' D e r R i n g des Polykrates, M t 17, 27 u n d die r a b b i n i s c h e Uberlieferung', OLZ 40 (1937), 664-70; c p . D o d d , Historical Tradition, p . 225n., for further e x a m p l e s from H a n s A n d e r s e n and m o d e r n C y p r u s . 4 5

4 6

H . E. G . Paulus a n d o t h e r eighteenth-century exegetes reviewed b y C . T . K u i n o e l , Evangelium Matthaei (2nd e d n . L e i p z i g , 1816), p p . 505-9, a d l o c ; similarly G . M . L e e , 'Studies in T e x t s : M a t t h e w 17. 24-7', Theology 68 (1965), 38of, a n d G o u l d e r , Midrash, p p . 396f. F o r criticism o f such renderings see F. Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (Otium Norvicense, Pars Tertia, revised) ( C a m b r i d g e ,

4 7

Eisler, Orpheus, p p . 93f, taking u p allegorical patristic interpretation o f the fish. v a n d e r L o o s , Miracles, p . 687; J. J e r e m i a s , Neutestamentliche Theologie i (Giitersloh, 1971), p . 91 ( E T New Testament Theology i ( L o n d o n , 1971), 87). Different datings in Kilpatrick, Origins, p . 41; H . W . M o n t e f i o r e , NTSt 10 (1964/65)

1899), p p . I3f. 4 8

4 9

66. 5 0

Strauss, Leben Jesu, p p . 486-9 = New Life, ii, 237-41; J. W e i s s , Die Sckriften des Neuen Testaments (2nd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1907), i, p . 348; v a n d e r L o o s , Miracles, p p . 686f.

274

WILLIAM HORBURY

clinch the conclusion that the whole paragraph is legendary. This range o f argument is often combined with the critical considerations noted under (a).. Literary-critical considerations, examined so far as may be in isolation from philosophico-theological ones, seem not to support as unambiguously as is often assumed the conclusion that the verse is secondary to its context. It has long been recognised that reports o f miracles c o m m o n l y begin to circulate within the lifetime o f the person to w h o m they are attributed, and d o not simply by their presence mark as late or otherwise discredit the 51

narratives in which they o c c u r . Further, two small but perhaps significant differences between the Gospel narrative and its folkloric parallels have been noted. E. Hirsch pointed out that whereas in folklore the precious object is found in the fish's belly, St Peter's fish has the stater in its m o u t h .

52

Similarly J. D . M . Derrett notes that, by contrast with the parallels, there is no question in the Gospel o f the recovery o f lost property.

53

These

differences may be taken to reduce the likelihood that current folklore has been reapplied tout court. Lastly, the conjectures that the verse represents misunderstanding o f c o m m o n p l a c e advice on how to raise the money, or is a later appendix to verses 2 4 - 6 , must be weighed against the observation that the method o f payment described in verse 2 7 is peculiarly appropriate to the teaching o f verses 2 4 - 6 . By using a lost coin rather than drawing on the c o m m o n money box (John 1 2 : 6 , 1 3 : 2 9 ) Jesus meets the demand without acknowledging it as a legitimate charge.

54

Verse 2 7 thus coheres

with what precedes it.

5 1

5 2

5 3

5 4

A . H a r n a c k , Das Wesen des Christentums ( L e i p z i g , 1900), p . 17; E T What is Christianity} ( L o n d o n , 1901), p . 26; K n o x , Sources, i, xi. H i r s c h , Fruhgeschichte, ii, 327. N o t e , h o w e v e r , a m o n g n u m e r o u s parallels c o n c e r n i n g the fish's belly, t w o w h e r e the p r e c i o u s o b j e c t is found in the m o u t h Eisler, Orpheus, p . 101. T h a t H i r s c h ' s p o i n t is not nullified is h o w e v e r suggested b y the fact that St Hilary o f Poitiers (see n. 3, p . 265), M a l d o n a t u s ad l o c . ( e d . M a r t i n , i, 238), a n d Strauss, Leben Jesu, p . 488 = New Life ii, p p . 24of all note the strangeness o f the c o i n in the m o u t h ; while precisely this detail is assimilated to the majority o f the parallels b y a classicising paraphrast: 'huius p a n d a n t u r scissi penetralia ventris;/illic i n v e n t u m d u p l e x dissolve t r i b u t u m ' , J u v e n c u s , Libri Evangeliorum iii. 394f. ( C S E L 24, p . 95). Derrett, Law, p . 259n. ( n o t in NovTest 6). M a l d o n a t u s a d loc. i, 239 M a r t i n ; Derrett, NovTest 6, 1 i f = Law p . 258; D . D a u b e , 'Responsibilities o f M a s t e r and Disciples in the G o s p e l s ' , NTSt 19 (1972), 1-15 ( 1 3 - 1 5 ) . In v i e w o f L u k e 8: 3, J o h n 12:6, 13:29 it seems better to c o n c l u d e that Jesus deliberately refrained from using the c o m m o n purse ( o n e possibility entertained b y J e r o m e , ad l o c , taken u p b y H e r v a e u s Natalis, De Paupertate Christiet Apostolorum ( e d . J. G . Sikes in Archives d'histoire doctrinale et litteraire du moyen age ix (1938), 209-97 (280)) than that he h a d not e n o u g h to pay (the first possibility c o n s i d e r e d b y J e r o m e , ad l o c , taken u p b y A q u i n a s , Summa Theologiae I I I . xl. 3 and W e l l h a u s e n , Matthaei, ad l o c ) , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e the main b o d y o f disciples w a s absent ( M a l d o n a t u s , ad l o c . i, 239 M a r t i n ; c p . Derrett, NovTest 6 (1963), 6, 11 =


275

Philosophical and theological criticism can be considered here only in so far as it is directly linked with exegesis. First, it should be noted that the datum o f verse 2 7 for the theologian is not necessarily a miracle o f power. 'Here I am at a loss which first to admire, the Saviour's prescience or his might' (St Jerome ad loc. (see n. 2 , p . 2 6 5 ) ) . N o doubt many from the first have thus understood creative power as well as foreknowledge to be in evidence here; but the implication intended may simply be foreknowledge, as probably in Mark 1 1 : 2 - 5 ,

1 4 * 1 2 - 1 6 and parallels, Luke

5:1-11.

5 5

Secondly, this is not the only synoptic miracle-story which has been thought to lack moral justification.

56

T h e criticisms made in this case, as

stated representatively by Johannes Weiss - that the miracle satisfies no 57

need o f mankind, attains no religious goal, and appears selfish - perhaps d o less than justice to the moral connotations o f verse 27 lest we cause them to stumble and the theological point, noted already, o f this particular m o d e o f payment.

58

T h e likelihood o f elaboration must be taken especially seriously when we verge as closely as is the case here on a motif o f folklore. A scrutiny o f criticisms nevertheless makes evaluation of verse 2 7 appear less simple than the abundance o f parallels might suggest. For our present purpose it is not 59

necessary, even if it were possible, fully to reconstruct an incident in the Galilaean ministry such that verse 2 7 came into being. These observations may however support two conclusions bearing on historical assessment o f this text. First, negatively, verse 2 7 provides no firm basis for dating the whole paragraph late or questioning its evidential value. Secondly, and positively, the difference between verse 27 and its legendary parallels, the coherence o f the verse with its context and the moral and theological significance o f payment in this particular way indicate that, despite the

5 5

5 6

5 7

5 8

5 9

Law, p p . 253, 257). O r i g e n and C h r y s o s t o m (notes 2 and 3 o n p . 265) emphasise that the L o r d d i d n o t p a y from his o w n resources. H u g o G r o t i u s , Annotationes in Novum Testamentum i ( A m s t e r d a m , 1641), 310; Schlatter, Matthdus, p . 542. C . F. D . M o u l e ( e d . ) , Miracles ( L o n d o n , 1965), p . 243, places the S y n o p t i c miracles o f the swine and the fig-tree in this category. W e i s s , Schriften, 1, p . 348. T h e force o f such criticisms was less felt in patristic exegesis, w h i c h fastened o n the s y m b o l i c character o f the d e e d , setting it beside the feeding miracles (Epistula Apostolorum 5) as an act o f divine m e r c y d o n e o n o u r b e h a l f a n d foreshadowing r e d e m p t i o n ( O r i g e n a n d J e r o m e , n. 2, p . 265; A c t s o f T h o m a s 143, a d d u c e d in different versions b y F. C . Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe ii. ( C a m b r i d g e , 1904), 274; St H i l a r y o f Poitiers, n. 3, p . 265). O u r i g n o r a n c e o f m a n y c i r c u m s t a n c e s is underlined b y the variety o f reasons p r o p o u n d e d for the m e a n s o f p a y m e n t and its extension to Peter as well as J e s u s . See the lists in St T h o m a s A q u i n a s , Catena Aurea, ad l o c . (ed. J. Nicolai ( A v i g n o n , 1851), ii, 378) a n d M . Pole ( P o o l e ) , Synopsis CriticorumaliorumqueSacraeScripturaeInterpretum, a d l o c . ( e d . J. L e u s d e n ( U t r e c h t , 1686), iv, c o l . 448).

276

WILLIAM HORBURY

strong prima facie case for suspecting K» For alliteration c p . Black, Aramaic Approach, p p . 160-85: J e r e m i a s , Theologie, i, 371; E T p p . 27-9. Schlatter, Matthaus, p . 540, citing M e k i l t a , Yithro, Amalek i, o n E x o d . 18: 1, n»TKn ( H o r o w i t z a n d R a b i n , Mechilta p . 188). I.e. their o w n p e o p l e as o p p o s e d to subject aliens: so W e l l h a u s e n , Matthaei, p p . 85f; Stauffer, Caesars, p . 130; N E B . F o r tribute as a sign o f servitude see Tertullian, Apology xiii. 6. I f ' s o n s ' is u n d e r s t o o d as 'family' o r ' h o u s e h o l d ' ( s o Derrett, NovTest 6 (1963), 7-9 = Law, p p . 2541) the interpretation offered in the text c a n still stand. C p . J e r e m i a s , Theologie i, p p . 144^ 20of; E T p p . 145, 207. ? -pVm 'DVn am 30 ; c p . Peshitta and O l d Syriac ad l o c .

284


and even the T o r a h itself (notably Mark 1 0 : 5 ) , while he venerated the T e m p l e as the house of God (Mark 1 1 : 1 7 and parallels, Matt. 2 3 : 2 1 ) .

9 6

He

did not however scruple to announce its d o o m , and this announcement figured in the charges against h i m .

97

T h e care not to cause stumbling is

therefore perhaps more likely to concern respect for the T e m p l e .

98

The whole passage, then, can be understood within the life ofjesus and contemporary Judaism. W e consider, in conclusion, its bearing on Jesus's attitude to tax and government.

IV Jesus's teaching here defines no doctrine on taxation levied by 'the kings o f the earth', even though it has constantly been applied to secular taxes. Some modern historians, however, find in verses 2 5 f a criticism o f the R o m a n census, and therefore teaching comparable with Zealot belief. Herbert L o e w e

99

notes, after C . G . Montefiore, that Jesus respected the

T e m p l e . T h e passage, he thinks, may therefore be condemning the census rather than the half-shekel. Comparing rabbinic sayings on the taximmunity which in principle belongs to the pious, he includes the passage in the evidence for Jesus's teaching on taxation. H e draws the conclusion that Jesus's attitude here is doubtful but, on the whole, indicates that payment should be made. D . Flusser,

100

w h o takes the passage as a church creation (above p . 2 7 3 ) ,

accepts that it deals with the T e m p l e tax. H e thinks, however, that the saying which likens the T e m p l e tax to the census is negative in its attitude to the latter: it means that the 'sons' (Israel) ought not to be obliged to pay it. This is comparable with the Zealot belief. Flusser sees here one more indication that the saying is not dominical: for (he argues) on the census Jesus's attitude was one o f greater compromise (Mark 1 2 : 1 7 ) . T h e church took over this material, with its zealot-like implications, from Qumran. S. G . F. B r a n d o n ,

101

without discussing the passage at any length or

expressing an opinion on its origin, sees it as significant in connection with other evidence - such as that o f the tribute-money pericope - that the payment o f tribute continued to be resented in the years following Judas o f Galilee's rising. H e notes with approval E. Klostermann's 9 6

9 7

9 8

F o r a recent discussion see J e r e m i a s , Theologie i, 1971; E T p p . 203-11. M a r k 14:58, 15:29 a n d parallels: J o h n 2:19. C p . D o d d , Historical Tradition, p p . 89-91: D . R . C a t c h p o l e , The Trial of Jesus ( L e i d e n , 1971), p p . 126-32. A c o m p l e t e l y different e x p l a n a t i o n in Derrett, NovTest 6 (1963), 9-11 = Law, p p .

255-8. " L o e w e , Render unto Caesar, p p . 66-71. Flusser, Tarbiz 31 (1961-62) especially p p . 153^ B r a n d o n , Zealots, p p . 49, 332n.

1 0 0

1 0 1

interpretation,


285

rejected here, that Jesus and the disciples are in principle immune from tax. T h e factor c o m m o n to all these views is the interpretation of verses 2 4 - 6 as criticism o f the census. H o w justified is this interpretation? T h e saying as a whole urges, as Flusser acknowledges, that G o d ' s people should not be taxed in the name o f their divine king. T w o points speak against the opinion that the census also is criticised. First, it is not mentioned by itself, but as one o f two representative taxes, x£hf\ f\ xfjvoov. Secondly, and more fundamentally, to find a criticism o f the census here means neglecting the metaphorical character o f the saying ( c p . p . 2 7 1 a b o v e ) . This is not teaching about portoria or poll-tax, but an argument that, as the 'sons' o f the kings o f the earth are protected from these impositions, so Israel should be free from taxation in the name of their G o d . T o substitute 'Israel' for 'sons', without also understanding G o d for the kings and the half-shekel for the secular taxes, is illicit. T o summarise: the passage originally refers to a particular problem in the interpretation of Jewish law. Does the Torah justify an annual collection o f the half-shekel? T h e Pharisees advocated this regular levy, which entitled all alike to benefit from the sacrifices they subsidised. Jesus, on the other hand, was closer to those w h o attacked the innovation o f annual payment, although his criticism was far more profound than that expressed in the variant halakoth o f the priests and Qumran. H e paid the tax so as not to cause offence, but in a way which did not admit liability. His teaching, couched in metaphorical form akin to that o f the Midrash, sets this halakic problem in the light o f the doctrine o f election. H e made no incidental criticism o f R o m a n taxation. In what he said and did far-reaching principles are expressed: G o d does not treat his people like a subject race, offence is not to be given without cause. Yet the immediate context o f both teaching and deed is provided by Jesus's relation with other interpreters o f Torah. 1 0 2

A s the early comments and the Diatessaric addition in verse 2 6 attest, the saying was soon transferred from Israel to Christ and his church. Equally, the half-shekel was sometimes, though by no means always (nn. 2 and 3, p . 2 6 5 ) , removed from its context o f Jewish law, and seen as exemplifying secular tribute. Clearly such an interpretation could support a negative attitude to civil power, Christians being considered in principle tax-free. St Jerome's deduction o f this view from the passage formed the

1 0 2

Christ c o m m a n d s St Peter: ' T h o u t o o give, therefore, as o n e o f them w h o are strangers.' C p . Burkitt, Evangelion ii, 274; W . Bauer, Das Leben Jesus im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (1909, repr. D a r m s t a d t , 1967), p p . 39of.

286


foundation

of a later argument for clerical tax-immunity iure

m

divino.

Michaelis tells o f the Matthaean text being used by a Pietist to justify evasion o f the Prussian e x c i s e .

104

If any first-century Christian may have

wished to base similar arguments on the dominical saying,

105

he was

authoritatively discouraged from doing so ( R o m . 1 3 : 5 - 7 , 1 Pet. 2 : 1 3 15).

1 0 6

T h e Lord's c o m m a n d in verse 2 7 , seen within this new context as an

order to pay tribute, was strongly emphasised. Its citation in the M i d d l e Ages to defend Caesar's right to tax church and people (n. 2 , p . 2 6 5 ) simply continues one well-marked ante-Nicene interpretation. Jesus's payment became for the early Christian an interpretative parallel to his answer on the tribute-money,

107

and the prime example o f the rendering o f dues

enjoined in apostolic teaching. 1 0 3

St J e r o m e ad versum 25 (see n. 2, p . 265 a b o v e ) : for the canonists' argument, see n. 2, p . 265; C o r n e l i u s a L a p i d e ad versum 26 (Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, e d . A . C r a m p o n , x v (Paris 1877), 396) a n d J. B i n g h a m , Antiquities of the Christian Church V , iii, 1 ( e d . L o n d o n , 1843, > 5 7 ) M i c h a e l i s , Commentaries E T iii, 14. n

1 0 4

1 0 5

1 0 6

1 0 7

108

2

_

T h i s is a s s u m e d b y M o r t o n Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark ( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , 1971), 189, 249. C p . E. v o n D o b s c h i i t z , Die urchristlichen Gemeinden (Leipzig, 1902), p . 97: E T Christian Life in the Primitive Church ( L o n d o n , 1904), p p . i3of.

S o St C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a and O r i g e n (see n. 2, p . 265 a b o v e ) . 1 0 8 O r i g e n cites the passage to illustrate R o m . 13 (see n. 2, p . 265 a b o v e ) , a n d St A m b r o s e o n L u k e 5:4 (see n. 2, p . 265 a b o v e ) calls it ' m a g n u m . . . et spiritale d o c u m e n t u m , q u o Christiani viri s u b l i m i o r i b u s potestatibus d o c e n t u r d e b e r e esse subiecti' ( R o m . 1 3 : 1 ) .

M.BLACK

'Not peace but a sword': Matt 10:34ff; Luke 12:5 iff 1

Q u o t e d out o f context - as they often are - these verses seem more appropriate to the Qur'an than to the Gospels; they sound like a cry o f M u h a m m a d proclaiming a Jihad or holy war, rather than a genuine utterance o f the Prince o f Peace. Their context in the Gospels, however, is important if we are to seek to understand their original meaning. They are found in the 'double tradition', the source Q - which seems to have weathered continuous criticism - and appear in a variant form in Luke: ' d o you suppose I came to establish peace on earth? N o , indeed, I have come to bring division'' (NEB) (6iaiA£Qioji6v for jidxaiQav, 'sword'). In both Matthew and Luke this saying is followed by an adaptation o f M i c . 7: 6 , so that, for the c o m m o n source o f both evangelists, the conflict o f division, which Christ here declares he had come to bring, was not one within nations, or even within a single nation, but within families - a situation all too familiar in Christian missionary history. Although omitted by Matthew, Luke 1 2 : 49 contains a similar kind o f saying ('I came to cast fire upon the earth . . . ' ) which, there is g o o d reason to think, comes from the same source ( Q ) and which certainly occurs in the same logia-group (Luke 12:49-53), so that any interpretation o f Matt. 10: 34 par. would then require to take some account o f its twin-saying at Luke 12:49. 2

There is ample and conclusive evidence in this sayings-complex in the Gospels that Matthew and Luke (and earlier the 'author' o f Q ) are 'editing' a traditional saying cast originally in poetic form and composed originally in Aramaic. W e should translate Luke 1 2 : 49 (with the N E B ) : T have come to set fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!' Matthew 3

4

' A n o t h e r version o f this article appeared in ExpT 81 (1969-70), ii5ff, and the present article is printed b y kind permission o f the former editor o f that j o u r n a l , Dr C . L. Mitton. T have c o m e to set a m a n against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son's wife against her mother-in-law; and a m a n will find his enemies under his o w n r o o f (NEB). C p . C . F . Burney, The Poetry of our Lord ( O x f o r d , 1925), p . 90. For this use o f e x c l a m a t o r y xi see m y Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd edn. 2

3

4

O x f o r d , 1967), p . 123.

287

288

M A T T H E W BLACK

and Luke reproduce (and edit) alternative versions o f an original Aramaic sayings-source.

5

In an unpublished note, T . W . Manson has further suggested that Matt. 10: 3 6 is possibly a case where avSoowiog should have been read as ( 6 ) vide, (xov) a v 0 Q O ) J t o u : the term

otxiaxog, 'member o f his house', recalls Matt.

10: 2 5 b , where it refers to 'members o f the household o f Beelzebul'. Luke 1 2 : 5 2 could well be a paraphrase or 'targum' o f this saying. This possibility widens the conflict to a 'division' between the kingdom o f G o d and the kingdom o f Satan.

6

T h e parallel in Luke, 'division' - possibly a deliberate softening o f the harsher expression in Matthew - makes it seem reasonable to assume that 'sword' is to be interpreted in this context in a figurative rather than in any literal sense. 'There are . . . sayings where Jesus spoke o f the sword quite figuratively. This is true o f Matthew 10: 3 4 , where he says: " I am come not to bring peace, but the s w o r d . " Here the allusion is to the persecution to which every disciple will be exposed.'

7

T h e assumption that there is a reference to persecution is frequently made, and, no doubt, it is chiefly in situations o f persecuted minorities that such divisions are found. It is important to emphasise, however, that, so far as the evangelists are concerned, it is the division o f loyalties within a 'family' which the 'sword' here signifies. T h e ' M i c a h ' theme has become a c o m m o n p l a c e o f Jewish life, history and literature; and the gospel verses are simply a Christian extension of the same theme. Thus at Jubilees 2 3 : 1 6 , 1 9 : 'and in that generation the sons will convict their fathers and their elders o f sin and unrighteousness. . . . A n d they will strive with one another, the young with the old, and the old with the young'; Mishnah, Sotah, 9, 1 5 : 'with the footprints o f the Messiah presumption shall increase. . . . Children shall shame the elders and the elders shall rise up before the children, "for the son dishonoureth", etc. (Micah 7 : 6 ) . T h e face o f this generation is as the face o f a d o g , and the son will not be put to shame by his father.' (Danby, 3 0 6 ) . T h e division 'three against two and two against three' is explained as the division o f old and young, the 'generation g a p ' ;

8

the household consists o f the father and mother on the one side ( 2 ) , and the son, his wife and daughter, on the other ( 3 ) . T . W . Manson comments: ' T h e 5

6

7

8

M a t t . 10: 34 r\KQov/ / L u k e 12:5i_JiaQ£Yev6uY)v; c p . J u d . 6 : 5 ; 9: 37; 19: 10; 2 K i n g s 1 0 : 1 6 , L X X JiafjevevovTO; A q . r\\Qov. H e b . nta-i ; T a r g . w i .F01 PotXeiv = d o i r v a i , Jer. 37 (44): 18: L X X 6i6cog; A q . I6a)xag; S y m m . e(3dXexe: H e b . o n m ; T a r g . pnarr . It is possible that N3">n (if this was the original) m a y have been misread as Rmn in Luke. I o w e these observations to the note o f M a n s o n , mentioned above. See further b e l o w , p . 289. O s c a r C u l l m a n n , The State in the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1 9 5 7 ) , p . 32. C p . M a r k 2: 2iff; 3: 3 1 - 5 ; Luke 9: 5 9 - 6 2 ; 14: 26.

'Not

peace but a sword'

289

picture here drawn by Jesus of the results of His work is in startling contrast to the kind o f expectation shown in the role assigned to Elijah in Malachi 4: 5f. Here again Jesus reverses current expectations about the coming o f the K i n g d o m . ' 9

M a n y will no doubt be satisfied with such an explanation o f the 'sword'. W e cannot be absolutely certain, however, that these words were originally spoken by Christ with sole reference to the division o f loyalties which allegiance to him would bring within the family. It could conceivably have had a wider reference. If the suggestion o f Manson is accepted and verse 3 6 is translated 'and the enemies o f the Son o f M a n ([xov vlov]

xov

&V9QU)J101)) shall be those o f his own household', the split Christ prophe sied would be not just within families but within Israel itself. T h e conflict is then between the Son o f man (or the kingdom of G o d ) and Satan (the king d o m o f Beelzebul). Luke 1 2 : 5 1 - 2 dwells further on the point m a d e in verse 49. T h e manifestation o f the K i n g d o m means war to the bitter end against evil; and evil is so firmly entrenched in human life and human relations that much suffering and heartbreak are inevitable before it can be cast o u t . . . T h e coming ofjesus brings tension: it brings to sharpest issue the struggle between the kingdom o f G o d and the forces o f evil. It compels man to take sides; and members o f the same family may be in opposite c a m p s .

10

Moreover, one does not get rid entirely o f the difficulty o f Matthew's harsh term 'sword' by describing it as purely figurative, for while 'division' may imply 'conflict' but not necessarily 'violence', the 'sword' has all its associations with violent conflict and with the use o f the armed hand. It is on the strength o f sayings like this that Jesus o f Nazareth has, not infrequently, been cast in the role o f political revolutionary. O n e o f the earliest liberals, H . S. Reimarus, represented him as secretly working and preparing for a national uprising. T w i c e Jesus believed it to be near at hand, first when he sent out his disciples on the mission to Israel (Matt. t

10:23);

n

e

second and last occasion was after the triumphal entry, the

violent challenge to authority in the T e m p l e cleansing, and the great incendiary harangue at Matthew 2 3 . But Jerusalem and the Jews did not respond by rising in rebellion, as they had failed to d o when the disciples were sent out to rouse them.

11

T h e 'political' theory of Jesus's messiahship has never been completely disproved or a b a n d o n e d , 9

10

11

12

12

and, indeed, has been attracting interest again

The Sayings ofJesus ( L o n d o n , 1949), p . 121. M a n s o n , Sayings, p p . i2of. See further, A . Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede ( T u b i n g e n , 1906), p . 19 ( E T The Quest of the Historical Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1954), p p . 191). T h e 1930s saw a n u m b e r o f these 'political' interpretations o f the life o f j e s u s in this

2gO

M A T T H E W BLACK

in recent discussion. Thus, following the theory of Robert Eisler and Joseph Klausner that Jesus was a Galilaean Zealot, Professor S. G . F. Brandon o f Manchester has reviewed the evidence again, in particular in the light o f our fuller knowledge o f first-century zealotism furnished by the Qumran discoveries.

13

Jesus and his movement were, in fact, Dr Brandon argues, politically involved (Simon, one o f the twelve, is called a 'Zealot', Luke 6: 1 5 ; Acts 1: 1 3 ) ; Jesus was crucified on charges o f lese-majeste. All this the R o m a n Gospel o f Mark seeks to suppress, and Mark's apologetical interpretation o f Jesus is further modified by the other evangelists into the traditional portrait o f the 'pacific Christ', the Prince o f Peace. Matthew 10: 3 4 is cited on the frontispiece o f Dr Brandon's book and referred to more than once in support o f his theory: 'Verses 3 5 f (Luke 1 1 : 5 2 f ) appear to be an attenuated explanation o f the original Messianic pronouncement.'

14

This secondary explanation o f the original 'uncomfor

table saying' was inspired by the primitive community's experience of what discipleship

o f Jesus

meant

in

human

relationships.

The

original

pronouncement ofjesus, however, is to be understood as clearly indicative of a zealotic attitude and mission. ( C p . the statement on p. 2 0 , 'his recorded sayings and actions signify variously both pacifism and violence'; a further reference to Matt. 10: 3 4 follows.)

15

' S w o r d ' is thus taken in the sense o f violence to be applied for political ends and refers to political zealotism. This understanding o f the text is further supported by Dr Brandon in his interpretation o f the episode recorded at Luke 2 2 : 3 5 - 8 , which is understood as a 'record ofjesus arming his disciples, or rather his checking on their armament'.

16

T o see the possibility o f a Zealot uprising behind the passion story is surely, however, to read too much into such scraps o f evidence; and, in any case, as Cullmann purposes

has argued, the bearing o f weapons for defensive

(in a land where violent attack might be expected in any

situation) is all that the evidence at Luke 22: 3 5 need imply. Self-defence is quite different from embracing zealotism:

17

c o u n t r y : C o n r a d Noel, Jesus the Heretic ( L o n d o n , 1939), The Life of Jesus (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1939); J o h n L e w i s , Christianity and the Social Revolution, ed. J. L e w i s , K . Polanyi a n d D o n a l d K . K i t c h i n ( L o n d o n , 1935); and in m o r e recent years, H e w l e t t J o h n s o n , The Origins of Christianity ( L o n d o n , 1953). C p . also the discerning study o f H . G . W o o d , 'Interpreting T h i s T i m e ' , NTSt 2 (1955/56), 262ff. C p . E. B a m m e l a b o v e , p p . 11-68, esp. n. 351, p . 56f. 13

Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967).

1 3

1 6

1 7

1 4

P. 320, n. 2.

F o r a recent clarification o f Professor B r a n d o n ' s views, see his note o n ' "Jesus and the Z e a l o t s " : A C o r r e c t i o n ' , NTSt 17, 4 (1971), 453. Is this note c o m p l e t e l y consistent with earlier views? P. 340, note 7. C p . also G . W . H . L a m p e b e l o w , p p . 335-51. C u l l m a n n , State, p p . 32f.

'Not peace but a sword'

291

It is for their defense that they are to be equipped with a sword at this time. If we regard the saying as genuine (and I hold it impossible to assail its authenticity), then we must in consequence take this command seriously. Even so I do not believe we may draw the conclusion that Jesus really embraced Zealotism here, even for a moment . . . He reckons with eventualities in which, for the sake of the proclamation of the Gospel, defensive sword-bearing may become a necessity for the disciples. T h e passage, it seems to me, is not to be taken entirely literally as Cullmann is inclined to d o . T h e selling up o f the outer garment (the ijidTiov), a garment which was necessary for life,

18

and the purchasing o f a

sword, is vivid language to underline the extreme gravity and danger o f the moment. W h a t has hitherto been unnoted (so far as I know) is that the word play in xeX.Eo9fjvai (is fulfilled) and

TO

mgi

19

k\iov

Teôg

exei (what

concerns me has an end) is even more striking in Aramaic, since a very c o m m o n word for 'sword' is sayefa (see Tj Exod. 17: 3 0 , 2 Kings 3 : 2 1 ) ; there is every reason why this word should have been employed in the original 20

logion.

T h e Aramaic equivalents o f xeXeoGfjvai and xeXog are s u f (e.g.,

Dan. 4 : 3 0 , L X X XEkeoQr\OExai) 5EI

and s o f a (Dan. 7: 2 8 ) : T O

TeXeo6fjvai (1 e m i s o f) ev e j x o t . . .

T O J I E Q I E\IOV

yeyQa\i\xevov £l

ex -

TeX.og ( s o f a )

It has been argued that this genuine, apocalyptic word suggests that the message o f j e s u s did in fact include references to the messianic war; here Jesus is in direct contact with his Jewish apocalyptic milieu. T h e 'little apocalypse' is further evidence for this, even if the role played by Christian disciples seems

there a purely

passive one. By this word Jesus is,

symbolically at least, predicting the coming final armed conflict.

21

(See

further, below, p . 292f.) Such

evidence, however,

could also

lead

to

the

suspicion

of a

'non-dominical' zealotic origin and inspiration for our saying, in particular if it was in fact an isolated saying which the evangelists have given a 'comfortable' context: ' O n the whole, there is much to be said for the sug gestion that some astray Zealot phrases have somehow intruded their way into the Gospel r e c o r d . ' 18 19

20

21 22

22

Cp. Manson, Sayings, p. 51. What Aramaic lies behind T O Jteoi E\IOV? Has ' i l i a aixia (cp. Dan. 6: 5, 6) been omitted before ' a l a i Jieol K\IOV, the original reading f| aixia Jieoi K\IOV (better xat' I\IOV) ( ' i l i a ' a l a i ) x e X o g e x e t ? The reason why, in the Greek of Luke, not £icpog (i.e. KS-O ) but n&xaioa is used will then be simply that, since the paronomasia could not be preserved in Greek, the most natural word for sword was chosen. Cp. H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (Tubingen, 1966), p. 93. F. W. Beare, The Earliest Records of Jesus (Oxford, 1962), p. 229.

292

M A T T H E W BLACK

A different approach to the problem but one leading to a similar result is found in the work o f modern German interpreters. R . Bultmann, for instance, removes the difficulty altogether by explaining the words as a community saying: We are also faced with difficulties in considering Lk 12:51-53; Mt 10: 34-36. The prophecy in Lk 12: 52f. par. is the well-known prediction of the troubles of the end from Mic. 7: 6, which is also the source behind Mk 13: 12. Cp. E. En. 100.2; Sanh. f. 97a: 'In that age, when the son of David comes . . . the daughter will rise against her mother and the daughter-inlaw against her mother-in-law'. That this prophecy now appears in Mt 10: 35 in the form f|A.6ov yo.Q 6txaoai x.xA. is obviously a secondary transposition. The Church, putting Jesus in God's place as the ruler of history, has made him proclaim that he will bring the time of terror, and had obviously experiened the fulfilment of the prophecy in its own life. But then it is clear, that the previous saying Mt 10: 34 = Lk 12: 51 has the same meaning: in the experience of the Church can be seen the fulfilment of that eschatological prophecy, and in it all the Church knows, to its comfort in suffering, that Jesus himself has both willed it and brought it to pass. There is express defence against doubting his person and work in u*| v o u x o n T E (or the questioning 6oxeixe), which also introduces the saying in Mt 5: 17 which comes from the debates of the Church. (Italics mine.) 23

A fresh approach to the problem which seeks to take seriously

the

'zealotic' phrases (and the reality behind them) is to be found in an article entitled 'Jesu heiliger Krieg' (Jesus's holy war) by Professor Otto B e t z .

24

Betz argues in this study that concepts and language coming from the Hebrew tradition o f 'holy war' may be traced in the teaching ofjesus; the dark saying, for instance, about the 'storming' o f the kingdom o f G o d (Matt, n : 1 2 , Luke 1 6 : 1 6 ) . It was not, however, against the R o m a n enemy but against the embattled forces of Belial, the strong one ( c p . Matt. 1 2 : 2 9 ) , that this spiritual warfare was being waged. Within this universe o f discourse Matt. 10: 34 is to be understood. It is a threat (Drohwort) against an adulterous generation, against the godless w h o have no peace but will fall by the sword that will be divinely drawn in the final war when the Last Judgement breaks in on a godless world; and the no-man's-land between righteous and godless will be found even within the close fellowship o f the family itself (p. 1 2 9 ) . 2 3

24

Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (5th e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1961), p . 166. E T The History of the Synoptic Tradition b y J o h n M a r s h (2nd e d n . O x f o r d , 1968), p p . 154-5. F o r another ' s o l u t i o n ' o f the p r o b l e m , see Foerster in ThWNT ii, 412, a n d c p . Stephen Neill's c o m m e n t : 'this takes seriously neither what Jesus says n o r the t r e m e n d o u s significance o f w h a t he m e a n s ' (The Interpretation of the New Testament, i86i-ig6i ( O x f o r d , 1964), p . 334).

NovTest

2 (1958), u6f.

'Not peace but a sword'

293

M i c a h 7: 6 is adapted by the original author o f this passage to give expression to this last terrible thought, but Dr Betz claims that the verse in Q

also falls within the traditions o f the Qumran sect. In one o f the 25

Testimonia

it is said o f Levi that he will no longer know either father or

mother, children or brothers, since he holds G o d ' s word and covenant in greater honour. Zeal for G o d may even turn his hand against the very life o f members of his o w n family. Betz argues that behind this Q u m r a n 'zealotry' lies E x o d . 3 2 : 2 7 - 9 and Deut. 1 3 : 7 - 1 2 , when all the Levites assembled to receive the c o m m a n d o f Moses to take the sword and destroy the idolatrous worshippers o f the golden calf: 'Thus saith the Lord G o d o f Israel, Put every man his sword by his side . . . and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour' (Exod. 32: 2 7 ) . So also Jesus, Betz argues, as 'the Holy O n e o f G o d ' (John 6: 6 9 ; Mark 1: 2 4 ) , brings just such a sword of judgement. In the Apocalypse of John, which one could describe as a kind o f ' W a r Scroll' of Christianity, the sword is the sign o f Christ triumphant. H e carries a sharp, two-edged sword which proceeds out o f his mouth (Rev. 1: 1 6 ; 2: 1 2 , 1 6 ; 1 9 : 1 5 , 2 1 ) . It serves for judgement on the godless, the heathen ( 1 9 : 1 5 - 2 1 ) or the unrepentant members of the church ( 2 : 1 6 ) ; but as the sword of his mouth it is a spiritual sword, the sword o f his W o r d . Whether Jesus himself shared in the Qumran expectation of the holy war o f the last days (the Armageddon o f the Apocalypse) which would herald the end and the last judgement, it is impossible to say. C . H . D o d d once noted, in a discussion o f Matt. 1 0 : 3 4 , that Jesus did expect a general upheaval to follow the crisis o f his death.

26

If we can take Matt. 26: 5 2 - 3 as

authentic dominical utterances, then they not only make it abundantly clear that Jesus dissociated Himself absolutely from political zealotry, at the same time (verse 5 3 )

2 8

27

but

would seem to imply belief in the possibility o f

the intervention in the destiny of the world of'legions of angels', a heavenly warrior host, exactly as in the apocalyptic war of the Sons o f Light with the Sons o f Darkness. If Jesus did in fact share this item in the Zealot creed, then the sword he foretold in our text was the sword o f the Lord of Hosts, or rather o f his triumphant messiah. While not a political Zealot, Jesus could perhaps

be claimed

as

an

apocalyptic Zealot, proclaiming

a

final

impending war against Belial and all his followers in heaven and on earth, even in the same family. T h e sword would then be an image o f this terrible 2 5

J . M . A l l e g r o , 'Further M e s s i a n i c References in Q u m r a n Literature', JBL

75

(1956), l82f. 2 6

2 7

2 8

The Parables of the Kingdom (rev. e d n . L o n d o n , 1961), p . 50. ' P u t u p y o u r s w o r d . All w h o take the s w o r d d i e b y the s w o r d ' ( N E B ) . ' D o y o u s u p p o s e that I c a n n o t appeal to m y Father, w h o w o u l d at o n c e send to m y aid m o r e than twelve legions o f angels?' ( N E B ) . T h e 'twelve' seems to b e s y m b o l i c o f the a r m y o f the heavenly Israel.

M A T T H E W BLACK

294

prelude to the last judgement, the manifestation o f the wrath of G o d by the armies o f heaven. The 'uncomfortable words' would then follow appropriately on 1 2 : 4 9 in Luke, a saying whose authenticity not even Bultmann challenges,

29

and

which I have suggested earlier is a twin-saying to Matt. 1 0 : 3 4 . The figure of'fire' at Luke 1 2 : 4 9 is almost certainly to be interpreted as a symbol o f the divine judgement. T h e only satisfactory meaning the words can have in their Lukan context, where the 'fire' is parallel to and to some extent explained by the 'baptism' of Christ's death (verse 5 0 ) , is that Christ anticipated that this divine judgement would be precipitated ('kindled') by his death. ' T h e "fire" probably signifies the fire ofjudgement, to be kindled as a result o f the completion o f his mission through death.'

30

It may well

be that Christ is here represented (or interpreting his own mission) as a messianic fulfilment o f the prophecy o f J o h n the Baptist (Matt. 3: 11 par. T baptize you with water . . . he will baptize you (with the Holy Spirit and) 31

with fire').

Recent exegesis o f the verse goes on to interpret Christ's death

as the first instance o f this impending divine j u d g e m e n t ,

32

an anticipatory

exercise o f the divine jus gladii, but 5 i a tf|V 6ixaCu)Oiv f|[X(bv. It is certainly clear that, within the whole context of verses 4 9 - 5 3 (and contrary perhaps to current expectations o f a messianic reign o f peace), Christ's baptism o f fire, the penal judgement to which he willingly submitted, would be the beginning o f a greater conflagration, possibly Armageddon and the final judgement itself. T o this vivid biblical symbolism o f 'fire' for the wrath o f G o d in judgement is added in Matt. 1 0 : 3 4 the symbolism o f the sword. T h e final judgement o f G o d on the earth will be by fire and sword. T h e later N e w Testament understanding o f the latter as the sword o f the Spirit could be a spiritualisation

o f the original apocalyptic imagery, but not one that

necessarily distorts or obscures its original meaning; it simply underlines the nature o f the realities against which this 'holy war' was conducted, the cosmic powers o f evil which the New Testament firmly believed to be at work in the universe as well as in the world o f men. 2 9

3 0

3 1

3 2

Geschichte, p . 165 ( E T p . 154). G . W . H . L a m p e , Peake's Commentary (rev. e d n . L o n d o n , 1962), ad l o c . C p . M a n s o n , Sayings, p p . i2of. See E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke ( L o n d o n , 1966), p p . i8ifT and G . Delling, $ANXIO\IA, P a j i x i o 8 f j v a i , NovTest 2 (1958), 9 2 H (109). 0

W.GRUNDMANN

The decision of the Supreme Court to put Jesus to death (John 11:47-57) in its context: tradition and redaction in the Gospel of John 1 Mark, the evangelist followed by Matthew and Luke, introduces the passion event with Jesus's entry into Jerusalem, which is preceded by the healing o f a blind man as Jesus leaves Jericho (Mark 10: 4 6 - 5 2 par.; Matt. 20: 2 9 - 3 4 ; Luke 1 8 : 3 5 - 4 3 ) . Immediately afterwards come the cleansing o f the T e m p l e , the question about authority and the parable o f the wicked 1

husbandmen. A t the end there stands in all three synoptics the intention to seize Jesus, which, however, his opponents are prevented from doing because o f fear o f the people (Mark 1 2 : 1 2 ) . After the associated debates and the apocalyptic discourse, the decision is made in the high court to take Jesus ' b y stealth' in order to put him to death. But in order to avoid a riot 2

this is not to take place in the presence o f the festival c r o w d . 'By stealth' means therefore: secretly, without the people observing it. Fear o f the people w h o are attached to Jesus is once again apparent. T h e decision of the council is fixed by Mark with a time-note: two days before the feast. T h e reason for the decision is made plain: the cleansing o f the T e m p l e and the parable o f the wicked husbandmen which had been interpreted by the Sanhedrin members as an unmistakable attack on themselves. T h e T e m p l e hierarchy, w h o played a leading role in the Sanhedrin, applied themselves to Jesus's arrest and destruction. While the Pharisees, or as the case may be, the scribes among their membership, often appear in the Gospels as Jesus's opponents, now they recede into the background. T h e T e m p l e 3

hierarchy leading the Sanhedrin brings about Jesus's death, in that they are the persons who hand him over to the Romans. 1

2

3

T h e fig-tree p e r i c o p e ( M a r k n : 1 2 - 1 4 , 2 0 - 5 ; M a t t . 2 1 : 1 8 - 2 2 ) is absent from Luke, w h o instead offers the p a r a b l e o f the fig-tree elsewhere ( L u k e 1 3 : 6 - 9 ) . In M a r k 1 1 : iof, igf, 27; 14: 1 there can b e seen traces o f a time-scheme w h i c h spread the event o v e r several days. C p . W . G r u n d m a n n , Das Evangelium nach Markus (6th e d n . Berlin, 1 9 7 1 ) , p p . 2 4 5 - 7 ; c p . J. J e r e m i a s , Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (3rd edn. G o t t i n g e n , i 9 6 0 ) , p p . 6 5 - 7 ( E T The Eucharistic Words of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1966), PP- 7 i - 3 ) C p . G . B a u m b a c h , 'Jesus und die Pharisaer', in BLit 41 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 1 2 - 3 1 , e s p . 1 i4f.

