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.
T h e Zealots and Jesus
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.
T h e Zealots and Jesus
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.
T h e Zealots and Jesus
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.
T h e revolution theory from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n
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.
T h e revolution theory from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n
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.
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
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
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
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. 'IT^O. 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
<*'li\o.
Baa.
ii, 72oflT(not in the E T ) .
T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y f r o m R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n
35
d e e p e r , a q u a s i - m e t a p h y s i c a l m e a n i n g at the s a m e time. T h e w o r k , p a c k e d w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n , is a w a r n i n g a g a i n s t t h e d o m i n a n c e o f t h e s o c i a l s i d e i n J e w i s h a n d C h r i s t i a n m e s s i a n i s m , w h i l e it a d m i t s t h i s i n f l u x i n t o
the
m o v e m e n t o n c e it w a s o n t h e w a y . R e l e v a n t a s t h i s k n o w l e d g e is for t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d s p r e a d o f C h r i s t i a n i t y , it d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , d o m o r e t h a n c o n t r i b u t e t o k n o w l e d g e o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e life o f j e s u s , w h e r e a s h i s m e s s a g e , e v e n i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f E i s l e r , is b a r e l y c o n d i t i o n e d b y s o c i a l d e m a n d s . E i s l e r is t o r n b e t w e e n h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e o r i e n t a l o r i g i n a n d t h e J e w i s h d e v e l o p m e n t o f a political m e s s i a n i s m - a t h e m e h e h a d i n t e n d e d to 1 9 7
tackle in a special b o o k
- a n d h i s findings o n J e s u s w h i c h h a r d l y c o m p l y
w i t h this g e n e r a l line. E i s l e r m a y b e right in m o c k i n g l y a l l u d i n g
1 9 8
to those
w h o w i s h to g i v e t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t J e s u s o n l y m a d e s p e e c h e s a n d n e v e r p r o c e e d e d to a c t i o n .
1 9 9
It d o e s not, h o w e v e r , follow that he performed s u c h
a c t i o n s as h a v e b e e n a t t r i b u t e d to h i m . Eisler's theories caused an enormous stir.
200
O n c e t h e d u s t h a d s e t t l e d , it
e m e r g e d that his thesis o n the origin o f the S l a v o n i c J o s e p h u s h a d m e t w i t h little o r n o a p p r o b a t i o n , Jesus
2 0 1
w h i l e h i s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e e v e n t s o f t h e life o f
w a s equally rejected. Neither J e w i s h nor M a r x i s t historians
c h a l l e n g e d to g i v e h i m s u b s t a n t i a l a n d m a s s i v e s u p p o r t . 197
1 9 9
2 0 0
Messiah, p . xi.
198
2 0 2
Only here
2 0 3
felt and
'Ino. Bao. ii, 461.
It is a citation from G . B. S h a w that Eisler takes u p in this (Messiah, p . x ) . W h i l e J. W a r s c h a u e r , w h o had suggested a few years before Eisler that the cleansing was a 'carefully p l a n n e d c o u p ' , that it was the intention o f j e s u s to force the advent o f the k i n g d o m - 'like those m e n o f violence . . . with w h o m he s y m p a t h i z e d ' (The Historical Life of Christ ( L o n d o n , 1927), p p . 257ft) - passed almost unnoticed. H e had, h o w e v e r , a d d e d that Jesus had considered the rendering o f his life as a p r e c o n d i t i o n for the c o m i n g o f the k i n g d o m .
2 0 1
C p . note 186, p . 33. Eisler answered Bienert, the most i m p o r t a n t o f his critics, in his Flavius Josephus-Studien i ( L o n d o n , 1938). T h e p r o b l e m was given a n e w twist b y F. Scheidweiler, 'Sind die Interpolationen im altrussischen J o s e p h u s wertlos?', ZNW 43 (1950/1), 155ff, w h o selected a n u m b e r o f passages in the Slavonic J o s e p h u s , for the possible antiquity o f w h i c h he gave reasons.
2 0 2
S. R e i n a c h ( c p . RArch 5th series, 33 (1931), 215; 35 (1932), 130Q is the exception o n the J e w i s h , J. M a c m u r r a y (see p . 24) o n the Marxist side. E. Sahlin, while dissociating himself from m u c h that Eisler has to say, describes his w o r k as an 'einzigartige Leistung' w h i c h enables scholars to understand part o f the activity o f Jesus for the first time (Schmollers Jahrbuch, 55, ii (1931), 163ft). H e himself tries to give a m o r e balanced v i e w , w h i c h is clearly influenced b y Eisler, in ' U r c h r i s t e n t u m und Staat', Schmollers Jahrbuch 55, ii (1931), 2i3ff.
2 0 3
Eisler is given a s y m p a t h e t i c consideration by H . P. K i n g d o n , ' H a d the Crucifixion a political Significance?', Hibbert Journal 35 (1936/7), 556ff. T h e author disagrees, h o w e v e r , with Eisler o n the main issue: Jesus, in his o p i n i o n , gave himself up in o r d e r to o p e n the eyes o f his followers (565). K i n g d o n enlarged o n this in a later essay. W h i l e emphasising that the Palestine o f the time o f j e s u s was terrorised b y 'Jewish J i n g o e s ' , admitting the inclinations o f s o m e o f both his closer and his wider circle towards political messianism and stressing that the B a r a b b a s uprising was 'in s o m e w a y ' c o n n e c t e d with Jesus's entry into J e r u s a l e m , he separates Jesus from the goal o f that revolt: 'the s u p p o s e d leader o f the revolution gave himself u p for
36
there
E.
2 0 4
-
BAMMEL
not in every case from q u a r t e r s Eisler himself w a s friendly
disposed to scholarly
2 0 5
- w e r e voices heard that took u p part o f his theory. S o u n d
reasons
were
produced
for its r e j e c t i o n .
2 0 6
T h e fact
that
L i e t z m a n n s u g g e s t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l l y different solution o f the p r o b l e m o f the trial o f j e s u s at the s a m e t i m e - did certainly play a role.
2 0 8
2 0 7
- a solution which became widely accepted
A n o t h e r factor, h o w e v e r , c a m e in as well. T h e
e x e c u t i o n ' . T h i s w a s his design in o r d e r to bring them to understanding; ' h e w o u l d save not o n l y their lives, but their souls. H e w o u l d give his life, a r a n s o m for m a n y ' ( ' T h e Political circumstances o f the C r u c i f i x i o n ' , The Student Movement 43 (1941), 95). In this w a y he b e c a m e a challenge to ' o u r c o m p l a c e m e n t patriotisms and shallow pacifisms'. It is a d r a m a presented almost in the Schweitzerian m a n n e r that the author sketches o n these pages. J. T a u b e s (Abendlandische Eschatologie ( Z u r i c h 1947)) is heavily d e p e n d e n t o n Eisler. H e alters the timing, h o w e v e r , o f the Eislerian s c h e m e and a d d s elements o f Schweitzerian p r o v e n a n c e : it w a s in the m i d d l e o f his ministry that Jesus issued the call for a migration to the desert in o r d e r to establish a n e w k i n g d o m . After having recognised his failure he d e c i d e s in Caesarea to enter the course o f suffering and death. 2 0 4
Fr. M u r a w s k i , Jesus der Nazoraer, derKbnig derJuden (Berlin, 1940). T h e s a m e author gives an ornate picture o f Early C h r i s t e n d o m : Christianity kept a l o o f from the state b e c a u s e o f its eschatological belief a n d it s o o n d e v e l o p e d an attitude o f hatred against this w o r l d (Die politische Kirche und ihre biblischen
(Berlin, 1938), p p . 86f). Essentially it w a s the religion o f w o r l d revolution ( p . 83), a revolution w h i c h it enacted b y w a y o f sabotaging the existing o r d e r ( p . 89). T h e d o c u m e n t s c a m o u f l a g e this: certain terms m a y have a religious m e a n i n g but also carry political o v e r t o n e s ; the a c c o u n t s o f Pilate's belief in Jesus's i n n o c e n c e are another w a y o f hiding w h a t is the true kernel o f Christianity ( p . 54). T h i s picture is not m e a n t to r e c o m m e n d a radical form o f Christianity. O n the contrary, it is painting b l a c k o n black, m e a n t to b e a w a r n i n g against a political c h u r c h w h i c h indulges in anarchistic d r e a m s ( p . 90). Eisler's theory is summarised with s y m p a t h y b y F. Pzillas, ' D e r M e s s i a s k o n i g J e s u s ' in D e s c h n e r , Jesusbilder, p p . 181 ff. ( D e s c h n e r himself tends to a d o p t Eisler p p . 4721). In E n g l a n d it was The Modern Churchman that g a v e Eisler a favourable hearing t h r o u g h o u t the years o f the editorship o f M a j o r .