295

20,6

W A L T E R GRUNDMANN

This synoptic scheme does not appear in the Fourth Gospel. Since it is difficult to accept that J o h n knows any o f the synoptic Gospels, the difference between him and the synoptics is not a question o f literary criticism but rather one o f tradition. Is the connection between the T e m p l e cleansing, the question about authority and the parable o f the wicked husbandmen one which was received by Mark or first constructed by him?

4

Only in the former case would one have to take account o f some acquaintance with this tradition on the part o f the fourth evangelist, and consequently o f a deliberate transformation being undertaken by him. Since he draws the T e m p l e cleansing back to the beginning o f his Gospel 5

with the question about authority still connected to it, the key element in the Markan scheme is not available as the ultimate reason for the passion in his account. H e is therefore bound to give an account of the cause of Jesus's death which diverges from the synoptics. In the Fourth Gospel this is found closely connected with the raising o f Lazarus; that event is followed by the decision o f the Supreme Council to put Jesus to death; joined to that is the account o f the anointing in Bethany, that is, the anointing o f the messianic king as he nears his death; the extension to Lazarus ( 1 2 : iof) o f the plan already formed by the high priests to put Jesus to death is attached to this and shows the significance o f the Lazarus event. T h e entry into Jerusalem, which is depicted as the reception o f a king and which also contains the Lazarus reference ( 1 2 : 1 7 1 )

6

triggers off the request o f the Greeks. This

constitutes for Jesus the signal that 'the hour is c o m e in which the Son o f man will be glorified' (cp. 2: 4 ; 7: 30; also 7: 6 - 8 ; 1 2 : 2 3 ; see also 7: 3 9 ; 1 1 : 4 ; 1

3

:

1

1

1

>3 ; 7

:

1

0 • T h e passages which speak of the hour that is future and yet

is now, Jesus's glorification o f the Father and his own glorification by the

4

T h i s q u e s t i o n has been raised recently with reference to the shorter form o f passion narrative, b y E . L i n n e m a n n , Studien zur Passionsgeschichte ( G o t t i n g e n , 1970); the s a m e applies all the m o r e to her o w n p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . It is scarcely p o s s i b l e to affirm a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the ' t r i u m p h a l ' entry a n d the p a r a b l e o f the w i c k e d h u s b a n d m e n in the narrative s e q u e n c e w h i c h c a m e d o w n to M a r k in oral tradition.

5

H . S c h u r m a n n , ' D e r Bericht v o m A n f a n g ' , in Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien (Diisseldorf, 1968), p p . 69-80 suggests that there w a s a tradition c o n c e r n e d with the b e g i n n i n g o f the story o f j e s u s . I f this meets with a p p r o v a l then it b e c o m e s clear that in J o h n not o n l y the report o f the end but also that o f the b e g i n n i n g has b e e n given a n e w form. O n his theological v i e w p o i n t c p . W . G r u n d m a n n , V e r k i i n d i g u n g u n d G e s c h i c h t e in d e m Bericht v o m E i n g a n g der G e s c h i c h t e J e s u im J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m ' , in H . R i s t o w a n d K . M a t t h i a e , Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus (Berlin, i960), p p . 289-308. B y m e a n s o f 1: 29; 2: 1, 4 a n d the position o f the cleansing o f the T e m p l e a n d its interpretation, 2: 13-22 a n d 3: i4f, the G o s p e l o f J o h n is p l a n n e d from the b e g i n n i n g with an e y e to the crucifixion and resurrection. C p . also J. A . T . R o b i n s o n b e l o w , p p . 455-60.

6

C p . M . D i b e l i u s , An die Thessalonicher I, II (3rd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1937) o n 1 T h e s s . 4: 17; E. Peterson, ThWNTi, 380 ( E T TDNTi (1964) 3801), and also ' D i e E i n h o l u n g

des K y r i o s ' , in ZSTh 7 (1929-30), 682ff.

T h e decision to put Jesus to death

297

7

Father, the role o f Lazarus w h o m Jesus loves - all these show clearly not only that tradition is available but also that this tradition is deliberately moulded and worked over redactionally. T h e redactional work o f the Fourth Evangelist, however, bears an explicit theological stamp.

8

The

pattern o f it brings to light the interpretation o f the passion event: Jesus is the giver o f life; in the carrying out o f the sign o f giving life to Lazarus is to be found the prime cause o f his own death. T h e giving of life by the life-giver brings death to him. That is made plain by the bringing together in the same context o f the raising o f Lazarus and the decision o f the Sanhedrin to kill Jesus ( 1 1 : 4 5 - 7 ) . A t the same time the high priest's prophetic statement makes clear that the death o f the life-giver means the gift o f life to mankind. In this way the fourth evangelist interprets the saying o f the high priest ( 1 1 : 5 1 1 ) , and in this way the thought is carried through in the narrative sequence from the anointing in Bethany to the request o f the Greeks. T h e passage which tells o f the redemption by Christ's passion, is set by the fourth evangelist in the context o f one central theological idea and so betrays consciously undertaken redactional activity; in it the pericope about the resolution by the Sanhedrin plays the part o f an essential connecting link. That his giving o f life should bring death to the life-giver, and that this death is his gift o f life to mankind is declared in the pericope which encloses the total event o f the decision to put him to death. It has therefore

a fundamental

significance as theology mediated

through

redaction, though, at the same time, elements o f tradition can still be clearly discerned in it. It must therefore be investigated in terms both of its theological redaction and o f its historical contents as formed by tradition.

II T w o things are noticeable. Firstly, by contrast with the synoptic tradition, the Pharisees are involved in the decisive resolution. Secondly, this decision to put Jesus to death is not as in Mark 1 4 : 1 fixed two days before the Passover, but quite a while earlier, some time between the Feast o f Dedication in D e c e m b e r (John 10: 2 2 ) and the Passover in April ( 1 1 : 5 5 ) . T h e significance which the Pharisees have here is to be found in the development which occurred between the time ofjesus and the period after

7

8

T h e striking e m p h a s i s o n the love a n d friendship o f j e s u s for L a z a r u s and the e x t e n d e d reference suggest the thought that for the Fourth Evangelist L a z a r u s is the disciple w h o m J e s u s loved ( 1 1 : 3 , 5 , 1 1 , 36; 13:23; 18:15; 19: 26; 20:2; 21: 7, 20). O n the question o f tradition a n d redaction, c p . R . B u l t m a n n , Das Evangelium des Johannes ( G o t t i n g e n , 1941), p . 301, footnote 4 ( E T The Gospel of John ( O x f o r d , 1971), p . 395, footnote 4); E. H i r s c h , Studien zum vierten Evangelium ( T u b i n g e n , 1936), p p . 87-94-

298

W A L T E R GRUNDMANN 9

the Jewish war. Whereas before the war they had been one group among others, they became after it the leading group which promptly determined the reorganisation o f Israel and eliminated other forces. This development is reflected in the Gospel tradition; these people w h o become the decisive opponents o f early Christianity and inflict a curse upon it

10

are made the

essential enemies o f Jesus too, and the dispute between Jesus and his opponents concentrates on them. Other associated Jewish groups like Zealots and Essenes d o not appear, although Jesus may well have been involved in debate with them as well. All this is particularly plain in Matthew.

It is all the more noteworthy that the synoptics' passion

narrative speaks about the Sanhedrin and its grouping but says nothing about the Pharisees; this is therefore clear evidence o f knowledge o f the situation at the time o f j e s u s .

1 1

In the Gospel o f John, however, the

Pharisees appear more as an official body than as a party (John 1 : 2 4 ; 9: 1 3 - 1 6 ; 1 1 : 4 6 1 ) .

1 2

Since in J o h n the opponents o f j e s u s are 'the J e w s ' ,

13

account must be taken of the possibility that the passages which give to the Pharisees a directly official character and which regard them, along with the high priests, as the Sanhedrin (7: 3 2 , 4 5 ; 1 1 : 4 7 ; tradition which has flowed into this G o s p e l .

3)> belong to the

14

T h e decision to put Jesus to death is fixed some time before his entry into

9

O n the Pharisee question, c p . R . M e y e r , Tradition und Neuschbpfung im antiken Judentum (Berlin, 1965); H . F. W e i s s , Der Pharisdismus im Lichte der Uberlieferung des Neuen Testaments (Berlin, 1965); R . M e y e r - H . F . W e i s s , ThWNT ix, 11-51 ( E T TDNT ix (1974), u - 4 9 ) . C p . the twelfth petition o f the Eighteen Benedictions prayer. S - B iv, p p . 2i2f. " T h i s limited j u d g e m e n t o n the role o f the Pharisees does not i m p i n g e o n the p r o b l e m o f the controversial passage M a r k 14: 53, 55-65. T h i s must b e treated in its o w n right a n d b y a c o m p a r i s o n with o t h e r traditions. O n this, c p . the discussion in P. W i n t e r , On the Trial ofJesus (Berlin, 1961) and J. Blinzler, Der Process Jesu (3rd e d n . R e g e n s b u r g , i960) ( E T o f 2nd e d n , The Trial of Jesus ( C o r k , 1959). T h e r e are h o w e v e r passages w h e r e the sense is o f a g r o u p or party, c p . 3: 1; 9:40; a c c o r d i n g to 12:42 they are the powerful o p p o n e n t s o f j e s u s o f w h o m even the Jewish a Q X £ afraid. O n this, c p . W . Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium (3rd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1933), excursus o n 1: 19; W . G u t b r o d , ThWNT'iW, 378-81, 387ftET TDNT'm (1965), 377-9, 3851); E. Grasser, ' D i e antijudische Polemik i m J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m ' , NTSt 11 (1964-5),

1 0

1 2

O V T e

a

r

e

1 3

74-901 4

E . B a m m e l , ' E x ilia itaque d i e c o n s i l i u m fecerunt . . .', in The Trial of Jesus: Cam bridge Studies in honour of C. F. D. Moule, e d . E. B a m m e l ( L o n d o n , 1970), p . 21 c o n c l u d e s that the formulation 'the high priests and the Pharisees' d o e s not a p p e a r to b e a J o h a n n i n e figure o f s p e e c h ; he regards it as typical o f the period from A g r i p p a to the w a r rather than o f the p r e c e d i n g o n e . It is necessary, h o w e v e r , also to reckon with the possibility that it w a s fashioned after the J e w i s h war. In c o n n e c t i o n with the Pharisees there w o u l d then b e within that d e v e l o p i n g situation an historicising t e n d e n c y , j u s t as in M a t t h e w ' s formulation 'the Pharisees and S a d d u c e e s ' ( M a t t . 3: 7; 16: 1,6, 1 i f ) . O n this c p . R . H u m m e l , Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthausevangelium ( M i i n c h e n , 1963), p p . 18-20. C p . further in the text.


299

Jerusalem; it is publicised openly, and it issues in a demand to inform on Jesus. O n the basis o f this decision and with the assistance o f Judas Jesus is arrested, examined and handed over to Pilate for trial ( 1 8 : 1 to 1 9 : 1 6 ) . This account diverges from that o f the synoptics. In c o m m o n with Luke, John has no Jewish sentence o f death (Luke 2 2 : 6 6 - 7 1 ; John 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 4 , 1 9 - 2 4 , 2 8 ) , while Mark and Matthew give a report o f proceedings against Jesus before the Sanhedrin which culminates in the declaration that he deserved death (Mark 1 4 : 5 3 , 5 5 - 6 5 ; Matt. 26: 5 7 , 5 9 - 6 8 ) ; this is followed by his being handed over to Pilate (Mark 1 5 : 1 ; Matt. 2 7 : if). O v e r against this J o h n has an explicit interrogation o f Jesus based on a Sabbath healing in Jerusalem and the defence o f this action by reference to his working together with the Father (John 5 : 2 f , 5 - 1 8 ) . Jesus's apologia

15

is an

extended discourse in which he answers the charges brought against him and also goes over to the offensive ( 5 : 1 9 - 4 7 ) . T o this there is attached a discussion ( 7 : 1 5 - 2 4 ) .

1 6

While this discussion refutes the accusation o f

Sabbath-breaking ( 7 : 2 1 - 4 ) , the apologia deals with his relationship to the Father, which is the reason why the Jews want to assassinate him (cp. 5: 1 8 ) . T h e whole event occurs at the Feast o f Tabernacles, that is, a considerable time before the final Passover. T h e ensuing discussion about and with Jesus, which lasts right through to the end o f the festival, is followed by a session o f the high priests and Pharisees (7: 4 5 , as also 1 1 : 4 7 ) in which members of the T e m p l e police report on the abortive attempt at an arrest ofjesus for which they had been commissioned.

17

This attempt had

also been initiated by the chief priests and Pharisees ( 7 : 3 2 ) , just as the ultimate arrest is authorised by them ( 1 8 : 3 ) . In the events o f the passion there is no completion o f the debate with the Jews: that has already been finished.

1 5

1 6

1 7

Rather, the climax is reached in the confrontation between Jesus

t

n

e

A s w e h a v e before us in J o h n 5: 19-47 literary form o f the a p o l o g i a , so in 13: 1 to 16: 33 w e have that o f the s y m p o s i u m . T h e original s e q u e n c e m a y p o s s i b l y have run as follows: 4:43-54; 6: 1 to 7:13 (with 7: 12-13 forming the introduction to what follows); 5: 2-47; 7: 15-24. O n this, c p . W . Strathmann, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (6th edn. G o t t i n g e n , 1951); W . G r u n d m a n n , Zeugnisund GestaltdesJohannesevangeliums (Berlin a n d Stuttgart, 1961), p p . 9-12. T h e s e q u e n c e does exhibit s o m e inconsistencies. T h u s 5: 16 c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d as an arrest o f j e s u s for the p u r p o s e o f interrogation. In 7: 25 s o m e Jerusalemites express their astonishment that the plan directed against Jesus with a v i e w to killing him has apparently been a b a n d o n e d . 7: 30, 32 refer to attempts at an arrest w h i c h h o w e v e r c o u l d not b e b r o u g h t to fulfilment; their collapse is r e c o r d e d in 7:45-52. Before w h i c h o f these instances d i d the a p o l o g i a o c c u r ? Different layers o f tradition have b e c o m e visible w h i c h (as in other passages in the G o s p e l ) are not w o r k e d together without seams. O b s e r v a t i o n s o f this sort have led m e to the c o n c l u s i o n that the G o s p e l o f j o h n is an ancient w o r k w h i c h remained i n c o m p l e t e and w h o s e author p r o c e e d e d with great c a u t i o n . O n this c p . m y discussion in Zeugnis und Gestault, pp. f. 7

300

WALTER

GRUNDMANN

and Pilate, which is concerned with imperium Romanum and the kingdom o f God:

these have their representatives in Pilate and Jesus. But in this

passage it is established that for J o h n it is the claim o f j e s u s to belong to God

as Son to Father which constitutes

the deepest reason for the

opposition o f the Jews to him ( 5 : 1 9 ; 1 0 : 3 0 - 3 ; 1 9 : 7 ) . This outline o f the story ofjesus and his passion in John is achieved with the help o f a tradition which holds the decision by the Sanhedrin to put Jesus to death and Jesus's condemnation to the cross by the Romans further 18

apart in time than is the case in the synoptics. If we must reckon with the possibility that J o h n 1 1 : 4 7 - 5 7 in particular contains traditional elements, then this divergence from the synoptics cannot be explained simply in terms o f the theological viewpoint o f the fourth evangelist himself. This conclusion is strengthened by the observation that the Johannine tradition is confirmed by Jewish statements. In b. Sanh. 4 3 a it is said: O n the eve o f Passover J e s u s w a s hanged a n d a herald w e n t out 40 d a y s before (and cried): H e is to be stoned because he practised m a g i c a n d beguiled a n d led Israel astray. A n y o n e w h o knows any justification o n his b e h a l f should come and testify for him! B u t there w a s no defence found for him a n d so he w a s hanged on the eve o f the Passover. In an independent form therefore we have here what is contained in J o h n 1 1 : 5 4 , 5 7 . In both cases there is a gap between the decision o f the Sanhedrin and its implementation. There is also an agreement between the T a l m u d i c tractate and J o h n 1 8 : 2 8 , 1 9 : 31 as to the timing o f the crucifixion,

19

and

similarly about the accusation brought against Jesus that he was a beguiler of the people (so J o h n 7: 1 2 ) . Traces of a tradition o f a variant scheme o f the trial o f Jesus, diverging from the synoptic account, are to be found elsewhere in other passages in non-Christian tradition.

20

1 8

T h e possibility o f a considerable interval b e t w e e n the decision to bring a b o u t Jesus's death and the final Passover can b e discerned in M a r k 3:6. C o n s e q u e n t l y it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the M a r k a n a c c o u n t o f the Pass ion c o m p r e s s e s a s e q u e n c e o f events w h i c h in fact stretched o v e r a l o n g e r period.

1 9

D i s c u s s i o n o f the question o f the dating o f Jesus's death and o f the p r e c e d i n g events has recently b e e n r e n e w e d , c p . A . J a u b e r t , J e s u s et le C a l e n d r i e r d e Q u m r a n ' , NTSt 7 (1960-1), 1-30 a n d La date de la Cene (Paris, 1957), ( E T The Date of the Last Supper ( N e w Y o r k , 1965)); E . K u t s c h , ' C h r o n o l o g i e ' , RGG i (3rd e d n . ) ,

2 0

C p . B a m m e l , Trial, p p . 30-2, a n d also 'Christian O r i g i n s in J e w i s h T r a d i t i o n ' , NTSt 13 (1966-7), 317-35, esp. 326f; W . H o r b u r y , ' T h e T r i a l o f j e s u s in J e w i s h T r a d i t i o n ' , in B a m m e l , Trial, p p . 103-21. O n J o h n 11: 54, c p . O r i g e n , Contra Celsum ii. 9: ' w h e n w e had c o n v i c t e d h i m , c o n d e m n e d h i m and d e c i d e d that he s h o u l d b e p u n i s h e d , h e w a s c a u g h t hiding himself and escaping most disgracefully, a n d i n d e e d w a s b e t r a y e d b y those w h o m he called his disciples . . . ' .

1813.

T h e decision to put Jesus to death It is therefore not at all certain that John 1 1 : 4 5 - 5 7

l s

301

'a Johannine

construction . . . behind which there is no source', a view drawn by R. Bultmann from J. Finegan,

21

or that it can be understood 'entirely as a

remodelling o f the Synoptics', to use the formulation o f E. Hirsch.

22

Contrary to this view C . H . D o d d sees in it 'a piece of tradition' and regards it as 'improbable in the extreme that the composition o f the pericope is the original work o f the writer'.

23

From a form-critical angle he sees it as one o f

'several scenes in which Jesus does not appear in person', which he regards as typically Johannine;

24

it is fundamentally distinguished, however, from

the other scenes o f this type by the fact that it is the only one in which the decisive saying is spoken by an enemy o f j e s u s .

25

T h e detailed tradition-historical and redaction-critical analysis o f the form and content o f the pericope leads to the following insights. John 1 1 : 4 5 is the conclusion o f the raising of Lazarus; faith in Jesus had been awakened in many w h o had witnessed that event. Verse 4 6 connects this with the next event: some g o and inform the Pharisees, who are here, as in 9: 1 3 , depicted as the authorities. This information becomes the pretext for convening the Sanhedrin which consists o f the chief priests and Pharisees (as at 7: 3 2 , 4 5 ; 1 8 : 3 ) . Because o f the signs Jesus performs, this body is plunged into perplexity.

26

T h e question x i J i o i o i ) [ i e v ; corresponds to the noXka Jtoiei

or)(XEia. T h e fact that Jesus's deeds are here described, even by members o f the Sanhedrin, as 'signs' rouses the suspicion that the following narrative belonged to the signs source suggested and reconstructed by R. Bultmann, and recognisable also in the conclusion at 20: 3 0 . meets

with

approval

Passion-and-Easter

it

means

that

this

27

If such a suggestion

Vorlage also contained

narrative which was closely related to the

a

Lukan

28

tradition. T h e theme o f the scene, the contrast between the 'one' and the 'whole nation', is set up; it is developed as the expression o f political anxiety in verse 4 8 and it reaches its climax in the decisive saying o f Caiaphas the 2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8

J. Finegan, Die Uberlieferung der Leidens-undAuferstehungsgeschichteJesu (Berlin, 1934), p p . 30I'; B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 313 footnote 2, E T p . 409 footnote 8. H i r s c h , Studien, p . 93. C . H . D o d d , ' T h e p r o p h e c y o f C a i a p h a s J o h n X I 47-53' in Neotestamentica et Patristica, Freundesgabe fur 0. Cullmann ( L e i d e n , 1962), p . 135. In Neotestamentica et Patristica, p p . I36f. 'the general b o d y o f oral tradition w h i c h , so far as w e k n o w it, is s h a p e d b y the m o t i v e o f presenting Jesus himself in significant speech a n d a c t i o n ' . O n the unusual formulation Ti Jtoio\)u.ev; c p . Bauer, Johannesevangelium, a d l o c , to w h o m also B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 313 footnote 8 ( E T p . 410 footnote 5), refers. T h e formulations in 11:47f a n d 20: 3of s h o w striking agreement. O n this, see W . G r u n d m a n n , Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Berlin, 2nd e d n . 1961) p p . 17-22; P. Parker, ' L u k e a n d the Fourth Evangelist', NTStg (1962-3), 317-36. O n the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n 1 1 : 4 7 - 5 7 and passion narrative in J o h n 18 and 19, B a m m e l c o n c l u d e s similarly: 'the reports in c h s . 18 and 19 . . . are b a s e d o n the s a m e s o u r c e as 11:47!?, Trial, p . 29. t

n

e

302


high priest, which is said to be prophetic.

29

In verse 4 9 this is introduced

and in verse 5 0 it is formulated. In verse 51 it is established as prophecy, but in verse 5 2 it receives comment along the lines o f a particularly important Johannine theological statement. If one is to see in 1 1 : 4 7 the adoption and adaptation o f tradition, then verse 5 2 was certainly not contained in the signs source but is to be traced back to the evangelist. Verse 5 3 contains the decision of the Sanhedrin, while verse 5 4 describes evasive action on Jesus's part. Verse 5 7 reports the decree o f the Sanhedrin stating the reponsibility of anyone w h o knows where Jesus may be staying to pass on

the

information so that he can be arrested. In other words, an arrest warrant is issued. T h e two intervening verses 5 5 and 5 6 are on the other hand unlikely to be drawn from tradition;

30

they are similar to John 7: 1 0 - 1 3 and in a

typically Johannine manner narrative.

31

form an

introduction

to the

following

Consequently the elements o f tradition which can be traced

back to the source comprise verses 4 7 , 4 8 , 4 9 , 5 0 , ( 5 1 ? ) , 5 3 , 5 4 , 5 7 . It is improbable that they stood next to the raising o f Lazarus since it follows from J o h n 1 1 : 2 that, while the Lazarus incident belonged to that signs source, it had a different position from that which the evangelist has editorially given it in his Gospel. Consequently the connecting verses 4 5 and 4 6 c o m e from him as well. If one enquires about the context o f 1 1 : 4 7 - 5 7 in the signs source, then the cleansing of the Temple emerges as a possibility;

32

according to 2: 2 3 signs had been performed in Jerusalem by

Jesus and 1 1 : 4 7 could be referring to these. It could also count in favour o f this possibility that the synoptic account has given to the T e m p l e cleansing and the events consequent on it the position which the fourth evangelist gives to the raising o f Lazarus. These fragments o f tradition give rise to a series o f questions. T h e signs awaken belief in Jesus; the Sanhedrin stands in perplexity over against him. T h e narrator has in mind an official meeting of the Sanhedrin 2 9

3 0

3 1

33

leading to a

B a m m e l , Trial, p . 23: J o h n 1 r. 48 'contains a c o m p a r i s o n between " o n e m a n " and the well-being o f the w h o l e nation . . .' C p . B a m m e l , Trial, p . 35, footnote 121; verse 57 c o u l d even b e linked directly with verse 54a/b. r

: 2

E x a m p l e s o f introductions o f this sort: 2: 23-5 for 3: 1-21; 7: 10-13 f ° 5 ~47

a n
v xov kviavxov EXEIVOU with Caiaphas being interpolated into the text at a later stage? T h e basic tradition, in the event of its including a passion narrative, spoke (John 18: 1 3 , 24) only of Annas. Then the evangelist will have constructed the reference to Caiaphas, and he it is w h o is responsible for the insertion at 1 1 : 4 9 . T h e relationship between A n n a s # n d Caiaphas was conceivably not without tension, perhaps above all a tension between their followers. According to Luke 3: 2 and Acts 4 : 6 Annas appears to take public precedence above Caiaphas, and this could also be showing itself in the structure o f the Johannine passion narrative. In the same way as Matthew (26: 3, 5 7 ) introduced the name of Caiaphas into the synoptic tradition, so also for John it is the latter who is the ultimately authoritative person. So it is Caiaphas w h o is meant in both John 1 1 : 4 9 , 5 1 and 18: 13 by &QXteeei>S &v t o * kviavxov exeivou. It is true that the high priest in the T e m p l e at Jerusalem was not appointed for a year but counted as fundamentally non-deposable. But it had not been possible to maintain this legal state o f affairs since the Syrian domination o f 1 7 5 B.C. Political authorities had in fact appointed and deposed high priests. T h e formulation xov eviouTOi) exeivov can therefore be understood in terms o f cultic practice in Syria/Asia M i n o r where the leading priests changed annually (in this case the evangelist would be 'wrongly orientated' vis-a-vis the Jewish legal situation). Alternatively it may be a reference to a R o m a n insistence on an annual confirmation o f the Jerusalem high priest, which however is not attested elsewhere and can only be deduced from the Johannine construction. T h e third possible interpretation is the view that the genitive xov kviavxov exeivov means nothing more than 'in that year when these events o c c u r r e d ' . Whichever view one may prefer it is the 39

40

41

42

43

3 9

O n this c p . B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 497, f o o t n o t e 4, E T p . 643 footnote 3. H i r s c h , Studien, p p . 93, u g f , traces the reference to C a i a p h a s back to the ecclesiastical r e d a c t o r o f the g o s p e l and attributes the reference to A n n a s to the evangelist. W . W i l k e n s , Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangelium ( Z o l l i k o n , 1958), p p . 79f, leaves the interchange o f A n n a s a n d C a i a p h a s in its p l a c e undisputed and explains: ' I n this w a y he wants to represent the h e a r i n g before the J e w i s h authority as u n i m p o r t a n t . F o r C a i a p h a s has i n d e e d a l o n g time earlier passed the definitive sentence (11:49!!).'

4 0

T h e possibility o f an " A v v a g reading at A c t s 5: 17 is reckoned with ( c p . B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 497, footnote 4 ( E T p . 643 f o o t n o t e 3)), though admittedly o n l y o n the basis o f a conjecture b y Blass. W e l l h a u s e n a n d H o l s c h e r a c c e p t e d this version w h i c h H i r s c h , Studien, p . 120, d e s c r i b e d as 'the correct reading'.

4 1

T h e genitive is lacking in p , e, 1, s y at verse 5 1 . T h u s B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 314, f o o t n o t e 2, E T p . 410 footnote 10. T h u s A . Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes (Stuttgart, 1930), p . 258): J e s u s ' first activity in J e r u s a l e m and J u d a e a , c h s . 2-4, as also the activity in Galilee w h i c h took p l a c e before the desert meal w h i c h c o i n c i d e d in time with the Passover, is not i n c l u d e d b y J o h n in this tviavxoq. H e i n c l u d e s the p e r i o d b e t w e e n the apostasy o f

4 2

4 3

4 5

s


305

high-priestly office which makes the saying authoritative and gives it prophetic weight. T h e Fourth Evangelist describes the high priest as a prophet and sees his prophethood as the property o f his office (verse 5 1 ) : ' H e did not say this o f 5

his o w n accord, but being high priest (that year) he prophesied. C . H . D o d d declares that this idea is the reflection o f a Jewish belief o f the first 44

Christian century. T h e contemporary Jewish and rabbinic tradition knows about high priests w h o hear voices and prophesy.

45

While the ancient

capacity o f the high priest for spontaneous oracles, the so-called Urim and T h u m m i m , had

expired after

the exile, yet nevertheless

in popular

estimation the expectation o f a prophetic capacity bound up with the office had been tenaciously preserved and constantly nourished.

46

Josephus

attributes to J o h n Hyrcanus the roles o f high priest, king and prophet (A J 1 3 . 2 9 9 ; BJ 1. 6 8 ) . Especially in Hellenistic Judaism, as Philo above all makes clear, prophecy and high-priesthood were connected together.

47

The

Fourth Evangelist uses a tradition in which the prophetic high priest makes the decisive utterance. In this way the account, in which Jesus himself does not figure, gains the form of a narrative in which the authoritative saying is introduced by a word o f the L o r d .

48

W h a t the high priest says becomes for

the Fourth Evangelist the keyword for the whole event bracketed together between 1 0 : 4 0 and 1 2 : 5 0 . T h e ideas XoyiêoSai and JiQoq)T]Tet3eiv which d o not occur anywhere else in John suggest that verses 4 5 to 5 1 form the the G a l i l e a n s and the Passover o f the crucifixion.' But if, as p r o p o s e d in footnote 16, 5:2-47 b e l o n g s b e t w e e n 7:13 a n d 7 : 1 5 , there stretches a full year from the pre-harvest time in S a m a r i a (4:35), through the Galilaean p a s s o v e r (6:4), the Feast o f T a b e r n a c l e s in J e r u s a l e m (7: 2, 37) and the feast o f T e m p l e purification in D e c e m b e r (10: 22) to the p a s s o v e r o f Jesus's death. O n l y the early activity o f j e s u s ( 1 : 1 9 to 3:36) falls o u t s i d e this structure. W i l k e n s , Entstehungsgeschichte, p . 63 note 235, explains: ' T h e genitive refers rather to the m o m e n t o u s y e a r o f Jesus's activity w h i c h o c c u r s d u r i n g C a i a p h a s ' term o f office, a n d is therefore a t e m p o r a l genitive. . . . In his basic gospel the fourth evangelist describes the activity o f j e s u s in the c o u r s e o f o n e year.' 4 4

4 5

D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 140: ' W e are therefore justified in c o n c l u d i n g that the w o r d s o f j n . XI51 e c h o a p o p u l a r belief o f first-century J u d a i s m . ' C p . also p . 139: 'in p o p u l a r belief p r o p h e t i c p o w e r s were associated with the office o f high priest'. C p . Schlatter, Johannes, p p . 259^ J. J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu 2 ( G o t t i n g e n , 1958) ii B , 4f, E T Jerusalem in the Time ofJesus ( L o n d o n , 1969), p p . i49f. O n the high priest, see J e r e m i a s , i b i d . p p . 3-17, E T p p . 142-60.

^ O n this, c p . E. B a m m e l , 'APXIEPEYZ nPOOHTEYQN', ThLZ 79 (1954),

351-6. 4 7

4 8

C p . e x a m p l e s in D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 139. T o this B u l t m a n n refers in Johannes, p . 314, footnote 4 ( E T p . 411 footnote 2) particularly against Schlatter, Johannes. C p . D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 140: ' T h e w o r d s o f C a i a p h a s are a c c e p t e d as true p r o p h e c y , a n d this is taken so seriously that they o c c u p y the p l a c e in a " p r o n o u n c e m e n t s t o r y " w h i c h is n o r m a l l y given to a Herrnwort.' Neither C a i a p h a s ' s w o r d s n o r the L o r d ' s are derived a q ) ' eauTOt); 1 1 : 5 1 5 5 : 1 9 ; 12:4957:17.

306

WALTER

GRUNDMANN

kernel o f the tradition which has come d o w n to the evangelist and has been worked over by h i m .

49

T h e high priest's prophetic statement begins with a sharp criticism o f the members o f the Sanhedrin, certifying their lack o f understanding and their thoughtlessness - 'you know nothing and d o not consider' - and making a proposal: 'It is expedient for y o u

50

that one man should die for the people

and the whole people should not come to g r i e f ( 1 1 : 5 0 ) . He and they hold in c o m m o n the agreed distinction between the individual and the people. It is posed as a question o f expediency. T h e Sadducean position in ethics and politics gave to a man complete freedom in his actions and responsibility for his deeds, and it erected as norms expediency and appropriateness. position is maintained

by the high priest: it is appropriate

51

This

that an

individual should die rather than the whole people perish. His remark takes up a saying which had almost b e c o m e proverbial and which is attested elsewhere both in non-Jewish and Jewish areas. back to 2 Sam. 20, concerning the

Tightness

52

T h e question, traceable

o f handing over an individual in

order to save many others ( c p . also J o n a h 1) was discussed a great deal in the rabbinate at the time o f the Hadrianic persecution.

53

It is questionable

whether the saying o f Caiaphas implies that the Sanhedrin was engaged in discussing whether Jesus might be handed over to the Romans, since in the first century A . D . there still held good the stern prohibition o f handing over a J e w . Bammel therefore concludes 'that the whole subject of extradition is outside the interest of both writer and reader of the passage'.

54

That may be

right, especially if one agrees with Bammel that 'the scheme which introduces the idea o f care for all (BJ 5 . 3 4 5 refers to this) is to be seen as an 55

independent piece o f political w i s d o m ' , on the basis o f which he can say elsewhere 'that a principle and considerations o f this kind were not unknown to members o f the Sanhedrin'.

56

If we consider that in the

Sanhedrin's decision there is expressed the anxiety o f the members about their position, but no proposal is made about handing over to the Romans, then the high priest's declaration gains a decisive significance. What is it aiming at? O n e thing is absolutely clear and unambiguous: the removal o f Jesus. In order to save the people from the fate o f perishing (djioXrrtcu), a

4 9

5 0

5 1

5 2

C p . D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 141. Instead o f i)u.iv s o m e m a n u s c r i p t s read r|ulv, w h i l e in others there is n o t h i n g at all. C p . A . Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus (Giitersloh, 1932), p p . 186, 193, and also Johannes, p . 259. O n this, c p . B a m m e l , Trial, p . 26 f o o t n o t e 81; Bauer, Johannesevangelium, o n 11: 50; B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 314, f o o t n o t e 3, E T p . 4 1 1 , footnote 1; D . D a u b e , Collaboration with Tyranny in Rabbinic Law ( L o n d o n , 1965); o n this, E. B a m m e l , ThLZ

93 (1968), 833-5. 5 3

5 5

O n this, c p . D a u b e , Collaboration. B a m m e l , ThLZ 93 (1968), 834.

5 4

B a m m e l , Trial, p . 28. 56 B a m m e l , Trial, p . 28.

The decision to put Jesus to death

307

fate with which they are now threatened, Jesus must die, the one for the whole nation. In this statement the high priest is thinking about the destruction o f the people through a R o m a n intervention in the face o f the movement among the people stirred up by Jesus, an intervention which would be spelt out in terms o f bloodbath, imprisonment and deportation. As a prophetic utterance, however, this 'perishing' has as background meaning the destruction which G o d ' s j u d g e m e n t brings upon mankind (cp. John 3: 1 6 ; i o : 2 7 f ; * 7 12 etc). In the face of this 'perishing' the death o f the one rescues the whole people. That is the prophetic meaning o f the high priest's declaration, motivated though it is by mere expediency. In view o f the heavy emphasis which the evangelist lays explicitly on its prophetic sense, what is being said is this: without either knowing it or wanting it the high priest unintentionally becomes G o d ' s prophet. By virtue of his office he is jure dignitatis a prophet. Thus even the actions of G o d ' s enemies have to subserve his plan. However great human freedom is and however far it can go, it remains always circumscribed by the will and purpose o f G o d and even at the point o f resistance must still submit to them. Bultmann speaks in this context o f a 'moment o f tragic irony'. But how then shall the death o f the one in the place of and for the sake o f (VTIEQ) the whole people take place? Is Caiaphas thinking o f a swift elimination o f j e s u s by the Jews themselves? This possibility seems to be excluded by their statement before Pilate, when he releases Jesus to them for condemnation: 'It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.' Is the idea that Jesus should be arrested and then subsequently handed over to the Romans? This seems to be indicated, not only by the issue o f an arrest warrant as a result of the Sanhedrin session ( 1 1 : 5 7 ) , but also by the leading ofjesus before Annas and the subsequent delivery to Pilate ( 1 8 : 1 2 - 2 8 ) . But on the other hand the Johannine narrative involves R o m a n military personnel in the arrest ( 1 8 : 3 , 1 2 ) . That presumes a previous understanding 57

:

58

59

60

5 7

C p . D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 138: ' T h e death o f j e s u s is regarded as a m e a n s b y w h i c h the J e w i s h nation m a y b e saved from disaster.' H e continues in the same passage: T t is a XVTQOV for Israel. It is the s a m e c o n c e p t i o n that underlies M a r k X 4 5 , o n l y treated in a secular spirit. . . .' O n this see the subsequent observations. T h a t o n e should b e c o m e a substitute for the w h o l e nation is a secular-political principle o f a utilitarian kind; at the same time it is a confession o f faith: M a r k 1 0 : 4 5 for a J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n form, 1 T i m . 2. $f for a Hellenistic form.

5 8

C p . D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 138: ' W h e t h e r consciously o r u n c o n s c i o u s l y , the high priest is a p r o p h e t jure dignitatis: this is an essential element in the passage as it c a m e d o w n to the evangelist.' B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 3 1 4 , footnote 4 ( E T p . 4 1 1 , footnote 2 ) . O n iJJtefj c p . H . Riesenfeld, ThWNTx'm, 5 1 0 - 1 8 ( E T TDNTvm (1972), 507-16): Riesenfeld looks for the origin o f UJiEQ-statements b y reference to Jesus in the Eucharistic w o r d s o v e r the c u p ( p p . 5 1 3 - 1 5 ( E T p . 51 o f ) ) , within w h i c h is expressed the theme o f the o n e a n d the m a n y .

5 9

6 0

3

o8


between

the

Sanhedrin

and

the

Romans

from

the

beginning,

an

understanding which has led to their participation in the arrest. Apart from the possibility that different traditions may be overlapping here, it is possible that an interrogation by the Jewish authorities preceding a verdict by Pilate may have belonged within the terms o f the negotiated agreement. If this interpretation is right, then by his vote the high priest set in motion a course o f action in which the essential elements were these: ( i ) Preparation for the arrest ofjesus - which, because o f the position o f the people relative to Jesus, must be implemented with every caution. This point emerges from both synoptic and Johannine versions. ( 2 ) Agreement with the Romans as to the arrest and the course o f proceedings against him, for which the Jews must hand over the relevant material ( c p . 18: 3 3 - 5 ) . This procedure could make the fears o f the Sanhedrin groundless,

61

for its members would

themselves help in putting d o w n the dangerous threat: indeed, they would take the initiative in so doing. Thus far the affair is handled as an internal Jewish matter.

62

But it is only by co-operation with the Romans that it can

be settled and finished with (on this there is probably agreement between the evangelist and the traditional report accessible to h i m ) . R o m a n participation, above all, is going to produce a frightening effect on the people w h o are devoted to Jesus.

Ill T o the prophetic saying o f the high priest the evangelist adds a clarification which is significant for his o w n theological scheme, in fact 'one o f the most 63

characteristic and distinctive ideas of this evangelist'. T h e evangelist says: '. . . Jesus will die for the nation, and not for the nation only but to gather into one the children o f G o d w h o are scattered abroad' ( 1 1 : 5 1 1 ) . Does this 6 1

6 2

6 3

E. B a m m e l has put forward the theory that 11:48b is 'a d e v e l o p m e n t from the s e c o n d century, r e p l a c i n g a different piece o f reasoning . . . (its) author k n e w a b o u t the J e w i s h discussion c o n c e r n i n g the question o f extradition, a n d w a n t e d b y m e a n s o f his o w n e m b r o i d e r y to bring the m e m b e r s o f the Sanhedrin close to the position o f delatores (as certainly v . 48b reads as an ex eventu formulation, and that i n d e e d in p r o - R o m a n a n d not J e w i s h t e r m i n o l o g y ) ' , TkLZg^ (1968), 834f. C p . also B a m m e l , Trial, p p . 27L O n e m i g h t b e attracted to this c o n c l u s i o n if the idea o f extradition p l a y e d a n y role in verse 48; it seems to us, h o w e v e r , to b e primarily an expression o f perplexity a n d anxiety w h i c h the high priest sets himself to o p p o s e . T h a t is m o r e o v e r recognised in B a m m e l ' s statement, cited a b o v e in the text: ' T h e w h o l e subject o f extradition is outside the interest o f b o t h writer and r e d a c t o r o f the p a s s a g e ' ( p . 28). B a m m e l , ThLZ 93 (1968), 834: ' t o understand the passage entirely in a J e w i s h context, w h e t h e r a historical o n e o r o n e o f literary reworking, a n d therefore to e x c l u d e an implicit reference to a R o m a n trial'; similarly in Trial, p p . 26-8: ' T h e question is treated as b e i n g an internal J e w i s h o n e . ' D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 134.


309

take up the tenth petition o f the Eighteen Benedictions prayer which, basing itself on the prophetic predictions, runs: 'Sound the great trumpet for our freedom and lift up a banner for the gathering together of our exiles. Blessed are you, O Lord, w h o gather the dispersed members of your people Israel'? Is it the view o f the evangelist that Jesus's death brings about the salvation and assembling o f Israel as a renewed people o f G o d to w h o m may be assigned lordship? C . H . D o d d points out in this connection that the idea o f the eschatological gathering o f the people o f G o d has deep roots.

64

H e alludes to Isa. 1 1 : 1 2 ; 5 3 : 5 , Ezek. 28: 2 5 , etc., while at the same time affirming that 'the close connection o f this with the death o f Christ is specifically J o h a n n i n e ' .

65

T h e statements, to which the interpretation of the

prophetic word o f the high priest belongs, start with J o h n 10: 1 6 . Jesus who manifests himself as the true shepherd, speaks o f his death as the proof of the validity o f his position as shepherd.

66

While his flock comprises those

w h o m he leads out of the sheepfold in which they have been previously, now his vision extends further: ' A n d I have other sheep who are not of this fold; I must bring them also and they will listen to my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd' ( 1 0 : 1 6 ) . In this passage it is clear that the bringing together into the one flock by the one shepherd is linked with his death. J o h n 10: 1 6 is preceded by the statement 'I lay down my life for the sheep' and followed by the statement about the complete voluntariness o f this laying d o w n o f life ( 1 0 : 1 5 b and 1 7 1 ) . But it is also clear that the other sheep w h o m he must bring are not the Jews o f the Dispersion: they are not o f this fold. T h e fourth evangelist goes far beyond and indeed remodels the expectation voiced in the Eighteen Benedictions prayer. This is made even clearer in the ensuing passage, J o h n 1 1 : 5 2 . W h e n the request o f the Greeks w h o have c o m e to the feast (probably proselytes,

67

w h o represent the

non-Jews, the nations o f the world) is passed on to him, Jesus knows that his 6 4

6 5

C p . S - B iv, 212; o n the gathering together o f the dispersed, iv, 902-10. D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 134 footnote 2. A n inner c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the p r o p h e c y o f the high priest and the evangelist's explanation is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h M . Barker, 'John 11: 50', in E. B a m m e l , ed., Trial, p p . 41-6, w o u l d like to p r o p o s e with the h e l p o f the e x p e c t a t i o n o f M e s s i a h ben J o s e p h . T o this C a i a p h a s alludes, and the evangelist has it in m i n d . T h i s h o p e w a s w i d e s p r e a d in Galilee: he must die before the M e s s i a h b e n D a v i d will c o m e . M . Barker c o n c l u d e s ( p . 46): ' T h e remark o f C a i a p h a s effectively turns against the despised Galileans their o w n messianic h o p e s . T h e M e s s i a h b e n J o s e p h had to die before the M e s s i a h b e n D a v i d c o u l d a p p e a r (cf. here A c t s 3: 20), a n d if it was expedient that o n e m a n should d i e for the p e o p l e , w h o was C a i a p h a s to prevent this?' O n the question o f Messiah b e n J o s e p h ,

c p . S - B ii, 292-9. ^ C p . o n this, W . G r u n d m a n n , ThWNT iii, 550 ( E T TDNTm (1965), 548O. Similarly Y$\i\tm?iYm, Johannes, p . 323 footnote 6 ( E T p . 423, footnote 2). In the text: ' D o u b t l e s s these are so-called proselytes; if they are not d e s c r i b e d as such . . . but rather as *EX.A.T]veg that is clearly b e c a u s e they are to b e u n d e r s t o o d as representatives o f the G r e e k w o r l d . ' 6 7

3IO


hour has come ( 1 2 : 2 0 - 3 ) . T h e hour is his death (cp. 1 3 : 1 ) , o f which he speaks by means o f the metaphor of'lifting u p ' .

68

It is the hour of XQiotg for

the world o f men. T h e ruler o f this world, w h o determines it, loses his position;

69

into his place there enters the one lifted up from the earth: T,

when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself ( 1 2 : 3 1 1 ) . Drawing them to himself he gathers them and forges them into 'a unity'.

70

Since Jesus is speaking about his cross whenever he speaks of his exaltation, and since this cross is at one and the same time his own glorification and that o f the Father,

71

this drawing-to-himself issues in a following after him

in his sufferings, within which at the same time the exaltation occurs (12: 24-6).

72

' T h e sheep w h o are not o f this fold', that is, Greek non-Jews,

are 'those w h o believe in me through their word' ( 1 7 : 20) and concerning whose unification he prays ( 1 7 : 2 1 - 3 ) ; these are the ones to w h o m his disciples are sent out, equipped with the Holy Spirit who brings them to new

birth from above, and equipped with the authority to forgive sins

(20: 2 1 - 3 ) ; in them he continues his mission and through them his work o f drawing men is carried out. If in John 1 r. 5 2 those w h o m he wants 'to gather into one' are called the children o f G o d w h o are scattered abroad, then this term may be understood in a potential sense. According to John 1 : 1 2 the authority to become G o d ' s sons is the gift of the Logos to those w h o receive him; to receive him means to believe on his name; to believe on his name is, however, to be born o f God.

It is made plain in the conversation

with Nicodemus that 'being born o f G o d ' and therefore 'believing on his name' includes within itself the reception of eternal life. A man receives this

6 8

C p . o n this, G . Bertram, ThWNT viii, 6o8f ( E T TDNT viii (1972), 610Q; c p . W . T h u s i n g , Die Erhdhung und Verherrlichungjesu im Johannesevangelium (Miinster, i960),

6 9

7 0

71

7 2

PP- 3-37Behind this saying stands the picture o f Satan being thrown o u t o f heaven. T h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f this is J o b 1 a n d 2 where Satan is the heavenly accuser. T h i s picture is further d e v e l o p e d in R e v . 12: 7-12, and there are traces also in L u k e 10: 18, 22: 3 i f a n d J o h n 12:31. T h e removal o f the accuser, w h o must give u p his p l a c e to the a d v o c a t e , enables this w o r k o f assembling a n d leading to b e carried out w i t h o u t a n y limits being i m p o s e d . T h e activity, d y i n g and rising o f j e s u s are p l a c e d within the c o n t e x t o f this eschatological conflict with Satan; in J o h n , this, like all e s c h a t o l o g i c a l - a p o c a l y p t i c affirmations, is referred to the presentness o f j e s u s in w h i c h the future is already c o n c e n t r a t e d . Ideas o f the a s c e n d i n g r e d e e m e r and the j o u r n e y o f the souls to heaven are here m a k i n g a c o n t r i b u t i o n , c p . B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 330 ( E T p . 431). T h e two-sided s h o w i n g o f respect a n d glorification w h i c h applies to the w h o l e career o f j e s u s are b r o u g h t to c o m p l e t i o n in the passion and Easter (7: 39; 1 1 : 4 ; 12: 23; 13: 3if; 17: 1, 4, 5, 24). Jesus s h o w s all h o n o u r to the Father a n d glorifies h i m in that he d e m o n s t r a t e s b y the laying d o w n o f his life his total love for the Father (14: 301). T h e Father s h o w s all h o n o u r to the S o n and glorifies h i m in that he exalts him to himself through death. T h e glorification and h o n o u r i n g o f G o d ' s n a m e as Father is his w o r d a n d his mission. C p . o n this, B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p p . 33of ( E T p p . 43if).


311

from the Spirit into his earthly existence (which is comparable with a mother's w o m b ) . This receiving o f life takes place through the hearing o f the word (6: 6 3 ) , and its hidden life is released into its perfect form when one dies ( 3 : 1 - 1 0 , 1 6 ; 1 6 : 2 0 - 2 ) .

7 3

Since Jesus gives the authority for divine

sonship to those w h o m the Father has given him (6: 3 7 , 3 9 , 6 5 ; 1 7 : 6 ) , those mentioned at 1 1 : 5 2 are children o f G o d , because they are amongst those w h o m the Father has given him; this is the authorisation for their becoming children of G o d . As such potential children of G o d they are scattered in the world o f men but brought to a unity in him and together brought to the Father ( 1 7 : 2 0 - 3 ) . His death releases his work which had been limited to Israel and

makes it universal,

and

this no longer limited work is

implemented through his disciples ( 1 4 : 1 2 ) . That is the decisive event of his death: the one w h o for his own people is there on the earth, is now exalted to a possibility o f effectiveness which is no longer subject to the previous limitation o f being in the flesh. Consequently his death is the event which becomes effective for an historical future and in which the eternal future o f the believer is involved ( 1 2 : 2 6 ; 1 7 : 2 4 ;

14:21).

IV Does the Johannine interpretation o f the high priest's statement, described by him as prophetic, displace an event which originally had a political character? Does it transform a political revolutionary leader, ultimately shattered in confrontation with the R o m a n occupying power, into 'the saviour o f the world' (4: 4 2 ) ? For one thing is quite clear: it was Pilate who pronounced sentence against Jesus. He condemned him to death by crucifixion and confirmed it in the superscription, 'Jesus o f Nazareth, the king o f the Jews'

( 1 9 : 1 9 ) . Thus

Pilate treated Jesus as a Zealot

revolutionary. Suspicion o f this at least has not been far from the minds o f the high priest and o f the members o f the Sanhedrin. They refer to his influence on the people, which is regarded as growing. This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that according to the Johannine narrative the R o m a n s had already been involved in the arrest o f j e s u s . T h e synoptic Gospels underline more emphatically than John the Jewish participation in the event which led to Jesus's crucifixion. But is the Johannine account o f Jesus's passion supposed to link up with the fact that in his view Jesus's death releases his work from the limitation to Israel and makes it effective for mankind as a whole? In other words is it part of the movement out o f the area o f the Jews into that o f the cosmos, the whole world? T h e debate

7 3

It is possible that the o l d Christian evaluation o f the d a y o f death as a d a y o f birth into eternal life is c o n n e c t e d with this statement.

312


between Jesus and the Jews is concluded with the Sanhedrin's decision to bring about his death; the proceedings before Annas are the bridge leading to the trial and the death. That death is prepared by the Romans and leads to his work for mankind. Jesus's response to Pilate ( 1 8 : 2 8 to 1 9 : 2 1 ) is determined by the theme which is decisive for this, namely Jesus as the witness to the truth in the face o f an imperium which is based solely on human might and which leaves open the question o f truth. Now

the Johannine account leaves no doubt about Jesus's career's

having had political effect. T h e signs which he does rouse in the minds o f the people the idea that he is a messianic prophet and therefore provoke the intention to proclaim him king ( 6 : 1 4 1 ) . According to the evangelist, political expectations and hopes are excited by Jesus, but he turns firmly away from them. His path to kingship does not lead via the battle-field and the gaining o f power, but rather through his death on the cross.

74

The

disappointment he brings to his Galilaean followers leads, according to the Johannine version, to the great falling away in that area, after which only the T w e l v e remain ( 6 : 6 0 , 6 6 to 7: 1 0 ) . In Jerusalem the people are divided and kept under by the pressure o f fear o f the priestly authorities, and it is this which forces Jesus to g o up to Jerusalem incognito for the Feast o f Tabernacles

(John

7: 1 0 - 1 3 ) .

Admittedly he

cannot

maintain

this

incognito and shows himself a free agent over against the pressure o f fear (5: 2 - 4 7 ; 7: 1 5 - 4 4 ) . In fact, such is his freedom that this pressure becomes ineffective (7: 4 5 - 5 2 ) and he brings others into his own freedom (8: 3 0 - 6 ) as is particularly apparent in the case o f the man born blind ( 9 : 1 - 3 9 ) . T h e Jews w h o stand over against him in hostility d o not hold back from an attempt at stoning him (8: 5 9 ; 10: 3 1 ) , and finally they make the decision to get rid o f him ( 1 1 : 4 7 - 5 4 , 5 7 ) . But Jesus takes his own people w h o m he separates from the Jews ( 1 0 : 1 - 2 1 ) , forms from them the people o f G o d ' s sons ( 1 0 : 1 6 ; 1 1 : 5 2 ; 1 2 : 321) and also gains a powerful influence over the nation ( 1 1 : 4 5 - 7 ;

12.9-19;

7 5

1 2 : 4 2 1 ) . It is precisely his o w n liberating

freedom, clearly operative once again in his trial ( 1 8 : 1 to 1 9 : 3 0 ) , which constitutes the great threat for the high priest and the Sanhedrin. It releases fears which lead to the decision that he must d i e .

7 4

7 5

7 6

76

The Jews recognise that

B y the transposition o f the d a y o f the anointing a n d the entry to J e r u s a l e m in J o h n (12: 1-19) this m u c h b e c o m e s clear: the o n e w h o has been anointed for death enters the royal city for his death in w h i c h he is p r o c l a i m e d as king before the w h o l e w o r l d (John 19: 191) in the languages o f the w o r l d . C p . 12: 19: T h e Pharisees say to o n e another, ' Y o u see that y o u c a n d o n o t h i n g ; l o o k , the w o r l d has g o n e after h i m . ' O . C u l l m a n n , Jesus und die Revolutiondren seiner Zeit ( T u b i n g e n , 1970), p . 49, E T Jesus and the Revolutionaries ( N e w Y o r k , 1970), p . 33: ' A c c o r d i n g to J n . 11:48 the Sanhedrin take the decision to d e n o u n c e Jesus to the R o m a n s as a political rebel. T h e y d o this for fear that the R o m a n s w o u l d hold the J e w i s h authorities responsible


313

his freedom is based on his relationship to G o d , and precisely because o f 1

:

this he must die ( 5 : 18; 1 0 : 3 3 ; 9 l) • What J o h n is showing is this: Jesus has great support among the people and he finds many followers, but he nevertheless relies not on the people but on the Father (7: 2 9 ; 1 6 : 3 2 ) . So he does not organise the people for revolution as a rebel leader would d o . Not every movement among the people is a Zealot undertaking, nor is every person who influences the people a Zealot leader. All this is affirmed by the Johannine account, while at the same time it is not denied that every movement among the people is liable to be misunderstood in a Zealot way. In the discourse about the shepherd Jesus distinguishes himself from others w h o make royal claims.

77

In this setting, he speaks o f himself as the

truly authorised shepherd w h o dissociates himself from the thieves and the 78

robbers and the hireling. T h e decisive difference is to be found in the fact that the false shepherds w h o are branded as thieves and robbers think only o f themselves. They use the flock for their own advantage and like the hireling abandon the flock to the wolf who tears them apart and scatters them. T h e true shepherd is quite different: he lays d o w n his life for the sheep and he gathers together the scattered ones ( 1 0 : 1 0 - 1 8 ) . By means o f the imagery o f the shepherd J o h n makes Jesus speak about the essential character o f his mission and the identity o f his person. T h e shepherd discourse which stands at the midpoint o f the Gospel of J o h n provides the basis for the raising o f Lazarus which is followed by the decision to put Jesus to death. It is necessary therefore that attention should be devoted to it finally in the context of examining the questions with which we have been concerned.

if it s h o u l d so h a p p e n that a p o p u l a r m o v e m e n t in Jesus' favour should assume w o r r y i n g p r o p o r t i o n s . ' But not every p o p u l a r m o v e m e n t is political, and there is n o statement expressis verbis o f any d e n u n c i a t i o n o f j e s u s as a political rebel. L e a d i n g the p e o p l e astray (John 7: 12) d o e s not h a p p e n o n l y in the political sphere. O n the question o f the Z e a l o t s , c p . M . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten ( L e i d e n , 1961); G . B a u m b a c h , ' Z e l o t e n u n d Sikarier', in ThLZ 90 (1965), 727-40, and also ' D i e Z e l o t e n - i h r e geschichtliche u n d religionspolitische B e d e u t u n g ' , Liturgie und Leben 41 (1968),

2-25. 7 7

7 8

S h e p h e r d is a predicate o f royalty a n d divinity; c p . J. J e r e m i a s , ThWNTv'i, 484-98 ( E T TDNTv'i (1968), 485-502); W . Jost, Poimen: Das Bild vom Hirten in der biblischen Uberlieferung und seine christologische Bedeutung (Giessen, 1939); I. Seibert, Hirt, Herde, Konig (Berlin, 1969). I f o n e surveys the breadth o f association o f this i m a g e as revealed in I. Seibert's study, then it b e c o m e s quite clear that the picture o f the shepherd is active in the b a c k g r o u n d o f b o t h the m e t a p h o r s o f living water (John 4) and living bread (John 6). Its central position and significance are therefore confirmed; c p . also footnote 82 o n p . 315 b e l o w . T h e expression ' j o b b e r s ' (Xflorai) refers to Z e a l o t leaders (10: 1, 8, 10). C u l l m a n n , Revolutionaren, p . 53 ( E T p . 36), reckons with the possibility that an authentic Jesus-saying lies beneath J o h n 10: 1 1 - 1 3 . O n the description ' r o b b e r s ' for Z e a l o t s , c p . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten, p p . 25-47.

3H


V The shepherd discourse is attached without interruption (9: 4 1 / 1 0 : 1) to the healing o f the man born blind, which reaches its conclusion in 1 0 : 1 9 - 2 1 . It consists of a parable which derives its meaning from the healing of the blind man, and its reflective development in 10: 7 - 1 8 . In the latter passage there appear two of the seven 'I a m ' sayings of this Gospel, and both are repeated. This in itself indicates their importance. Their theme is taken up once again in the adjacent and final debate between Jesus and the Jews ( 1 0 : 2 5 - 3 0 ) , this time as the answer

to the urgently

posed question about

his

messiahship: ' H o w long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly' ( 1 0 : 2 4 ) . T h e explicit question directed at Jesus and his o w n reply are important for the understanding o f the Sanhedrin's decision to put him to death. Jesus responds to the messianic question with a reference to his authority as shepherd which is finally demonstrated in the raising o f Lazarus. After this the decision to put him to death follows immediately. This context provides insight into the evangelist's understanding ofjesus. The

connection between the healing o f the man born blind and the

shepherd discourse is denoted by the fact that the healed man is thrown out of the synagogue community but found and accepted by Jesus. T h e evaluation by Jesus of the blind man's disability has already been seen to be different from that o f the Jews: it is not a divine punishment but the 79

occasion o f the revelation o f the works o f G o d to h i m . Jesus had already defined the way o f discipleship as a remaining in his word which leads to knowledge o f the truth and thus to freedom from sin in a context o f belief. The blind man n o w treads this path. He has to endure the opposition of the Pharisees but in this context he comes to stand by what Jesus had done for him through his revealing word. Thus he recognises him as the one w h o has c o m e from G o d (9: 33) and shows his freedom in resistance to Pharisaic pressure. But this causes what his parents had feared would happen to him (9: 2 0 - 3 ) : he is thrown out and put under a ban (9: 3 4 ) . Faced with this threat and pressure, his parents are marked by the bondage o f fear, but in contrast with them the man himself is free. He, although banned, is accepted by Jesus.

80

A n d Jesus interprets the proceedings in terms o f his

leading out his o w n and going before them; they follow him, listening to his

7 9

8 0

Since with verbs o f teaching and revelation etc. ev strengthens the dative, o n e will h a v e to translate: 'that the works o f G o d m a y b e revealed to h i m ' . C p . B l a s s - D e b r u n n e r ( E T B l a s s - D e b r u n n e r - F u n k , Greek Grammar), 220, 1. In J o h n 9: 3 5 - 8 there o c c u r s an actualisation o f M a r k 8: 38: T h e m a n b o r n blind has not been a s h a m e d o f j e s u s and his w o r d but has a c k n o w l e d g e d h i m . H e experiences a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t b y the S o n o f man in that he confirms to h i m : ' Y o u believe o n the Son o f m a n . ' His belief that Jesus is from G o d is belief in the S o n o f m a n .


315

voice as he calls them by name. This is what the parable o f the true shepherd ( 1 0 : 1 - 5 ) is saying: in this event the XQijxa (9: 39) is effected. T h e parable which was not understood ( 1 0 : 6 ) is unfolded by means o f a meditation. Jesus is the d o o r to the sheep

81

( 1 0 : 71) and for the sheep ( 1 0 : 9 ) ;

he is the truly authorised shepherd; in the laying down o f his life this is made visible and also made effective, in that what obtains between him and the Father n o w obtains between him and his own people. T h e Father knows him,

that is, he has chosen him. H e knows the Father, that is, he has

entrusted himself to him. H e knows his own, that is, he has chosen them after they have been given to him by the Father. They know him, that is, they entrust themselves to him and belong with him to the Father. By means o f the relationship with himself into which he calls men, he establishes the relationship with the Father which he himself enjoys and he both seals and extends this relationship through the giving o f his life ( 1 0 : 1 4 - 1 6 ) . T h e decision o f the Jews against Jesus and his own (9: 2 2 , 3 4 ) leads to their separation from the synagogue which he himself brings about ( 1 0 : 7 f ) ; thus this passage serves to exhibit the honorific picture o f the shepherd.

82

This theme is taken up again at the T e m p l e feast in Jerusalem on the basis o f the question directed by the Jews to Jesus about his messiahship ( 1 0 : 2 2 - 3 9 ) . Schlatter rightly concludes: ' N o statement however rich in content about the mission ofjesus could replace for the J e w what the term "anointed o n e " meant to him. It was primarily in this term that the prophetic prediction was recalled in the present. T h e decisive issue therefore hung on this term.'

83

But this term itself was at the same time

ambiguous and unmistakable. His answer runs: 'I have told you but you d o not believe. . ., because you d o not belong to my sheep.' A n d n o w once more Jesus speaks about the shepherd and his authority. T o the Jews who ask about his messiahship he says: ' M y sheep hear my voice and I know

8 1

I f the s h e p h e r d s before h i m are thieves and r o b b e r s w h o o n l y c o n s i d e r themselves, then the JIQO i\iov s h o w s that he is the true shepherd; it is not to be taken as a matter o f time but rather a matter o f principle. W h o e v e r c o m e s after h i m either c o m e s as o n e sent b y h i m (17: 18; 20: 21) o r belongs to the thieves a n d r o b b e r s 'before h i m ' . T h u s he alone is the d o o r to the sheep.

8 2

B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p p . 272-98 ( E T p p . 358-91), w h o brings the shepherd d i s c o u r s e back into another context and also rearranges it internally, e x p o u n d s the shepherd i m a g e r y not in terms o f the ancient e a s t e r n / O l d T e s t a m e n t kingship and divinity context but in terms o f gnostic traditions. In these the shepherd has b e c o m e the revealer ( p p . 277-81). Such a v i e w o f J o h n ' s shepherd imagery is attractive. H o w e v e r , if o n e retains the present position and context, then the features o f majesty a n d divinity o b t r u d e . F o r it appears at the very m o m e n t w h e n , in the light o f the exclusion from the s y n a g o g u e , the authoritative decision has to b e m a d e to found a distinctive universal c o m m u n i t y . C p . Schlatter, Johannes, p . 241.

8 3

316


them and they follow me, and I give them eternal life and they shall never perish and no one shall snatch them out of my hand' ( 1 0 : 2yi). This saying, which consists o f a pair o f three line units, shows the personal character o f the relationship between Jesus and his own. It is based on hearing his voice. T h e use o f the word 'voice' is striking. T h e evangelist calls Jesus the W o r d made flesh ( i : 1 4 ) ; the words which he speaks are given him by the Father, for he does not speak for himself (3: 34; 7: i6f; 1 2 : 491); they are 'spirit and life' (6: 6 3 ) . Hearing his voice, which is the basis o f the link between him and his, shows therefore that his words are not separable from his person, that is, the W o r d made flesh. They are words which are bound to and cannot be divided from his person. His words serve to establish

the

relationship with him, and therefore in hearing his word a man hears his voice. His voice calls the individual by name establishes a personal relationship.

84

(10:3)

and

therefore

Such calling by name is election - I

know y o u , that is, I choose you for myself by calling with my voice so that you follow me. T h e relationship grounded in this electing call of his voice is realised in following. In this spoken call there is contained the gift of eternal life; those w h o hear his voice and follow him will never perish whatever may happen to them. T h e y are not lost because they are protected in his hand, and from that hand no destructive earthly power can tear them. For his voice penetrates both the power and the scope o f death. All o f this was expressed by the evangelist when he spoke about the voice of the Son o f man which calls the dead (John 5: 2 5 - 9 ) . T h e dead are those who, whether alive or deceased, have succumbed to the power of death. But they receive life by listening to his voice. Those w h o are in the graves, that is, the deceased, will be summoned out by his voice (5: 28f). As an example o f this stands the raising o f Lazarus,

85

at the end o f which it says: 'he cried

with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out." A n d the dead man came o u t . . .' ( 1 1 : 4 3 1 ) . T h e raising o f Lazarus becomes a sign o f the shepherd-authority ofjesus; Lazarus is one o f his own ( 1 1 : 3 , 5 , 3 5 ) and he listens to his voice, even though as one w h o has succumbed to the power of death. In listening to his voice he receives the gift o f life. It is precisely this act which brings 8 4

A s regards M a r y M a g d a l e n e , J o h n 20: 1, 11-18 makes clear that she d o e s not c o m e to faith in the risen o n e o n the basis o f the e m p t y t o m b , nor b e c a u s e o f the angel at the grave, n o r as a result o f the a p p e a r a n c e o f the risen o n e ( w h o m she d o e s not r e c o g n i s e ) , but rather b e c a u s e o f the fact that he calls her b y n a m e . She hears his v o i c e , a n d that qualifies her to b e a messenger o f the resurrection to his disciples. O n this c p . W . G r u n d m a n n , ' Z u r R e d e v o m V a t e r i m J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m ' , ZNW52

8 5

T h i s t e n d e n c y , i m p o r t a n t to the evangelist, is w h a t causes h i m to w o r k o v e r the legendary resurrection story. T h e part o f the original conversation between Jesus and M a r t h a w h i c h c a n b e discerned in 11:28, 40 has been replaced b y n : 2 5 f : w h o e v e r holds fast to Jesus, the giver o f resurrection life, over that person death has n o ultimate p o w e r . T h a t is the point o f the sign o f the raising o f Lazarus.

(1960,213-30.


317

about the decision of the Sanhedrin to agree to what the high priest says and to take the decision to put Jesus to death. O n e last question must be raised at this point. Where does the name Lazarus come from? Has the Fourth Evangelist taken it from the tradition which quite often he holds in c o m m o n with Luke (Luke 1 6 : 1 9 - 3 1 ) ? Does he know the story o f the rich man and the poor Lazarus? Does he want to show, in the course o f his discussion o f the insufficiency o f a faith based on signs (2: 1 1 , 2 3 - 5 ; 3 : 2 ; 4 : 4 6 - 5 3 ; 6 : 2 , I 4 f , 2 6 - 3 5 ) , what the Lukan parabolic narrative is expressing, i.e. whoever like the Jews does not listen to G o d ' s voice, whether through Moses and the prophets or through the true shepherd, will not be helped even by the return of one already d e a d ?

86

The

Jews impose death on the one w h o brings resurrection and create mortal danger for the one to w h o m this resurrection happens ( 1 2 : 1 of). If so, the debate about faith engendered by signs would find in this event its climax and conclusion.

87

T h u s the Fourth Evangelist's account is rounded off. Jesus is the dispenser o f that life which no further death can destroy. That is his authority as shepherd, about which Jesus speaks explicitly ( 1 0 : 2 9 ) .

88

It is

intrinsic to his relationship o f unity with the Father who chooses him and to w h o m he has entrusted himself ( 1 0 : I4f, 30); it is described as effective in the present - 'the Father in me' - and secure and authorised - 'I in the Father.' For the Jews this is blasphemy and from their side it leads to his death

(5:18;

1 0 : 3 0 - 3 ; 1 9 : 7 ) . So this theologically-based statement is

articulated in the account o f the Fourth Evangelist: the life-giving o f the life-giver brings death to him, but his death is his bestowal o f life on mankind. Does the situation attested here correspond to Jesus's own situation? T h e shepherd discourse and the conversation with Pilate about the kingdom o f G o d distinguish him deeply and fundamentally from the 8 6

C p . W . G r u n d m a n n , ' V e r s t a n d n i s u n d B e w e g u n g des G l a u b e n s i m J o h a n n e s -

evangeliums,' KuD 6 (i960), 131-54. 8 7

8 8

In favour o f this c o u l d b e the explicit statement in 11:47: ' T h i s m a n d o e s m a n y signs.' T h e expression o p e n s u p t w o possible translations w h i c h are given b y the textual analysis: ( 1 ) ' W h a t m y ( o r the) Father has given m e is greater than all and n o o n e can tear t h e m out o f m y Father's h a n d . ' T h a t w o u l d then b e a reference to the s h e p h e r d ' s authority w h i c h the Father has given h i m . (2) ' T h e Father, w h o has given t h e m to m e , is greater than everything ( o r everyone) and n o o n e can tear them out o f m y Father's h a n d . ' T h e greatness o f the Father, w h o himself has given his o w n to J e s u s , is the guarantee o f their deliverance and protection. Verses 27, 28 and 29f together form three t h r e e - m e m b e r e d units. T h e first concerns h o w the c o m m u n i t y is established (verse 27), the s e c o n d what the c o m m u n i t y receives from the o n e w h o is the s h e p h e r d (verse 28), and the third its unity with the Father o n w h i c h his gift to his c o m m u n i t y is based. B u l t m a n n opts for the s e c o n d possibility, Johannes, p p . 294f footnote 4 ( E T p p . 386f footnote 3), with a reference to a M a n d a e a n text: his possibility is n o w s u p p o r t e d also b y the reading in p . 6 6

3

i8


leaders o f the people during his day and time. As the Samaritans called him the saviour of the world, so he stands before Pilate as the witness to the truth for men. A n d J o h n makes his own affirmation: This is G o d ' s eternal W o r d become flesh, this is the Son w h o is one with the Father. 89

8 9

T h e article w a s translated b y D r D . C a t c h p o l e .

D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E

The 'triumphal' entry The tradition o f the 'triumphal' entry plays a crucial role in the Markan scheme. T h e confession o f j e s u s as messiah in 8 : 2 7 - 3 0 had followed a miracle on a blind man (8: 2 2 - 6 ) and had led immediately into a complex o f material ( 8 : 3 1 to 1 0 : 4 5 ) structured by three sayings about the suffering Son o f man (8: 3 1 - 3 ; 9: 3 0 - 2 ; 10: 3 2 - 4 ) and several ensuing traditions about discipleship. With 10: 4 6 - 5 2 the journey to Jerusalem has reached Jericho where there occurs a further miracle on a blind man. This tradition is clamped to the following tradition o f the entry quite unmistakably: in both 'the w a y ' is mentioned ( 1 0 : 4 6 , 5 2 ; 1 1 : 8 ) , in both Jesus is acclaimed in Davidic terms ( 1 0 : 47f; n : 1 0 ) , in both there is a ifidxiov reference ( 1 0 : 5 0 ; 11:71)?

m

D

O

t

n

t n

e theme o f salvation is prominent ( 1 0 : 5 2 ; 1 1 : 9 ) , and

significantly in both acclamation and following are joined ( 1 0 : 5 2 ; 1 1 : 9 ) . Consequently it appears that the Markan plan is to link 1 1 : 1 - 1 0 with 1 0 : 4 6 - 5 2 in much the same way as 8: 2 7 - 3 0 is linked with 8: 2 2 - 6 . T h e 'triumphal' entry, therefore, matches the confession and has to d o with the disclosure of Jesus's identity and status. This Markan presentation o f the entry into Jerusalem by the one who has already effected a victory is precisely what permits a classification o f the story as such. For there is already in existence a family o f stories detailing the celebratory entry to a city by a hero figure w h o has pre viously achieved his triumph. N o doubt the ultimate precedents are to be found in Israelite kingship ritual, c p . 1 Kings 1 : 3 2 - 4 0 where accla mation (verse 3 4 ) is followed by a ceremonial entry (verse 3 5 ) by the king-designate, w h o rides the royal animal (verse 38) and w h o precedes a celebrating crowd 'playing on pipes, and rejoicing with great j o y ' (verse 4 0 ) . N o doubt precedent can genuinely be found in Zech. 9 : 9 where an era o f universal peace is inaugurated by the arrival o f the king in pro cession, and riding upon an ass, an arrival which is to be greeted with shouts o f j o y . A t all events, a more or less fixed pattern o f triumphal entry can be discerned: ( 1 ) Alexander travels from Gaza to Jerusalem (Josephus, AJ 1 1 : 3 2 5 - 3 9 ) where his previously achieved authority is recognised without conflict. He is ceremonially met outside Jerusalem, greeted, and escorted into the city and then to the T e m p l e where he is involved in cultic activity. (2) Alexander again is invited to enter Shechem (Josephus, AJ 1 1 : 3 4 2 - 5 ) , having been met 'with splendour and a great show o f eagerness

3*9

320


on his behalf. . . when he was hardly out of Jerusalem', a proposed visit which would have reached its climax in the T e m p l e ( 3 4 2 ) . (3) Apollonius is welcomed to Jerusalem (2 M a c e . 4: 2 if). H e is ushered in with a blaze o f torches and with shouts, and the welcome is said to be magnificent

(êYaAxêoajg).

(4) Judas Maccabaeus returns home (1 M a c e . 4 : 1 9 - 2 5 ; Josephus, AJ 1 2 : 3 1 2 ) after victory over Gorgias, with his associates echoing the language of the psalms as 'they sang hymns and praises to heaven, for he is g o o d and his mercy endures for ever' (4: 24; c p . 4 : 3 3 ) . Similarly (5) Judas returns from a military campaign (1 M a c e . 5: 4 5 - 5 4 ; Josephus, A J 1 2 : 3481), passing through Judaea ( 5 : 45) to mount Zion with singing and finally undertaking sacrificial activity. In Josephus's words, 'they came to Judaea, playing harps and singing songs o f praise and observing such forms o f merrymaking as are customary at celebrations o f a victory' ( 1 2 : 3 4 9 ) , while 1 M a c e . 4 : 5 5 puts it thus: 'All the people fell on their faces and worshipped and blessed heaven w h o had prospered them.' (6) Jonathan Maccabaeus is welcomed in Askalon (1 M a c e . 1 0 : 8 6 ; c p . 1 1 : 60) without the expected struggle, so the emergence o f the men o f the city 'to meet him with great p o m p (ev

bo%r\ \ktyakr\Y

clearly implies their

acceptance o f his authority. (7) Simon Maccabaeus enters Gaza (1 M a c e . 1 3 : 4 3 - 8 ) , having already had his status and authority defined (verse 4 2 ) . Conflict having given way to peace, Simon expels idolatrous inhabitants (verses 4 7 b , 4 8 ) , cleanses idolatrous houses (verse 4 7 b ) and enters the city 'with hymns and praise (i>|jivd>v xai EvXoyibvy. In a similar vein, (8) Simon enters Jerusalem (1 M a c e . 1 3 : 4 9 - 5 1 ) , peace having again replaced conflict. T h e pattern o f expulsion o f inhabitants (verse 5 0 b ) , cleansing away pollution (verse 5 0 b ) , and triumphal entry is repeated, though the celebrations are described in unusual detail: 'they entered with praise and palm branches, and with harps and cymbals and stringed instruments and with hymns and songs' (verse 5 1 ) . T h e situation in (7) and (8) is summarised later in 1 M a c e . 1 4 : 7 as an activation o f lordship (exuQieuoev) which is unopposed, as well as involving a removal o f uncleanness. (9) Antigonus returns from a campaign (BJ 1: 73f; AJ 13: 3 0 4 - 6 ) with glory, accompanied by soldiers and clothed splendidly, to such an extent that his going to the T e m p l e becomes the occasion for criticism: 'out o f keeping with the behaviour o f a private person . . . his actions had the indications o f one w h o imagined himself a king' ( 3 0 6 ) . (10)

Marcus

Agrippa

is

welcomed

in Jerusalem

(Josephus,

AJ

1 6 : 1 2 - 1 5 ) , having been met by Herod and brought to the city; the people at

T h e 'triumphal' entry

321

large meet him and welcome him with acclamations prior to his entry and his offering o f sacrifice. ( 1 1 ) Archelaus, having been provisionally appointed king by Herod (Josephus, AJ

1 7 : 1 9 4 - 2 3 9 ) and acclaimed as king by his adherents in

Jericho, goes to Jerusalem and the Temple in procession. T h e initial acclamation is combined with an invocation o f G o d as helper ( 1 9 5 ; c p . BJ 1: 5 7 0 ) . In the T e m p l e he offers sacrifice and acts in a manner sufficiently regal to provoke later accusations that he had taken power and unduly infringed upon Caesar's authority to bestow the kingship. Specifically he had sat upon a throne and 'had danced and sung as over a fallen enemy' ( 2 3 5 ) , as well as quelling riots in kingly style. ( 1 2 ) Alexander's 'double' claims kingship (BJ 2: 1 0 1 - 1 0 ; AJ 1 7 : 3 2 4 - 8 ) and is given a formal welcome by the Jewish population in R o m e , o f all places. T h e y g o to meet him and surround him, shouting good wishes, while he is said to have 'all the trappings o f a king' ( 3 3 1 ) . It thus proves possible to locate the Gospel tradition of Jesus's triumphal entry within a family o f stories, all members o f which exhibit to a greater or lesser degree the following standard features: (a) A victory already achieved and a status already recognised for the central person, (b) A formal and ceremonial

entry,

(c) Greetings

and/or

acclamations

together

with

invocations o f G o d . (d) Entry to the city climaxed by entry to T e m p l e , if the city in question has one. (e) Cultic activity, either positive (e.g. offering o f sacrifice), or negative (e.g. expulsion o f objectionable persons and the cleansing away o f uncleanness). Mark 11 contains all these major and recurrent features. It also contains minor agreements with occasional features o f some o f the other stories, for example, the reference to the royal animal (1 Kings 1: 3 5 ; Z e c h . 9: 9 ) , the use of the language o f the psalms (see 4 a b o v e ) , the use o f the xlJQtoc; word group (see 7, 8 a b o v e ) , an earlier decisive event in Jericho (see 1 1 a b o v e ) . Mark's story thus conforms to a familiar pattern in respect o f both its determinative shape and some o f its incidental details. At this point reference ought also to be made to versions o f this story other than that in Mark. John's version ( 1 2 : 1 2 - 1 9 ) , which, in the view o f some, may be using an independent non-Markan tradition, works within the

same

circle o f ideas.

O n c e the

typical Johannine

features

of

resurrection-inspired recall and reflection are subtracted, as well as the Johannine-redactional

link with the Lazarus story, we find ourselves

confronted with a story which merely develops details or draws out implications from the synoptic versions: (a) T h e branches used

are

specified as palm branches (xct ( 3 a i a xd>v qpotvixcov) - a natural inference in view o f texts which see the symbols o f kingship as variously crown plus

322

DAVID

R.

CATCHPOLE

Patov (i M a c e . 1 3 : 3 7 ) or crown plus qpoivi^ (2 M a c e . 1 4 : 4 ; c p . Rev. 7: 9 ) ;

1

(b) the acclaiming crowd comes out from Jerusalem, rather than explicitly accompanying him into the city - again a natural adaptation, given both John's Jerusalem-centredness and the frequency o f the references in other texts to the welcoming delegation (see 1, 2, 3, 6, 1 0 , 1 2 above and also 1 Mace. I I : 2 ) ;

2

(c) Zech. 9 : 9 is explicitly cited in 1 2 : 1 5 as in Matt. 2 1 : 5

which, whether or not John is aware o f Matthew, is in each o f the two Gospels a natural and indeed necessary inference from the form o f the tradition used by Mark. As far as Matthew/Luke are concerned there is no evidence o f any non-Markan

source. Only at two points might

suspicion arise that MattR and LukeR prove inadequate

the

to explain

M a t t h e w / M a r k or Luke/Mark variations, that is, the correspondence between

aivog

(Matt.

21:16)

and

aiveiv

(Luke

19:37),

and

the

correspondence in the personalising o f the shout o f acclamation (Matt. 2 1 : 9/Luke 1 9 : 3 8 ) . These are, however, no indication of alternative Q-type tradition. In the first case, atvog in Matt. 2 1 : 1 6 is part o f a quotation from Psalm 8: 2 and is a natural term to use in the overall setting o f an entry tradition

(cp. 1 Mace.

1 3 : 5 1 : \iExa aiveoeog); LukeR has

introduced aivog in 1 8 : 4 3 diff Mark

10:52.

already

In the second case, the

personalising is an inevitable inference from Mark's version and matches the preoccupation with the status o f the leader in other members o f the family o f such stories; that is, the Matthew/Luke agreement is not an agreement against Mark. There being no grounds for concentrating on any version o f the triumphal entry other than Mark's, we can now discuss briefly

the

implications o f the formal analysis, and then g o on to examine how Mark works in a distinctive way within the standard form. First, it is evident that all such stories presuppose an already achieved victory; they d o not describe a first move or the opening o f a campaign designed to achieve a future victory. O n any level, whether Markan or pre-Markan, the absence of any previous social/political conquest places a fatal

question-mark

against the idea, whether originally suggested by H . S. Reimarus that 'this extraordinary industriously

public parade

which Jesus

not

only permitted,

organised, could aim at nothing other than a

but

secular

3

k i n g d o m ' , or more recently by S . G . F . Brandon that Jesus's actions were 1

2

O n p a l m s as s y m b o l s o f victory, c p . B . A . M a s t i n , ' T h e D a t e o f the T r i u m p h a l Entry', NTSt 16 (1969), 7gf. W i d e s p r e a d oriental c u s t o m is involved here, c p . J u d . 11: 34; P r o v . 7: 15; T o b i t 7: 1; J u d i t h 7 : 1 5 ; W i s d . o f Sol. 6: 16; Sira 15:2; 1 M a c e . 9: 39; 1 T h e s s . 4: 17. T h e r e f o r e it is doubtful w h e t h e r the s c h e m e should b e confined to 'the joyful reception o f H e l lenistic sovereigns into a city': R . E. B r o w n , The Gospel according to John I-XII ( N e w Y o r k , 1966), p p . 46if. See also E. Peterson, d j i d v i n o i g , ThWNT'x, 380 ( E T TDNT i ('964)* 38of)The Goal of Jesus and his Disciples ( L e i d e n , 1970), p . 92. 3


323

'obviously calculated to cause the authorities, both Jewish and R o m a n , to 4

view him and his movement as subversive'. T o the contrary, on the Markan level the presupposed victory is clearly that gained by healings, o f which Mark 1 0 : 4 6 - 5 2 is intended as a typical example - an interpretation to which all three other evangelists adhere in their various ways - while on the pre-Markan level (supposing there is one) the story could not d o other than receive its interpretative frame of reference from what Jesus is thought to have done previously. Specifically, this implies that, since there is unmistakable kingly messianic colouring in the story, the decision about its historicity will depend not only on its internal viability but also very directly on the extent to which Jesus's pre-entry activity as a whole can justifiably be regarded as messianic. Second, it is apparent that a standard element in the entry stories is movement to the T e m p l e . That being so, our discussion cannot be concluded without coverage o f the so-called cleansing of the T e m p l e (Mark 1 1 : 1 5 - 1 9 ) . O n the Markan level, the enclosing o f this unit within the two parts o f the tradition o f the cursing o f the fig-tree is 5

typical o f the evangelist's redactional technique, used on this occasion to make the T e m p l e incident an act o f judgement, while on the pre-Markan level (again supposing there is one) the question will arise as to h o w far there is o f necessity the same messianic presupposition as for the earlier material. T h e Markan entry story is divisible into two sections, in the first o f which the initiative is wholly taken by Jesus (verses i ~ 7 a ) , while in the second all the actions are taken by Jesus's associates (verses 7 0 - 1 0 ) . This ordering o f events serves to indicate that the actions o f others are here silently endorsed by Jesus and seen as the correct inference from his own actions. T h e claims of others that he is a messianic figure are nothing less than his own claim to such a status. His own actions are entirely concentrated upon the obtaining of the appropriate animal, described by Mark as nuAog.