2 0 5
F o r certain political c o n n o t a t i o n s o f M u r a w s k i ' s writings c p . J. S. C o n w a y , The Nazi Persecution of the Churches ( L o n d o n , 1968), p . 406. C p . note 186, p . 33. Still, theologians were not uninfluenced b y Eisler. G o g u e l went so far as to state that there was a time w h e n J e s u s was a b o u t to b e p r o c l a i m e d king b y his followers, i.e. to b e put forward as the e n e m y o f R o m e , a n d that it w a s M a r k w h o obliterated this feature b e c a u s e he did not want to cause d a m a g e to the spread o f the g o s p e l a m o n g the loyal subjects o f R o m e (Jesus, G T p . 243; E T p p . 3761). W i n d i s c h admitted that Eisler's c o m b i n a t i o n o f M a r k 15: 7 with the cleansing is very d e b a t a b l e : Jesus g a v e expression to his messianic and kingly c l a i m b y causing an 'uprising' ( ' U n s e r W i s s e n ' , p . 306).
2 0 6
2 0 7
2 0 8
0
Der Prozess Jesu, SBA 1931, p p . 313ft (repr. in Kleine Schriften 11 (Berlin, 1958), p p . 251ft). L i e t z m a n n holds that the Petruserz&hlung is fundamental a n d therefore the arrest carried out b y the J e w s as well. T h e y d e c i d e d not to take the risk o f a religious trial but to p r o c e e d a l o n g a m o r e p r o m i s i n g a v e n u e b y h a n d i n g o v e r J e s u s to the R o m a n s . T h e a c c o u n t o f the Sanhedrin trial is therefore an addition to the original narration. J . Pickl c o m p o s e d a portrait o f j e s u s at a b o u t the same time w h i c h makes extensive use o f J o s e p h u s , sets J e s u s against the b a c k g r o u n d o f Jewish Z e a l o t i s m a n d brings o u t a sharp contrast b e t w e e n these t w o w o r l d s (MessiaskonigJesus ( M i i n c h e n , 1935); 3rd e d n . 1938). It is regrettable that his w o r k , w h i c h displays a masterly k n o w l e d g e
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 r e l u c t a n c e w a s p a r t l y d u e to t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,
2 0 9
37
accustomed
t o s l o w a n d s t e a d y p r o g r e s s i n r e s e a r c h , felt c o n s t e r n a t i o n a t w h a t a p p e a r e d like
the
eruption
o f a v o l c a n o . Besides, the
time w a s not
ideal
for
t h o r o u g h g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n . It h a d to h a p p e n t h a t his theories w e r e t a k e n u p b y s o m e o n e e l s e a n d e x p o s e d to t h e s c r u t i n y o f t h e l e a r n e d w o r l d o n c e a g a i n . I t w a s , p e r h a p s , f o r t u n a t e t h a t this w a s u n d e r t a k e n b y a s c h o l a r w h o s e m a n n e r o f a r g u i n g a n d p r e s e n t i n g his c a s e w a s so m u c h at v a r i a n c e with Eisler's as S. G . F. B r a n d o n . B r a n d o n s t a n d s o n t h e s h o u l d e r s o f E i s l e r a n d h e is n o t s l o w t o a d m i t this.
2 1 0
H e refers to the S l a v o n i c J o s e p h u s , so c h e r i s h e d b y E i s l e r ;
2 1 1
he cites
the H e b r e w J o s i p p o n a n d a n u m b e r o f other sources o u t o f the w e a l t h o f m a t e r i a l p r e s e n t e d b y E i s l e r . H e is, h o w e v e r , less e n t h u s i a s t i c a b o u t these s o u r c e s t h a n E i s l e r i s . H i s a p p r o a c h is n o t u n c r i t i c a l i n d e t a i l ,
2 1 2
although
he has not really m a d e himself familiar wi t h the points of detailed criticism r a i s e d a g a i n s t E i s l e r . M o r e t h a n t h a t , h e is l e s s d e p e n d e n t o n t h i s m a t e r i a l t h a n is E i s l e r . H e f o u n d h i m s e l f a b l e t o r e c o n s t r u c t t o h i s o w n s a t i s f a c t i o n a p i c t u r e o f n a s c e n t C h r i s t i a n i t y from s u c h sources as b e l o n g e d to
the
t r a d i t i o n a l a r m o u r y o f s c h o l a r s , a p i c t u r e w h i c h m o r e or less c o i n c i d e d w i t h E i s l e r ' s i m p r e s s i o n . I t is p r o b a b l y d u e t o t h i s t h a t t h e d e p e n d e n c e o n E i s l e r is l e s s m a r k e d i n h i s l a t e r p u b l i c a t i o n s . a
regression
from
Eisler
to
the
2 1 3
T h e y a p p e a r , in part at least, like
nationalistic
interpretation
and
the
treatment o f sources favoured b y the F r a n c o - J e w i s h writer R o d r i g u e s .