By that word

6

Mark intends 'an ass'. That this is a very special animal is indicated by three factors, (a) Jesus knows about it and its precise circumstances without being himself*'?* situ; (b) he knows, moreover, that it has never previously been used; (c) he names himself the lord o f the animal, for that is the appropriate inference from the declaration that 6 xuQiog avxov

%geiav

7

e / e i . T h e first o f these features is presented by a speech whose terms allude

4

5

6

Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p . 324. See E. v o n D o b s c h i i t z , ' Z u r Erzahlerkunst des M a r k u s ' , ZNW 27 (1928), 193-8. H . - W . K u h n , ' D a s Reittier in d e r Einzugsgeschichte des M a r k u s e v a n g e l i u m s ' , ZNW50 (1959), 82-91; otherwise, W . Bauer, ' T h e " C o l t " o f P a l m S u n d a y ' , JBL 72

(1953), 220-9. 7

J . D . M . Derrett, ' L a w in the N e w T e s t a m e n t : the Palm S u n d a y C o l t ' , NovTest 13

(1971), 241-58, esp. 245-7.

324


extensively to the established practice o f impressment (dyYCXQeia). In an extensive study o f this section Derrett has drawn attention to the loosing o f the animal without formal request (verses 2, 4 ) , the loosing as the act o f borrowing and o f taking responsibility for the animal because it is tied in the

open street

(verses 2 - 4 ) ,

8

need as a sufficient justification

for

impressment (verses 3, 6 ) , the owners' recognition o f their obligation to release the animal (verse 6 ) , and the hint o f a defined period o f time during which the arrangement

would last (verse 3 ) . All these details

give

verisimilitude to the story, but they all belong to a speech by Jesus which is both predictive and a demonstration o f his authoritative control - in short, it is christologically determined. T h e second feature, the newness o f the animal, is mentioned in such a way as to register the possibility that the ass might have been used, a possibility amply attested by many and diverse texts (see, for example, 1 Kings 1 3 : 1 3 ; Josephus, AJ 5: 1 3 8 and 6: 3 0 1 ; R H 1 : 9 ; Martyrdom of Polycarp 8: 1 ) . Newness, rather than sacred separateness along the lines o f N u m . 1 9 : 2 ; Deut. 2 1 : 3 ; 1 Sam. 6 : 7 as sometimes suggested, is confirmed as the intended meaning by Mark 1 1 : 7 where clothing is laid on the animal in place o f the usual trappings which went with an ass already in use (see BB 5 : 2; T o h . 3: 7 ) . T h e reference to the animal's not having been previously used recalls not only the similar detail in the burial traditions (Matt. 2 7 : 6 0 ; Luke 2 3 : 5 3 ; J o h n 1 9 : 4 1 ) but also the rabbinic insistence (Sanh. 2: 5 ) that no one should use the animal on which a king rides. A b o v e all, it matches the word v e o £ in Zech. 9 : 9 ( L X X , but 9

not M T ) . O n the Markan level it conforms to a theological pattern which involves Jesus doing what others have not done or cannot d o (cp. 1: 27f; 2 : 7; 4 : 4 1 ; 5 : 3 - 5 ) . Again, therefore, a detail o f the story is christologically determined. Finally, the third feature represents a confirmation o f the christological sensitivity o f the other details. Jesus as lord takes charge o f the ass which belongs to him. H e can be none other than the figure o f Zech. 9 : 9 . A story rightly characterised by O . Michel as 'already full o f mysterious links'

10

with Z e c h . 9 : 9 points in a manner subdued

but

significant to the status o f its central actor. H e is already the king. The actions o f Jesus's associates (verses 7 0 - 1 0 ) demonstrate that they have understood and accepted the implications. Their response to the animal's newness has already been mentioned. Jesus's taking his place upon the ass is followed by two specific acts o f homage, the placing o f

8

T h e fact that this detail is integral to the i m p r e s s m e n t s c h e m e makes p r e c a r i o u s a suggested allusion to G e n . 49: n , c p . J. B l e n k i n s o p p , ' T h e O r a c l e o f j u d a h a n d the

Messianic Entry\JBL 9

l 0

80 (1961), 55-64.

F. H a h n , Christologische Hoheitstitel (3rd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1966), p p . 87f ( E T The Titles ofJesus in Christology ( L o n d o n , 1969), p . 83).

6 v o g , TDNTx

(1967), 283-7, esp. 286.

The

'triumphal' entry

325

clothing on the road and the cutting o f branches. Again christology is involved in both, for the placing of clothing on the ground was a response to the announcement of Jehu's kingship (2 Kings 9: 13) and was followed by a further formal proclamation, J e h u is king'. Similarly the use of branches in acclamation ritual is a following o f precedent (see 1 M a c e . 1 3 : 5 1 ) . All o f this prepares for the crescendo in verses gf. T h e deliberateness with which the ass is obtained and then used for the short journey to the city is reinforced by the formality o f the procession in which Jesus is preceded and followed by the confessing crowd (cp. JtQodyeiv 4- &xoX.ou0eiv in a processional context: Josephus BJ 1: 6 7 3 ; AJ 7: 40). T h e confession itself is constructed on the foundation o f Psalm 1 1 8 : 2 5 ^ originally a prayer for salvation and a greeting, a real communication o f blessing, to the arriving pilgrims. But now there is more involved than that foundation. A chiastic form puts two EQXsa6cu statements between two (boavvd calls, and the second EQ%eoQai statement gives precise meaning to the first. T h e coming of the Davidic kingdom is more than a mere spatial movement by a pilgrim. Space has given way to time, geography to eschatology, and all in the interests o f christology. T h e future king is the present Jesus! 11

As already mentioned, the decision about the historicity o f the story depends in part on its internal viability. Tn this connection the unity o f the tradition is almost certain. T h e precedents for celebratory entry stories are sufficiently often indifferent to the method o f transport that one could justifiably ask whether the later part o f the story which is closest to the precedents (verses 8 - 1 0 ) genuinely needs the earlier part whose dominant concern is the ass (verses 1 - 7 ) . Yet the later part is fully integrated with the earlier part by means o f the c o m m o n christology, and the later part must therefore share the vulnerability o f the earlier part to historical criticism. The verisimilitude of verses 1 - 7 by virtue of the unlaboured, almost casual, employment o f impressment motifs can be no protection, for a tradition does not have to lack verisimilitude to be unhistorical. Consequently several essential features o f the story excite critical doubts: Does not the precise parallelism o f this tradition with that o f Mark 1 4 : 1 2 - 1 6 suggest a stereotyped form? Does not Jesus's awareness o f the existence, the circumstances, and the pre-history o f the animal amount, in Bultmann's words, to the 'manifestly legendary'? Does not the thoroughness o f the christological impregnation o f the story suggest the creative, rather than merely the interpretative, role of scripture? But with that third question we begin to move towards the topic o f what might be called the external 12

11

12

It m a y well be that Psalm 118: 25$had already been interpreted messianically: c p . E. L o h s e , ' H o s i a n n a ' , NovTest 6 (1963), 1 1 3 - 1 9 . The History of the Synoptic Tradition ( O x f o r d , 1963), p . 261.

326


relations o f this tradition to other messianic traditions with which it may, indeed must, cohere. Here one must again emphasise that a celebratory entry, precisely because it looks backwards to preceding events, cannot survive without another earlier event containing an identical christology. For such a role there is only one candidate, the confession o f Peter at Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8 : 2 7 - 3 0 ) , whose historicity is therefore vitally necessary for the historicity o f Mark 1 1 : 1 - 1 0 . Formally, Mark 8: 2 7 - 3 0 is structured antithetically so that a series o f incorrect identifications o f j e s u s by men in general (verses 2 7 b , 28) is set over against an alternative identification o f j e s u s by the disciple group represented by Peter (verse 2 9 ) . This alternative identification o f j e s u s as 'messiah' must, on the Markan level, be viewed as entirely correct for several reasons.

13

Firstly, the identification is the subject o f a secrecy

c o m m a n d (verse 3 0 ) , and secrecy commands in Mark, far from implying a rejection o f what has previously been stated, in fact presuppose that it is exactly right ( c p . 3: 1 1 reinforced by 1: 11 and 9: 7 ) . Secondly, Mark has already confirmed in 1: 1 the accuracy o f the confession o f Peter. Thirdly, the form o f the tradition itself requires that the inaccurate views stated in verse 28 should not be set antitithetically over against another inaccurate view but rather against an opposite and accurate view, and this formal requirement is reinforced by the sharp contrast between the two groups whose views are here surveyed. Not even the suggestion (in itself insecurely grounded) o f a Markan critique o f the disciples, nor the argument that 14

8: 3 1 - 3 forces 8: 2 7 - 9 to register a critique of a 0eiog avrj@ christology, can weaken this conclusion. Given, therefore, the endorsement o f Peter's confession at the Markan level, the question arises as to what may have been true at the pre-Markan level, that is, if there was one. A t this point we have necessarily in the post-Wrede period to ignore the secrecy injunction in verse 3 0 , but then two options become available. T h e first is to note the probably secondary and Markan character of verses 3 i f and to infer that in verse 3 3 there is preserved an original pre-Markan conclusion to the unit involving verses 2 7 - 9 ,

1 5

and the second is to consider verses 2 7 - 9 without

reference to verse 3 3 at all. These options coalesce, however, in the light o f some considerations affecting verse 3 3 itself. Firstly, even if it were pre-Markan or even historical this would not demonstrate the historicity o f

1 3

E. H a e n c h e n , ' D i e K o m p o s i t i o n v o n M k 8.27-9.1 und par.', NovTest 6 (1963), 81-108, esp. 89f: ' M a n tragt in seinen T e x t etwas F r e m d e s ein, w e n n m a n das Bekenntnis d e r Christenheit " D u bist der C h r i s t u s ! " in M u n d e des Petrus z u m A u s d r u c k einer falschen Christuserwartung erniedrigt.'

1 4

T . J . W e e d e n , Mark-Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia, 1971), p p . 32-4. H a h n , Hoheitstitel, p p . 227f ( E T Titles, p p . 224Q; R . H . Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology ( L o n d o n , 1965), p . 109.

1 5


327

verses 2 7 - 9 , which must stand up to scrutiny in their own right. Secondly, the negativity o f verse 3 3 vis-a-vis Peter is certainly fierce and could (if 16

supporting evidence were forthcoming) even be taken as authentic, but it fits easily into the Markan scheme in which the disciples' misunderstanding is inevitable and christologically conditioned, precisely as a pointer to the reader that in Jesus something is happening which is, in the style o f apocalyptic, wholly other and wholly beyond man's capacity to understand except through revelation. Thirdly, it stretches credulity to suppose that any community influenced by the confession that Jesus is messiah could possibly transmit a tradition in which Jesus vigorously disputed that confession. W e have, therefore, to assess the possibilities o f a pre-Markan existence and o f substantial historicity in the case o f 8: 2 7 - 9 alone. Neither o f these possibilities turns out to be particularly well grounded. Firstly, the geographical reference to Caesarea weight,

17

fluctuate

Philippi (verse 2 7 a ) cannot

carry

for geographical references within the gospel tradition at large markedly. Secondly, the list o f incorrect opinions ofjesus (verse

28) is clearly related to the list in 6: 1 4 - 1 6 . In more precise terms 6: 1 4 - 1 6 , because it lists none but incorrect opinions - there is no antithetical structure there as in 8: 2 7 - 9 , since Herod simply selects one o f the wrong interpretations - and because it could scarcely exist as a separate unit serving a purpose within Christian tradition, is dependent on and an interpretation

o f verse

2 8 . Significantly,

it

serves

to highlight

the

artificiality of verse 2 8 , especially in the case o f the suggestion that Jesus is J o h n the Baptist. Four component ideas are severely open to question: first, that one person's activities could only be explained on the basis of his being another person in resurrected form; second, that Herod should anticipate the

Christian

scheme

whereby

a

general

eschatological

experience

envisaged by apocalyptic should here be brought forward in the case o f a specific known individual; third, that the previously executed John in particular should be regarded by him as the person now revived; fourth, that the non-miracle-working J o h n could in any sense provide a strand o f continuity through to a miracle-working Jesus. In sum, the list o f opinions concerning the identity o f j e s u s reflects no real historical situation either before or after Easter but is an artificial construction serving christological ends. Thirdly, the raising by the Markan Jesus o f the question about his identity is itself at variance with the concerns o f the mission of the historical Jesus. It fits uneasily with the theocentric proclamation o f the near kingdom, whereas its fits smoothly and easily with the recurrent Markan

1 6

17

H a h n , Hoheitstitel, p . 227 ( E T Titles, p . 224). E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark ( L o n d o n , 1971), p . 171.

328


tendency to make various happenings provoke the question o f w h o Jesus is (see, for example, 1 : 2 7 ; 4 : 4 1 ; 6 : 2 ; 1 4 : 6 1 ; 1 5 : 2 ) It looks suspiciously like a situation in which a question, instead o f generating an affirmation, is in fact generated by it. Fourthly, verse 2 9 contains a bald, precise and direct christological affirmation in the form oil El . . . This is ex actly in the style o f 1: 11 and 3 : 1 1 and closely approximate t o i : 2 4 ; 1 4 : 6if; 15:2,39The evidence seems, therefore, to point towards the conclusion that y

m

Mark 8: 2 7 - 3 0 is a Markan construction serving the purposes o f Markan theology. If some pre-Markan influence contributed to the production o f such a tradition it may be that Peter's having been the first to see the risen one w h o was in that context affirmed to be XQtorog (1 C o r . 1 5 : 3 0 - 5 ) provided such influence. But in itself 8: 2 7 - 3 0 does not emerge from a pre-Easter context, and it therefore leaves the tradition o f the triumphal entry stranded. At this point a rearguard action in defence o f the historicity o f Mark 1 1 : 1 - 1 0 might be mounted somewhat as follows: If Jesus was crucified as a messianic claimant with the R o m a n definition o f his offence defined by the titulus on the cross, then some earlier encouragement of the view that he was messiah must have occurred. T h e alternative would be a situation in which Pilate would be the creator o f christology.

18

Might the historicity o f Mark

1 1 : 1 - 1 0 be salvaged along these lines? The Markan narrative of the crucifixion uses several christological terms of which 'the king o f the Jews', 'Messiah' and 'the king o f Israel' are clearly synonyms ( 1 5 : 2 6 , 3 2 ) , all of them being gathered into the term 'son of G o d ' with which the climax is reached ( 1 5 : 3 9 ) . T h e titulus itself draws upon the material in 1 5 : 2 , 6 - 1 5 , 1 6 - 2 0 within which 6 |3aaiX£i)g TuYv Tovdaicov language recurs repeatedly. In the case o f 1 5 : 2 we clearly encounter secondary material in context Pilate receives no preparation

19

since (a) the specific question asked by in 1 5 : 1 and appears abruptly; (b) the

generalised accusation noKka in 1 5 : 3 might more naturally occur before, rather than after, a specific charge; (c) the answer o f j e s u s in 1 5 : 2 is at variance with the presupposition o f silence in 1 5 : 4f. Not only is 1 5 : 2 secondary in context but also of doubtful historicity. T h e terminology used by Pilate aligns Jesus with Jewish kings in general (see Josephus, BJ 1: 282; AJ 1 4 : 3 6 ; 1 5 : 373f, 4 0 9 ; 1 6 : 2 9 1 , 3 1 1 , for example) and it is hard to imagine a R o m a n procurator during a king-less period using such language. T h e question and answer combination belongs to the context o f Christian confession and probably reflects Mark's own technique, in spite o f the fact 1 8

O . Betz, ' D i e Frage n a c h d e m messianischen Bewusstsein J e s u ' , NovTest6 (1963),

20-48, esp. 34. 1 9

B u l t m a n n , History, p . 272.


329

20

that 'king o f the Jews' is not strongly attested in Christian texts - though here we should allow for the precedent in Matt. 2: 2, in which context it is immediately defined by more typical ideas ( 2 : 4 - 6 ) , just as happens to Mark 1 5 : 2 in its own context ( 1 5 : 2 7 - 3 9 ) .

2 1

Mark 1 5 : 6 - 1 5 presupposes

1 5 : 2 and makes kingship its major theme, but it is also weighed d o w n by the familiar objections to the whole Barabbas tradition and by the clear evidence o f an attempt to make Pilate a witness to the innocence ofjesus. Mark 1 5 : 1 6 - 2 0 pursues the same theme in such a way that the claim o f Jesus is subjected to ironic parody. Mark 1 5 : 2 6 itself could be omitted from its context and allow a smooth connection between verses 2 5 and 2 7 ,

2 2

but

support for its historicity is found above all in its greater claim to verisimilitude than that of any o f the other 'king of the Jews' texts. T h e idea o f a titulus corresponds extremely closely to the practice documented in Cassius

D i o , Roman History

54.3.7;

Suetonius,

Gaius Caligula 3 2 . 2 ;

Suetonius, Domitian 1 0 ; Eusebius, H.E. V 1.434. But one must also observe that, as previously mentioned,

verisimilitude

does not

demonstrate

historicity, and, moreover, the precise wording used in 1 5 : 2 6 has still to be scrutinised in relation to the related material in the surrounding context. In this connection, 1 5 : 2 6 provides a starting point for a complex o f material ( 1 5 : 2 7 - 3 9 ) which conforms schematically to the pattern exhibited very clearly in W i s d o m 2, 4 - 5 .

2 3

Like the righteous man, Jesus has made certain

claims which form the basis o f hostile action (Wisd. 2 : 1 3 , 1 6 - 1 8 , 2 0 ; Mark 1 5 : 2 9 , 3 2 ; c p . 1 4 : 5 8 , 61 f). Like the righteous man, Jesus must be vindicated before death if his opponents are to be convinced (Wisd. 2 : 17f; Mark 1 5 : 3 0 , 3 2 ) . Like the righteous man, Jesus is maltreated, subjected to legal proceedings - and he dies! (Wisd. 4 : 1 6 ; Mark 1 5 : 3 7 ) . Like the righteous man, Jesus is recognised by his enemies as 'son o f G o d ' (Wisd. 5: 5 ; Mark :

* 5 39)?

a

n

id

e a

which includes the notion o f kingship (Wisd. 3 : 8 ; Mark

1 5 : 2 6 , 3 2 ) . Like the righteous man, therefore, Jesus is vindicated and his claims confirmed, the only difference being that the enemies o f the righteous man make their confession in the setting o f a disclosure/ revelation

o f heavenly

existence

(Wisd.

4 : 2 0 to 5 : 8 ) whereas

the

representative o f the enemies o f j e s u s does so with particular emphasis at the scene o f death (Mark 1 5 : 3 9 ) . That means that the Markan narrative

2 0

2 1

Historicity is affirmed o n the basis o f the unusual terminology b y P. W i n t e r , On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p p . 107-10; E. L o h s e , Die Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens Jesu Christi (Giitersloh, 1964), p . 89; Fuller, Foundations, p . 135. C o m p a r e the s y n o n y m o u s a p p l i c a t i o n to D a v i d o f the t w o terms PaoiXeug

'Iou&aiwv and PaoiXeiig xdrv 'IoQaTiXixwv in Josephus, AJ 7: 72, 76. 2 2

2 3

E. L i n n e m a n n , Studien zur Passionsgeschichte ( G o t t i n g e n , 1970), p . 147. C p . G . W . E . N i c k e l s b u r g , Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism ( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , 1972), p p . 58-68.

33°


uses a semi-adoptionist scheme but projects back before resurrection that which, strictly speaking, presupposes resurrection. It is to such a scheme that 1 5 : 2 6 contributes, and it is by virtue o f such a scheme, which Mark has imposed with some tension on the crucifixion tradition, that the historicity of the titulus has to be d o u b t e d . At the hands o f Mark the historical fact o f the crucifixion o f j e s u s has been subordinated to the less historical idea o f the crucifixion ofjesus the king of the Jews. A n d that in turn means that the historicity o f Mark 1 1 : 1 - 1 0 cannot be sustained, either on the basis o f the tradition o f an earlier event in the pre-Easter sequence (8: 2 7 - 3 0 ) , or on the basis o f an appeal to the ground o f his ultimate execution ( 1 5 : 2 6 ) . That Jesus went to Jerusalem is certain, and to that minimal extent one could affirm historicity. Whether he was greeted like all other pilgrims with the words o f Psalm 1 i 8 : 2 5 f , and/or whether an intensity o f expectation o f the kingdom o f G o d was apparent in his companions, must remain speculative and uncertain. The review o f a series of celebratory entry stories suggested that action in the T e m p l e was a frequently attested component o f the c o m m o n pattern. Therefore the significance o f the so-called 'cleansing o f the T e m p l e ' tradition must be explored. Three preliminary observations must first be made. Firstly, although the celebratory entry scheme includes the element of T e m p l e activity, the record o f the latter is not necessarily rendered unhistorical by a conclusion that the entry proper is, as presently described, unhistorical. Arrival in Jerusalem (stated or presupposed) as a prelude to action in the T e m p l e could easily have been expanded christologically to form a fitting introduction. In short, Mark 1 1 : 1 5 - 1 9 has to be examined without prejudice. Secondly, M a r k R is responsible for the enclosing o f the tradition o f Jesus's T e m p l e activity within the tradition of the cursing o f the fig-tree and therefore for the bridge-statement in verse 1 1 . Verse 11 a clearly overlaps with, and may be an echo of, verse 1 5 a . Verse n b , if properly attributed to Mark R, is not available to support the suggestion o f Brandon that JieQipX,e\j)dp,evog Jtdvxa hints a t ' ( ? ) an act o f reconnoitring for action on the morrow', action which would directly challenge priestly interests and indirectly attack Roman authority. Thirdly, Mark's version o f the tradition can again safely be regarded as the primary one. Matthew/Luke agreements are confined to the affirmative, as against interrogative, introduction to the quotation from Isaiah 5 6 : 7 and the absence of the words jrdorv xoig EBVEOTV. Such agreements cannot sustain any suggestion o f an 24

25

26

27

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

Similarly, B u l t m a n n , History, p . 284. H a h n , Hoheitstitel, p . 172 ( E T Titles, p . 156). B u l t m a n n , History, p . 262. T h u s , B r a n d o n , Zealots, p p . 9, 333. N o t e that JieQiPA.ejr.eiv o c c u r s in the N e w T e s t a m e n t seven times, o f w h i c h six are M a r k a n .


331

independent source. John's version, with its much more elaborate list of the items for sale, its more colourful description o f Jesus's intervention, and its significantly different version o f Jesus's saying about the house o f G o d , might be independent. O n the other hand, the greater detail may be a secondary development, and

if the Jioieiv-saying in Mark

1 1 : 1 7 is

secondary in its own context as well as matching the Jioieiv-saying in John 2: 1 6 b , then the Johannine

tradition could well presuppose secondary

developments in the Markan tradition and therefore emerge as dependent. However, the choice between these two options is not critical since it is unlikely that the ultimate meaning o f the traditions is affected. There is no more than minimal risk involved in working from Mark 1 1 : 1 5 - 1 9 . Within the section Mark 1 1 : 1 5 - 1 9 clearly not all the tradition can be primary. N o contribution, except as a transition, is made by verse 1 9 , while verse 1 8 has to be adjudged M a r k R in view o f its matching the M a r k R passages 1 : 2 2 ; 3 : 6 . In verse 1 7 an antithesis is set up between o i x o g ngooEvyi]!;

and o j i r | X . a i o v XflOTcbv. This is done on the basis o f the

juxtaposition o f Isa. 5 6 : 7 and Jer. 7: 1 1 , the latter probably being attracted to the former by the correspondence between 6 o i x o g [iov . . . xXr)6rjoeTCU and 6 0 1 x 6 5 \iov . . . eJUXExXrjtca as a result o f which the latter phrase is suppressed. decided

28

Whether verse 1 7 has 'hit on Jesus' p u r p o s e '

by testing whether

the

activity

which Jesus

29

can only be

interrupts so

dramatically has changed an o i x o g Jioooevxfjc; into a OJif|Xaiov

XTIOXWV.

In other words everything hangs on verses 15^ interpreted in isolation first of all. It would be tempting to interpret Mark 1 1 : 1 6 in terms of Josephus, C. Apion 2: 106: 'one further point: no vessel whatever might be carried into the temple, the only objects in which were an altar, a censer and a lampstand, all mentioned in the law'. But Josephus is speaking about the holy place whereas Mark is not. M o r e significantly, the term OXEIJOC; should not be over-interpreted as a reference to any o f the holy vessels, as if Jesus is here interfering with regular cultic activity. T h e term is frequently used in an entirely secular sense, carrying a range of meanings which includes military equipment, jewellery, baggage, undefined

property

containers which may be used for any purpose.

30

in general,

and

Since Mark 1 1 : 1 6 is

defined by the preceding statement in verse 1 5 the natural inference is that 2 8

2 9

3 0

N o t e that JI&OTV x o i g eGveoiv (verse 17a), although in Isa. 56: 7 and d o u b t l e s s o f c o n s i d e r a b l e interest to M a r k ( c p . 13: 10), has n o counterpart in verse 17b. T h e r e f o r e there is n o contrast intended b e t w e e n the use o f the T e m p l e b y Gentiles and its use b y J e w s ( c p . 1 M a c e . 7:37; 3 M a c e . 2: 10). F. H a h n , Das Verstandnis der Mission im Neuen Testament ( N e u k i r c h e n , 1963), p . 30 ( E T Mission in the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1965), p . 38), w h o nevertheless argued that the d o u b l e citation w a s s e c o n d a r y . C . M a u r e r , o x e v o g , TDNT vii (1971), 358-67, esp. 359.

332

D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E 31

oxefiog refers to any container being used by those w h o bought or sold. A closer parallel than the Josephus text would be Neh. 1 3 : 8, where Jidvxa x d axeim oixou belonging to T o b i a h , clearly standing for his property in general, are thrown out o f the temple buildings by Nehemiah. Mark 1 1 : 1 6 describes an action by Jesus which does not (pace Jeremias)

32

presuppose

'the occupation of the temple gates by his followers' but rather coheres with the action described in verse 1 5 . H o w then may that action be interpreted? Firstly, the scale o f Jesus's intervention must have been small. T h e notion that Mark has reduced its size and significance lacks all evidential support, and the idea that Jesus and his followers were attempting the seizure o f the T e m p l e and treasury with a force 'too strong to be routed and captured'

33

defies all probability. H a d this been so, the silence o f

Josephus, w h o includes in his accounts many more trivial events than that would have been, is inexplicable. Moreover, the speed and decisiveness o f the intervention by the authorities to crush developments which threatened public order had frequently been, and would continue to be, unvaried and unrestrained. T h e arrest o f forty persons by the T e m p l e captain and a considerable support force after

the attack on Herod's golden eagle

(Josephus, BJ 1 : 6 5 1 - 3 ; AJ 1 7 * 1 5 5 - 6 3 ) ,

the determined suppression o f

those w h o mourned for Judas and Matthias in 4 B.C. when they were perceived as a threat to social and political stability (BJ 2: 1 0 - 1 3 ; AJ 17:213-18),

the beheading by Gratus o f Simon the usurper after

his

campaign o f loot and arson (BJ 2: 5 7 - 9 ; AJ 1 7 : 1 7 3 - 7 ) , the eliminating o f the leadership of the uprising by Athronges (BJ 2:60-554/

l

T- 2 7 8 - 8 4 ) , the

decisive intervention o f the Romans to arrest Paul (Acts 2 1 : 3 0 - 3 ) , the arrest and execution without trial o f Theudas and his collaborators (AJ 20: 9 7 - 9 ) , the relentless efforts of the authorities to arrest the Egyptian false prophet together with the swift elimination of his followers (BJ 2: 2 6 1 - 3 ; AJ 20: 1 6 9 - 7 2 ; Acts 2 1 : 38) - all these examples show the standard response o f the authorities. In Jesus's case, however, they apparently did not respond.

34

Even when allowance is made for the Markan order as the product o f editorial activity, and therefore for the possibility that the arrest occurred rather more immediately after the T e m p l e incident, it remains critical that

3 1

32

3 3

3 4

C p . N . Q . H a m i l t o n , ' T e m p l e Cleansing and T e m p l e B a n k ' , JBL 83 (1964), 365-72, e s p . 370. T h i s is p r o b a b l y m o r e true to the link between verse 16 a n d verse 15 than the suggestion that Jesus w a s s t o p p i n g water carriers from taking a short cut t h r o u g h the T e m p l e (J. J e r e m i a s , New Testament Theology I: The Proclamation of Jesus ( E T L o n d o n , 1971), p . 145). J e r e m i a s , Theology, p . 228. B r a n d o n , Zealots, p p . 255-7, 33°~9- Against this, see E. T r o c m e , ' L ' e x p u l s i o n des m a r c h a n d s d u temple', NTSt 15 (1968), 1-22, esp. I5f. O n the thoroughness o f policing arrangements, c p . V . Eppstein, ' T h e Historicity o f the G o s p e l a c c o u n t o f the cleansing o f the T e m p l e ' , ZNW55 (1964), 42-58, esp. 46f.


333

Jesus was not arrested straightaway or in situ, while the disciples were not arrested at all. T h e action in the T e m p l e must therefore have been trivial in size

35

and, moreover, as Mark himself indicates, an action by Jesus alone.

Secondly, the act o f expulsion is definitive. As already noted, an act o f expulsion is frequently a component o f the celebratory entry scheme. This may throw light on the Markan scheme within which the entry has become subject to christological reflection, but at the pre-Markan stage (if Mark 1 1 : 1 5 f belongs to such a stage) this would be less applicable. Moreover, the expulsions listed earlier are essentially acts of cultic conservatism, designed to re-establish traditional modes o f belief and worship, whereas Mark 1 1 : 1 5 belongs to a setting in which no inroads had previously been made into the traditional practice o f Judaism. Indeed, as has frequently been observed, the practice o f money-changing and selling doves could easily be justified

36

and was intended to facilitate the traditional practices. O n e

might then have recourse to the idea that a justifiable provision was being used

for purposes o f unjustifiable

exploitation, for example,

profit-making or financial irregularity.

undue

But that idea suffers from two

handicaps: (a) There is no evidence o f such exploitation by the T e m p l e authorities, intervention

so it remains

only a theoretical

possibility; (b) Jesus's

does not protect the exploited buyers by expelling the

exploiting sellers, but instead both buyers and sellers are ejected. T h e consequence is clear, and the intention therefore evident, in the fact that after Jesus's intervention there is no longer trade as such in the T e m p l e . T h e fulfilment o f an ancient text has in a temporary and preliminary way been achieved: 'There shall no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord on that day' (Zech. 1 4 : 2 1 b ) .

3 7

Thirdly, consideration must be given to the degree o f coherence which may exist between verses 1 5 f and verse 1 7 . Had the citation o f Isa. 5 6 : 7 alone been employed, and had attention been given to context, the stress would have had to be placed on Jidoiv xoig eBveoiv and the passage would simply have been given a new application as an instrument o f polemic. With the assimilated citation attached from Jer. 7: 1 1 ,

JI&OIV

xoig eSveoiv

3 5

M . H e n g e l , Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Philadelphia, 1971), p . 16; Schweizer, Mark, p . 231. T h e suggestion o f H a m i l t o n , JBL 83 (1964), 37of, that J e s u s b y his act s u s p e n d e d the w h o l e e c o n o m i c function o f the t e m p l e ' is p r o b a b l y c o r r e c t in orientation but t o o u n g u a r d e d as far as the scale o f the event is c o n c e r n e d .

3 6

E . L o h m e y e r , ' D i e R e i n i g u n g des T e m p e l s ' , ThBl 20 (1941), 257-64, e s p . 259: 'Diese K o n z e s s i o n b r a c h t e w o h l ihren I n h a b e r n . . . reiche G e w i n n e , aber sie diente a u c h d a z u , d e n vielen Pilgern aus d e m Inland o d e r A u s l a n d ihre G e l i i b d e und O p f e r ausserlich zu erleichtern.' Similarly, Eppstein, ZNW 55 (1964), 43; Schweizer, Mark, p . 233. C . R o t h , ' T h e C l e a n s i n g o f the T e m p l e a n d Z e c h a r i a h X I V 2 1 ' , NovTest 4 (i960),

3 7

174-81; T r o c m e , NTSt 15 (1968), 18.

334


moves out of the spotlight, as it were, and is replaced by the antithesis 0 1 x 0 5 nQOoevxÔKr\katov

Xflorcbv. Yet this polemical antithesis scarcely does

justice to the situation described in verses I 5 f , where the T e m p l e can scarcely be said to have been prevented from being a house o f prayer,

38

any

more than it can appropriately be labelled a cave o f rebels in either Jeremiah's sense o f a citadel o f hypocritical worship by idolaters or in the later sense o f a stronghold o f revolutionaries ( c p . Josephus, AJ 15: 346).

3 9

14:415;

T h e connection between verses 1 5 f and verse 1 7 is therefore

forced and secondary, which means in turn that verse 1 7 reflects a later anti-Temple tendency in primitive Christianity while the history o f the tradition in verses I 5 f stretches at least as far back as the pre-Markan stage. But does it g o even further back to the historical Jesus? This brings us to the next point. Fourthly, when Mark 1 1 : 1 5 f is understood in terms o f Z e c h . 1 4 : 21 there is an unstrained convergence between it and historical Jesus traditions. For Zech.

1 4 : 2 1 describes the eschatological order within which G o d ' s

kingship has been activated and established (verses 5 , 9, i 6 f ) . In relation to that eschatological rule o f G o d the action o f j e s u s in the T e m p l e is an anticipatory sign carried out in prophetic fashion. As the prophet o f the kingdom o f G o d ,

4 0

Jesus is acting here in line with scripture but pointing

forward to that which will be both more comprehensive in scope and more permanent in achievement; in other words he acts here just as in Matthew 1 1 : 5 ; 1 3 : i 6 f = Luke 7 : 2 2 ; i o : 2 3 f . The

conclusion o f the study o f the 'triumphal'

entry and T e m p l e

cleansing traditions is now possible. T h e two have been welded into a single whole under the combined influence o f an already existing Jewish pattern and a post-Easter christological conviction. In the T e m p l e incident Jesus is seen as what he was before Easter, the prophet o f the near kingdom. In the 'triumphal' entry Jesus is seen as what he later became, after Easter, the Davidic messiah. 38Eppstein, Z M 5 5 (1964), 43. 3 9

R o t h , NovTest 4 (i960), 176. ^ T r o c m e , NTSt 15 (1968), 18, rightly criticises any attempt at i m p o r t i n g messianic ideas into this event.

G. W . H . L A M P E

The two swords (Luke 22:35-38) 'This record o f Jesus' arming o f his disciples, or rather his checking on their armament', remarks S. G . F. Brandon,

1

'has greatly troubled commenta

tors'. T h e idea that Luke 22: 3 6 - 8 really presents Jesus as acting like an officer 'checking' his men's weapons before battle is bizarre; but that the commentators have floundered in a morass o f perplexity when faced with this notoriously difficult passage is undoubtedly true. Brandon cites examples o f the diverse explanations o f exegetes, including myself, who have tried rather desperately to establish the meaning, and indeed to make any sense at all, o f this strange pericope. A longer list of interpretations was collected by T . M . Napier, representing the period from Wellhausen to 1938,2 and they make discouraging reading. T h e first question to be considered in any attempt to elucidate Luke 2 2 : 3 8 ( ' A n d they said, " L o r d , see, here are two swords." A n d he said, "It is e n o u g h . " ' ) is the relation o f this verse, on the one hand to the preceding dialogue, verses 3 5 to 3 7 , and, on the other, to Luke's version (verses 4 9 to 5 1 ) o f the Markan episode o f the assault, at or after the arrest o f j e s u s , on the servant of the high priest (Mark 1 4 : 4 7 ; Matt. 26: 5 1 - 4 ; John 1 8 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) . As this verse stands in its context in Luke, it is evidently intended to form part o f the dialogue which precedes it ( 3 5 - 7 ) and which is itself an integral part o f the warnings, prophecies, instructions and promises given by Jesus to the disciples at the Last Supper - a section o f Luke which, on a small scale, resembles the great Johannine discourses. Yet it does not appear to be logically connected with this material. If it was originally a part o f the dialogue which precedes it, it would seem that it must have been intended simply

to

express

the

disciples' lack

o f comprehension

and

their

insensitivity both to the true significance of Jesus's words in that dialogue and to the situation which evoked them. If, as is probably the case, it has been added to that dialogue by Luke himself, it seems that it is a clumsy attempt to establish a connection between the dialogue (verses 3 5 to 3 7 ) and the episode o f the attack on the high priest's servant. O u r task is to examine the question why Luke, on the assumption that this was the case, composed and inserted verse 3 8 . Luke has apparently brought together several distinct units o f material

1

2

Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p . 340. ' T h e E n i g m a o f the S w o r d s ' , ExpT 49 (1939), 467-70.

335

33^

G. W . H .

LAMPE

and related them to one another. These are: the instructions given to the Seventy when they were sent out on their mission ( 1 0 : 3!!), with the parallel commissioning o f the Twelve (9: 3ff); the warning to the disciples that the times have changed and that their original instructions given on those earlier occasions have n o w to be countermanded (22: 3 5 - 7 ) ; the saying o f the disciples concerning two swords, and Jesus's reply to them (22: 3 8 ) ; the Markan story o f the attack upon the servant o f the high priest, preceded by the disciples' question, ' L o r d , shall we strike with the sword?', and followed by Jesus's healing o f the servant's ear ( 2 2 : 4 9 - 5 1 ) . At 1 0 : 3 - 4 Jesus sends out the Seventy, ordering them not to take purse, bag or sandals. This passage is broadly, though not precisely, parallelled in Mark 6: 8 - 9 and Matt. 1 0 : 9 - 1 0 , followed also by Luke 9 : 3 - 4 , where the orders are given to the Twelve. T h e source-criticism o f this passage is complicated; it is possible that in this material there is an overlap between Mark and Q , and perhaps L as well. However this may be, it is likely that Luke has taken material which, in his source, referred to the sending out o f the Twelve, and inserted it in the new context o f the commissioning o f the 3

Seventy. This passage is taken up at 2 2 : 3 5 : Jesus addresses the apostles and reminds them how they had originally been sent out without purse, bag or sandals. It may be that Luke is himself confused and has forgotten that he had transferred these instructions o f j e s u s into his new context o f the sending of the Seventy; but it is more probable that in Luke's source, which Vincent Taylor may be right in assigning to the L material,

4

the

groundwork o f verses 3 5 - 7 was already associated with the substance o f 10: 3 - 4 ; both referred to the sending out o f the Twelve. T h e problem o f the 5

sources o f verses 3 5 to 3 8 has been minutely studied by H . Schurmann as well as by Vincent Taylor and others. It appears probable that verses 3 5 to 3 7 , and conceivably even verse 3 8 as well, are a Lukan redaction o f source-material and were already, in the pre-Lukan stage o f the tradition, linked with 1 0 : 3 - 4 as well as with the preceding 'farewell discourses' o f Jesus to the disciples at the Last Supper (22: 2 1 - 3 4 ) . Jesus reminds his disciples that when he had originally sent them out they went without even the ordinary basic requirements for travel. H e asks them whether they had lacked anything, and their answer, 'Nothing', presumably implies that in that successful mission ( c p . 1 0 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) they had been well received; they had found 'sons o f peace' to receive their greeting and been given the hire which they deserved as workers ( c p . 1 0 : 5 - 8 ) . But now

( 2 2 : 36) the situation has changed drastically. In the scheme o f 3

See A . L o i s y , Les Evangiles Synoptiques ii (Ceflfonds, 1908), 554-8. The Passion Narrative of St Luke, e d . O . E . E v a n s ( C a m b r i d g e , 1972). Jesu Abschiedsrede, Lk. 22:21-38 (Miinster, 1953); M . M e i n e r t z , Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen x x . 5 (Miinster, 1957), 116-39.

4

5

T h e two swords

337

successive epochs which Conzelmann discerns in Luke this phrase, aXkd vCv,

plays a decisive role. It inaugurates a new period, in which the

disciples begin once again to be assailed, after a time o f immunity during 6

Jesus's ministry, by trials and temptations (jteiQaojioi). It is very doubtful whether this saying, or the similar 'epochal' turning-points

on which

Conzelmann's exegesis o f Luke depends, will bear the weight which his theory places on them. Within somewhat narrower limits of interpretation, however, the contrast expressed in Luke's aXka vfiv does signify the dramatic change that is going to come in the fortunes o f the disciples. Whereas they had been popular preachers and healers, able to count on the support o f the public wherever they went, the time is coming when no one will help them. T h e y will have to fend for themselves; they will need purse and bag, and, since every man's hand will be against them to the point o f actually threatening their safety, each o f them will need to arm himself with a sword, even at the cost o f selling his cloak, if necessary, to buy it. It may be noticed in passing that, as has often been pointed out, in Matthew's version o f the Q material at Matt. 5 : 4 0 / L u k e 6: 2 9 the cloak (ifi&xiov) which served the peasant as a kind o f sleeping-bag is the most necessary garment of all, which a man would be most reluctant to surrender (cp. E x o d . 22: 2 6 - 7 , L X X ) .

In Luke's version, on the other hand, the order

is reversed, as though one would give up one's cloak sooner than one's tunic (Xtxcov); and this is sometimes taken to indicate that Luke thinks like a Greek city-dweller. In 22: 36, however, the need to buy a sword is so pressing as to demand even the sacrifice o f the cloak itself - as though this were the last thing that anyone would want to sell. Perhaps this is yet another indication to add to the evidence adduced by Schurmann that this pericope belongs to pre-Lukan literary tradition. This passage (verses 3 5 to 3 7 ) falls, then, into an easily-recognised category o f the sayings ascribed to Jesus by all the evangelists: that o f future, or eschatological, warnings o f tribulation, distress and persecution. These naturally tend, as often in the N e w Testament (Acts 20: 2 9 - 3 1 being one example), to be uttered in the context of a leave-taking. Jesus's warning that his disciples will have to face a hostile world, shunned, boycotted, and in danger o f physical assault, is in line with parts o f the farewell discourses in the Fourth Gospel, such as J o h n

15: 18-21

and

1 6 : 1 - 4 , with

the

prophecies o f persecution in the eschatological discourses, such as Mark 1 3 : 9 - 1 3 and parallels, especially ' Y o u will be hated by all men for my name's sake' (Mark 1 3 : 1 3 , Matt. 2 4 : 9 , Luke 2 1 : 1 7 ) , and the saying

6

H . C o n z e l m a n n , Die Mitte der Zeit (3rd e d n . T u b i n g e n , i960), p p . 74-6 ( E T The Theology of St Luke ( L o n d o n , i960), p p . 80-2), etc.

33^

G. W . H. LAM PE

contained in the Q material at Matt. 10: 34ff/Luke 1 2 : 5 iff which warns o f coming division and strife within households and families. T h e last o f these passages is particularly interesting, for whereas in Matthew's version Jesus says, 'I have not come to bring peace (to the earth) but a sword (ji&xaiQav)', in Luke's the wording is different: ' D o you think that I came to give peace on earth? N o , I tell you, but rather division (6iaêQiO(x6v).' It may well be the case that Luke has deliberately altered the original form o f the saying. It is unlikely that he did this through fear that the vivid and striking metaphor o f 'a sword' should be interpreted literalistically as implying an intention on the part ofjesus to promote civil war; Luke is not sensitive to such possibilities o f misunderstanding.

7

More

probably he has altered the wording in order to clarify the meaning o f the saying in its application to the actual experience of the early church in times of persecution, and perhaps also because he has reserved the language relating to a sword for the passage we are now considering. In this saying the idea o f a 'sword' serves to express, not, as in Matt. 10: 3 4 , the disruption which Christian conversion will bring to the closely-knit family ties that 8

were characteristic o f both Jewish and G r e c o - R o m a n society, but the total hostility which disciples would encounter; every man's hand would be against them. This is a warning that the future tribulation, such as was described at 2 1 : 1 7 , is now imminent. It is expressed in the vivid, not to say violent, pictorial imagery characteristic o f the eschatological predictions in the Gospels and o f the 'farewell' warnings elsewhere in the New Testament, for instance in Luke 1 7 : 3 1 - 7 ; 2 1 : 1 8 - 2 8 ; Acts 20: 2 9 ; 2 T i m . 3: 1 - 9 ; 2 Pet. 3: 3ff. Jesus's c o m m a n d that any o f his disciples not already in possession o f a sword should g o to the length o f selling his cloak in order to buy one need not be taken literally; indeed, to d o so would be perhaps as inappropriate as to press the details o f the eschatological warnings given at 1 7 : 3 iff and to ask h o w a man could escape a universal catastrophe by fleeing from his housetop or why the disaster should engulf only one o f two most intimate companions and leave the other to survive. T h e violent language is intended to convey one clear picture: whereas the disciples o f j e s u s had once been made welcome everywhere, now each must be prepared for a lonely struggle to survive in a bitterly hostile world; no one henceforth will provide him with food or shelter, and he will be in constant danger o f attack. 9

Jeremias argues that as an unfulfilled eschatological prophecy verse 3 6 7

8

9

C p . B r a n d o n , Zealots, p . 316.

C p . J . V o g t in A . M o m i g l i a n o ( e d . ) , The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century ( O x f o r d , 1963), p . 42. J . J e r e m i a s , Jtaig 9eoiJ ThWNTv, 712.

T h e two swords

339

belongs to very ancient and authentic tradition. This, however, raises far-reaching questions concerning the nature o f the eschatological sayings in the synoptic Gospels as a whole. M o r e directly, it leads to the question o f the relationship o f verses 3 5 to 3 6 to the saying in verse 3 7 and to the rest o f Luke's Last Supper discourses. In verse 3 7 Jesus gives two related explanations o f the reason for the drastic change in the situation o f his followers. First, he is himself to suffer the fate prophesied in Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 , ' H e was reckoned with transgressors.' Jeremias would interpret this to mean that Jesus is to be cast out o f the community o f Israel as a transgressor ( d v o f x o g ) , this being the cause o f the coming boycott o f his followers. T h e form in which this prophecy is cited, \itxa

dv6(jicov

( OÊ?S"TIK

)

ekoy ioQy), is closer to the Hebrew than to the L X X which has ev x o i g d v o f i O i g . . . . Since Luke commonly follows the L X X , this divergence from that text has persuaded Schurmann and others that the citation is an integral part o f the pre-Lukan material o f which verses 3 5 to 3 6 consist. Although this is very possible, it would be rash to assume that it is necessarily the case. This part o f the fourth 'Servant Song' was current in the early church in various forms: 1 Clement, for example, gives it as x o i g &v6|iOig without a preposition ( 1 6 : 1 3 ) , and it is by no means certain that the insertion o f the citation in verse 3 7 is not the work of Luke himself rather than his source. T h e citation is followed by a second explanation o f the reason why the disciples must n o w expect tribulation: xo Jiegl E|xoi3 xeXog e / e i . T h e meaning

o f this

is

ambiguous. Vincent T a y l o r

interpretation given by Klostermann:

11

10

approves o f the

'my life draws to its end'. Eisler,

12

however, maintains that xeXog E%Ei refers not to the end o f Jesus's life, but to the fulfilment o f his destined role; and in fact the meaning could be, 'the destiny prophesied for me is being fulfilled'. In either case, whether the sense o f x e ^ o g is primarily 'end' or 'fulfilment' (and the two possible meanings may be intentionally c o m b i n e d ) , the question arises whether this sentence is meant, in effect, to repeat and to some extent to clarify Jesus's application o f Isa. 5 3 : 12 to himself, or whether it is a second, independent, explanation o f the coming tribulation. If the latter seems more probable, then at the pre-Lukan stage o f the tradition the saying may have taken the form, 'let him buy a sword. For my life draws to its end (and then you will be left alone to fend for yourselves).' In that case the introduction o f the reference to Isa. 5 3 : 12 may have been due to Luke's redaction. According to this view o f the matter, Luke may have introduced the citation from 10

Passion Narrative, p . 164. E . K l o s t e r m a n n , Das Lukasevangelium ( T u b i n g e n , 1929). •2R. Eisler, I H Z O Y Z B A Z I A E Y Z O Y B A Z I A E Y Z A Z ii ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1930), 11

2

66ff.

340

G. W . H . LAMPE

Isaiah in order to explain the phrase T O Jteoi k\iov xeXog e/ei which he found in his source, and thereby produced the rather clumsy and am biguous juxtaposition o f 6EI TzkeoQf\vai

ev eîoi and xo

KEQI

k\iov xeXog

£%zi. W h y Luke should have introduced Isaiah's prophecy in this way must be considered later. For the present we must concern ourselves with Luke's placing o f verses 3 5 to 3 7 . Schiirmann believes that the whole pericope, 3 5 to 38, already belonged, in a pre-Lukan stage o f the written tradition, to a farewell discourse at the Last Supper. This may be so, but it is by no means certainly the case. Verses 3 5 to 3 7 appear to be a piece o f tradition relating to the future lot o f Jesus's disciples rather than to the passion story. Schiirmann associates it also with those passages in the N e w Testament which reflect early Christian interest in the mission o f the apostles and h o w they and other ministers in the apostolic church maintained themselves while they were engaged in it; Luke 10: 7; Acts 20: 3 3 ; 1 T i m . 5 : 1 7 are examples o f these. This is, no doubt, correct, but Schurmann's further assertion is highly questionable: that the maintenance o f ministers from the church's c o m m o n funds or from the c o m m o n table was a matter closely related to the early Christians' c o m m o n meals and that the passage we are considering was therefore appropriately located, even at a pre-Lukan stage o f the tradition, in the context o f the farewell speeches ofjesus at the Supper which was the prototype of Christian c o m m o n meals. A s a prophecy of coming tribulation it could rather, perhaps, have belonged originally to the eschatological material which Luke collected in the discourses in chapters 1 7 and 2 1 . Luke, however, if not his source, has placed it in the context o f the series o f warnings and promises which Jesus gives to the disciples at the Last Supper. Here it forms the last o f four units o f dialogue which M i n e a r

13

finds

'homogeneous to the content, m o o d and implications o f the Supper'. T h e themes o f these dialogues are Christ's covenantal promises to his disciples (22: 1 7 - i g a , 2 9 ) and prophetic warnings o f their treachery (Judas), denial (Peter), and, in the particular slant which Luke gives to the Isaianic prophecy, lawless conduct: for they are to be the dvojioi with w h o m Jesus is going to be reckoned. All the topics o f these dialogues - J u d a s ' s treachery in relation to the predetermined fate o f the Son o f man ( 2 2 : 2 1 - 2 ) ,

the

disciples' quarrel about greatness in its relation to the promise to them as participants in Jesus's miQCLO\ioi

o f a table in his kingdom and thrones o f

j u d g e m e n t over Israel, the prediction o f Peter's denial in relation to the promise o f his restoration and future leadership, and the saying about buying a sword in its relation to the prophecy o f Isa. 5 3 : 12 - have to d o , 1 3

P. S. M i n e a r , ' A N o t e o n L u k e 22:36', NovTest 7.2 (1964), 128-34.

The two swords

341

according to Luke, with events that are to occur in the immediate future when the hour o f Jesus's enemies and the power o f darkness are to be manifested in the garden and beyond. It would seem that Luke has taken from his source Jesus's warning of the future plight o f the disciples; he has added to it the citation of Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 , or, if this prophecy was already contained in that pericope as he found it, he has given it a new meaning. If it was already part o f this passage in a pre-Lukan stage it must have meant that Jesus was to be cast out of Israel as a lawbreaker. Luke, however, understands it to mean that the disciples have become lawbreakers and Jesus is to be numbered with them. He conveys this meaning, in the first instance, by setting the pericope in the context o f this series o f promises and warnings which reveal the apostles, Jesus's followers, as lawless and unrighteous men. O n e is to betray the Lord, one is to deny him, all - even in the setting of the covenant supper and his predicted betrayal by one o f their number - quarrel about which o f them seems to be great. All of them are avoîoi because they, or some of them, are armed, or are going to arm themselves, with swords and resort to the use o f the sword in the garden. Luke has thus imposed a quite new meaning on the old saying about the need to buy a sword. H e has done this, first, by either introducing the citation o f Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 , or if this was already there by placing it in a new setting and giving it a new application; secondly, by adding the dialogue about the two swords (verse 3 8 ) ; thirdly, by relating the whole pericope both to the preceding warnings and prophecies o f treachery and failure on the disciples' part and also to the episode o f the assault on the high priest's servant which is to be narrated in verses 4 9 to 5 1 . Verse 38 records the disciples' answer to Jesus's warning about his own fate and their coming abandonment to their own devices: ' A n d they said, " L o r d , see, here are two swords." A n d he said to them, "It is e n o u g h " (ixavov e a t i v ) . ' It is conceivable that this short dialogue may have formed part o f the whole pericope, verses 3 5 to 38, at a pre-Lukan stage o f literary tradition. If so, it must have been intended as an inept comment by Jesus's followers on his vivid picture o f their coming plight when they would need to equip themselves with purse, bag, and, above all, sword. ' T h e y catch only the surface meaning', and suppose that Jesus is talking literally about swords and actually telling them to g o out and buy them on the spot. Such a reaction on their part would, it is true, be in line with the incomprehension and insensitivity which Luke makes them show in their response to his warnings, for instance at 1 7 : 3 7 and 1 8 : 2 8 , and, in particular, to his prophecies at the Supper about the betrayal and the denial ( 2 2 : 23ff, 3 3 ) . 14

1 4

V i n c e n t T a y l o r , Jesus and his Sacrifice ( L o n d o n , 1937), p . 193.

342

G. W . H . LAM PE

It seems, however, much more probable that verse 3 8 is Luke's own composition, for the vocabulary and style are strikingly characteristic o f Luke. Further, the verse raises notoriously difficult problems if it is taken as an integral part o f a pre-Lukan pericope consisting of verses 3 5 to 38. These include the provenance and purpose o f the swords which the disciples happen to be carrying at the Last Supper, the reason why they were carrying neither more nor less than two, and the meaning o f Jesus's final words, Tt is enough.' If, however, the verse is recognised to be a Lukan addition to the traditional material contained in verses 3 5 to 3 7 , inserted, perhaps together with the citation o f Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 , in order to bring Jesus's warning about his followers' future need for swords into line with the story o f the high priest's servant (verses 4 9 to 5 1 ) , it becomes much easier to understand. T h e preceding prophecies o f Jesus concerning Judas's treachery and Peter's denial were shortly afterwards fulfilled in the garden and the high priest's house. Luke understands this traditional prophecy about the need to buy a sword as another similar short-term warning which was also to be fulfilled on that same evening. Hence, by setting it in the context o f the disciples' coming treachery and weakness (verses 21 to 3 4 ) , inserting the citation o f Isa. 5 3 : 12 or at least altering its application, and by adding the dialogue in verse 3 8 , Luke has radically changed the significance o f Jesus's prophecy and, in so doing, created major difficulties o f interpretation. For the prophecy in verse 3 6 could not be brought into relation with the episode in verses 4 9 to 51 without violent adjustment and distortion. Nor does verse 38 provide any kind o f smooth transition from the prophecy in verse 3 6 to the story in verses 4 9 to 51 which Luke takes to be the fulfilment o f the former. T h e starting-point, it would seem, for the whole of Luke's operation is the incident recorded in Mark 1 4 : 4 7 which he reproduces at verse 5 0 and to which, by the additions which he supplies in verses 4 9 and 5 1 , he gives an interpretation o f his own. This event is an armed attack carried out by one o f the disciples only (verse 5 0 ) . Yet the whole body of Jesus's followers (oi negi auxov) are seen by Luke as being collectively involved in it, as he shows in his addition to the Markan narrative o f their question, 'Lord, shall we strike with the sword?' (verse 4 9 ) . T o Luke, it would seem, this violent action, from which Jesus so emphatically dissociates himself, not only by word but by miraculous action (verse 5 1 ) , identifies the disciples as the avo(XOl to w h o m the prophecy o f Isa. 5 3 : 12 had pointed. It comes, indeed, as a climax o f the offences committed by the disciples, or prophesied o f them by Jesus, at the Last Supper: Judas's betrayal, Peter's denial, and the quarrel about greatness which the disciples conceived in terms o f those kingdoms o f the world which, as Luke made clear by his addition to the story o f the Temptations (4: 6 ) , lie under the authority o f the devil - the

T h e two swords

343

authority o f darkness which holds sway in the garden in the 'hour' ofjesus's enemies ( 2 2 : 5 3 ) . In order to explain the assault in the garden in these terms Luke has to force the tradition ofjesus's prophecy about the need for a sword into line with his interpretation o f Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 , imposing a new meaning on it, and connecting it with its 'fulfilment' at verses 4 9 to 51 by means of the dialogue about 'two swords' in verse 3 8 . T h e latter thus has to be understood in relation, first, to the story o f the armed assault as Luke interpreted this, and, secondly, to the warning in verse 3 6 as Luke reinterpreted this in the light o f his application o f the prophecy o f Isa. 5 3 : 12 to that story. M a r k 1 4 : 4 7 tells how, after the arrest o f j e s u s , 'one o f the bystanders drew his sword and struck the servant o f the high priest and removed his ear'. T h e way in which this story is presented to the reader is most extraordinary. It has neither prelude nor sequel; indeed, it appears to have no connection with the events that precede and follow it. W e are not told w h o the assailant was. Mark does not say that he was one o f j e s u s ' s followers. H e is simply one o f those anonymous 'bystanders' w h o appear from time to time in Mark's passion narrative: minor actors in the drama, brought on to the stage unintroduced and casually dismissed without their presence on the scene being explained. Such 'bystanders' appear twice as Peter's interrogators ( 1 4 : 6 9 , 7 0 ) , and once at the Cross when they hear Jesus's cry, 'Eloi, Eloi', and say, 'See, he calls Elijah' ( 1 5 : 3 5 ) . L o h m e y e r thinks that the story is told from the standpoint of those w h o arrested Jesus, and that one o f the disciples, presumably standing about in a state o f bewilderment, would appear to them to be a 'bystander'. But this would be a very odd way o f describing one o f the band of disciples o f the man w h o m the ' c r o w d ' (6x^.05) had c o m e to hunt down and arrest. T h e victim o f the assault, on the other hand, seems to be someone w h o m the reader can identify, for he is not simply 'a servant o f the high priest' but 'the servant o f the high priest'. W e are not told why this man was attacked. It was not in order to hinder the arrest ofjesus, for this had already been effected, and as an attempt at rescue, even as a gesture in an impossible situation, it was a singularly futile effort. 15

It seems reasonable to infer from Mark's peculiar treatment o f the episode that he saw in it a symbolical significance. It would be natural to expect it to have been constructed on the basis o f some scriptural type or prophecy, but no passage o f the O l d Testament seems to have any bearing upon it. T h e most ingenious attempt to discover a scriptural foundation for the story is perhaps that suggested by H a l l . He thinks that 16

1 5

E. L o h m e y e r , Das Evangelium des Markus ( G o t t i n g e n , 1957), p p . 332ff.

1 6

S. G . H a l l , ' S w o r d s o f O f f e n c e ' , Studia Evangelica, i, T U 73 (1959), 499-505.

344

G. W . H. LAMPE

the incident has been constructed as a fulfilment o f Psalm 4 0 ( L X X 3 9 ) : 7, in a version like that o f Aquila: 'ears hast thou dug for m e ' ((bxia 6e 17

eoxa\|)dg M-Oi), literalistically mistranslating ]TK r n s ('open the ear'), or perhaps confusing this Hebrew verb with rn:> ('cut ofT). But this seems to be both highly improbable and also irrelevant in Mark's context. A g o o d case, however, has been made out for the view that the significance o f the incident, as understood by Mark, lies in the fact that in the person of his servant a contemptuous insult, directed against his sacred character,

was offered to the high priest

himself.

18

Mark's

curious

expression 'the slave o f the high priest' is significant. It is repeated by the other three evangelists. T h e use o f the definite article, when the servant is not otherwise identified and the reader has been told nothing about him, suggests that Mark's purpose is to call special attention to his status. H e is 'the servant' o f the high priest, his personal agent and representative. A n insult offered to such a person when acting as his master's agent is an insult to his master. D a u b e calls attention to the recognition in R o m a n law o f vicarious insult and damage o f this kind: 'iniuria . . . d o m i n o per eum (sc. servum) fieri videtur . . . c u m quid atrocius commissum fuerit q u o d aperte in contumeliam domini fieri videtur, veluti si quis alienum verberaverit'

19

servum

and also to the biblical examples o f such conduct in 2 Sam.

10: 4 f and the parable o f the wicked husbandmen (Mark 1 2 : 1 - 5 ) . Mark has no interest in w h o struck this blow, nor in what became o f him. T h e whole point o f recording the fact that it was struck is that at the very moment when a crowd which had c o m e , as Mark specially emphasises, 'from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders' has laid hands on Jesus, and the moment of the high priest's triumph has arrived, he receives, through his personal representative at the scene o f the arrest, an injury o f a peculiarly insulting and contemptuous kind, which, moreover, if inflicted on his o w n person, would disqualify him for his office. As Rostovtzeff points out, the cutting off o f an ear is not likely to happen accidentally in the course of a scuffle. It was an intentional act, not done in a bungled attempt to kill but meant to inflict on the high priest, vicariously, an indelible mark o f contempt. Rostovtzeff, Lohmeyer and Daube have drawn attention to an Egyptian court case in which 'Hesiod cut off the right ear of Dorion' (P. Teb. iii 7 9 3 ) , to penalties inflicted under Assyrian and Babylonian law, and to two close parallels to the Markan incident: Antigonus cut off, or slit (the reading varies between djioxejiveiv and emxeixveiv) the ear o f Hyrcanus II 1 7

1 8

I

I

See F. Field, Origenis Hexapla quae supersunt ii ( O x f o r d , 1875), 5 S e e M . Rostovtzeff, Oflg oe!=idv djcoxejiveiv, ZNW33 (1934), 196-9; D . D a u b e , ' T h r e e N o t e s having to d o with J o h a n a n ben Zakkai: I I I , Slitting the H i g h Priest's

Ear', JThSt n.s. n (i960), 59-62; E. L o h m e y e r , Markus, p p . 332f. 1 9

G a i u s iii. 222.

T h e two swords

345

to make him unfit for the high priesthood (Josephus, AJ 1 4 . 1 3 . 1 0 ) ; Johanan ben Zakkai did the same to a Sadducee high priest to render him unfit to carry out a cultic service (Tosephta Parah iii. 8 ) . Mark, then, is telling us that as soon as his men had laid hands on Jesus the high priest was vicariously marked

out, by the symbolical action o f an unknown assailant, as

disqualified to retain his office. Luke adds to the Markan story the detail that it was the servant's right ear which was cut off.

20

This may merely be

due to Luke's fondness for vividly dramatic touches, as when he tells us that it was the right hand o f the man in the synagogue which was healed ( 6 : 6 , contrast Mark 3: i / M a t t . 1 2 : 1 0 ) . M o r e probably, however, this detail shows that Luke had taken Mark's point. It was the high priest's right ear which was ceremonially smeared with the blood o f the ram o f consecration (Lev. 8: 2 3 - 4 ) , and at the cleansing o f a leper some of the blood o f the lamb offered as a trespass offering was smeared on the right ear o f the person to be cleansed, as was also some o f the oil that he offered (Lev. 1 4 : 1 4 , 1 7 , 2 5 , 2 8 ) . Luke may thus interpret the incident as a symbol, not only o f the dis qualification o f the high priest, but also o f his deconsecration and being rendered unclean. Luke, however, sees the affair in quite a different light from Mark. T h e high priest may have been worthy o f contempt and rejection; but the armed assault on his representative was lawless aggression. W e may compare Luke's treatment o f the 'reviling' o f the high priest by Paul (Acts 2 3 : 3 - 5 ) . Both Matthew and Luke believe that the assailant was one o f j e s u s ' s companions; but whereas in Matthew and in John it is one man alone who acts and is subsequently rebuked by Jesus (John naming him as Peter), Luke makes all those w h o were with Jesus responsible for the assault and implies that they tried to involve him in it as well. T h e y ask, 'Lord, shall we strike with the sword?', and, without waiting for an answer, one o f them strikes the servant; it is to them all, in the plural, that Jesus addresses his rebuke, edxe ecoc; to d o this.'

21

TOIJTOU,

probably meaning, 'Let my enemies go so far as

By this rebuke Jesus instantly dissociates himself from his

disciples' 'lawlessness', and he then demonstrates his disapproval o f their conduct and his own totally different attitude by healing the wounded man. In this way Luke shows that the disciples were rebuked and that Jesus, the

2 0

2 1

J o h n d o e s the s a m e , perhaps following Luke; b u t since he agrees with M a r k against L u k e in using d)T&(HOV for 'ear' a n d EJtaiOEV for 'struck', instead o f ovq a n d £ j i d x a § e v , while differing from b o t h M a r k a n d L u k e in using cuiexotyev ('cut o f f ) instead o f CKpeihev ( ' r e m o v e d ' ) , the precise relation b e t w e e n J o h n and the synoptists here is very hard to d e t e r m i n e . P. S. M i n e a r , h o w e v e r , thinks (NovTest 7 . 2 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 128-34) that these w o r d s refer to the fulfilment o f Isa. 53: 12: ' Y o u are permitted to g o this far, but n o farther' (for the p r o p h e c y has n o w been a m p l y fulfilled).

34-6

G. W . H. LAMPE

'righteous Servant' was in no way involved in their transgression.

22

Their

conduct was such as to mark them out as the a v o j j i o i with w h o m Isaiah had foretold that the righteous Servant, himself free from ctvoîia, would be numbered. Indeed, that prophecy, according to the L X X , went on to say that it was because of their sins that the Servant was 'handed over' to death (jiaoe666r)), the word used o f the betrayal o f j e s u s by Luke ( 2 2 : 4 8 , c p . 2 2 : 4 , 6, 2 1 , 2 2 ) as also by the other evangelists. It may well have been the appearance o f the key-word JiaQe668r) which led Luke to apply

the

Isaianic prophecy to the 'reckoning' ofjesus with the 'lawless' disciples. If Mark

believed that this prophecy referred to Jesus, he saw

23

its

fulfilment in the fact that Jesus was arrested as though he were a Xflorrjc; ('brigand' or 'terrorist') and was subsequently crucified together with two \r\oxai

( 1 4 : 4 8 ; 1 5 : 2 7 ) . At a later period, indeed, this seemed so obvious a

fulfilment o f the prophecy that a widespread but inferior reading adds after Mark 1 5 : 2 7 : ' A n d the scripture was fulfilled which says, " A n d he was numbered

with transgressors" ', evidently taking this text from

Luke

2 2 : 3 7 , and thus quoting it in the form in which it appears there, and not directly from the L X X . In Luke this interpretation is entirely absent. Jesus is arrested as though he were a X,T]OTTJ5, it is true, but the two w h o were crucified with him are not hr\oxai.

They are simply 'evildoers' ( x a x o i J Q Y O i ) , and Jesus is not in any

way 'numbered disciples

with' t h e m .

whose act

24

T o Luke the 'transgressors' are Jesus's

o f violent

lawlessness

against the

high

representative comes after a series o f actual and predicted

priest's

treachery,

quarrels to gain such power as the devil alone can give, and denial ofjesus. Luke, therefore, seeing the assault in the garden in this light,

applies

Isaiah's prophecy to it. H e then looks for some previous warning or prophecy ofjesus concerning this transgression, parallel to those which he gave to Judas and Peter. This he finds in his source material in the form o f the 'farewell warning' about the coming need to buy a sword. T h e two convictions, then, on which Luke's entire construction rests are these: first, that the disciples as a b o d y were guilty of an assault with the sword, an act o f violence which Jesus rebuked and the effects o f which he

2 2

In constructing this sequel to M a r k ' s story L u k e m a y have fallen into inconsistency. H e tells us that J e s u s ' t o u c h e d the ear and healed h i m ' . But L u k e has already r e p r o d u c e d M a r k ' s w o r d &v ' I o u 6 a i a ) v xxX (but c p . M a n i ' s gospel fr. ii: the soldiers say m o c k i n g l y : o u r king M e s s i a h ) ; p r o b a b l y already in v i e w o f the titulus. It is there that the singular phrase XQtcrcog (3ctoiXei>g is used. R e c . B X . 5 (P. V a n n u t e l l i , Actorum Pilati textus synoptici ( R o m e , 1938), p p . 97O follows m a i n l y the J o h a n n i n e a c c o u n t . C p . A . M e r x , Das Evangelium Matthaeus (Berlin, 1902), p p . 414^ c p . p p . 405, 407. M a t t . 27: 37 starts in sy : 'and while they were sitting they w r o t e the trespass and set it o v e r his h e a d ' . T h i s looks like an action undertaken o n the spur o f the m o m e n t (like the casting o f the lots). T h e 'they' are in all likelihood the taxog to w h o m Jesus had b e e n h a n d e d o v e r . Kyrios Christos ( G o t t i n g e n , 1913), p . 56. C p . J. W e i s s and W . Bousset, Diedreidlteren Evangelien ( G o t t i n g e n , 1917), p p . 215, 22of. Just the o p p o s i t e reason for the unhistoricity o f the titulus is given b y E. H a e n c h e n : it is o f Christian origin, because it contains the confession w h i c h was p r o c l a i m e d b y the Judaeo-Christian s

21

35^

E . BAMMEL

Bultmann added to this the point that the passage is based on Mark 1 5 : 2 , a verse which is secondary to 1 5 : 3 - 5 .

2 2

Bousset's argument does not carry

weight, because the titulus is not used theologically by Mark, Matthew and J o h n and even Luke bases his evaluation of the trial on 23: 4 3 rather than on verse 3 8 . Bultmann's observation is substantiated.

23

This does not mean,

however, that the PaoiTteiig-theme is a secondary intrusion in the Markan text. W h a t is a secondary layer from the literary point o f view may, nevertheless, contain information that is historically reliable. Executions used to be public occasions at this time and at many times, and people unfamiliar

with

the

subleties

o f the

legal position, with

charging,

fact-finding and c o n d e m n a t i o n - r e m e m b e r e d clearly what had been visible to their o w n eyes. J. Wellhausen had already set his face against such scepticism

24

and P. Winter's statement: 'if anything that is recorded o f his

Passion in the four Gospels accords with history it is . . . that the cross . . . bore a summary statement o f the cause for which he had been sentenced to 25

the servile supplicium'

may not be too far from the truth.

T h e meaning o f the titulus according to what became the standard opinion o f the early church may be illustrated by the interpretation given by Isidore o f Sevile, w h o , pointing to the title o f Ps. 5 7 , exclaims: 'spoil not the inscription o f the title'.

26

It is the climax o f a tendency which tried to

supplement Jesus's good confession before Pilate (1 T i m . 6: 13) by the latter's o w n confession.

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

c o m m u n i t i e s without a n y h i n d r a n c e for a long time. T h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f such an inscription b y the R o m a n s vvould not have constituted a p r o v o c a t i o n o f the J e w s (Der Wegjesu (Berlin, 1966), p . 536). Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition ( G o t t i n g e n , 1931), p p . 293^ 307 ( E T p . 272 - the decisive sentence is o m i t t e d in the translation - p . 284). E. L i n n e m a n n (Studien zur Passionsgeschichte ( G o t t i n g e n , 1970), p p . 134, 154) follows B.-J. Schreiber (Theologie des Vertrauens ( H a m b u r g , 1967); Die Markuspassion ( H a m b u r g , 1969), p . 5 2 f - he is d e p e n d e n t o n R . T h i e l , Drei Markusevangelien (Berlin, 1938), p . 26 - and especially W . Schenk (Der Passionsbericht nach Markus (Berlin, 1974), p p . 37ff) d e v e l o p the B u l t m a n n i a n view: t w o different a c c o u n t s o f the crucifixion were w o r k e d together in the actual text o f M a r k ; the titulus is part o f the second a n d y o u n g e r report. S c h e n k , Passionsbericht, p . 40, holds that IjtiYEYQaiiuivT) w a s a d d e d b y the evangelist; that m e a n s that the tradition d i d not necessarily state that the aiTict w a s fixed to the cross. J. R . D o n a h u e (Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark ( M i s s o u l a , 1973)) d o e s not g o into this particular question. H . B r a u n , Jesus (Stuttgart, 1969), p . 50, follows B u l t m a n n , while E. Dinkier, Signum Crucis ( T u b i n g e n , 1967), p . 306, c o m e s o u t in favour o f the historicity o f the titulus. E . H i r s c h argues that all the PaaiXeijg-references were a d d e d b y M a r k I I , they s h o w the attempt to picture Jesus as having been c o n d e m n e d because o f his m e s s i a n i c aspiration (Fruhgeschichte des Evangeliums \ ( T u b i n g e n , 1940), 163^ 21 o f ) . T h e results o f his analysis c o n v e r g e with B u l t m a n n ' s findings. Das Evangelium Marci (Berlin, 1909), p p . i3of. On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p . 108. Contra Judaeos o n Ps. 57; c p . A . L . W i l l i a m s , Adversus Judaeos ( C a m b r i d g e , 1935), p . 287, n. 3.

T h e titulus

357

Important as it was for centuries, this view has been replaced in this century by the theory that the titulus is the chief witness for the trial before Pilate, the precise indication o f what was going on on this memorable occasion, and the exact formulation o f the causa poenae. Baoiêiig is seen as the confirmation of a claim that had political connotations and was liable to punishment as an attempt at rebellion. T h e view that Pilate had reason to think ofjesus in these terms while in essence he was mistaken in treating Jesus as a politically dangerous person is a modification o f this theory. T h e titulus does not, however, describe Jesus as a XflaTrjg, a man novarum rerum cupidus. Such terms would have been appropriate and even imperative if the titulus was meant to define the offence o f attempted insurrection committed by the culprit. T h e alternative theory that the titulus was meant to refer to the crime o f laesa majestas recommends itself much more strongly. T h e claim to be a king was according to this view eo ipso a challenge to the emperor. This is certainly tenable in the light o f the development o f the later Roman public law. T h e R o m a n rulers o f the period o f the Dominium and certainly o f the post-Constantinian period were seen as (3aoiAeig (3aotX.ecov and any claim not vouchsafed by them was bound to be regarded as high treason. T h e matter was, however, different in the time o f the principate. T h e princeps held the tribunicia potestas as his main office, he was by no means a king and the populus Romanus was still regarded as the very majestas. True, the laesa majestas populi Romani and that o f the princeps was already considered as a crime and trials took place in Tiberius's time especially after the fall o f Sejanus. This delict, which is equated with aoe|3eia is, however, hardly 27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

2 7

2 8

W i n t e r , Trial, p p . 1380°; S. G . F. B r a n d o n , Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p . 328, a n d , most forcefully, K . K a u t s k y : ' H i e r tritt der urspriingliche Charakter der Katastrophe wieder deutlich hervor. Hier sind die R o m e r die erbitterten Feinde J e s u u n d d e r G r u n d ihres H o h n s u n d ihres Hasses liegt in seinem H o c h v e r r a t , in seiner A s p i r a t i o n a u f das j u d i s c h e K o n i g t u m , in d e m n Streben n a c h A b s c h u t t e l u n g d e r r o m i s c h e n Fremdherrschaft' (Der Ursprung des Christentums (Stuttgart, 1908), p . 430; for details o f E T see p . 19, n. 77). H . V i n c e n t gives it a further n u a n c e b y assuming that Pilate chose to think so for fear o f b e i n g castigated b y the R o m a n authorities ( ' L e Lithostrotos E v a n g e l i q u e ' ,

M 2 9

3 0

3 1

3 2

3 3

3 4

33

59 (1952), 526).

E.g. Blinzler, Der Process Jesu ( R e g e n s b u r g , 1969), p . 311. T h u s H . W i n d i s c h : if Jesus professed his messianic character before Pilate, the latter had n o c h o i c e but to c o n d e m n him (Imperium und Evangelium ( K i e l , 1931), p . 22). O n the other hand a Christian d o c u m e n t o f this time, like the Acts of Pilate, w h i c h took this interpretation for granted, had to e m p l o y great skill in o r d e r to s h o w that the secular authorities a c k n o w l e d g e d Jesus's claim to be a king. W h o is, h o w e v e r , not e n d o w e d with a special inviolability ( M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p . 582 n. 1). T a c . Ann. i v . 70: v i . 18; Suet. Tib. 58. 61. C p . ThLZ 77 (1952), c o l . 207f. M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p . 540. 3 5

35^

£ . BAMMEL

applicable, as it presupposed, in the time o f the principate at least, direct actions against the princeps. T h e same is even true for perduellio. Besides, these laws were binding only for Roman citizens, whereas the trial which took place outside the metropolis and over which the Roman administra tor took charge, was conducted according to the principles o f coercitio (or Eigenkognition), thus giving the representative o f R o m e a far wider choice o f action. This does not exclude the possibility that these regulations influenced the frame of mind o f a Roman j u d g e in a general way, but it does make it unlikely that quasi-automatic action was called forth by any strange behaviour. Kingly claims outside R o m e might be regarded with suspicion in the capital but they did not ipso facto clash with the established order o f the day. Besides, the situation in Palestine was so complex, claims of a messianic character were so c o m m o n and, on the other hand, refuted already by part o f the population, that it was a matter of good policy for the Romans to avoid involvement in these issues as far as possible. T h e interpretation referred to is juridically doubtful and historically unlikely. T h e interpretation the passion story itself provides is different. ' O X Q I O T 0 5 6 (JaoiXeijg 'IoQarjX, - almost a repetition o f the titulus - is cited mockingly in Mark 1 5 : 3 2 . X p i o i o g alone is given a mocking interpretation in Luke 2 3 : 3 9 . This certainly gives an indication for the exegesis o f the formula o f the titulus. Luke goes even further by citing the mocking interpretation o f the OTQaTicoxcu (verse 3 7 ) before actually mentioning the titulus itself. This understanding became quite c o m m o n in the following centuries. W e could expect more on the lines of John 1 9 : 2 1 , more o f a protest in the early tradition, if the titulus had had the intention of defining the actual reason for the condemnation. But the mocking usage o f the formula was readily at hand if the titulus itself already was meant to give an adverse and ridiculing description o f some claim, the nature o f which was left in the open. T h e Johannine narrative demands special treatment. T h e reference to 36

31

38

39

40

41

42

3 6

3 7

3 8

3 9

4 0

4 1

4 2

T a c . Ann. iv. 34: iniuria; c p . M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p p . 541, 583f. M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p p . 537^ 540, 546. M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p . 543. C p . E. K o c s i s , ' D e r j i i d i s c h e M e s s i a n i s m u s u n d d a s politische P r o b l e m in d e r G e s c h i c h t e J e s u ' (Diss. Erlangen, 1959). T h e case o f the 6eoji6cnJvoi, w h o were released even in the time o f D o m i t i a n (Eus., H.E., 3.20.5), is a telling e x a m p l e . L u k e 23: 39 seems to b e a c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f t w o versions, o n e w h i c h d e s c r i b e d the abuse in general terms a n d w h i c h is still d o c u m e n t e d in D e, a n d another w h i c h g a v e the w o r d i n g o f the c a l u m n y , p r o b a b l y without having introduced it b y e(3Xao(pr|[xei. E.g. in M a n i ' s gospel the J e w s call J e s u s m o c k i n g l y ' o u r L o r d M e s s i a h ' ( E . H e n n e c k e , Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, e d . W . S c h n e e m e l c h e r i ( T u b i n g e n , 1959),

262).

The titulus

359

the inscription is substantially identical with the synoptic account, but for the fact that it contains the supplementary detail that it was rendered in the three languages. T h e Gospel contains, however, a comparatively long addition which is completely absent from the parallel accounts. This deals with the encounter between the Jewish leaders and Pilate; the former entreat the prefect not to write (any l o n g e r ) king of the Jews and the latter answers with the epigrammatic phrase: 'quod scripsi scrips?. T h e addition starts with a remark that many Jews saw the inscription because the place of the crucifixion was near to the town. These onlookers are known from both the Markan/Matthaean and the Lukan account. In the former tradition they are enumerated among those who mock at Jesus (Mark 1 5 : 2 9 / ; Matt. 2 7 : 3 9 1 1 ) , whereas the Lukan account remains strangely silent about this feature. While Luke, who calls the onlookers 6xX,°5, tends to attribute the mocking action to specific groups, to the otQ/ovxeg, the aTQaxiuYcai and the one malefactor, John bypasses any reference to the mocking o f the crucified one. T h e evangelist, who makes 43

44

45

46

4 3

Inscriptions in m o r e than o n e language are well k n o w n . In m a n y places it was expedient to p r o m u l g a t e declarations in this form. T h e i r multilingual c o m p o s i t i o n was an a c c e p t e d practice, although not imperative o r even very c o m m o n . Inscriptions o f a m o r e private character were, h o w e v e r , normally p r o d u c e d in o n e language o n l y . E x c e p t i o n s , e.g. in funeral inscriptions (examples in W a l t h e r , Betracktungen, p . 342), o c c u r r e d if the person c o n c e r n e d w a s a figure o f great e m i n e n c e o r the society that maintained the cemetery was o n the brink o f shifting from o n e language to another. M o c k e r y inscriptions in different languages are certainly u n c o m m o n . J o h n , w h o emphasised the three languages, is likely to have intended to p r o d u c e something that appeared already to the neutral eye as at least as dignified as the w a r n i n g inscription o f the T e m p l e , which, J o s e p h u s maintains, was e x e c u t e d in G r e e k and Latin (BJ 6 §125; the alternative M S . reading t>u.£T£QCH5 w o u l d refer to an A r a m a i c w o r d i n g ) . T h e verdict, o n the other h a n d , was to b e p r o n o u n c e d in Latin ( M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p . 449, n. 3), as is illustrated b y the Acta Pionii, where the flow o f the narration is interrupted b y the remark that the verdict was p r o n o u n c e d in Latin ( c h . x x ) (the prescription o f the C o r p . Jur. - c p . W a l t h e r , Betracktungen, p . 342 - that the e l o g i u m had to be cried out b y the herald in Greek and Latin points to a later d a t e ) . It results from this that the closer the titulus is linked with the verdict the less likely b e c o m e s the J o h a n n i n e claim a b o u t the three languages. In fact, the inscription is likely to have been written d o w n in the local language ( c p . n. 4 o n L y o n s ) . T h e Syriac Schatzhohle emphasises the point that the inscription was not written in Syriac, and d e d u c e s from this that the Syrians are not guilty o f the m u r d e r o f Christ, while the Greek H e r o d , the J e w C a i a p h a s and the R o m a n Pilate are. T h e inscription is thereby v i e w e d as a c o n d e m n a t i o n o f those b y w h o m it w a s put u p and for w h o s e eyes it was written (53: 2iff).

4 4

\ir\ YQOKpe d o not g o o n writing; c p . W . Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium ( T u b i n g e n ,

4 5

T h e remark is not a s e c o n d a r y addition (pace F. Spitta, Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu ( G o t t i n g e n , 1910), p p . 3 7 9 0 - Otherwise w e w o u l d expect to find it after verse 20b. O n the contrary, verse 20b is a pedantic interpretation o f 20a (dveyvcDoav) w h i c h p r o b a b l y c a m e in at the redaction stage. V e r s e 35b introduces the m o c k i n g o f the a Q X S by a x a i and presupposes thereby w h a t is lacking in the present text. T h e x a i is omitted b y x fi 3 al.