2 0 9
o f the Greek J o s e p h u s text, was never e x a m i n e d alongside Eisler's and used as a corrective to h i m . Eisler received s o m e support. H . Braunert, ' D e r romische Provinzialzensus und der Schatzungsbericht des Lukas-Evangeliums', Historia 6 (1957), i29ff, thinks that the date o f the birth o f j e s u s given b y Luke derives from a J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n g r o u p w h i c h was eager to m a k e his birth c o i n c i d e with the date given b y J o s e p h u s for the beginning o f the Z e a l o t m o v e m e n t . It was in his o p i n i o n a Christian zealotic g r o u p w h i c h was responsible for this dating, a g r o u p which w a n t e d to mark the date, w h i c h had a truly historical i m p o r t a n c e for the national struggle. H e hints at the zealotic p r o v e n a n c e o f J u d a s and points to Farmer's findings as s h o w i n g a close relation between Jewish nationalism and early Christianity, while leaving it o p e n whether this merging took place d u r i n g the ministry o f j e s u s o r later. O n the other h a n d the writer M a x B r o d shows himself greatly influenced b y Eisler in his The Messiah ( L o n d o n / N e w Y o r k , 1931) ( c p . G . J a s p e r , Stimmen aus dem neureligidsen Judentum in seiner Stellung zum Christentum und zu Jesus ( H a m b u r g , 1958), p p . iogff). T h e s a m e is true for F. A n d e r m a n n , Dasgrosse Gesicht ( M i i n c h e n , 1970).
2 . 0
The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church ( L o n d o n , 1951), p p . xf.
2 . 1
Ibid. p p . 32, ii4ff, i22f. Ibid. p p . i2if.
2 . 2
2 . 3
2 1 4
2 1 4
A l t h o u g h - see Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p p . 3 6 7 ^ he is still inclined to link the S l a v o n i c report o n Jesus with J o s e p h u s and for this reason to consider it as a source o f the highest i m p o r t a n c e . H . R o d r i g u e s , Histoire rationelle des premiers Chretiens (Paris, 1873). O n R o d r i g u e s , c p . D . C a t c h p o l e , The Trial ofJesus . . . in Jewish Historiography ( L e i d e n , 1971), p p . 49f,
116.
E.
38
BAMMEL
B e s i d e s , B r a n d o n c o n f i n e s h i m s e l f to a f e w l e a d i n g i d e a s , w h i l e E i s l e r
fired
a salvo o f ideas at the reader, c a u s i n g simultaneously stimulation
and
e m b a r r a s s m e n t . H i s p r e s e n t a t i o n is a t first c a u t i o u s l y w o r d e d i n d e t a i l , b u t t h e n his t e n t a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s are t a k e n as a solid basis in the n e x t section a n d the
final
s u m m i n g u p o n l y too often lacks a n y features o f
T h e starting-point
o f B r a n d o n ' s a p p r o a c h to the p r o b l e m s o f e a r l y
caution. C h r i s t i a n i t y is a r i g o r o u s c r i t i q u e o f t h e s o u r c e s a f t e r t h e m o d e l o f t h e Tubingen viewed
Tendenzkritik o f t h e l a s t c e n t u r y .
as
individuals,
being 2 1 6
almost
2 1 5
T h e Gospels, which
completely products
o f the
pens
are
of single
are seen as h a v i n g found their particular s h a p e u n d e r
the
influence o f certain apologetic tendencies o f the respective evangelists. M a r k , a G o s p e l w h i c h h a d o f t e n b e e n t a k e n a s p r i m i t i v e , is c h a r a c t e r i s e d b y B r a n d o n as a sophisticated p e r f o r m a n c e ,
2 1 7
aimed at reversing
the
i m p r e s s i o n the R o m a n p u b l i c h a d o f C h r i s t e n d o m . It carries t h r o u g h the idea o f a pacific Christ, w h o taught love a n d w a s c o n d e m n e d b y Pilate as a r e s u l t o f J e w i s h i n t r i g u e s , w h e r e a s in r e a l i t y t h e o p p o s i t e h a d h a p p e n e d : h e h a d b e e n e x e c u t e d b y the R o m a n s o n the c h a r g e o f s e d i t i o n after h a v i n g c o m e o u t o p e n l y a g a i n s t the p a y m e n t o f t a x e s , after a n a s s a u l t a g a i n s t the T e m p l e a n d the preparation o f a r m e d resistance. H i s death g a i n e d h i m the s y m p a t h y o f his f e l l o w - c o u n t r y m e n , a s y m p a t h y w h i c h the
Christians
enjoyed likewise a n d w h i c h lasted b e y o n d the d e a t h o f J e s u s ' s James
2 1 8
brother
a n d e n a b l e d the C h r i s t i a n s to j o i n the ranks o f the revolutionaries
i n t h e i r fight a g a i n s t R o m e . T h e picture o f the events, c o i n c i d i n g w i t h the one d r a w n b y Eisler, does deviate in one particular point. B r a n d o n emphasises that J e s u s w a s not a m e m b e r of a Zealot underground organisation: he stayed independent and his a c t i v i t y c a n o n l y b e d e s c r i b e d as p a r a - Z e a l o t in c h a r a c t e r .
This,
h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t he w a s less a c t i v e t h a n t h e y w e r e ; o n the 2 , 5
W h i c h kept h i m fascinated; see his ' T u b i n g e n vindicated?', Hibbert Journal 49 (1951), 4iff. F o r the T u b i n g e n principles c p . K i i m m e l , Das Neue Testament, p p .
2 1 6
T h i s is d o n e b y B r a n d o n in o p p o s i t i o n to the then ruling s c h o o l o f Formgeschichte and w a s maintained b y him in spite o f the n e w Redaktionsgeschichte, a d e v e l o p m e n t he barely took stock of. T h e attribution to M a r k o f a tendency to belittle Jesus's disciples (Fall, i95ff; similarly and with m u c h m o r e a c u m e n R a s c h k e , Werkstatt, p p . i04ff; a n d c p . recently J. Schreiber, ' D i e Christologie des M a r k u s e v a n g e l i u m s ' , ZThK 58 (1961), 154ff, w h o actually maintains that M a r k is directed against the early c o m m u n i t y ) w o u l d b e m o r e credible if M a r k had given indications pointing to others besides the disciples to b e taken as exemplary figures.
i 6ff. 5
2 1 7
2 , 8
B r a n d o n holds a very l o w o p i n i o n a b o u t the tradition a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n s left J e r u s a l e m for Pella at the beginning o f the revolt. F o r his mistranslation o f the decisive passage c p . W . W i n k , 'Jesus and R e v o l u t i o n ' , Union Seminary Quarterly Review 25 (1969), 42.
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 c o n t r a r y , h e a n t i c i p a t e d t h e Z e a l o t s in a t t a c k i n g t h e T e m p l e ,
2 1 9
d i r e c t i n g h i m s e l f a g a i n s t the T e m p l e a n d the priestly o l i g a r c h y a n i n d i c a t i o n that his e m p h a s i s d i d not c o m p l e t e l y
2 2 1
2 2 0
39 w h i l e in he gave
coincide with that of
the Z e a l o t s , w h o w e r e p r i m a r i l y a n t i - R o m a n in their o u t l o o k .
2 2 2
Eisler had
linked J e s u s m o r e closely w i t h the Z e a l o t m o v e m e n t w h i l e on the other h a n d a d m i t t i n g t h a t J e s u s w a s likely to h a v e b e e n a m a n p u s h e d f o r w a r d b y the masses a n d thus the v i c t i m of the situation.
2 2 3
T h i s l a t t e r is e m p h a t i c a l l y
d e n i e d b y B r a n d o n : J e s u s w a s a ' d y n a m i c leader', not a V i s i o n a r y w h o w a s swept away'.
2 2 4
A n o t h e r difference e m e r g e s in c o n s e q u e n c e o f this. In a t t a c k i n g
the
T e m p l e J e s u s incurred the animosity o f the h i g h priests. B r a n d o n
has
therefore n o difficulty in a s s u m i n g a S a n h e d r i n trial a n d , p e r h a p s , a J e w i s h arrest,
2 2 5
pillage',
while the cleansing, an action that h a d involved 'violence and 2 2 6
l e d o f n e c e s s i t y to t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n b y t h e R o m a n s .