1933), p . 222.

4 6

O V T £

360

E. BAMMEL

the soldiers fall to the ground when they realise w h o m they are about to arrest ( 1 8 : 6 ) , w h o deprives the Ecce homo scene of any crude feature o f mockery and turns it into an occasion for something approaching a confession, must have acted here equally deliberately: while the mocking is not found worth mentioning, those whose mocking action is presupposed are mocked themselves. What we find here is the fragment o f a controversy with the Jews. While the first stage is left out, because the mention o f the mocking would be at variance with the stylised christology, the answer o f Pilate is phrased in such a way that it implies the categorical affirmative that Jesus actually was the messiah o f the Jews. T h e reference to the three languages highlights this from a different side. A n d the cryptic descriptive appellation Na^coQaiog is to be taken as a feature similar to that. Such a statement was serviceable in the discussion with the Jews after 7 0 , when they became uncertain whether they still could expect a messiah. This points to verses 20a, 2 i f having been formulated after the defeat o f the Jews. It does not, however, mean that the substance o f these verses is not historical. T h e matter must be left in the balance. 47

48

49

50

It is this approach o f the Fourth Gospel which is taken up in one stream o f the Christian tradition and which finds, with respect to the titulus, its climax in the claim that Pilate chose the text under the direction o f the Holy Spirit: 'et manifestavit propheticum dictum'. A Jewish report, in some ways similar to that on the titulus is cited in Sanh. 4 3 a . According to this notice a herald marched round for forty days either 'beforehand' or 'in front o f h i m ' , proclaiming the charges against Jesus and inviting the submission of'mitigating reasons'. T h e passage has 51

5 2

53

4 7

4 8

M a r k 15: i g f are not r e p r o d u c e d b y J o h n . E. Stauffer (Jesus war ganz anders ( H a m b u r g 1967), p . 191, c p . p . 60), holds that J o h n a l o n e r e p r o d u c e s the c o r r e c t form o f the titulus. In this case, h o w e v e r , w e w o u l d rather e x p e c t Na£arjr|Vog than Na^WQaiog. T h e same argument applies to A . D a u e r , a c c o r d i n g to w h o m the titulus is an 'amtliche U r k u n d e ' in the v i e w o f J o h n

(Die Passionsgeschichte, p p . 1761). 4 9

5 0

5 1

T h e position taken b y J o c h a n a n b . Zakkai is indicative; c p . NovTest (1962), 2i9ff. R e a s o n s , not altogether c o n v i n c i n g , for the historicity o f the passage are g i v e n b y Eisler, 'It]0. |3ao. ii, 530-2. T e r t . Apol. 21; for different o p i n i o n s o f the c h u r c h fathers c p . Fulda, Kreuz, p p .

205-7. 5 2

' O n the eve o f the Passover J e s h u w a s h a n g e d . For forty days before the e x e c u t i o n t o o k p l a c e , a herald w e n t forth and cried " H e is g o i n g forth to b e stoned b e c a u s e he practised s o r c e r y and enticed Israel to apostasy. A n y o n e w h o c a n say anything in his favour, let h i m c o m e forward and plead o n his behalf." But since nothing was b r o u g h t forward in his favour he was h a n g e d o n the eve o f the Passover. U l l a retorted: D o y o u s u p p o s e that he was o n e for w h o m a defence c o u l d b e m a d e ? W a s he not an enticer?, c o n c e r n i n g w h o m Scripture says "Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou c o n c e a l h i m . " W i t h J e s h u h o w e v e r it was different, for he w a s c o n n e c t e d with the g o v e r n m e n t ' (after the S o n c i n o translation).

5 3

F o r the translation p r o b l e m see NTSt 13 (1966/67), 327 n. 4.

T h e titulus

361

been revised several times. T h e submission o f pleas in defence after the conviction is something that exists only in the theory o f the Mishnaic code and is contrary to our information about the procedure of the earlier period, which excludes the alteration o f the sentence once it has been passed. At this point the principle o f Sanh. 6. 1 has exercised an influence on the text. A s for the herald himself, in this case two strands o f tradition have been combined. O n e o f these is that a herald preceded the criminal to the place o f execution in order to proclaim the reason for the condemnation, the other tells o f a proclamation made forty days before the execution took place. T h e first procedure is the customary o n e ; it will have been carried out in the case o f j e s u s too. T h e second, however, will refer to the proscription peculiar to this case. It is in this piece of information that we have the beginning o f the tradition about Jesus. It was combined with the information about a detail o f the customary procedure for execution and then altered to accord with the principles o f the Mishnah. It was in this developed form that the tradition caused the annoyed protest o f Rabbi U l l a h , which gave rise to a new justification of the procedure supported by reference to special circumstances. 54

55

56

57

58

This passage, which goes back to the second century at least, contains two pieces of information o f unique value: the indication o f the proscription and the detailed formulation about the reason for the condemnation. T h e form o f its proclamation by a herald walking in front ofjesus is even more in keeping with the normal practice than the titulus. It seems that this detail had retreated into the background in the Christian reports in favour o f the narrative about Simon o f Cyrene and, indeed, the warning: 'weep for yourselves and for your children' (Luke 2 3 : 2 8 ) . T h e wording o f the Aramaic Toledoth J e s h u is to be seen as a variant version. It is not denied in the text that Jesus misled the people - on the contrary it is emphasised that he directed himself against the Torah (rVHIX) - but it is heightened by the statement: 'he rebelled against the great G o d ' . This is meant to be the counter-formulation and mockery o f the claim Jesus is said to have made before Caesar, the claim to be a son o f 59

60

61

5 4

5 5

5 6

5 7

5 8

5 9

6 0

6 1

Sanh. 44b Bar; j Sanh. 23c; c p . the principle indicated in j Sanh. iv 6 (22b). W a l t h e r , Betrachtungen, p p . 323f. C p . Festschrift C . F . D M o u l e (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1971), p p . 33f. H e c o m e s o u t against any ventilating o f mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e s in the case o f the enticer a n d sticks thereby to the o l d e r , rigid views, at least in the case o f a religious crime. T h e rabbis w h e n answering this d o not disagree with him in principle. T h e y only give a practical reason ('he w a s c o n n e c t e d with the g o v e r n m e n t ' ) w h i c h in their o p i n i o n m a d e it desirable to p r o c e e d differently in the case o f J e s h u ( = J e s u s ) . F o r the herald's role in the R o m a n trial c p . Riepl, Nackrichtenwesen, p . 333. L. G i n z b e r g in S c h e c h t e r M e m o r i a l v o l . ii ( N e w Y o r k , 1929), 334f. Km KnVw "nan p . 2a 1. 24 o f the M S p u b l . b y G i n z b e r g ; c p . p . 2b 1. 5f.

362

E. BAMMEL

the great G o d .

6 2

T h e occasion on which this verdict is said to have been

pronounced (inDK ) by the Jews is different: it is the day when, after certain misfortunes, the corpse o f j e s u s is paraded through the streets o f Tiberias and the Jews thereby make evident their final victory. This shows the development o f the tradition and indicates its Sitz im Leben in the community o f Tiberias, which had become the centre o f the Palestinian Jews in Byzantine times.

63

T h e written notification o f a verdict was another way o f informing the public about an execution. Jewish sources insist that in cases o f a religious crime 'all Israel' is to be informed.

64

Accordingly Christian sources tell o f 65

embassies sent out eig Jidoav xfjv oixouêvryv in order to inform about 66

the verdict cast against Jesus. T h e reason given for the condemnation is in keeping with Jewish law and not directly based on the Gospel reports or the titulus. This tradition about Jewish reports is not early. It is, however, in agreement with the procedure laid d o w n by the Mishnah and with factual notices on related subjects going back to the first century.

67

This does not

mean that something of this kind happened in the case ofjesus immediately after his death. But it is probable that, at a later stage, when it became apparent that Jesus's following had not dispersed, intelligence went round about the reason for the condemnation o f j e s u s . It is not inappropriate to take the references as more or less distant reflections of such information. If that is their nature they have to be taken as an explanation from the Jewish side parallel to that offered by the Christians in addition to the mention o f the titulus incorporated in John 1 9 : 2of. T h e existence o f direct documentary evidence on the trial o f Jesus, 68

available to emperor and senate, is presupposed by Justin and maintained emphatically by Tertullian.

69

T h e former seems to think o f the records o f

the prefect, whereas the latter claims that a special letter was written to Tiberius. Both these reports

70

(one o f them is supposed to be based on a

v) 'Iov&aioav 6ioxe ejiQOcpr|TEVoe (xfjv) xaGaiQEoiv (xfjg JioXewg) x a i (xf)v) EOT|U,OOIV (XOV) vaoij; the text in Eisler, T n a . |3ao. ii, 5341T, 542: c p . W . Bienert, Der alteste nichtchristliche

Jesusbericht (Halle, 1936), p p . 165-7. 7 5

7 6

7 7

7 8

Eisler Clr\o. £ a o ii, 536 and especially 541), thinks o f two pillars at the side o f a certain gate and o f the lintel o f the gate itself: the inscription w a s displayed at each p l a c e in a different language. T h e three languages, PaodEvg, 'IovSaioi ( r e m o v e d b y Eisler, 'ITJO. (3ao. ii, 541), OXE . . . EIJIEV ( c p . ov paoiA.£i)oag). EJtoocprjxEvaE, xojtog ( c p . vaog), E0vog ( c p . JioXig). V a l i d arguments against the Christian origin o f its formulation are given b y J. Finegan, Die Uberlieferung der Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu (Giessen, 1934), p . 78.

364

E. BAMMEL

formulation. T h e titulus is therefore not to be taken as the 'one solid and stable fact that should be made the starting point o f any historical investigation', but rather as a piece o f evidence, the importance o f which can only be assessed in conjunction with the rest of the material on the trial. 79

7 9

W i n t e r , Trial, p . 109; 2nd edn., p . 156. B r a n d o n goes even further b y c l a i m i n g that J e s u s w a s c o n d e m n e d for sedition 'as the titulus s h o w s ' (Zealots, p . 328).

E.

BAMMEL

Romans 13 Chapter

1 3 : 1 - 7 o f Paul's letter to the Romans became perhaps

the

most influential part o f the New Testament on the level o f world his tory. This happened in spite o f the fact that the interpretation o f the pass age has never been found easy and is nowadays more disputed than ever before. While the interpretations o f the patristic period

1

ranged from the

identification o f the superior powers with evil angels to respect for them as ecclesiastical officials;

2

while, already

in pre-Constantinian

time

3

an

interpretation that lends dignity to the state became dominant, although T . Muntzer turned that into a kind o f revolutionary manifesto by main taining that the governments are instituted to execute the will o f G o d and, conversely, if they fail to d o so, those w h o d o the will o f G o d are bound to take the sword into their own hands,

4

nowadays it is asserted

that the pericope contains nothing but a 'devastating

undermining',

5

the Divine verdict on the Powers that b e ; and if indeed it were o f a posi tive nature Paul's statement would be in need o f radical demythologising.

6

1

K . H . Schelkle, 'Staat u n d K i r c h e in der patristischen A u s l e g u n g v o n R m 13: 1-7',

ZNW44

(1952-3), 22 ff. 3

2

D i d a s k . 2, 33, 2; 34, 1 ( F u n k ) ; the Catharens a r g u e d similarly; c p . I. v . Dollinger, Beitrdge zur Sectengeschichte des Mittelalters I ( M i i n c h e n , 1890), p p . 183^

3

Schelkle, Z M 4 4 (1952-3), 227f.

*Schriften und Briefe, e d . b y G . Franz (Giitersloh, 1968), p p . 242ff. C p . E . B l o c h , Thomas Muntzer als Theologe der Revolution (Berlin, 1921; 2nd e d n . Frankfurt, 1962),

p p . I3iff. 3

e

K a r l Barth, Der Romerbrief (2nd e d n . M i i n c h e n , 1922), p . 467 ( E T O x f o r d , 1933, p . 483). T h e author ventilates at length the possibility o f revolution and c o m e s out fervently against this attempt ' o f willing to d o w h a t G o d d o e s ' ( p . 474; E T p . 491); these remarks are absent from thr. first edition (Basel, 1919). C p . the toning d o w n o f this radical point o f v i e w in a late statement cited b y E. Busch, Karl Barths Lebenslauf ( M i i n c h e n , 1975), p . 478 ( E T p . 461). A . A . T . Ehrhardt takes u p these views o f Barth a n d attempts to trace the s a m e position vis a vis the state w h i c h Barth finds in R o m a n s 13 in the Christian d o c u m e n t s o f the pre-Constantinian period (Politische Metaphysik von Solon bis Augustin II ( T u b i n g e n , 1959)). F o r the p r o b l e m o f a m o r e radical position o f the y o u n g Barth allowing revolution, c p . F. W . M a r q u a r d , Theologie und Sozialismus. Das Beispiel Karl Barths ( M i i n c h e n , 1972), p p . I26ff, i35ff; and I. J a c o b s e n ( e d . ) , War Barth Sozialist? Ein Streitgesprdch urn Theologie und Sozialismus bei K. Barth (Berlin, 1975), especially p p . 34L O . D i b e l i u s , Obrigkeit (Stuttgart, i960).

365

E. BAMMEL

366

I 7

Scholars have noticed the unusually isolated character of the passage, and have made the most varied attempts to explain this, ranging as far as interpolation hypothesis (A. Pallis, E. Barnikol ). The advice contains elements o f a basic understanding o f the state, which both in its semi-philosophical terminology and in its point o f departure from a theology o f creation has no equal in the Corpus Paulinum. That this is not a case o f free composition is shown by comparison with i Pet. 2: I3ff, a passage which derives not from Romans 1 3 but from a third tradition which made its imprint on both the New Testament writings. T h e fact that one finds numerous parallels in hellenistic literature o f both pagan and Jewish authorship leads one to seek the roots o f this tradition in the Judaism o f the diaspora. Indeed M . Dibelius maintained that 'niemand kann tiberhaupt aus diesem Text entnehmen, dass hier ein christlicher Apostel eine christliche Gemeinde ermahnt'. Even the words 5id xf|V aweC5r]Oiv need not be seen as a Christianisation o f the passage. 8

9

10

11

12

13

7

8

E.g. O . M i c h e l , Der Brief an die Rbmer ( G o t t i n g e n , 1966), p p . 313f. M . Borg, ' A n e w C o n t e x t for R o m a n s X I I I ' , NTSt 19 (1972-3), 205, o n the other h a n d , tries to link the passage with the m a i n themes o f the epistle. W h i l e his arguments are not c o n v i n c i n g in this respect, he is right in attempting to give the passage itself a historical setting. To the Romans ( L o n d o n , 1920), p . 14 regards verses 1-10 as a c l u m s y insertion in a c o n t i n u o u s c o n t e x t dealing with the correct w a y o f life for Christians. T h e verses are in a c c o r d a n c e with the attitude o f the apologists, w h o , while pointing to d u b i o u s m a c h i n a t i o n s , e m p h a s i s e d their o w n loyalty to R o m e . Therefore they are a d d e d after A . D . 133. C h r . E g g e n b e r g e r , ' D i e Q u e l l e n d e r politischen Ethik des 1. K l e m e n s b r i e f e s ' (Diss. Z u r i c h , 1951), p . 205 reserves j u d g e m e n t o n the question o f Paulinity o f the passage. ' D e r nichtpaulinische U r s p r u n g d e r absoluten O b r i g k e i t s b e j a h u n g v o n R o m e r 13, 1-7' ( T U 77 (1961), 65-133). H e is followed b y J. Kallas, ' R o m a n s X I I I , 1-7: an i n t e r p o l a t i o n ' (NTSt 11 (1964-5), 3 6 5 ^ W . Schmithals, Der Rbmerbriefals historisches Problem ( G u t e r s l o h , 1975); and n o w J . C . O ' N e i l l , Paul's Letter to the Romans ( L o n d o n , 1975), p p . 207f; for criticism c p . K . A l a n d , Neutestamentliche Entwurfe ( M i i n c h e n , 1979), p . 41. C p . D . D a u b e in E. G . S e l w y n , The first Epistle of St Peter ( L o n d o n , 1949), p . 488: R o m a n s 13 and 1 Peter 2 used the s a m e s o u r c e , an 'early Christian c o d e o f b e h a v i o u r within the n e w c o m m u n i t y ' . E.g. J o s . BJ 2 §140 ( c p . M . D i b e l i u s , Rom und die Christen im ersten Jahrhundert ( S A H , 1941/42), p . 8 ( = Botschaft und Geschichte ( T u b i n g e n , 1956), 182) and, m o s t recently, R . B e r g m e i e r , ' L o y a l t a t als G e g e n s t a n d paulin. Paraklese', Theokrateia i (1970), 54ff); Ber. 58a; Aristeas § i87ff. C p . F. Delitzsch, Paulus desApostels Brief an die Romer ( L e i p z i g , 1870), p . 95: Der Apostel steht also auf echt jiidischem Boden' Rom, p . 10 ( = Botschaft, ii, 184). C p . O . D i b e l i u s , Obrigkeit, p . 19. For a recent discussion, c p . W . C . v a n U n n i k , ' L o b u n d Strafe d u r c h die O b r i g k e i t . Hellenistisches zu R o m 13. 3-4' in Jesus und Paulus (Festschrift W . G . K i i m m e i ) , e d s . E . E l l i s and E. G r a s s e r ( G o t t i n g e n , 1975), p . 41. A different v i e w , as it seems, is taken b y E. K a s e m a n n , ' R o m e r 13, 1-7 in unserer G e n e r a t i o n ' (ZThK 56 (1959), 3 7 4 0 -

9

1 0

11

e

12

1 3

Romans 1 3

367

Moreover the attempt to interpret Romans 1 3 on the basis o f the eschatological context, Christianity

14

and thus to put a veneer o f eschatological

on the passage, and in this way to insert a

Christian

reservation in the text after all, does not make any proper headway. For the admonitions o f Romans 1 3 are placed side by side without any interconnection, as has been shown by E. K a s e m a n n .

15

A n d even this

context does not allow any substantial limitation o f the pronouncement o f Romans 13: 1 - 7 . T h e state o f affairs is all the more peculiar in that on the other hand the passage evinces concrete features o f a kind that is otherwise rare in the Epistle to the Romans. Chrysostom expressed the conjecture that Romans 13 is intended to rebut the charge (jioXAg JieQiecpeQexo Xoyoq

TOTE X X X . )

of

fostering revolutionary activities ( o x d o i g and x a i v o x o p u c t , avaxQOJif) xcbv x o i v a w vojxcav).

16

T h e conjecture is made o f course without any historical

backing, but none the less it shows the possibility that first suggested itself to

the ancient reader

(the same suggestion, but expressed in over-

generalising terms, also reappears in K . Bornhauser

17

and H . Preisker).

18

Indeed the injunction to pay taxes, the emphasis on subordination can have been formulated only with regard to different tendencies on the part o f the addressees - whether conjectured or already in evidence ( c p . 1 6 : 1 7 ) .

1 9

In

form too the passage gives evidence o f its different setting. If the stamp o f the pericope is thus a Jewish and not a genuine Pauline one

(while o n the other hand one must assume a concrete reference to

R o m a n conditions) the problem forces itself on us, h o w such a unique 20

combination could have c o m e into existence. T h e answer is to be sought in the situation and history o f the R o m a n community. Oriental cults, while permitted with great liberality outside the urbs, still came under the critical eye o f the city prefect within R o m e during the early principate and could 1 4

15

16

T h u s M . Dibelius, Rom, p p . gff. ( = Botschaft ii, i8iff); W . Schrage, Die Christen und der Staat (Giitersloh, 1971), p . 54; a n d recently A l a n d , Entwiirfe, p p . 48, 50. ZThK 56 (1959), 374: the o p p o s i t e has to b e demonstrated in e a c h case. An die Romer ( T u b i n g e n , 1973), p . 337.

PG

60. 615; c p . Schelkle, Z W 4 4 (1952-3), 227f.

17

' P a u l u s u n d die obrigkeitlichen G e w a l t e n in R o m ' (Christentum und Wissenschaft 7

1 8

' D a s historische P r o b l e m des Romerbriefes', Wissenschaftliche Zeitschr. d. Universitdt

(1931), 20lfl). Jena, 1952-3, p . 29. 1 9

2 0

For this verse c p . the discussion b y W . Schmidthals, ' D i e Irrlehrer v o n R o m . 16: 17-20', ST 1 (1959), 5iff, w h o , h o w e v e r , thinks o f gnostic o p p o n e n t s within the c o m m u n i t y . H o w e v e r that m a y b e , even disturbances that were not primarily directed against the state authorities c o u l d result in official measures being taken. V e r y q u e s t i o n a b l e is the view o f H . Schultz (Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie 21 (1876), 128) w h o thinks that the a d m o n i t i o n suits the circumstances o f the provincial p o p u l a t i o n better a n d , for this reason, c o m e s o u t in favour o f the Ephesians as the addressees o f R o m a n s 13. T h e view seems to b e shared b y E. v o n D o b s c h i i t z , Die urchristlichen Gemeinden (Leipzig, 1902), p . 97.

368

E. BAMMEL

only hope to be tolerated if their loyalty and good behaviour was beyond question.

21

Accordingly the public representatives o f R o m a n Judaism were

always loyal to the state, and - unlike many other synagogues o f the Diaspora - even subordinate towards the Herodians as their patrons.

22

T h e y gave demonstrative emphasis to this attitude, and even went so far as to make corresponding modifications in their own history, and to create a 23

myth accordingly. O n the other hand, it was not easy to maintain such a position. While the Jewish communities in the East possessed a centralised organisation, at R o m e they were split into different entities. T h e R o m a n law o f congregations did not permit the Jews to establish any unity beyond 24

the level o f the different synagogues. This meant that different mentalities could find footholds in the respective synagogues, and that it was difficult for those Jews w h o collaborated willingly with the R o m a n authorities to quell less desirable tendencies by action within Judaism. This had already become noticeable in the disturbances after the death o f Herod. While the establishment o f R o m a n Jewry had supported Herod's policy all the w a y ,

25

large crowds o f Jews demonstrated

26

in favour o f the false Alexander.

Indeed, R o m a n Jewry was bound to be affected by any kind o f development within J u d a i s m to an even higher degree than the communities

in

Alexandria and Babylonia. It was a matter o f pride and, indeed, o f missionary strategy for every religious movement to establish a foothold in R o m e . W e know not only o f Christian preachers but also o f Simon M a g u s and o f four unnamed Jewish propagandists 2 1

2 2

28

27

w h o made their appearance in

E . S c h u r e r , Diedltesten Christengemeinden im romischenReiche ( K i e l , 1894), p . 12. C p . G . V i t u c c i , Ricerche sulla praefectura urbi in eta imperiale ( R o m e , 1956). F o r the c e l e b r a t i o n o f H e r o d ' s birthday b y the J e w s o f R o m e see Persius V , 180; c p . R . Eisler, Jesous Basileus i ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1930), 348 and I. Scheftelowitz, ' D a s F i s c h s y m b o l i m J u d e n t u m u n d C h r i s t e n t u m ' , AR W14 (1911), 20. F o r the existence o f a ' s y n a g o g u e o f the H e r o d i a n s ' c p . H . Vogelstein and P. Rieger, Geschichte der Juden in Rom i (Berlin, 1896), a p p . n. 124. T h e y e m p h a s i s e d ( o r i n v e n t e d ) their lament o n the o c c a s i o n o f C a e s a r ' s death ( S u e t o n i u s , Julius 84). F o r an interpretation o f the funeral oration for C a e s a r , c p . E. Stauffer,y*n/ja/*m und Rom ( B e r n , 1957), p p . 21 ff; a n d W . Kierdorf, Laudatio Funebris ( M e i s e n h e i m , 1980), p p . isoff. T h i s has b e e n seen so far only b y E. v. D o b s c h i i t z , ' D i e Entstehung des R d m e r b r i e f s ' , Deutsch-Evangelisch iii (1912), 398. C p . H . G r e s s m a n n , 'Jewish Life in A n c i e n t Rome', Jewish Studies in Memory of I. Abrahams ( N e w Y o r k , 1927), p p . 17off. G . la Piana, ' F o r e i g n G r o u p s in R o m e ' , HThR 20 (1927), 362 w a s u n a b l e t o find c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e for a central g o v e r n i n g b o d y , although he w a s eagerly l o o k i n g for it. It is p r o b a b l y for this reason that the epistle to the R o m a n s is not addressed to the kKKknoia but to the cVytoi o f that city. It w a s precisely the lack o f a uniform o r g a n i s a t i o n w h i c h forced the R o m a n Christians to b e c o m e masters in a c h i e v i n g c o m p r o m i s e solutions. T h a t they were inclined to press t h r o u g h such solutions, o n c e they h a d b e e n arrived at, not o n l y in the urbs but in the orbis as well, was o n l y in k e e p i n g w i t h the general a t m o s p h e r e o f the m e t r o p o l i s .

*Bj2 §25, 81. J u s t i n , Ap. 1. 26; Act. Verc. 32. 27

*BJ2 § i o f ; 4 / 17 § 2 ff. 8Jos. AJ 18 §65. 4

2

3

4

Romans 1 3

369

the capital. Equally, political movements needed a foothold in R o m e in order to get information, to establish influence and to carry out financial transactions. At least two o f the synagogues in R o m e had strong leanings towards the fatherland and its messianic dreams, as the names chosen by their supporters indicate.

29

Such an environment was open to even more

radical agitation. T h e conflict between the limits drawn from outside and the inner dynamics led o f necessity to points o f fierce tension in the Jewish community, which as soon as they erupted, were bound to give rise to repressive actions by the R o m a n officials. T h e different stern measures taken by the R o m a n administration between A . D . 1 8 and A . D . 4 9 against metropolitan J e w r y ,

30

the repeated references to 'disturbances',

31

and the

equally ominous attempts in Jewish historiography to play d o w n the 32

events, make it quite clear that agitations occurred which could be seen by the uninitiated eye o f the R o m a n police as having involved the whole o f R o m a n Jewry. M a y b e the apocalyptic idea that the messianic battle will have to take place in the headquarters o f G o d ' s enemies played its role in these discussions and actions within Judaism. M a y b e an explosive mixture o f provocation and shrewd political manoeuvring existed in R o m e . In any case, R o m a n Jewry suffered its most severe blow when the Jews were expelled from the urbs in A . D . 4 9 .

3 3

That this happened under Claudius, w h o

was not at all a committted anti-Semite, is a sign o f the hardening o f the hand o f the R o m a n administration. Since the beginning o f the rule o f Nero the Jews had just begun to be able to filter their way in again. Their position was still uncertain. T h e Christians, obviously, had shared in the fate of the Jews. T h e case o f Aquila and Priscilla

34

is only additional proof. T h e situation o f those

Christians w h o returned or abandoned an underground existence after A . D . 5 4 was as unsettled as that o f the Jews, if not more so. Not only could they not h o p e to make use o f the shelter and, in case o f difficulties, the mediating activities o f what soon became the Jewish establishment, not only were the Christians as an apocalyptic movement considered to be very far from a position o f enthusiasm for any present order, the Christians in the 2 9

T h e s y n a g o g u e o f the H e b r e w s a n d the O l i v e T r e e s y n a g o g u e . T h i s is n o t seen b y J . B . Frey, ' L e J u d a i s m e a R o m e aux premiers temps d e l'eglise', Bb 12 (1931), i2gff, w h o denies (147) the existence o f messianic expectation in R o m e .

30 C p . ZThK 56 (1959), 2 f f . 95

3 1

3 2

3 3

3 4

Suetonius, Claudius 25; D i o 60.6. T h e actions taken against the J e w s are d e s c r i b e d b y J o s e p h u s as measures caused b y the trespasses o f a few J e w s w h o had not even been resident in R o m (AJ 18 §84). Philo heaps all the b l a m e o n the arch-evildoer Sejanus a n d stresses that the measures were revoked i m m e d i a t e l y after the latter's execution (Leg. §1601). A different interpretation is given b y E . Schiirer, Geschichte d.jud. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi iii ( L e i p z i g , 1909), 62 ( E T ii, 2 ( E d i n b u r g h , 1901), p . 23).

A c t s 18:26.

37°

E- BAMMEL 35

orbis and especially Paul himself had learnt already by bitter experience that Jewish attempts to divert the activities o f anti-Jewish officials against the Christians had already started - a tendency which became o f crucial importance in the Neronian persecution. In such a situation it was a matter of vital importance to Paul to dissipate every suspicion. There may have been reason for suspicion against the community and the apostle himself. T h e man who describes himself as ^r)Xo)xf|g xo>v JiaxQixorv Jiagadooecov (Gal. i: 14) must, like Josephus, have at times been tempted to join the ranks o f the activist branch o f the Pharisaic observance, that is, the Zealots. T h e man whose reputation was far from good in the Christian communities, who was considered a trouble-maker and someone whose views were vacillating and therefore unreliable had every reason to make clear his political position. If it is true that the letter to the Romans is inter alia the apostle's apologia pro vita sua, it is likely that chapter 1 3 is conceived not without awareness o f these factors. M o r e important is the problem o f the community. T h e congregation in Corinth - nota bene a place much closer to R o m e both geographically and in mentality than any other frequented by Paul - had been on the verge o f succumbing to the domination o f libertines. T h e situation in R o m e was not entirely different, as chapters 1 4 and 15 o f Paul's letter show. There is some evidence for Zealot inclinations in the Christian community at R o m e . Romans 1 6 : 17 speaks of those who cause 5ixooxaoiat and oxdvdaXct; this is expressed in religious language, although it refers rather to resistance against vjiaxorj (verse 19) than to doctrinal aberrations. T h e coined term dv0£OXT]x6x£c; = insurgents would hardly have been used without some 36

37

38

3 5

3 6

3 7

T h e Christians were in a position different not o n l y from that o f the Greeks b u t from that o f the J e w s as well. A certain d e g r e e o f animosity o n the side o f the G r e e k s against the R o m a n s was taken for granted. ( F o r the beginnings o f this hostility see J. D e i n i n g e r , Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland 217-86 v. Chr. (Berlin, 1971); for the d e v e l o p m e n t c p . E. A . B a u m a n n , Beitrdge zur Beurteilung der Romer in der antiken Literatur ( R o s t o c k , 1930)). F r o m the time o f C l a u d i u s the R o m a n s even tried to satisfy the Greeks. T h e philhellenic gestures o f N e r o are the c l i m a x o f the n e w p o l i c y . T h e J e w s had been s u p p o r t e d b y the R o m a n s for a l o n g time. F r o m the reign o f C l a u d i u s , h o w e v e r , the R o m a n officials shied a w a y from giving the J e w i s h privileges a generous interpretation and w e r e not discinclined to m a k e such gestures t o w a r d s the G r e e k side as d i d not h a r m the J e w s t o o m u c h . T h e Christians w e r e in d a n g e r o f b e i n g g r o u n d b e t w e e n t w o millstones. F o r the beginnings o f J e w i s h activities against the Christians, c p . the references in 1 T h e s s . 2: 14f.; 3:4; G a l . 4: 29. J o s e p h u s describes o n e Z e a l o t b r a n c h as that with cleaner h a n d s (xeiQi • • • xa0aQO)TEQOV BJ 2 §258). Eisler's c o n t e n t i o n (Jesons Basileus, ii, 707), that this r e c o g n i t i o n w a s given b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s himself had b e l o n g e d to the s a m e o r a similar b r a n c h o f Z e a l o t s , has m u c h to r e c o m m e n d it. C p . B . R e i c k e , Diakonie, Zelos und Festfreude in Verbindung mit der altchristlichen

Agapenfeier ( U p p s a l a , 1951), p p . 2330°. C p . especially 1 C o r 14:33. 3 8

J o s . AJ 18 §100.

Romans 1 3 39

371

40

reason. T h e c l i m a x o f the diatribe, the urge to pay cpogog and xekoq, must equally have been formulated with something in mind that was going on in this milieu. Taxes were a problem for both libertines and activists. It was tempting for the former to make practical use of the privilege of the vloi (Matt. 1 7 : 2 6 ) and to evade paying taxes. It is well known that the Zealot party was welded together by its resistance against the R o m a n taxes and that the population gave up or delayed paying taxes in A . D . 6 6 . Such means o f evading taxes may have been quite effective in the Empire, whereas in R o m e , where a good part o f the population was exempt from capitation, any inclination to usurp the privilege o f the civis Romanus was bound to stir up the hostility o f the privileged and to be met by most severe reactions from the side o f the state. 41

42

43

T h e situation, as the 'traveller and R o m a n citizen', the keen observer from outside might notice, had the facets described above. Certain features in the Pauline presentation can best be explained as allusions to these problems. Even more crucial is another observation, which has been made before: the passage contains elements o f argumentation. This is at variance with the normal exhortation in the Pauline letters, even with the call to give honour to the king in 1 Pet. 2: 1 7 . It is equally different from the 44

3 9

It is in keeping with this, that a c c o r d i n g to Passio Petri et Pauli 37 Paul defends himself b y citing this verse: I instructed the merchants to p a y taxes to the state officials.

4 0

T h e v i e w that the v e r b in 6a is not imperative but indicative ( W . Bauer, Jedermann sei untertan der Obrigkeit\ (Gottingen, 1930), p . 3; similarly O . M i c h e l , Der Rbmerbrief, p . 319) is at variance with verses 5 a n d 7.

41 Jos. BJ 11 §404. 4 2

4 3

4 4

C p . T e r t . Apol. 42 o n heathen w h o d o n o t p a y taxes p r o p e r l y . A k i b a permitted certain devices to a v o i d taxation ( B Q 113a). It w a s C l a u d i u s w h o h a d given full j u r i s d i c t i o n to the procuratores in matters o f taxation, a b o u t w h i c h p e o p l e h a d quarrelled so often seditione aut armis ( T a x . Ann. 12.60; c p . A . Strobel, ZNW55 (1961), 61). T h i s w a s b o u n d to h a v e its repercussion o n the state in the m e t r o p o l i s . T h e attempt w h i c h was m a d e recently (J. Friedrich, W . P o h l m a n n and P. S t u h l m a c h e r , ' Z u r historischen Situation u n d Intention v o n R o m . 13. 1-7', ZThK 73 (1976), 13iff) to give R o m a n s 13 its setting in the c o n t r o v e r s y m e n t i o n e d b y T a c i t u s (Ann. 13:50!) a b o u t the abolition o f duties (vectigal) w h i c h took p l a c e in A.D. 58 is interesting but less relevant than is a s s u m e d b y those w h o directed attention to it. It is possible to avoid Ttkn b y various d o d g e s , while it is far m o r e difficult to avoid cpoQOi. C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y the p r o b l e m o f (poQOi is very m u c h in the foreground o f Paul's a d m o n i t i o n (only (poQOi are m e n t i o n e d in verse 5), whereas xiXt] m a y h a v e c o m e in for the sake o f alliteration ( X E X O 5 < — m u r | , qp6fx>g 3 7 ; John

1 : 4 1 , 4 9 ; 1 8 : 3 3 ; 1 9 : 7)-

T h e first requirement o f any satisfactory account o f the trial is that it should be able to show how the political charge, though recognised to be disingenuous, could still have seemed plausible. T h e strength o f an interpretation like Brandon's is that Jesus's position must have been patient of the construction put upon it in Luke 2 3 : 2 , ' W e found this man subverting our nation, opposing the payment o f taxes to Caesar and claiming to be Messiah, a king.' T h e weakness o f such an interpretation is that it does not do justice to the knowledge that this construction was fundamentally a lie. This is nowhere made clearer than in John. Not only is the reader appraised unequivocally o f the inner truth, but the disingenuousness o f the Jewish leadership over their real charge against Jesus is subtly conveyed. They begin their dealings with Pilate by trying to get away without being specific at all: 'Pilate went out to them and asked, " W h a t charge d o you bring against this m a n ? " " I f he were not a criminal", they replied, " w e should not have brought him before y o u " . ' ( 1 8 : 291) W h e n that fails, as it must, they g o for the capital charge o f treason ( 1 8 : 3 3 to 1 9 : 6 ) . W h e n Pilate finds no case on that one, they fall back on the real offence (for the Jews) o f his blasphemous claim to be Son o f God

( 1 9 : 7 ) - though taking the trouble to

dress up their charge in the pagan terms of being a son of God (vibv

0eou)

6 7

6 5

Founder, p . 156. F o r the interrelation o f the religious and political c h a r g e s , c p . also

6 6

C p . the |3Xao(pT]uia here with that in M a r k 14:64 = M a t t . 26:65. It appears to attach to the theological implications o f ' S o n o f G o d ' rather than o f ' C h r i s t ' ( c p . L u k e

Brown, John, ii, p p . 798-802.

22:66-71). 6 7

D o d d , Historical Tradition, p p . 113f, rightly d r a w s attention to the a b s e n c e o f articles here - t h o u g h I w o u l d h o l d that they should b e o m i t t e d , w i t h strong m a n u s c r i p t s u p p o r t , in 10: 36, w h e r e , for different ( a n d this time J e w i s h ) reasons, the logic o f the a r g u m e n t e q u a l l y requires it ( c p . m y The Human Face of God ( L o n d o n , 1972), p .

J. A . T. R O B I N S O N

474

or a 6eiog a v 6 Q 0 ) J i o g and thus play on the R o m a n prefect's fear o f the supernatural ( 1 9 : 8f, c p . Matt. 2 7 : 1 9 ) .

6 8

Finally, with that getting them

nowhere, they return to the political tack and out-manoeuvre Pilate with the utterly cynical claim o f being more loyal to Caesar than he (19: 1 2 - 1 6 ) . O f the three charges in the Lukan indictment - that Jesus was a disturber o f the peace, a rebel against R o m e , and a claimant to the throne of Israel - it is the last which stands out, and upon which alone Pilate seizes (Luke 2 3 : 3; though c p . 23: 1 4 ) . T h e trial turns on his supposed claim to kingship ( M a r k 15:2

and pars.; J o h n

1 8 : 3 3 ) : it is not simply that he is one more

insurrectionary like Barabbas (Mark 1 5 : 7; Luke 2 3 : 1 9 ; John 1 8 : 4 0 ) or the two others crucified with him (Matt. 27: 38; Mark 1 5 : 2 7 ) . T h e Gospels are unanimous that he was condemned to execution as messianic pretender to the throne o f Israel, 'the king o f the J e w s ' (Mark 1 5 : 2 6 and pars.; J o h n 1 9 : 1 9 ) . T h e y all agree too that he did not express it in this way himself, but threw the question back when it was put to him with ' T h e words are yours' (Mark 1 5 : 2 and pars.; John 1 8 . 3 7 ) . Pilate's refusal therefore, according to J o h n ( 1 9 : 2 if), to alter the titulus at the request o f the Jews to ' H e said, I am king of the J e w s ' was entirely correct. It was not he w h o said it but they - as Mark also makes Pilate insist: 'the manjoa call the king of the Jews' ( 1 5 : 1 2 ) . Yet, for J o h n , in the deepest and truest sense he was 'the king o f the J e w s ' . 69

So Pilate is made to testify to it. As D o d d put it earlier, with a true sense o f the juridical context in which the whole drama is being played, ' H e is thus, as it were, subpoenaed as an unwilling witness to Christ's authority, as Son o f M a n , to j u d g e the world (as Caiaphas was subpoenaed to testify that H e died to gather the scattered children o f G o d ( 1 1 : 5 0 - 2 ) ) . ' N o one is arguing that the Johannine account o f the trial or o f anything else is to be assessed primarily by the canons o f factual accuracy. T h a t indeed is to j u d g e things 'as the eyes see' (7: 2 4 ) , 'by worldly standards' (8: 1 5 ) , rather than with true discernment, and inevitably to misunder stand and misrepresent. John is concerned primarily with theological verity 70

rather than with historical verisimilitude. Yet, once again, it is the truth o f

6 8

6 9

7 0

189). T h e a b s e n c e o f articles in 1: 14 a n d 5:27 s h o w s that J o h n ' s usage in this regard is far from accidental ( c p . also M a r k 15:39 = M a t t . 27:54). C p . D o d d , Historical Tradition, p . 114: ' T h e w h o l e episode therefore is entirely in character, a n d to all a p p e a r a n c e s it o w e s nothing to theological motives. T h u s in the o n e p l a c e where the course o f the narrative directly invites theological exploitation, it remains o n a strictly matter-of-fact level. T h i s is surely a very r e m a r k a b l e feature in a w o r k so d o m i n a t e d b y theological interests.' Interpretation, p . 436. F o r the elaboration o f this, c p . m y ' T h e U s e o f the Fourth G o s p e l for C h r i s t o l o g y T o d a y ' in B . L i n d a r s and S. S. Smalley ( e d s . ) , Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of C.F.D. Moule ( C a m b r i d g e , 1973), p p . 61-78.

'His witness is true'

475

the history that he claims to present, not of a fictitious tale. So we may end with D o d d ' s concluding assessment o f the Johannine trial scene: Here w e have for the first time an account which, though it leaves some gaps, is coherent and consistent, with a high degree o f verisimilitude. . . . It is pervaded with a lively sense for the situation as it was in the last half-century before the extinction o f Jewish local a u t o n o m y . It is aware o f the delicate relations between the native and the imperial authorities. It reflects a time w h e n the d r e a m o f an independent J u d a e a under its o w n king had not yet sunk to the level o f a chimera, and w h e n the messianic ideal was not a theologumenon but impinged on practical politics, and the bare mention o f a 'king o f the J e w s ' stirred violent emotions; a time, moreover, when the constant preoccupation o f the priestly holders o f p o w e r under R o m e was to d a m p d o w n any first s y m p t o m s o f such emotions. T h e s e conditions were present in J u d a e a before A.D. 70, and not

later, and not elsewhere. This, I submit, is the true Sitz im Leben o f the essential elements in the J o h a n n i n e trial narrative.