T h e e v i d e n c e is f o u n d i n c e r t a i n d a t a p r e s e r v e d i n t h e g o s p e l s w h i c h c o u l d o n l y b e neutralised b y the evangelists, not rejected: the
Roman
e x e c u t i o n a l o n g s i d e t w o Z e a l o t s , the c l e a n s i n g o f the T e m p l e ; s e c o n d l y in a few details w h i c h h a p p e n e d to s u r v i v e b e c a u s e o f the less c i r c u m s p e c t procedure of Luke:
2 2 7
the tower o f S i l o a m , the t w o s w o r d s , etc. T h e s e data
a n d the a s s u m e d tendencies o f the evangelists are used b y B r a n d o n as the f o c a l p o i n t s i n b e t w e e n w h i c h e v e r y t r a d i t i o n a t v a r i a n c e w i t h t h e s e is eliminated.
2 , 9
2 2 0
2 2 1
2 2 2
2 2 8
I s it, h o w e v e r , l i k e l y t h a t t r a d i t i o n w h i c h w a s n o t o n l y
B r a n d o n , Zealots, p . 338. I b i d . p p . 342f. A l t h o u g h the difference should not b e over-accentuated; thus B r a n d o n thinks that a c o n n e c t i o n existed with the B a r a b b a s insurrection which h a p p e n e d at the same time as the cleansing ( p . 339). E. Stauffer, o n the other hand, maintains that M a r k 11: 17f are a stray p i e c e o f tradition w h i c h referred originally to B a r a b b a s {Jerusalem und Rom (Bern, 1957), p . 146 n. 18). B r a n d o n is not fully aware o f the fact that the 'cleansing o f the house o f Israel' is equally an aim o f the Z e a l o t s , a precondition for the c o m i n g o f the messiah, at least as i m p o r t a n t in their v i e w as the defeat o f the R o m a n s .
2 2 3
'IT]0. B a a . ii, 5o8ff; Messiah, p p . 50of.
2 2 4
Zealots, p . 354. The Trial ofJesus of Nazareth ( L o n d o n , 1968), p . 149; c p . p . 130. Zealots, p . 338. I b i d . p . 324. G r a n t e d that B r a n d o n is right in assuming this, w h y then d i d the evangelists not invent statements o f j e s u s giving an o p e n warning against zealotism? Surely they w o u l d have been able to d o so if they so wanted. T h e lack o f such attacks against the Z e a l o t s d o e s not m e a n what B r a n d o n (Zealots, p . 201) makes it to m e a n , the tacit admission o f the evangelists that Jesus had been associated with them in s o m e w a y s , but rather that the w h o l e question was o f m i n o r i m p o r t a n c e within the Christian c o m m u n i t i e s or had been solved o n the political level. T h e a b s e n c e o f any mention o f the Z e a l o t s has its parallel in the almost c o m p l e t e silence a b o u t the priests and S a d d u c e e s . T h i s s h o w s that the Christians put d o w n only such sayings as were still relevant in their o w n times and vis-a-vis their o w n adversaries.
2 2 5
2 2 6
2 2 7
2 2 8
40
E.
BAMMEL
a u t h e n t i c b u t g r e w w i t h o u t i m p e d i m e n t u n t i l A . D . 70 left n o m o r e t r a c e s t h a n t h e s e ? Is s u c h a r i g i d c a r r y i n g o u t o f a s i n g l e t e n d e n c y r e a l l y t h e a p p r o a c h t o b e a s s u m e d for a n e v a n g e l i s t ? C a n w e e v e n b e s u r e t h a t M a r k was
written
after
A.D. 70?
2 2 9
Granted
that
Mark
was stimulated
by
a p o l o g e t i c t e n d e n c i e s t o t h e e x t e n t a s s u m e d b y B r a n d o n , is h e l i k e l y to h a v e m e t the r e s e r v a t i o n s o f the R o m a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r s b y his p r e s e n t a t i o n ? D o e s the treatment o f the T e m p l e really indicate a post-war o r i g i n ?
2 3 1
2 3 0
Is the
d e s c r i p t i o n o f the m a t e r i a l t h a t in the o p i n i o n o f B r a n d o n o r i g i n a t e d after A . D . 70 a l w a y s c o r r e c t ?