71

T h e case we have been arguing does not depend on claiming that John alone gives us the truth, or that his account is distinctively different. Indeed the argument has at most points been that it is he who enables us to make full sense o f the synoptists, even when he diverges from them. Yet it is not primarily in additional information, however valuable and illuminating, that his contribution lies, but in the interpretation that he allows us to see in, rather than imposes upon, the c o m m o n story. In particular he draws out the fascinating and fateful ambiguities, religious and political, inherent in the categories in which the person and work o f Christ were compassed. I believe therefore that Cullmann was correct in saying that his reconstruc tion in Jesus and the Revolutionaries, based as it is on material supplied by the synoptists, receives its most succinct and profound expression in John. Whether John has got it right (if he has) from theological insight or from 71

Historical Tradition, p . 120. C p . C . H . T u r n e r , Studies in Early Church History ( O x f o r d , 1912), p . 191: 'I should feel m i n d e d to urge every student w h o wants to understand the m e a n i n g o f the R o m a n e m p i r e in history to master t w o b r i e f passages in the B i b l e , the story o f the o p e n i n g o f relations b y J u d a s M a c c a b a e u s with R o m e in 1 M a c e . 8, and the fourth evangelist's a c c o u n t o f the trial before Pilate.' S h e r w i n - W h i t e , Roman Society, p . 47, c o n c l u d e s : 'After the survey o f the legal and administrative b a c k g r o u n d it is a p p a r e n t that there is n o historical i m p r o b a b i l i t y in the J o h a n n i n e variations o f this sort from the s y n o p t i c version.' H e strongly defends ( p p . 32-43) the historicity o f J o h n 18:31, ' w e are not allowed to put any m a n to d e a t h ' , w h i c h is crucial also to the credibility o f the s y n o p t i c a c c o u n t s . S o t o o D a u e r , Passsionsgeschichte, p p . 143-5. Since c o m p l e t i n g this study I have seen an unpublished paper, ' T h e Trial o f J e s u s ' , b y Fergus G . B . M i l l a r , editor o f the Journal of Roman Studies, from w h i c h he kindly allows m e to q u o t e . In it he says, 'I wish to suggest that the most c o n v i n c i n g a c c o u n t w e have o f the events leading u p to the Crucifixion is that o f J o h n . . . . It is J o h n w h o allows us to see what really h a p p e n e d . '

476

J. A . T . R O B I N S O N

inside historical knowledge, or both, depends upon judgements about his tradition that involve far wider considerations. But that 'his witness is true' on the fundamental issue o f the relationship of the spiritual to the political is a claim which must be j u d g e d to have stood the test.

Index of authors A b r a h a m s , I., 26011, 27711

Bauer, W . , u o n , i85n, i8gn, ig5n, 207n, 234n, 285n, 2g8n, 30m, 303^ 323n, 35gn, 362n, 37 m , 4 2 4 ^ 437n, 44on

A b r a m z i k , G . , 12411 A h a r o n i , Y . , 25611

A l a n d , B . , 268, 276n A l a n d , K . , i84n-i85n, 268, 276n, 367n, n

379 A l b e c k , C , 278n Albertz, M . , 266n Alexander, G., n n , Alfaric, P., i g n

B a u m , G . , 43 m

B a u m a n n , E. A . , 37on B a u m b a c h , G . , 45n, 5on, ii3n, 2g5n, 3i3n, 396n Baur, F. C , i7n, 25n, g i , g2, g3 B e a , A . , 45n

i2n

Beare, F. W . , 2gin Beasley-Murray, G . R . , i62n

Alfoldi, A . , 209n Allegro, J. M . , 27gn, 293n, 397n A i m , R . v . d . , i5n, ig8n Alt, A . , 1 i o n

Beaverbrook, Lord,

3m

Becker, J., i43n Beer, M . , 27gn

A r c h e r , G . , 42gn A r n o l d , C . F., ig8n

Beilner, W . , 1 3 m Bell, H . J . , 2 n ben-David, A . , u o n , I24n, 25 n Benoit, P., 78n Berendts, A . , 32n

A s c h , S., 47n A s s m a n n , H . , 65n

Berger, K . , 56n, 13m, i4on Bergmeier, R . , 366n

A l v e s , R . , 66n

A n d e r m a n n , F., 37n, 47n, 54n, i i 5 n A n o n , ( ' A . D . ' ) , 21

9

9

Berlinger, R . , 38 m

Bacher, W . , i85n, 22on, 28on

Bernard, J. H . , i26n, 46on, 472 Bernhardt, J., 377n

Bacon, B. W . , 37m

Bertram, G . , 3 i o n

B a c h , J. S. ( C a n t a t a 119), 383

B a c o n t h o r p e , J., 265n B a m m e l , E., 11-68, 109-28, ig7, 2og, 211-40, 353-64> 365-83^ 4 I 5 - 5 ; 95**, i33 > 39 > 4 > 43 > 9 > "9 * *93 > *95 > > 98n, 30on, 30m, 302n, 303n, 305n, 306, 3o8n, 466, 46g; 1

n

n

!

n

!

n

2 o 6 n

i n

l

n

l 8

n

1

2

references to articles in other

publications, 43n, ii2n, ii4n, n8n, n g n , 23m, 232n, 236n, 36on, 36m, 378n, 4i5n, 435n, 436n, 437n, 44m Banks, R . , 267n Barker, M . , 3ogn Barnes, T . D . , i88n Barnett, P. W . , 462n Barnikol, E., 22n,

366

Barrett, C . K . , 86n, g8n, ig2~3, 45g-6o, 468, 47 m Barth, K . , 365n Barthelemy, D . , 3g7n Bartsch, H . - W . , 47n, 38gn, 402n, 4 7 m

Betz, O . , 2g2-3, 328n, 3g2n Beyschlag, W . , i3on Bickermann, E., u o n , 2i5n, 278n, 373n, 423n, 424n, 426n, 427n, 437 Biehl, I., 372n Bienert, W . , 33n, 35n, 363n Bigelmair, A . , 382n Billerbeck, F., 267n, 278n Bindley, T . H . , 45on Bingham, J., 286n Birdsall, J. N . , 438n Bischoff, B . , 447n Black, M . , 2 8 7 ^ 4 ; 86n, i2on, 266n, 283n, 287n Blass, F., 266n, 268, 303n, 304n, 3 1 4 ^ 4o8n, 41 i n Blatezky, A . , 64n

Bauer, B . , 22 Bauer, I., 62n

Blenkinsopp, J., 324n Blinzler, J., s o n , 2g8n, 357n, 400, 4o6n 4i4n, 417n, 4i8n, 422n, 4 2 7 ^ 42gn, 432n, 433 > 4 3 > 457 > 47 Bloch, E., 6 i n , 63, 365n

Bauer, J. B., ig8n

B l o c h , M . , 23n

n

6n

n

n

477

478

Index o f authors

B l u m e n k r a n t z , B . , 1 9 m , 19211, 44811 B l u m h a r d t , C . F., 5611 B o l d , W . , 37911 Boll, L . , 6411 BonhofTer, D . , 64 B o o b y e r , G. H . , 22 m B o r g , M . , 511, 94n, 36611 B o r n h a u s e r , K . , 367, 423, 427

C a d b u r y , H . J., 3 m C a d o u x , C . J., 33n C a i r d , G. B . , 459n Calvert, D . G. A . , i34n C a m p e n h a u s e n , H . v o n , i42n, 38m C a m u s , A . , 56 C a r m i c h a e l , J., 47-8, 54 C a r r , B . , 57n

B o r n k a m m , G., 12 m , i3on, i36n, i4on, 14m, 14211

C a t c h p o l e , D . , 3i9"345 37 > 43 > 4 ^ , 96n, 1 3 m , 284n, 39m, 426n, 439n, 445"

Bousset, W . , 26n, H 7 n - n 8 n , 130, 355,

356 B o v o n , F., 46n, 43 m B o w k e r , J., 449n B r a n d o n , S. G. F., 1, 2-4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

37-43, 52n, 53, 59, 64, 79-80, 93-5, 99, 101, 102-7, i29n, i36n, 138, 143, 144, i48n, 204n, 2i7n, 259, 266n, 284, 290, 322-3, 332n, 335, 338n, 350, 3 5 7 ^ 364n, 296n, 398, 399n, 406, 426n, 427n, 446n, 456, 473 Brandt, W . , i33n, 4 4 m B r a u m a n n , G., 46n, 39on

Braun, H . , i3on, i34n, i38n, i39n, i4on, i44n, 29 m , 356n Braunert, H . , 37n B r e n t a n o , L . , 57n

Brock, S. P., i87n, 267n Brocker, W . , 26n B r o d , M . , 37n B r o m m e , E., n 5 4

B r o w n , R . E., 322n, 453, 456n, 457, 460, 461m, 466n, 467n, 469-70, 473n Bruce, F. F., 69-89, 249-63; 94n, 98n, 99n, 24m B u c h a n a n , G. W., 53, iisn Buchheit, G., 5on B u c h n e r , E., 376n BuchneT, K . , 29n B u c k o w , W . D . , 67n Buehler, W . W . , 11 o n Buhr, H . , 26n

Bultmann, R . , 3 m , 32n, 67, i2on, I29n, i3°> 3 - 3 *35> 2i6n, 222n, 224n, 234n, 25on, 270, 291-2, 294, 297n, 301, 302n, 304n, 305n, 307, 3 0 9 ^ 3 i o n , 3i5n, 3i7n, 325, 328n, 33on, 356, 405n, 427n, 43on, 467n, 469n I

2

>

B u r c h a r d , C . , i33n B u r c k h a r d t , J., 235

Burkitt, F. C . , 7on-7in, ii2n, i i 7 n , 232n, 275n, 285n, 40on, 432n, 459n Burney, C . F., 287n B u s c h , E., 67n, 36511 Buse, I., 21 i n

Bussmann, W . , 2i4n, 224n

n

n

C h a m b e r l a i n , H . C , 31 C h a r l t o n , I., 5gn C h e e s m a n , G. L . , 443n C h o r i n , S. b . , 45n, i29n C h u b b , T . , i2n C h w o l s o n , D . , i25n Clark, K . W . , i 3 n C l e a g e , A . B . , 57n, 60-1, 67n C l e m e n , C , 1 i2n C o h e n , G. D . , ig2n C o h e n , S . J . D . , i86n 5

C o h n , H . , 6, 49-51, 399n, 427n, 4 3 9 ^ 442n C o l a n i , T . , 13 C o l e r i d g e , S. T . , 1 i n C o l e s , R . A . , 444n C o l i n , J., 43on

C o l p e , C , i36n, 39m, 395n C o m b l i n , J., 62n, 63n C o n e , J. H . , 57n, s8n, 67 C o n n o l l y , R . H . , 2i8n C o n w a y , J. S., 36n

C o n z e l m a n n , H . , 74n, i33n, 337, 407n, 409n, 4i3n, 432n C o r s s o n , P., 29n, 429n C o w l e y , A . , 278n C r a m e r , J. A . , 348n

C r e e d , J. M . , i64n, 2i3n, 405n C r e i z e n a c h , W . , 448n

C u l l m a n n , O . , 46n, 64, i2on, i33n, i43n, 232n, 26m, 288n, 290-1, 3 1 2 - 3 1 3 ^ 379n, 428n, 454, 475 C u m o n t , F., 29n D a m m a n n , E., 5gn D a n b y , H . , 43n D a n i e l o u , J., 4on

D a u b e , D . , i35n, I39n, 14m, 209n, 23m, 235n, 274n, 3o6n, 344n, 366n, 4i6n, 4i8n, 423n, 44on, 443n Dauer, A . , 354n, 36on, 4i6n, 42on, 42 m , 453 > 4 ^ 9 475" n

n

5

D a v e y , F. N . , 456n D a v i d s o n , A . B . , 154 D a v i e s , J. G., 66n, 67n

Index o f authors D a v i e s , J . L . , 5611 D a v i e s , W . D . , 13411, 2 7 m

Debrunner, A . , 266n, 268, 30311, 31411, 40811, 41 i n D e i n i n g e r , J., 37on D e i s s m a n n , A . , I7n, i i 5 n DehT, H . K . H . , 16-17 D e l i t z s c h , F., 366n

Delling, G . , 294n, 377n D e r e s c h , W . , 28n

Derrett, J . D . M . , 22 m , 243n, 258-9, 260, 267n, 274, 282n, 284n, 323n, 324, 4ign D e u t s c h , E . , 154-5 D i b e l i u s , M . , 3 m , 75n, H 2 n , n 6 n , i2on,

12in, i32n, i35n, 296n, 365n, 366, 367n, 426n, 433n D i b e l i u s , O . , 366n D i e m , H . , 32n D i l l o n , J., 20on Dinkier, E . , 356n Dinter, A . , 3 m D i t t e n b e r g e r , W . , 258n

Dobschiitz, E. v o n , i i 7 n , 132, 1 4 m , i42n, 167, 179, 207n, 2o8n, 3 2 3 ^ 367n, 368n, 379", 4 3 > 441° 0n

D o d d , C . H . , 71, 72, 75n, 78n, 79n, i35n,

i43n, i63n, i9on, 22m, 222n, 266n, 267n, 269n, 272n, 273n, 284n, 293, 301, 305, 3o6n, 307n, 3o8n, 309, 38 m , 42on, 422n, 43 m , 435n, 447n, 453, 455, 456n, 457n, 462n, 466n, 469n, 472-3, 474, 475 D o l l i n g e r , I. v o n , 365n D o n a h u e , J. R . , 356n D o r n e r , I. A . , 23on D o r r , F., 435n D o r r i e , H . , 22m D o w d a , R . E., i25n D r a s e k e , J., 2i6n D r e w s , A . , 22, 28 D u n k m a n n , K . , 28n

D u p o n t - S o m m e r , A . , I29n, i3on Dussel, E . , 64n D u t h e i l , M . , 64 Easton, B . S., 72n, 73n, 25on,

Ech, O . , 374n, 38on Eckhel, J., 243n E d e r s h e i m , A . , 277n E d w a r d s , H . E., 458 E g g e n b e r g e r , C . , 366n E h r e n b e r g , V . , 243n

Ehrhardt, A . , 447n, 448n E h r h a r d t , A . A . T . , 276n, 36511 E i n e m , H . v o n , 265n Eisenstein, J. D . , 202n

479

Eisler, R . , 32-7, 4 m , 47, 5 m , 53, 57n, 64,

u 6 n , i29n, 183, 185, i87n, i88n, 190-1, 193-4, i95n, 204n, 2o8n, 223n, 26m, 267n, 2 7 m , 272n, 273n, 274n, 290, 339, 349, 35°, 354 > 3 , 3 3 > 3 > 37 > 382n n

6

n

6

n

6 8 n

0n

Eissfeldt, O . , n 8 n Eitrein, S., 234n Ellis, E. E . , 294n E l l u l J . , 67n Engels, F., 22, 23n, 62n

E p p , E. J., 433n Eppstein, V . , 332n, 333n, 334n Erbt, W . , 3 m , 21 i n Ernst, J., 405n Fabricius, J. A . , 187

Farmer, W . R . , 42n, 76n, 233n, 467n Farner, K . , 2 i n , 6in-62n Farrer, A . M . , 268n

Fascher, E., i95n, 233n, 447n Feil, E., 62n Field, F., 273 Fierro, A . , 65 Finegan, J., 301, 363, 405, 459n Finkelstein, L . , 282n Finlayson, S. K . , 349 Fitzmyer, J . A . , 442n

Flusser, D . , i29n, 267n, 2 7 m , 272-3, 284, 285, 396n, 399 F o r d , J. M . , 6n, 442n Foerster, E . , 29211 Fortna, R . T . , 2i5n F o w l e r , R . M . , 21 i n F r a n k e m o l l e , H . , i2on Freed, E . D . , 467n

Frend, W . H . C . , ii3n, i97n Freudenberger, R . , I98n, 382n Frey, J., 32n Frey, J. B . , 36gn Freyne, S., 28 m Frick, H . , 56n Friedlander, M . , i i 5 n F r i e d m a n n , M . , 234n Friedrich, G . , 1 i g n Friedrich, J., 3 7 m F u c h s , A . , 268n F u c h s , H . , i98n F u l d a , H . , 353n Fuller, R . H . , 329n

Funk, R . W . , 266n, 268, 303n, 3i4n G a r a u d y , R . , 6 i n , 62 Gartner, B . , 115n G a s t o n , L . H . , i66n

Geflcken, J., i88n, i89n, ig9n, 202n

480

Index o f authors

G e i b , L . K . G . , 35311 G e l z e r , M . 37511 Gerassi, J., 2n, 6 i n G e r h a r d , P., 451 5

Gerhardsson, B., 13411, 23411, 23511 Gibellini, R . , 6411 Giessen, G . T., 56n

Ginzberg, L., 202n, 203n, 204, 2o8n, 36m G o e t h e , J. W . v o n , i3n

G o g u e l , M . , 33n, 36n, i3on, 2i2n, 227n, 228n, 232n, 238n, 23gn-24on, 458, 47on Goldschmidt, H . L., 5 m Goldschmidt, L., u 6 n G o l l w i t z e r , H . , 65n G o m p e r z , H . , 422n G o p p e l t , L . , 112n G o r i o n , J. b . , 28n G o u l d e r , M . D . , 2 6 7 ^ 273n G r a b a r , A., 2i8n G r a n o v s k y , A., iocjn G r a n t , F. C . , n i n , 254n, 26m 2

G r a n t , M . , 243-4, 4 7 Grasser, E., 24n, 2g8n G r a t z , H . , 445 G r e e v e n , H . , 75n

n

Gressmann, H . , 237n, 368n Gretser, J., 354n G r i m m , B . , 115n Groenbech, W . , 3m G r o t i u s , H . , 275n G r u b e , G . M . A., 2oon

G r u n d m a n n , W . , 295-318; 31, I28n, i33n, i66n, 225n, 2g5n, 299n, 301, 309n, 3i6n, 3i7n, 405, 4o8n, 4 1 3 ^ 4i9n, 464 G u i l k a , J., 39on

G u t b r o d , S. W . , I38n, 298n G u t i e r r e z , G . , 63n, 64, 232n

H a r t , J. H . A., 41-8, 229n H a r t m a n n , E. v o n ( F . A. M u l l e r ) , i6n H a r v e y , A. E., 468n H a r v e y , W . W . , 78n H a s e , K . , 13 H a s t i n g s , A., 57n, 6on Hauck, K., 45m H a y w a r d , C . T. R . , ig^n H e a d l a m , S., 56n~57n, 58n H e b b e l , F., 239n H e i c h e l h e i m , F. M . , 244n H e i n r i c i , A. F. G . , 372n Heitmiiller, W . , i3on, 132 H e l m b o l d , H . , 2i4n, 349 H e n g e l , M . , in, 2n, 65, 67n, 94n, 95n,

ii3n, ii4n, i29n, i3on, 13m, i33n, i34n, i37n, i38n, i42n, i43n, i44n, i85n, 254n, 3i3n, 333n, 396n, 44m Hennecke, E., 358n, 447n H e n s m a n , C . R . , 1-2 H e r d e r , J. G . , 227n, 240 H e r r m a n n , W . , 27-8 H e u v e r , F. D . , 56n H i g g i n s , A. J. B . , 437n

Hirsch, E., 3 m , 2i3n, 267n, 27m, 274, 276, 297n, 301, 304n, 3 5 6 ^ 4isn Hirschfeld, O . , 434n Hitler, A., 22n H o d g s o n , F. C . , 9 m , 93n H o e h n e r , H . , logn H o f m a n n , M . , 64n H o l l , A., 385 H o l s c h e r , G . , 304n H o m m e l , H . , ig8n H o o k e r , M . , 85n, 86n

H o r b u r y , W . , 183-95, 265-86; 95n, 96n, 19m, 203n, 204n, 2o6n, 30on, 445n H o r n s c h u h , M . , 265n

H a a r b r i i c k e r , T., i2on

Horovitz, H . S., 28on, 283n

Haenchen, E., i3on, I37n, i38n, i4on, 14m, i43n, 326n, 355n, 405n H a h n , F., i37n, 324n, 326n, 3 2 7 ^ 33on, 33 m, 389n, 399n, 404^ 427n, 453n, 468n, 47 m

H o s k y n s , E., 456n

H a h n , L . , 354n Hall, S. G . , 343-4

H u l t s c h , F., 252n

Hamilton, N . G . , 332n, 333n Hanell, K . , 376n H a n s e , H . , 379n H a r k a v y , A., 205n H a r n a c k , A. v o n , 27, 28n, U 2 n , i i 5 n ,

12in, i36n, i38n, i86n, i99n-20on, 224n, 234n, 274n, 38m, 429n, 6n

4 3

Harris, J. R . , 5on, i i 5 n , 126 Hart, H . St J., 297, 4 6 7 ^ ^6gn

Hubner, H . , I39n, i4on H u c k , A., 75n

Huldreich, J. J., i9on, 19m, 202n, 203n, 362n H u m m e l , R . , i36n, I39n, 14m, I42n, 2g8n H u s b a n d , R . W . , 427n Iersel, B . v o n , 22 m Ilgenstein, W . , 24n I n g h o l l , H . , iisn Innes, A. T., 4i5n I r m s c h e r , J. 22n Isaac, J., i29n Issel, E., 13

Index o f authors J a c k , J. W . , 3311

J a c k s o n , F. J. F., 432n J a c o b s , J., 44, 4 5

n

Klein, R . , 44gn K l e m m , H . G . , i33n, I34n, i36n, 137 Klijn, A . F . J . , g n 7

Jasper, G . , 37n, i2gn Jaubert, A . , 30on J e n s , W . , 5on J e r e m i a s , A . , 28n

K l o p s t o c k , J. G . , 422n, 435n K l o s t e r m a n n , E., 28n, 1 2 m , 2ign, 235n, 244n, 284, 33gn, 373n K n o x , W . L . , 268, 26g

J e r e m i a s , J., 43n, 83n, 86n, i o g n , u o n ,

i27n, i36n, 275n, 305n,

481

i3on, 1 3 m , i33n, i34n, i35n, 137, i38n, 139, i42n, i44n, 224n, 27gn, 282n, 283^ 284n, 2g5n, 3i3n, 332n, 338-g, 422n, 44gn

J o c h a n a n , Y . b . , 6on J o c h m a n n , W . , 22n

Joel, M . , 2gn, 4 m , ig8n J o h n s o n , H . , i i 5 n , 2gon J o n e s , A . H . M . , i88n, 243n J o n e s , M . J., 6on

Jost, J., 3i3n Juel, D . , i26n Jiilicher, A . , 131, 132, 4i6n Juster, J., i83n, 2ogn

K o c h , C . , 376n K o c h , W . , 4ign K o c s i s , E., 358n Kofler, L . , 62n K o h l e r , H . , 24n K o s m a l a , H . , 45n

Kosnetter, J., 375n Koster, H . , i22n K o v a l e v , S. I., 23

Kraeling, C . H . , 226n Kraeling, E. G . , 278n Krauss, S., i87n, i8gn, i g m , 20m, 202n, 204n, 2o6n, 28on, 445n Kreissig, H . , i o g n , u o n , i i 3 n

K r e m e r , J., 3gin K r e t s c h m e r , G . , 28

Kabak, A . A., 5m

K a d m a n , L . , 24m, 244n, 245, 248 K a h l , J., 28n

Kahler, C . , i2on K a h l e r , M . , 83-4

Kallas, J., 366n KalthoflF, A . , 17—19, 22, u o n

K r e y e n b u h l , J., 272n K u h n , H . W . , i43n, 323n K u i n o e l , C . T . , 273n K i i m m e l , W . G . , 17.11, 38n, g i n , g2n, i2on, 13m, i4on, 14m, i43n, 374n, 4 5 m Kupisch, K., ign

K u r s c h , E . , 30on

K a r s , H . W . , 33n

K a s e m a n n , E., 58n, 133, i37n, i3gn, i4on, 366n, 367 Kasting, H . , i37n K a t z , J., 372n Kautsky, K . , i g - 2 1 , 22, 23n, 25, 3on, 357n K a w a s h i m a , S., i4on K e c k , L . E., i26n K e e , A . , 67n K e i m , T . , i3on Keller, P., 233n

la Plata, G . , 368n Labriolle, P. d e , ig4n Lake, K . , 432n L a m p e , G . W . H . , 153-82, 335-51; 1 8 3 ^ 294" L a n d a u , H . , 5in-52n, 55n L a n g , D . M . , 223n-224n

K e l l e r m a n n , B . , i8n K e l l n e r , E., 63n

L e e u w e n , A . T . v a n , 62n L e h m a n n , J., 53-4, 54-5 L e h m a n n , K . , 6$n

Kellner, H . , 202n Kendall, R . E., 5 n K e n n a r d , J. S., 245, 248 K e n n e d y , R . S., 52n 9

Kiefer, O . , I24n Kierdorf, W . , 368n Kilpatrick, G . D . , 117n, 266n, 2 6 7 ^ 268, 270, 2 7 m , 273n, 407n, 4i6n K i m b r o u g h , S. T . , Jr, I38n-i3gn K i n g d o n , H . P., 35n~36n, 235n K i n g s l e y , C . , 56n Kippenberg, H. G., u o n , i n n K l a u s n e r , J., 44-5, 47, 2 3 7 ^ 2go, 4 2 m

L a n g e , C . , 6in L a p i d e , P. E., 47n

Lee, G . M . , 273n

L e h m a n n , M . , i33n L e h m a n n , P. L . , 66n

Leipoldt, J., i s n , 26n, 31, 57n, ig7n Lengle, J., 44on Leszynsky, R . , 23gn Levi, I., i g m , 204n, 205n, 207n Levison, W . , 2o8n Lewis, J., 24n, 2gon L e w y , H . , 33n

Liberty, S., 235n, 4 3 m Liepert, A . , 62n

Lietzmann, H . , 36, 45, 52n, 38gn

482

Index o f authors

Lightfoot, J.,

27m

M a t h e w s , S.,

56n

Lightfoot, J. B., 92, 98, 37511, 46011, 46211, 47m

Mattingley, H . , 243, 247, 376n, 377n Maurenbrecher, M . , 26, 227n

L i g h t f o o t , R . H . , 8411, 46711 Limbeck, M . , 5m L i n d a r s , B., 47211

M a u r e r , C . , 33 m M a u r i c e , F. D . , 57n M a u s e r , U . , 74n M a y b a u m , I., 44n

Lindeskog, G . , 12911, 13m L i n d o , E. H . , 27811 Link, K . , 2911

M a y r , R . v o n , 42 m , 43on, 434n, 435n

L i n n e m a n n , E., 296n, 329^ 356n, 39on Liver, J., 278n, 27911 L o d s , M . , 191, i92n Loesche, G . , i89n, 202n L o e w e , H . , 242n, 26on, 266n, 267n, 27m, 284 L o h m e y e r , E., 73, ii3n, 224n, 272, 33311,

M e c k s , W . A . , 22on

M e a l a n d , D . L., 1 i3n

3 4 3 , 344, 3 7 9 "

Lohse, E., 54n, i33n, i38n, i39n, 14m, i43n, 302n, 3 2 5 ^ 329^ 390, 392n, 399n, 40on Loisy, A . , 267n, 336n Losch, S., 29n, ig8n L u c o c k , H . E., 56n L u n d s t e r n , A . C . , i2n L i i n i n g , H . , 6in

M e h r i n g , F., 21 M e i n h o l d , P., i3n

Meinertz, M . , 336n M e n d n e r , S., 2i5n, 2i6n, 2i7n M e n z i e s , A . , 71, 72

Merkel, H . , 129-44; 33n, 96n, i35n, i36n, 140 M e r x , A . , ii2n, u 6 n , i23n, i27n, 2i3n, 2i9n, 22m, 226n, 227n, 276n, 2

6

3 5 5 " , 4 3 " , 4 3 " , 4 3 9 " , 44", 4 4 5 " , 45°" M e s h o r e r , Y . , 248 M e t z , J. B., 62n, 63

Metzger, B . , 449n M e y e r , A . , 1 i2n,

Lutgert, W . , 449n

113n

M e y e r , E., 2i3n, 237n, 239n, 42m M e y e r , R . , ii9n, i29n, 23on, 2 3 3 ^ 273n, 2g8n M e y e r , W . , 375n

L u t h e r , M . , 375

Luthi, K . , 385-6 L u z , U . , i36n

M e y e r s , E. M . , 1 i o n M c C a b e , H . , 66n M a c c o b y , H . , 48-9,

Michaelis, C . , i2on Michaelis, J. D . , 266n, 278n, 286n

5m

M a c D o n a l d , J., 437n M a c D o n n e l l , J. C . , 387n Machovec, M.,

Michaelis, W . ,

84n

M i c h e l , O . , ii4n, i29n, 13m, 234n, 324, 366n, 37 m

23-4

M a c M u l l e n , R . , i22n, i83n, i85n, i87n

M i g u e z B o n i n o , J., 64, 65n,

M a c m u r r a y , J., 24n,

Milik, J. T . , 397n Miller, F. G . B., 475n

35n

M a d d e n , F. W . , 242n Maier, H.,

63n

M a n d e l b a u m , B . , 28on

M i l n e , J. G . , 247 M i l t o n , J., 11

M a n e k , J.,

Minear, P. S., 340, 345n

97n

M a n g o l d , W . , 3 7 m , 374n M a n s o n , T . W . , 7 m , 77, 78, 8$n,

86n,

87-8, 265^ 269, 288-9, 29m, 294n, 459n, 462n Margalioth, M . , 393n M a r g o l i o u t h , D . S., 19m M a r g u l l , H . J., 58n M a r q u a r d , F. W . , 36511 M a r s c h , H . ( B . Saklatvala), 55n

M a r s h , J., 2g2n M a r s h a l l , P., 59n M a r t i n , R . P., 83n

66n

M i r a n d a , J. P., 66n M o b i u s , G . , 445 M o f f a t t , J . , 154 M o h l e r , A . , 3on M o l t m a n n , J., 63, 67n

M o m m s e n , T . , 176, 179, 354n, 357n, 358n, 359n, 363n, 373n, 4i5n, 42911, ôn, 4 3 4 " , 435, 441"

M o n a t , P., i88n, 190 Montefiore, C . G . , 267n, 270, 284 M o n t e f i o r e , H . W . , 22 m , 270, 273,

Martindale, J. R . , i88n

462n M o n t e i r o , M . , 2i8n

M a r x s e n , W . , 73, 74, 79

M o o r e , A . F.,

Mastin, B. A . , 322n, 467^ 472n

Morris, C . , 1, 59-60

45n

276,

Index o f authors M o r r i s , J., i88n M o r r i s o n , C . D . , 263n

Pfeiffer, A . , 28n Pfleiderer, O . , 21, 237n

M o u l e , C . F. D . , 91-100; 43n, 85n, 2iyn, 266n, 267n, 2 6 9 ^ 275n

Pickl, J., 36n-37n, 439n

M i i l l e r , G . A . , 448n, 4 5 m M u n c k , J., 4 m , 88n, 37gn M i i n t z e r , T . , 365 M u r a w s k i , F., 36n, 54n

N a p i e r , T . M . , 335, 349 N a u m a n n , F., 27, 29n N a u m a n n , G . , 24n N e e l y , A . P., 64n Neill, S., 292n Nestle, C . W . , 20on Nestle, E., 268, 276n

Pike, D . K . , 52n Pike, J. A . , 52, 54n Pippidi, D . M . , 434n

Plummer, A . , 227n, 42gn P o b e e , J. S., 6on P o h l m a n n , R . v o n , 29-30, 34 P o h l m a n n , W . , 20m, 3 7 m Pole ( P o o l e ) , M . , 275n Poterie, I. d e la, 46911 Powell, E.,45on Preisker, H . , 367, 4 6 m Preiss, T . , 468 Pzillas, F., 36n

N e u m a n , A . A . , 204n, 205n, 207n

Rabin, I. A . , 28on, 283n

N e u s n e r , J., 28on N i c k e l s b u r g , G . W . E., 329n N i e b u h r , R . , 64 N i e t z s c h e , F. W . , 30, 56, i i 2 n N i n e h a m , D . E . , 43n, 7 1 - 2 , 77 N o c k , A . D . , 88 N o e l , C . , 57n, 235n, 2gon N o r m a n , E. R . , 57n N o t o w i t s c h , N . , 5on

R a g a z , L . , 56n, 6$n R a h n e r , K . , 62n R a n o w i t s c h , A . B . , 23n R a s c h k e , H . , 25n, 28n, 38n R a w l i n s o n , A . E . J., 71 R e g a r d , P. F., 355n R e g n a u l t , H . , 349 R e g n e r , F., 26n R e g u l , J., 75n Rehkopf, F., 424n R e i c h m u t h , J. A . , isn

O ' C a l l a g h a n , J., 78n O e p k e , A . , I34n O e r t e l , F., 374n O h l y , F., 45on

Reicke, B . , 145-52; 147", H9*> 37 3 9 450, 464 309 422 348 86 86, 339, 342, 343: 345ri, 346, 347, 348, 349 33> 33i, 333, 456 173 461 1 i8n, 401 374 401 167 6

jeremian

6 7 7 7 22 23 26 27 29 33 37 38 50

: 14 '-'5 : :: H - I 5 :: 5 : 5 :: 18 :: 4ff : 7 : 15 : 18 : i ff : 3

::

:

7

375 39 191, 33i, 333, 456 161 164 400 161 255" 372n 400 288n 255" 155 6

Ezekiel

18 : 10

188, 191

Index o f References 21 : 250° 24 : 21 28 : 25 34 34 • 5 34 : 22-4

255" 161 309 2I2I1, 213, 217, 220, 464 462, 464 464

164 333, 334, 456

12 : 3 14 : 21 Malachi

1 :8 3-4 3 : i-3,

8f

23f 4 : 5f 3 :

Daniel

1 2 4 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 9 9 11 11

:2 : 37"" : 30 : 18 : 5,6 : 13 : i3f : 21 : 28 : n-14

: 24-7 : 27 : 14 : 31

11 : iff 3

12 : 11

373 373n 373" 291 373" 29m 464 85, 389, 39°, 400 86 85 291 81 81 162 191 162 81 162

25611 461 458 393"

289

APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Apocalypse of Baruch(2 Baruch)

3 7 70 80

: : : :

5 1 4 1-3

169 155 11311 155

Apocalypse of Elijah

33 : iff

u8n

Apocalypse of Zephaniah 125 Ascension of Isaiah

4 :6 5 : 13 11 : 19

12311 42m 436

Hosea

9

:

460

1 0

:

1 8

3 137 : 10-17

396 396

1

306

Micah

3 : 12 5 • i-3 7 :6

161 169 287, 288, 292-3

Zephaniah :

112

Baruch

1 : 1 if

372n

/ Enoch (Ethiopic)

Jonah

3

Assumption of Moses

1 : 12

Amos

1 6

36711

37-71 48 : 4 48 : 41T 52 : 4 69 : 3 89 : 56, 66 90 : 28f 100 : 2 1091T

401 401 8511 401 22m 170 396-7 292 112

Epistle ofJeremiah

n8n

Haggai

2 : 2off

255"

Zechariah

3 4 6 9 9

:8 :7 : 12 :9

11 : 17

400 255" 400 49 319, 321, 322, 324, 46711 465

489

2 Esdras

1-2 ( = '5Ezra') 6 : 26 11 : 1 to 12 : 3 13 : 61, 14 : 35 14 : 50

11711, 393" 155 235" 234"

Jubilees

278 397 28811

1 : 27 23 : 16, 19

49°

Index o f References

Judith

Sibylline Oracles

7 : 15 14 : 11 Letter of Aristeas

i87ff

32211 439 278 373" 36611, 371

/ Maccabees

1 : 54 2 : 24-6 2 : 28 4 : 19-25, 33 4 : 46 4 : 55, 5 : 45~54 7 : 33 7 : 37 8 9 = 39 10 : 39 10 : 86 11.2 11.60 13 • 37 13 : 4i 13 : 43-8, 49-51 13 : 5i H

14 : 7 14 : 41 •3 : 2if : 47 : 27 :2 : 23 :

1 6

: 1-8 :7 : 20 :4

2 and 4 Maccabees

42 m

33i"

Odes of Solomon

28 : 10 Psalms of Solomon

8.18 17, 18 i7-5ff

11711 35iff 21811 356ff n8n 6 ff 66 11711 27-30, " 5 -•27 155 11711, 1 i8n 205fT 3

13 13 13 13 15

: : : : :

9 15 i ff 7

24 2

11 i n 112 111 11 i n 322n

Testamentum Adae

3 : aff

11711, 1 i8n

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

401

24 Tobit

1 : 6-8 7 : 1 Wisdom of Solomon

NEW

278 322n 322n, 329

TESTAMENT

Matthew

27811 320 429" 22911 162 439 27811 456 46711 47011 322

3 Maccabees

2.10

: : : : : :

Sirach

162 456 163 320 393" 320 37211 33"> 475" 32211 27811 320 322 320 322 25611 320 322, 325, 46711 377 320 393"

2 Maccabees

3 4 4 5 6 8 9 10 10 12 14

1 1 3 3 4 8

12611 112 375, 377 400-1 25611

1 : 2 2 : 3 : 3 : 3 : 3 : 3 : 3• 3 : 4 : 4 : 4 : 4 : 4• 4 : 4 : 4 : 4 : 4 : 4 : 4 : 5 : 5 :

18-25 2, 4-6 2 7 8-10 11 1 if 14, 15 '5 1-4 3 5-7 6 8-10 9 10 11 12 13 17 25 3 9

268n 268n 329 226 2g8n 460 294 461 236n 235, 236 .463 234 461 234 463 235 84n 235" 461 269 226 i84n 10411, 121 i04n

Index o f References 17 25 26 32 39-40 40 41 44 46 i6ff 24 6 5ff 1 if 2lf 22 34 I

3 5f

6 8 8-10 9 9-10 16-23 17 17-25 25 32f 33 34 34ff 2 2-6 3 5 6 7 12 12-14 i8f 25 28 29 i» 7 9-H 10 22-37 24 29 i6f 3-5

292 47011 258 142 10711 337 8, 12611 8, 10711 13611 135 456 45011 137 276, 283 138 134 21711 269 "9 116 137, 283 21711 119 272 116 336 7211 168 146 288 395 289 8, 338 387-94 218 23m 461 12011, 2 3 m 334 120 11311 1411, 4611, 26011, 292 463 135" 36 127 127, 128 21211 139" 393" 345 392 397 292 334 211, 218 21411

14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 *5 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22

5 12 13 15, 17, 19 21 11 24 29, 3° 3of 38 1 5 6, 1 if 13-20 13-23 14 16 17-19 22 1-8 17 24-7 25 25f 26 1 6 12 i5ff 17 i8f 2 ff 34 40 9 3

'7 19 20-3 2 5 8 9, 18-22 20-2 21 1 6

32 33-41 4iff 43 7 10 15-22 17 19

215 213, 21411 214, 227, 461, 463 214 214, 462 398 13711, 283 219 119, 120 462 29811 222 29811 268 393 5, 26011 6911 464 410 268 410 26m, 265, 266-86 425" 465 37i 260 283 21711, 21911 160 13611 268 137 258 465 142 411 97 432 395 410 322 467 322 295" 4011 457 13611 13611, 23 m, 460 164 166 164 165 45611 249" 257" 241, 248, 25811

492


Matthew - contd.

22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27

21 7-12 21 33 35f 37f

37-9 if 2 3 9 9-22 15 i6ff 20 24-6 25 2ff 2 3 3f> 5 4, 43 50-4 5i-4 52 52-3 52-4 55 57 59-68 6of 61 63 64 65 6 ff if 19 20 24 25 26 37 37ff 38 38ff 39 39*" 40 42f 54 60 65 3

5

Mark

25811 97, 289 160 284 460 165 170 164 397 161, 170 81 337 146 162 145 14m, 163 462 6in 127 137 466 304 466 410 347 335 126 293 10411 445" 299, 304 299 455 126, 158, 390, 397 391, 464, 473 389 473" 145 299 447, 474 43211 447" 165, 43 m, 44711 436, 472n 355n 145 47i, 474 146 359 390, 455 158 473 474" 324 44411

1:1 I 1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4

69, 8311 1-13 70 11311 5 11 69, 326, 328 11911 13 8311, 41511, 461 H 14 to 8 : 26 74 i 4 t p 9 • 50 70 83" *5 i6f, 20 138 22 33i 23411, 23611 23 6911, 81, 291, 328 24 328 27 2f 324 128 31 81 34 22711 44 72, 84, 250 1 to 3 : 6 7 324 10 86 13 " i3f 115, 13611 14 13611 15 I5f 449" 15-17 135" i8f 135 20 84 2lfT 28811 23 to 3 • 5 83 25f 139" 27 139 86 2f 1 345 if 139 1-6 393" 2 410 4 139 6 228, 250, 30011, 331, 466 18411 7 11 326, 428 12 81 21211 14 i6ff 13611 16-19 84 1 i6n 17 18 3, 5, 8on, 94 20 21211 22 223, 24011, 397 23-30 392 28811 3i-5 70, 72, 86 i-34 nf 82 26ff 143 7

6

7

Index o f References 4 : 26-9 4 = 28 4 : 35 to 6 : 44 4 : 4 5 : iff 5 : 1-20 5 : 3-5 5 : 7 5 : 21, 25 5 : 26 5 • 28f 6 6 : 2 6 : 7 6 : 8-9 6 : 13 6 : 14-16 6 : 14-18 6 : 15 6 : 16 6 : 17-29 6 : 26 6 29 6 30 off 6 6 3«> 33 6 33f 6 34 6 37 6 44 6 45 6 45 : 10 6 52f 6 53 6 54f 6 55 7 . 1 7 : iff 7 : 1-23 7 : 6 7 : 14-19 7 • 15 7 : i8f 7 : 24 7 : 24ff 7 : 27 7 : 28 7 : 3i 7 : 3i-7 7 : 37 8 : 9 8 : 10 8 : 11-13 8 : 13 8 : i4ff 8 ' 15 1

3

t 0

8

82 7811 72, 73 324, 328 4011 73 324 69 22m 97 4011 211 328 212, 21311 336 21311 327 226 290, 463 22611 84 21411 411 213 227 212, 213 462 213, 214, 219, 464 21511 22in, 462 222, 227, 232n", 463 72 78n 227n 238n 227n 223, 24cm 140 73 249 83 139, 4°» 398 211 227 137 283 n

!

4 5

on

227 211 119 224 222 24on 236n 223, 233 io6n, 222, 24on

493

227 8 : 22 82n 8 : 22f 8 : 22-6 319 8 : 27 227 326-7 8 : 27-9 • 319, 326, 328, 330, 464 8 : 27-3O 8 : 27-33 223, 393 8 : 27 to 10 : 52 74 8 : 27 to 13 : 37 74 8 : 29 6911, 4 4 81, 464 8 : 30 84, 239n, 450 8 : 3i 8 : iff 43i 326-7 8 : 3i-3 8 : 31 to 10-45 319 8 : 32 190, 24on 8 : 32-4 84 8 : 33 235, 236, 394, 464 84n, 126, 232 8 : 34 83n 8 : 35 8 : 36 239 87, 88n, 128, 3i4n 8 : 38 82n, 87, i28n 9 : 1 69 9 : 7 82 0 : 9 84 9 * 12, 13 24on 9 14 84 9 22 4on 9 28 2i3n 9 30 off 43i 9 319 9 30-2 84, 4i5n-4i6n, 450 9 3i 2i3n, 269, 270 9 33 283 9 42 10 1 7°, 227 10 : 1-31 116 10 : 1-52 70 284 10 : 5 141 10 : 6-8 10 : 9 141 127, 411 10 • 14 10 : 18 97 8 n 10 : 29 10 : 32f 43i 10 : 32-4 319 10 : 33 432 10 : 3 3 f 432 10 : 3 3 f 84 10 ' 35-40 395 10 : 35-45 85, 89 86, 307n, 423n 10 ' 45 10 : 46 89, 319 10 : 46-52 295, 3*9, 323 10 : 47, 50 3i9 10 : 52 3*9, 322 6

3

n

3

3

494


Mark - contd. I I : iff

12511 II : 467 n : I-IO 319,323,324,325>326, 328, 330 11 1 to 13 : 37 70, 75 II 275 2-5 11 7f 3i9 11 8 3i9, 467 n 3i9 9, 1 of II 295" 11 12 292 12511 11 I2ff 12-14 II 295" II 13 459" 11 124 15, 11 323, 33i, 332, 333, 15-19 334, 396 l6 n 124", I25n, 456 191, 284, 40911 n 17 II 39", 456 i7f 408, 455, 466 11 18 11 i9 > 20-5 295" n 22f 457 126 11 23 12411 11 27 11 27ff 113" 448 n 27-33 11 : 27 to 12 : 34 32 408 n 32 12 • i - 5 344 12 • i - 9 164 12 : 8 37n 276, 283 12 • 9 12 : 12 408, 455 12 : i f 142 12 : i3ff 250 8, 249, 265, 408 12 : 13-17 12 : 13-27 72 12 14 241, 26m, 40911, 411, 425n 12 • 15 125, 241 12 : 16 241, 24411 242, 284 12 : 17 12 : 22 242 12 • 35 40911 12 : 42 127 397 13 : i f 80, 81, 161, 398 13 : 2 70, 72 13 : 3-37 81 13 : 4 157 13 : 5-6 462, 465 13 : 6 12611 13 ' 7 79 13 • 9 45°" 13 : g f 1 0

f

3

13 • 13 : 13 : 13 : 13 : 13 : 13 • 13 • 14 • 14 : 14 • 14 : 14 : 14 : 14 : 14 • 14 : 14 : 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

9-13 10 14 i f 18 21-3 26 2ff 4

3

I

if 1 to 15 47 2 7 9 12-16 21 22 28 43 47 48 49 53 55ff 55-64 55-65 57 57f 57-9 58

14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15

59 60 61 6if 6iff 62 6 f 64 6 ff 65 : 69 : 70 : 1 : i-5 : 1-15 : 2

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

2fT 2-5 2-20 3 3f 3-5 4 5

3

4

337 79, 8311, 12611 161 4011, 48, 73, 80 163 463 74, 85, 86 12611 295", 297 466 70 408 127 83" 275, 325 85 4i9" 44", 73 445" 335, 342, 343 4611, 346, 471 4611, 85, 40911 29811, 299 4611 4611, 385-402, 466 29811, 299 8on 455 8on 158, 170, 284, 329, 404 457 389 328, 329, 473 69, 87, 409, 4 1 1 - 1 2 404 42211 470 473" 485 42 m , 47011 340 343, 42 m 299, 388, 415 405, 407 466 328,329,356,404,409, 412,474 4611 4611, 389, 403, 406 328 418, 420 404 356 389 403, 420, 42211

Index o f References 15 5 15 15 15 15 15 '5 15 *5 15 15 *5 15 *5

7 8 9 9, 10, 11 12 14 15 15-19 15-20 i6ff 16-20 18 i9f 23 26

*5 15 15 *5

27 27-39 28 29

15

30 32

15 15 *5 15 15 15

35 36 37 38 8f 39

J

15 15 15 16 16 16

3

: : : :

42fT 43 44 1-8 7 8

3611, 146, 25711, 443 43211 425 403 474 403, 404 431, 436, 441, 47211 330 440 42 m 329 403 36011 442 328, 329, 330, 403, 404, 474 366, 471, 474 329 44211 158, 28411, 329, 359, 455 329 328,329,354,358,403, 40911,411,463,473 343 12511 329 8on, 87 4011 69, 87, 328, 329, 444, 47411 44411 115 447" 70 73, 74 74"

Luke

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3f «5 33 53 68 68ff 25 38 46 1 2 7 8f 10-15 15 i6f

112 99 411 412 11211 237" 11211 115 237" 411 175, 23611 207, 304 21411, 22511 460 113 458 461

3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 °7 7 : 7 • 7 : 7 : 7 : 7 : 7 : 7 : 7 : 7 : 7 : 8 : 8 : 9 9 : 9 : 9 : 9 :

20 1-8 2-4, 5-8 6 9-12 10 16 16-19 i ff 7

18 19 20 21 3i, 44 1-11 4 21 36 37 5 6 6-11 7 13 "5 17 i7f 19 20-6 2 f 7

27-9 29 32 2ff 3

I if

5 17 i8ff 18-23 19 21 22 23 24 33^ 42 49 3 43 1 3-4 9 10

495

22511 463 46m 342 46111 235" 5611 461 11911 12011 175 258 409 42311 275 28611 409, 4*o 40811, 411 40811 12711, 13911 345 393" 410 21211 93 12011, 18411, 192, 42311 121 120, 121 121 144 10711 337 13611 144 11911 12011 219, 22111, 23411 410 42311 22611 117, 461 23m 1 ign, 12011, 219, 22111 117, 22111, 334 12011 214 23111 258 409 115, 27411 97 211, 218 119 336 22711 214

496


Luke - contd.

9 11 9 12, 13 9 • 14 9 • 16 9 : 18-22 9 • 23, 25 9 •• 26 9 • 4i 9 • 49, 50 9 • 2ff 9 : 52-6 9 • 54 9 = 58 9 : 59-62 10 : 3t 5-8 10 : 7 10 : 9 10 : 13 10 : 17-18 10 18 10 23 10 . 23f 10 29 10 301T 10 3o-5 10 35 11 H-23 11 15 11 18 11 20 11 2 ff 11 52 11 53 12 8 12 8f 12 22 12 32 12 43 12 49 12 49/-53 12 511T 12 59 13 1 13 i-3 13 : ~9 13 : 6-9 13 : 28f 13 : 3 13 • 33 13 : 34-5 14 : 11 14 : 13 H : 16-24 H : 18 14 : 26 5

9

l

1

214, 22311 214 214, 462 214 393 411 128 410 411 137 10411, 46111 1 i6n 128 28811 336 340 "9 219 336 31011 . 137, 219 334 411 136 137 258 392 397 411 143 137 411 409 88n 400 116 26011 410 20, 294 287 287-94, 338 258 95, 96, 423" 10411 32 29511, 460 137, 276, 283 228, 24011 128 164 411 127 166 409 13411, 28811

14 : 33 '5 • 4 ' 5 : 1 iff 15 • 17 15 : 24 16 : 13 16 : 16 16 : I9-3I 17 : 2 17 : 5 17 : 11 17 : 21 17 : 23 17 : 25 17 : 3 i - 7 17 • 37 18 : 9-"4 18 : 11, 14 18 : 28 18 : 29 18 : 33 18 . 43 19 • 2-10 19 3 19 4 19 8 11 19 19 19 30 19 37 19 37f 19 38 19 4iff 19 : 4 1 - 4 19 : 42 19 : 43-4 19 : 45** 19 : 45-8 19 : 47 19 : 48 20 : 1 20 : 6 20 : 9 20 : 9-16 20 • 19 20 : igff 20 : 20 20 : 20ff 20 : 20-6 20 : 21 20 : 22 20 : 24 20 : 25 20 : 26 21 : 5f 21 : 6

14 21911 137 411 409 456 26011, 292 317 283 21211 137 126 465 84 388 34i 135" 411 34i 14 412 322 135" 412 40911 258 414 253" 410 322, 409, 467 416 10411, 322 26011 165 10411 163 410 396 455 408 409", 455 408 409 164 406 25m 25 m, 409 42411 24911, 408, 413, 414 40911 25711, 411 25811 25811, 409 242, 408, 409 397 161

Index o f References 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23

17 18-28 20 22 37 if 2 3 4 6 14 i f 4

I7-I9

21 21-2 21-34 22 23 2 ff 24-30 25-38 27 28 29 29f 3if 33 35-8 36 36ff 37 38ff 40 45 46 48 49 49-51 5i 52 53 56-62 61 63 6 ff 66-71 67-9 67-70 70 7i 1 if i-3 i-5 2 5

3

337 338 162 163 128, 40911 4i5" 406 23711 346 237", 346 21211 405 340 346 340 336 346, 348 409 34i 414 190 414 461 340 412 3ion 411 190, 290, 335-51 33" 44" H5 20 425" 410 42511 346 190 335, 336, 342 10411 439 237", 343, 348, 440 39i 392 39i 42m 299, 389, 39i, 473" 464 409, 473 42911 4i5" 412 42611 406 407 14311, 145, 194, 26211 355,404,406,

23

3

23 • 4 23 4-5 23 • 5 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

: 6f : 6ff : 6-12 : 7 : 9 : 12 • 13 : i f : 16 : 18 : i8f • 19 : 20 : 22 : 23 ' 25 : 27-31 : 28 : 33 : 34 • 35 : 36 : 37

23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24

: • : : : : •

38 39 40 42 43 48 53

: ' : : •

7 9 20 21 53

4

J

407-14,423, 42511, 463, 473 405, 406, 409, 42411, 42611, 474 405, 409, 412, 414, 425 406 194, 408, 412, 423, 42611 413 42111 40911 250, 423 420 423, 424 42611 4 H , 425 414, 42611, 428, 441 427 40811, 414 474 414 405, 4 H , 425 432n 40811, 414 164 361 417 10411, 42211, 429 411, 414, 44411, 473 442n, 443 34611, 35511, 358, 414, 473 356 358, 4 H 190, 346 23811, 412 356 164 324 238 45°", 4 5 195, 231 432 231 276 1

John

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

: : : : : : :

12 14 18 19 19 to 3 : 36 24 29

497

310 316, 47411 144 223 305" 223, 298 1 i6n 29611

498


John - contd. I I I

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4i 47 49 1 4 11 13-22 15 17 18-20 18-21 19 19-21 20 21 23 2 ff 23-5 24 3

I

I-IO

1-2 I 2 4 5 i f 16 26 34 36 if iff 1-6 3 4-42 7-42 21-3 22 3i-4 35 42 43^ 43-5 46-53 46-54 2f 2-47 5-18 18 19 19-47 22-47 25-9 27 28f 4

464, 473 465 22211, 464, 473 29611 296 317 296n, 453 450 456, 457, 461 12411 456 28411, 397, 457 390 ^ 8 , 457, 458, 46011 456, 457 302 23m 30211, 317 22211 29811 3" 30211 249", 317 457 46m 29611 307, 3 i i 4i5" 316 22511 22611 225 30211 22511 225 30211 158 26511 46m 305" 22211, 311 225 29911, 30211 317 30211 299 29911, 30211, 30511, 312 299 299, 313, 3i7, 473 300, 30511 299 468n 316 469, 474" 316

22611 211, 217, 23611 66-71 : 1-14 462 : 1-15 • 1 to 7 : 13 299m : 2 317 216, 219, 221, 30511 : 4 : 11 23011 : i3f 215 : 14 229, 231, 462 216,223,23211, : i f 233,3 2,3 7,46 6 i fT 215 216, 463, 464 6 15 6 i6f 222 6 231* 216 23811 6 24ff 215, 22211 6 26 6 26-35 317 6 30-5 456 6 33, 37, 39 3" 6 46 224 6 51-8 456 6 60 23211, 312 316 6 63 41611 6 64 6 65 3" 6 66 232, 24011 6 66-9 464 6 66 to 7 : 10 312 6 69 293 41611 6 7i 1 464 7 46m 7 1-4 305" 7 2 464 7 2-9 21311 7 3ff 46111 7 4-6 296 7 6-8 302, 312 7 10-13 3°o, 3*3° 7 12 305" 7 13, 15 299, 30211 312 7 15-24 316 7 i6f 305n 17 7 474 7 • 24 299 7 : 25 464 7 : 25-52 465 7 : 28f 3i3 7 : 29 296, 29911, 465 7 : 30 298, 299, 301, 465 7 : 32 3ion 7 : 37 296, 29911, 31011 7 : 39 46811 7 : 44 298, 299, 301 7 : 45

5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

: 35

4

I

4

n

I


7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

45-52 49 2, 5 13-18 15 20 25 28 30-6 44 45** 57 59 i-39 13 13-16 22 33 34 35-8 39 40 41 to 10 : 1

IO

nff

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

11-13 12 i r 14-16 15 16 17 19-21 22 22-39 24, 25-30 27

IO

1 i-5 1-21 2 3 6, 7f 7-18 8 10-18

4

10 10 10

2 f

IO IO

2gf

10 IO

10 IO IO

7

28 29 30 30-3 31 32-3 33 33-6

•

312, 36811 128 41611 46811 474 416 465 46011 312 160, 276 46811 459n 217, 312, 466 312 301 298 157, 3 i 5 314 3*4. 3 i 5 3Hn 315 29811 3H 464-5 313" 315 312 47011 316 315 3H 123, 3 1 3 " 3i3 123 3^3" 22211 317 315 309 309, 3!2 309 314 297, 305" 315 314 317" 307, 3*6 3^7" 3i7 3^7" 317 3 > 3*7 312, 466 178 3i3 473 00

10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

36 39 40-2 40 to 12 4i i-45 2 3 3ff 4 5 11 16 21 25f, 28 35 36 40 42 43f 45ff 6f 4&-57 47 47f 471T 47-57 48 50 50-2 5i 54 56 57 1 1-19 4 6 9-i9 1 of 4

I2f

12-19 13, 14 "5 16 i7f 19 20-3 23 24 24-6 26 3i 3if 3i-3 32f .

473" 217, 466 30211 50 305 42711 30211 302 29711, 316 21311 296, 31 o n 297n, 316 297n 24on 4i6n 3i6n 316 297n 3i6n 2i5n 316 415" 298 466 3i7n 195, 47i 442n 295-3 8 166, 363, 457 6, 363 474 449 192, 467 442n 47i, 472 467 3i2n 4i6n 123 312 296, 317 467 321 467 322, 467 456, 467 296 427n 310 296, 31 o n 456 310 3ii 31 o n , 469 310 44-50, 468n 312 1

499

500


John - contd.

12 : 42 12 : 2 f 12 : 49 12 : 13 : 1 13 : 1 to 16 : 33 13 : 2 13 • 3ff 13 • 9 13 : 23 13 : 29 13 : 3i 13 : 34f 14 ' 2f, 12 14 : 26 14 3of 15 18-21 15 22-7 16 if 16 1-4 16 7-11 16 20-2 16 32 17 1 if 17 17 4, 5 17 6 17 12 18 17 17 20 17 20-3 17 21-3 17 24 18 1 to 19 : 16 18 1 to 19 : 30 18 3 4

18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

6 8 10 . IO-I1

11 12 : 12-14 : 12-28 * 13 : '4 : 5 J

: igff

: : : : : :

19-21 19-24 20 21 22 24

29811 312 305" 316 31011 299 41611 3ion 27411 29711 274 296 144 3ii 467 31011, 468 337 46811 127 337 46811 3ii 3i3 31011 296 3ion 3ii 307 3*5" 310 3" 310 31on, 311 299 312 298, 299, 301, 307, 349, 439, 470, 472 360 42on, 470 1i6n, 190 335, 348 470 415, 439, 470 299 307 304 303 115, 297n, 425n 363 458 299 360, 420, 465 360 428n, 47on 304, 415 n

18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

28 28 to 19 29 to 19

18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

36-7 37 39 40

19 19 19 19 19 19

8 9 11 12 12-16 13

2gf

30 31 33 33-5 33 to 19 35 36

1 2 2-5 5 6 7

300 21 312 16 468n 473 i84n, 417 416, 419, 475n 417, 468, 473 308 6 473 416 15, 348, 420, 440, 470, 47i i04n 420, 474 427 47i, 474 30m 428, 472n 440 247 429 4i9n, 427n, 428 195, 300, 313, 317, 4

19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21

: 14 : 5 : 16 J

l

: 9 : igf

: 2of : 21 : 22 : 23 : 26 ' 3i :

: • : • : : : : : : •

3

iff

32, 34 35 40 4i 1 2 11-18 21 28 30 3i

: iff

: 3

455, 420 415, 412, 474 173,

i n 9

470, 473, 474 469, 47i 415, 420 415, 428, 43on, 469 429, 469 448, 469 426 474

415, 415, 177, 3", 3i2n 362 358, 474 444" 177 297" 300 443 177 454 444" 324 3i6n 297" 3i6n 315" 87n 301 99 215" 348

Index o f References 21 21 21

21511 29711 454

5ff 7, 20 24

Acts I

2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 78 8 9 10 10 IO IO IO

11 11 12 12

13 4 23 36 46 14 14-15 !, 2

?

if

6 IO

13 14-16 25-7 27 17 21 28 30 31 36 36f 36-9 37 1 7 9 1 iff 11-14 i3f 14 1 2-53 42 48 5i 52 58 4-"»

36 1 3, 37 37-40 38 39 47 17 28-30 1

9'» 98 93 290 409 159' 432, 433" 23011 276 23011, 43211 167 146 149 304 433 11511 146 450 447 181 147' 304" 47011 147 432n, 433 23011 161, 411 462 147 161 147 391, 449" 147 42711 149 390 146, 158, 455 149 160 433 4i 153 159' 167 43on H7 411 H9 42311 75 127 432n, 433 411 411 148 7, 181 149

30

12 2, 3 12 2-4 12 7 13 8, 10 13 28 13 29 13 3i 13 50 14 19 15 2 15 5 15 19-29 15 3i 16 6, 27 17 3' 4 17 5-8 17 7 17 13 17 28 18 2 18 12 18 I2ff 18 12-17 18 25 18 26 18 3 3 * 19 31 20 29 20 29-31 20 30 20 33 21 21 t o 23 21 18 21 : 20, 23f 21 27 21 27f 21 27-32 21 28 21 30-3 21 3 i f 21 38 22 1-21 22 3 22 2 f 22 25-9' 3° 23 3-5 23 6 23 7 12 23 23 15 23 i6ff 23 23, 28f, 29 24 2 24 2-5 24 5 4

14811 147 103 410 432, 447 430 42311 40811, 414 40811, 414, 43811 145 39i 148 199 411 412 40811, 414 412, 413, 463 40811, 414 149 94' 148 197 79 40811, 414 151 3 9 222 411 338 337 410 340 98 47i 145, 149, 151 151 414 40811 151 146, 149, 151 332 47i 161, 332, 462, 471 160 151 47211 472 345 149, 160 98 151 472 42 472 410 4i3 188 6

n

501

502


Acts - contd. 24 : 6 24 : 10-21 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 27 28 28 28 28 28

: H : 17 : 23 : : : • : : :

3 4 7f 9 11 20 2-23

413 199" 410 411 151 411

• 4 • 43 : i ff

413 99 H9 99 160, 413 410 411 96

• : : :

410 36211 160 160

7

19 21 24 26-8

28 : 30 Romans 1 : 7 10 : 3 10 • 4 11 : f f 11 : 1 1 - 1 2 , 25-6 11 : 25 11 : 28f 12 : 14-21 12 : 16 12 • *9 7

13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 16

2 146, 149

: 1 : : : : :

i~7 4 5 5f 5-7 7 : 8

• 13 370 : 2-6 : if : 3 : 20 : 26 •• n

/ Corinthians 1 : 12 1 :

J

5

149

159 375" 144 157 83" 168 79" 276 10511 374 144 28611, 365-83 10511, 151 161 149 36611 425 386 258, 26m 61 '5

1

83 370 10511 192 77 145 367, 370

151 22811

3 6 6 6 10 11 11 11

: : : : : : : :

13 13 H 14 16

: : : :

16-17 11 18

10511 158 381 41811, 4 2 m

19 33 to 11 1

158 192 10511

7f 26

134" 70 10511 10511 370" 134" 10511

2 33 34* 9

2 Corinthians 6 : 16 10 : 1 Galatians 1 : 14 2 : 3-5 2 : 7 2 : 9 2 : 11-14 2 : 12 2 : i8f 4 : 4= 4 : 4 : 4 : 5= 6 ::

17 21-31 25-6 29 30 3 16

Ephesians 2 :: 12 2 :: 19 2 :: 21 4 : 2, 2off ;

Philippians 1 : *3 1 : 27 • / 2 : iff 2 *5 3 : 2 3 : 2, 6, 19 3 : 2f a : 20 0 : 22 4 :

:

Colossians 3 : 12-15 4 : 10

158 10511, 192 9*. 98, 157 151, 370 99 149 148 151 15^ 52 151 151 160 J

158 370" 276 170 375"

19911 160 158 10511

149 374 10511 410 450" 15 276 158, 378-9 149 1

1051-1 77


/ John

/ Thessalonians 2 : 14 2 : i f 2 :: 14-16 4

2 : 2 : 2 :: 16 3 4 4 5 5 5

:: 4 :: 11

= n

:

:• 3 :: 4 !

2 Thessalonians 2 2 : 3^ 2 : 3-12 2 : 6ff

J

»45> 4 9 "J 436 37011 5

148, 159 6, 447 276 8

i59 3 ° 37011 382 29611, 32211 5

5f

2 : 1 if 3 : i-9 5 : 7

379 162 379

30711

Hebrews 2 : 16 3 7 8 10

• : : :

* 22 6-13 20

134"

/ Peter

3 3 3 6

293 12511, 160, 276 293 12511, 276

: 9 =: 12

158 112n 144 322 2511

: n

: :: 10

7 :: 9 12 :: 7 f 12 :: 7 - 1 2 H :: iff H :: 20 17 19 20 21 22

310" 134" 2511 2511

:: 9 f : 15-21 :• 9 :: 2

293 158 158

: 15

45°"

NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA Acts of John

178, 218

Acts of Paul

i88n, 21811

Acts of Pilate

33' 173-82, 184, 185,

77

154' 157 160 23011 160 160 87 >58

•52 161, 3 7 ' •58 26311, 366 266ll, 286

208 n8n 178

I

1.1,2

440

4 4-3

179 419" 43011

4-3f 9 9-i 9-2

179 178 44m

9-5 IO.I

2 : 5 i ff 2 13-15 2 '5 2 17 2 2 24

373" 37i in

13-' 14

4 4

3 : 13 5 : 13

152, 373" 76

Acts of Thomas

3

249"

Revelation 1 : 16 2 : 9 2 :: 12, 16

340 356, 447

James 4 : 2

16

338

6 : 13 Philemon : 24

Jude

375' 377 381

380

144

3 : 23

380

/ Timothy

2 :

355 354" 355 177' 178 439" 44811

10.13 11 12.1

47, 27511

Egerton Papyrus 2

23411, 249, 265, 267, 41511

2 Peter 3 : 3^

503

338

Epist. Apost. 5 21811

504


Gospel of Barnabas

Gospel to the Hebrews

Gospel of Nicodemus

Philo

12711

Gospel of the Nazarenes

Gospel of Peter

JEWISH

276, 42911

12011,174

42311-42411, 44411

2. ff

444" 173 469 355 43811 429" 42 m , 446 354 164, 167 34

3

3 3-7 4.11 5-6 5-7 5.26 10 25 26 Gospel of Thomas Mani's Gospel Marienklage

De Spec. Leg. 1.77

28 m , 282

Vit. Mosis 11.6

2,3,7,33,48", 103, 1 1 3 , I 2 2 n , 371 n

Ant. Jud.

5.138 5-332 6.301 7.40 7-72, 76 7-109 11 325-39 11-342-5 12.140

11811,12311 167

37311

I2.l6off 18411, 35311

35911

Acta SS. Tarachi, Probi, et Andronici 18411 Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs 3 and 5 Apollonius xxxvi-xli Martyrium Cononis

23on

Biblical Antiquities 27 : 3-5,

ACTA MARTYRUM

Acta Pionii

6

Josephus

Passio Petri et Pauli 37

Acta Cypriani

372n 3 9" 96 372n 96 423"

Pseudo-Philo

20511

Acta Catharinae 6

i4on

3°o

250

Preaching of Peter

De Migr. Abr. 8 g f

H3f i6of 276-93 280 299-305

44311

Pistis Sophia

22gn

Legatio

35511, 35811

Martyrium Petri

305, 448

De Decal. 159

4011, 447

WRITINGS

i83n, 187

iv.6

i84n

Martyrdom of Eustathius 223n, 438n Martyrdom of Polycarp

8.1

324

9.2

178

178

12.312, 349 12.406 13299 13.304-6 14.13.10 14-15 1436 14.41 14.74 x i v . 74 14.159 14.163-84 14.194 14.202, 2051", 14219* 14.366 I44I5 15-6

324 302n 324 325 329" 254" 319 319-20 278n 25611 320 372n 230, 3°5 320 345 4i6n 328n i28n 25m 256n 303 435" 25211 44on 334 303

Index o f References 15.105-36 15.160-72 15305 15346 15365 i5-373f 15409 16.12-15 16.35 16.291 17-155-63 17.146 17-155-63 17-173-7 17.190 17.194-239 17.204 17.213-18. 17.269-85 17.271 17.278-84 17.285 i7.3ooff I7-3I9. 320 17-324* 17.324-8 17-342*1; 355 i8.if 18.55* 18.4 i8.6ff 18.9 18.23 18.35, 55-9 18.64 18.84 18.851T i8.88f 18.100 18.118 18.250, 255ff 19-293-302, 327, 330-4 19352 19-356-9 20.15 20.97 20.97-9 20.102 20.136^ 20.167-72 20.185-214 20.188 20.192 20.200 20.219

148 150 252n 334 252n 328 328 321 435" 328 332 25211 332 332 25211 321 25211 332 465 25611 332 463 253" 25211, 253 36811 321 253" 253" 179 25011, 25511, 25611 257" 25411, 25511 147, 25511 9611 9611, 43311 369" 44811 47on 37on 22611 44811 147 25211 H7 423" 23011, 23 m 23011, 332, 462 255" 43811 195, 23011, 332, 462 152 462 151 146, 149, 168, 41611 460

Bell.Jud.

1.68 i-73f 1.81 1.154 1.204 1.282 1.401 1-457 1-570 1.651-3 1-673 23 2.10-13 2.25 2-55 2.56 2-57 2-57-9 2.60-5 2.8off 2.81 2.97 2.I0I-I0

2.104f 2.11 I 2.Il8 2.I4O 2.164 2.169-77 2.172 2.203 2.223-46 2.224 2.231 2.246 2 253 2.254-65 2.258 2.26l 2.261-3 2.264f 2.301 2.306 2.351 2.385 2.404 2.405 2.578 4.323 5244 5-449 6.316 6.1 i4f 6.125 6.250

23on, 3°5 320 36811 25111 25611 328 459" 30211 321 332 325 253" 332 36811 463 25611 113 332 465 253" 36811 25211, 25311 321 36811 253" 255" 36611 462-3 9611 469" 41811 148 47m 43811 43811 i87n 150, 19411 37011 462-3 332 151 46911 44m, 47211 373" 20011 37i" 254" 22m 165 47m 47211 162 42511 359" 165

506

Index o f References Sanhedrin

Bell. Jud. - contd.

5.1 6.1 6.4 6.7 7.1,3 9-6

422n 44m 8on 8n 8on H7 4i6n 23on

6.302 6.304 7.1481T 7-154 7.161, 162 7-253 7-4I5 7438

4 3

Shekalim i.i

C. Apion.

280 282, 459 279n, 280 272n, 282 269n 28on 279 280

i-3

i.4 i.7 ii.i ii.3

169 20on 372n

2.11 2.68 2-75, 77, 196 Slavonic 32, 33,

I I

n

34, 35, 37, 7 , 193, 2o8n, 22m, 363, 437 Vita 9-12

i84n 361 442n 444 44m 398

I J

n

8, H 9 ,

150

Josippon 37, 191,

ii.6 iii. 1-4 iii.3 iv.i vi.5

281

277 282

192, 202n, 204-5 Sotah 9, 15

Q u m r a n texts

11 i n , 282, 293, 401

Taanith 4.8

CD x.14 to xi.18 i Q p H a b . ix 2ff i Q p H a b . 6.3-5

i 8n

Tamid 7.3

i Q H 5.7-19 i Q S 4.2, 6.11 4Q 159 4QpNahum 7 Q 5, 7 Q 6.1

3

256n 162 1 i2n 22m 279, 4 44 m , 442 78n

288 157 156-7

Tehoroth 3 : 7

324

Yadayim 4 : 8

256n

0 0

Tosefta Berakhoth 4 : 8

Tar gum Is

Hullin ii.22f l l

i27n

393

n

-53 •• 9 3 J e r . 1 to N u m b . 25 : 4 441" Ps. J o n a t h a n to E x o d . 30 : 13

Ned. i.6

281

28on Parah iii. 8

345

Mishnah Babylonian T a l m u d Aboth

' :5 3 :2 Baba Bathra

5 : 2

Bekhoroth viii.7 Maaser Sheni Nedarim ii.4

i27n 25m, 382n

Abodah Zarah

324

Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 4

382n

Baba Metzia 28b

247

Berakhoth 58a

254n

157

373n

Chag.

280

Rosh ha-Shanah 1 : 9

2.18a

324

14a 16a

221 82n

3

3g8n

Index o f References Ebel Rabbati ii.8

44411

Yithro, Amalek i Yithro, Bahodesh i

507

28311 27111, 28011

Gittin

1 i6n 39 25m

55D-57*

56ab 56b

Pesikta Rabbathi R.7 R.36

8 n

Kethubhoth 106a

27911

Makkoth 24a

37811

Megillah 13b

37211

Pirqe Mashiah

n8n 234 23511

Song of Solomon Rabbah 4 : 7, 1. Tanchuma

1i9 26011

n

B-7 N o a h 10

Pesachim

87b 104a

1 i8n

169 259"

Prayers Eighteen Benedictions 157, 29811, 309

Sanh. 43*

33>46i

46b 89 B a r 97a 105a 106b

3< 44211 36211 292 37211 12611

T o l e d o t h Jeshu

33, 49,

189, 191, 194,

20211, 206, 208, 20911, 361, 43811 Huldreich version 21811, 36211 Summary by Agobard

44411, 44911

Maimonides

Shabbath

22011 12711 169

88b 116a 119b

Mishneh Torah III.vii.2 Sepher ha-Miswoth ii

26911

27711

Yoma

168 25m.

9b 39b

MANDAEAN

TEXTS

Ginza R 1 : 201

Abodah Zarah 3-i Sanh. j 4.6

TJ42 j 23c Shabb. x i v . 14c!

11711

2 : 1,136

Palestinian T a l m u d

25911

11711

Johannesbuch ygf, 243

36111 27911 36m

11711

KORAN Sur. 5 218

39311 DIATESSARON

Terumah 8.10

37211 Arabic

Midrash

Persian

Lamentations Rabbathi i.244-90 Leviticus Rabbah 18 : 4 Mekilta Pis'cha 1 1 o o f

42211

n8n,

12011 12011, 46211

39811 n 911

APOSTOLIC / Clement 5:1 to 6:4

151

FATHERS

508

Index o f References Aquinas Catena Aurea 27511 Summa Theologiae 26511, 27411

/ Clement - contd.

i 16 : 13 31 : 2 37 37 •: 3 37:5 60-1 61

167 339 160 161 221 37611 161 374

:

II

Didache 8.1

Aristides ( A p o l o g i s t ) Apol. 2 436 Aristides ( O r a t o r ) Orat. 26, 100 376

135 Aristobulus Afi{

42 m

Epistle of Barnabas

2 :6 4 : 14 5 2.12 5 :9 5 : " 6 : 61 7 : 59 8 :9 13 : 1 13, 14 16 : 1 16 : 4

170 167 436 436 166 436 436 191 276 160 170 153

:

Arnobius Adversus nationes i.63, ii.i 1 Arrian Disc. Epict. iii, iv, v . 17 Augustine De Civ. Dei

18.46 18.54 19.25

24211

4.4 18511 169 «75 18411

Injoh. 10 45911 In Psalmos 26511 Sermo 44.3.7 44811

Ignatius of Antioch Phil. 12 : 3 42211 Polycarp Phil. 2 : 3

18311

121, I22n

OTHER GREEK AND LATIN WRITINGS

Basilides Hipp. Ref. vii. 25 : 5c! Cassius Dio Rom. Hist. 54.3.7

60.6

12311

329

36911

Acta Alexandrinorum 148, 42 m

Cena Cypriani

Acta Silvestri

Chrysostom 12011, 218, 23811, 27511, 348, 353", 367 Jud. 4.6 171

208

Altercatio Simonis et Theophili

191

188

Horn, in Matth. 67.1 Ambrose

In Hexaemeron v . vi 26511 In Luc. iv. 73-5 26511 Apostolic Constitutions

5.14 5.14.12 6.25 6.30.8 7.23.2 15.H

13311, 26511

28611

41711,44611 436 170-1 45011 43711, 45011 443"

Cicero Pro Flacco 28 169 Pro Murena 39 18511 Prov. Cons. 10 25211 Clement of Alexandria 187-8, 26511, 28611 letter attributed to 88, 99 Strom. 1.21.146 174, 175 Clementine Homilies

Apuleius Metamorph. xi. 17

Horn. 1, 6, 4 37211

3.42

U 7 n , "811

12611

I n d e x o f References

Clementine Recognitions 1.61 12211 1.64 170 Cod. Theod. 2.9.3 178 Cyprian Testimonia, 1.6, 1.15

9-5-1, 9-7-1 C. Hieroclem 1 Chron. A . D . 135 Theophany V. Const. 3.33

509

175 i88n 170 43 3 n 169

Gaius iii.222 34411 170 Herodianus Historicus 1.9.7 24211

Cyril of Alexandria 26511, 28211 Luc. 22.34ff 350 Didaskalia 36511

Hervaeus Natalis De Paupertate Christi et Apostolorum 27411

Didaskalia, Syriac 13.21

436

5-H-3

447

5195

437"

Ephraem Syrus 43811 Horn, de Antichristo 9

Hegesippus 33, 40, 4 1 , 146, 156, 163, 168, 27711, 38011, 42 m

1 i8n

Epiphanius 2511, 4111 Haer. 29.7, 30.2 156 50.1 174, 175 Mens. 15.2-5 156 Panarion 29.4 27711 Eusebius 2511, 4111, 35311 D.E. 8.2.i24f 170 9.11 18311 H.E. 1.1.2 169 1.5.1 41611 18511 1.9, 1.11.9 20811 1.12 18911 2.6.8 169

Hierocles 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 19911, 20211 Hilary of Poitiers In Evang. Matth.XVll In Ps. 58.7

7211, 27411, 27511 26511 169

Hippolytus 362 n Comm. on Daniel 174, 186, 20711 Dem. adv. Jud. 6-7 168 Euergetes 168 Refutatio omnium haeresium 12311 241, 259 Honorius [ E l u c i d a r i u m ] 11711 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 89, 207 i.255

89

ii. 22.5 20711

2.23 2.23.4 2.23.4-18 2.23.1 iff

277" 146, 156 168 380

Isidore of Seville 356

353 3.6.28

74, H 6 , 152, 156, 163 169

Isocrates

3.12 320.5

42 m 358n 27711

De pace 17 37611 Jerome 4 m , 26511, 27411, 275, 285-6, 43311 Comm. in Ezek. 36.i6ff 169

331 3-39-15 451-4 4-6.3,4 4.26.7-11 5-i-5 51434 5 16, 18 518 524 6.41

iii. 17.1 7811

n

7 5 , 99" 156 155 161, 20811 43^ 329 i86n 18711 277" 18711

Justin 183 Apol. i . i 2 f 18311 1.26 36811 30 18311 31 35

157 173-4, 36211, 436, 43811

35-6

469

38

36211, 436

47

167, 169

5io


Justin - 183 - contd. Dial. c. Tryph. 12 16

9.4 184 10 169 29.2 i84n

n8n 157/167

16, 1 7 . 1 - 4 22

155 18311 170 169 362

35 40, 46 52 69 81 88

159 23411 436 362

97 108 110

Oppian Halieutika 2.41 Origen 266n C. Cels. 1.1 1.28 1.30

Juvencus 27411

18511

3-44f 3-55f 4-22, 4-73

Libanius Oratio 30 20011

Lucian Per. X I I XIII

4-23 5-25 5-41 6.80 7.18

44m 44011 4 4 i n , 472n 193 i86n 183, 184

Maximus of Tyre Diss. 3 422n Melito of Sardis 161, 270 Horn. 92 436 Peri Pascha 86 265n Minucius Felix

8

2.59 3-5, 7, 13, H 3.10

Lampridius 0.36, c.51 35411

29-9 3336

177 18911

24 25 29 2.12 2.13f 2.28 2.44 2.46 2.48-53,2.70

Lactantius 189 Div. Inst. 4.10.18 174 18311 4.24f 184, 188 5-3, 4 Mort. Persec. 2 174 5.2.12 199 20011 34

Livy 1.26

i86n

1-32, 3 1.47 1.62 1.68 1.71

167

Juvenal 14.960° 37211

Leo Ep.xcv.2

3720

177 167-8 193, 234n 2i8n i83n 20on, 4370 i84n 30cm i89n, i g g n , 20on i8 n 192 187 1840, i89n 3

177 20on '99n i84n 20on i86n 168 20on 200-1 a n d 20on i 8n 160 iggn 20on 189n, 99n i86n 9

8.8 8.14 8.17 8.55,65,6720m

382n 8-73, 75 Ep. ad Africanum 14 26gn, 434n Horn. 9.10 156 12.2 265n Injoh.1%.5 i83n In Matth. 13.10 13.14 268n 121 i83n In Rom. 6.7 434n 9.30 26sn

i86n Origo Gentis Romanae

Octavius 8.3 8.4 9.if

i84n i86n i86n

Epit. 3, 4; 5 Papias,

a

n

d

7

75-6, 99

Persius 5.180 368n

209n

26$n

Index of References

Philostratus Vita Apollonii 8.2 8.7.13 Plato

20011

Pliny

19811

IV.34 350n IV.70, V I . 1 8 35711 X I I . 6 0 , XIII.13V50, 3 7 m X V . 4 4 2gn, 78} 198, 434 Hist. V . 5 . 1 ig8n

42211 22611

Tatian

i64n, 225n \

Porphyry fr 63

42011

Tebtunis Papyrus I I I . 793

Pseudo-Aristides, Orat. 37

37611

Pseudo-Hippolytus, 23, 106.14

11711-118n

Pseudo-Lucian Philopatris 25.26

20m

344

Tertullian 12 m , 1 60, 183, 449n, 462n Ad. Nat. 1.10 20on Ad. Scap. 2 201 n Adv. Judaeos 168 3-6 170 8.i 10 437 168 10.15 170 132.3. 169 i3.24ff Adv. Marc. 168 323 Apol. 2.20 353" 7

Rufinus 433 version o f Eusebius's H.E.

Sallust Catilina 52

422n

Suetonius 187 Claudius 25 148, 197, 36gn Caligula 32 329, 353n Domitian 10 329, 353n 15.1 20m Julius 84 368n Tiberius 58, 61 357n

Tacitus Ann. II.42.6 II.43

5 521 16 21 21.7 21.18 35 38 39 42

Sulpicius Severus Chron. 2.30 169 Symmachus Relatio I I I . 10

175, 18/

i97n

254n I 0

9

n

174 362 i62n 171, 174, 36on, 431 i8 n i84n 362 362 i84n, 376 3

37m

Ulpian Dig. 48.2.6

44m

Velleius Paterculus Hist. Rom. II.80 II.89

376 377n

Jesus and the Politics of his Day

The Politics of Jesus

The Story of Jesus and His Disciples

The Story of Jesus and His Disciples

Every Day with Jesus (365 Day Devotional)

Every Day with Jesus (365 Day Devotional)

The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity

Every Day with Jesus (365 Day Devotional)

His Thirty-Day Fiancee

His Thirty-Day Fiancee

His Thirty-Day Fiancee

His Day Back

His Thirty-Day Fiancee

His Day Back

His Thirty-Day Fiancee

Jesus: A Biblical Defense of His Deity

Jesus: A Biblical Defense of His Deity

The Day I Sat With Jesus

Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings

Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory

The Gospels and Jesus

Jesus and the Ossuaries

The Brother of Jesus

Jesus and the Essenes

Jesus and the Essenes

The Philosophy of Jesus

The Name of Jesus

The Joy Of Jesus

The Name Of Jesus

The Meaning of Jesus

The Name Of Jesus

Jesus and the Politics of his Day

The Politics of Jesus

The Story of Jesus and His Disciples

The Story of Jesus and His Disciples

Every Day with Jesus (365 Day Devotional)

Every Day with Jesus (365 Day Devotional)

The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity

Every Day with Jesus (365 Day Devotional)

His Thirty-Day Fiancee

His Thirty-Day Fiancee

His Thirty-Day Fiancee

His Day Back

His Thirty-Day Fiancee

His Day Back

His Thirty-Day Fiancee

Jesus: A Biblical Defense of His Deity

Jesus: A Biblical Defense of His Deity

The Day I Sat With Jesus

Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings

Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory

The Gospels and Jesus

Jesus and the Ossuaries

The Brother of Jesus

Jesus and the Essenes

Jesus and the Essenes

The Philosophy of Jesus

The Name of Jesus

The Joy Of Jesus

The Name Of Jesus

The Meaning of Jesus

The Name Of Jesus

Recommend Documents