2 3 2
A b o v e a l l , w h a t a r e i n f a c t t h e c h a n g e s in h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e w h i c h w e r e m a d e after A . D . 70? T h e r e c a n b e l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t t h e s e y e a r s left t h e i r m a r k on the outlook o f those w h o w e n t through t h e m . the
most
striking
e x a m p l e o f this.
A
thorough
2 3 3
Judaism provides
investigation of
the
d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h i s field, t h e l i s t i n g o f t h e c h a n g e s t h a t w e r e m a d e a n d t h e w o r k i n g o u t o f t h e c r i t e r i a w h i c h b e c a m e i n s t r u m e n t a l for t h e c a r r y i n g o u t o f t h e a l t e r a t i o n i n t h e Geschichtsbild m i g h t i n d e e d g i v e c r i t e r i a for t h e s i n g l i n g o u t o f c o r r e s p o n d i n g features in C h r i s t i a n literature. T h i s m i g h t e s p e c i a l l y b e p r o m i s i n g for t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e f r a g m e n t s
of Judaeo-
C h r i s t i a n l i t e r a t u r e w h i c h h a v e c o m e d o w n to u s . N o t h i n g h a s b e e n d o n e a l o n g these lines. The
evidence
of Judaeo-Christianity
plays
an
important
role
in
B r a n d o n ' s a r g u m e n t a t i o n . H e g e s i p p u s ' s report a b o u t the m i g r 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 to P e l l a b e f o r e t h e e n c i r c l i n g o f t h e H o l y C i t y is 2 2 9
2 3 0
2 3 1
2 3 2
2 3 3
M a r k 13: i 4 f c o u l d b e taken to reflect a situation before 70. T h e R o m a n s , tolerant^as they were, b e c a m e very irritated a b o u t religious p r o p a g a n d i s t s , especially those with a m a g i c a l t o u c h . T o keep clean at least the m e t r o p o l i s was the s o u n d principle o f the administration. T h e praefectus urbi s t e p p e d in o n c e and again against the activities o f m a g i c i a n s in the capital. W e w o u l d therefore e x p e c t a portrait o f j e s u s that is p u r g e d o f features that are o p e n to m a g i c a l interpretation. T h e o p p o s i t e is the case. T h e G o s p e l describes Jesus as a m i r a c l e w o r k e r and contains elements w h i c h might b e taken as indicating m a g i c a l practices: 5: iff; 5: 28f; 9: 28 etc. Aeyicbv in 5:9 might have caused direct c o n c e r n . T h e case s h o w s that the political t e n d e n c y assumed b y B r a n d o n is not likely to h a v e p l a y e d a role either. B o t h M a r k 15: 38fand t h e J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n tradition ( E v . N a z . fr. 21) indicate that the T e m p l e lost its value after the d e a t h o f j e s u s . T h e p r o b l e m o f the delay o f its d o o m worries M a t t h e w , w h o explains it b y reference to the lack o f faith o n the side o f the Christians (21: 20-22). W o u l d w e not expect similar statements in M a r k , if the contents o f the G o s p e l had been c o l o u r e d b y the experience o f the J e w i s h w a r ? T h e t e n d e n c y to characterise the J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n gospels as p r o d u c t s o f a n e w f o u n d a t i o n (Neubildung) in the s e c o n d century w h i c h had nothing to d o with the J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y is spreading and finds b a c k i n g in the imprecise e m p l o y m e n t o f the term J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n i t y ' as it is used b y J. D a n i e l o u (Theologie du Jude'o-Christianisme ( T o u r n a i , 1958)). T h e theory is, h o w e v e r , o n l y s u p p o r t e d b y the flimsiest evidence. C p . H . W i n d i s c h , ' D e r U n t e r g a n g J e r u s a l e m s i m Urteil der Christen und J u d e n ' ,
Theologische Tydschrift 48 (1914), 519-50.
The completely
r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y f r o m R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n
rejected
by
him
2 3 4
and
the J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n s
41
are
made
f e l l o w - c o m b a t a n t s in t h e u p r i s i n g a g a i n s t R o m e . I f i n d e e d h i s e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e fall o f J e r u s a l e m w e r e s u b s t a n t i a t e d , w e w o u l d e x p e c t t h e c r i s i s a f t e r t h e event to h a v e s h a k e n this b r a n c h o f C h r i s t e n d o m m u c h m o r e t h a n other c e n t r e s . W h e r e , h o w e v e r , is t h e e v i d e n c e ? B r a n d o n a v o i d s t h i s q u e s t i o n b y m a i n t a i n i n g that the J e r u s a l e m c h u r c h h a d fallen into ' c o m p l e t e o b l i v i o n ' and
had
been
'utterly
destroyed
b y the
Romans'.
2 3 5
He
regards
the
J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n g o s p e l s , t h e a n t i - c u l t i c t e n d e n c y o f w h i c h is s o b l u n t a n d w h i c h is l i n k e d s o c l o s e l y w i t h b o t h t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n
2 3 6
a n d the d e a t h
2 3 7
of
J e s u s t h a t t h e r e is n o r o o m for t h e t h e o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t o f d i v i n e f o r b e a r a n c e or the historical o n e o f a d e v e l o p m e n t , as c o n d i t i o n e d b y the a p p r o a c h o f t h e Grosskirche. I t s e e m s t h a t t h e a t t i t u d e o f a n t a g o n i s m t o t h e T e m p l e , a s w e find it in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t o n l y i n A c t s 7: 4 8 , w a s d e v e l o p e d i n t h e s e c i r c l e s . T r u e , t h i s is n o t e a s i l y r e c o n c i l a b l e w i t h t h e H e g e s i p p a n r e p o r t o n J a m e s , w h o wore priestly dress and frequented
the T e m p l e so often in
p r a y e r that his knees g r e w h a r d like those of a c a m e l .
2 3 8
T h i s c o u l d p o i n t to a
line m o r e rigid t h a n J a m e s ' s o w n a t t i t u d e b e i n g t a k e n u p after his d e a t h b y his c o m m u n i t y a n d , o n the o t h e r h a n d , to the e m p l o y m e n t o f e m b e l l i s h i n g c o l o u r s b y t h e a n n a l i s t s o f t h e Grosskirche. P r o b a b l y b o t h f o r c e s w e r e a t w o r k o n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e l e v e l s . T h e r e is n o t , h o w e v e r , e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e t e n d e n c y o f a n t a g o n i s m t o t h e T e m p l e h a d t o b e p u s h e d t h r o u g h for t h e v i e w t h a t t h e p r i e s t l y e m p h a s i s i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f J a m e s is d u e to his o f f i c i a t i n g i n t h e Temple,
2 3 9
l e t a l o n e to h i s i n s t i g a t i n g t h e - nota bene J e w i s h - L e v i t e s a g a i n s t
the h i g h priests. O n the c o n t r a r y , the tradition, k e p t a l i v e in J u d a e o C h r i s t i a n i t y , a b o u t t h e c o l l a p s e o f t h e l i n t e l o f t h e T e m p l e after t h e d e a t h o f Jesus
2 4 0
implies
the
ineffectiveness o f the
cult immediately
after
the
d e p a r t u r e o f t h e S h e k i n a h w h i c h is i n d i c a t e d b y t h i s e v e n t . N o t r a c e s o f a crisis c a u s e d b y the y e a r 70, nor vestiges o f the e m p l o y m e n t o f the J e w i s h catastrophe
for a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e s
are
n o t i c e a b l e in this
literature.
W i t h o u t s u c h e v i d e n c e t h e B r a n d o n t h e o r y , s u g g e s t i v e a s it m a y b e , is
b a s e d o n a petitio principii, is m e r e l y a Luftgebaude (castle i n t h e a i r ) . B r a n d o n studies M a r k in detail b u t he a l m o s t b y p a s s e s the large b o d y o f
2 3 4
2 3 5
2 3 6
2 3 7
2 3 8
2 3 9
2 4 0
B r a n d o n follows the direction given b y J o e l (Blicke, ii, 841) and he is followed in this b y G . Strecker, Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen (Berlin, 1958), p p . 229ff and J. M u n c k , J e w i s h Christianity in Post-Apostolic T i m e s ' , NTSt 6 (1959/60), 104. For criticism c p . S. Sowers, ThZ 26 (1970), 305ff. Religion in Ancient History ( L o n d o n , 1973), p . 281. E p i p h a n i u s , Haer. 30.16.22. J e r o m e , o n M a t t , 27.51. Eusebius, H.E. 2.23.6. Eisler, 'Irjo. B a o . ii, 584; Messiah, p . 542; B r a n d o n , Fall, p p . 98f. It is to b e u n d e r s t o o d in line with Ps. 24: 7, 9: G o d is leaving, therefore the lintel is collapsing.
42
E. BAMMEL
C h r i s t i a n m a t e r i a l w e p o s s e s s in t h e C o r p u s P a u l i n u m . T h e o u t l o o k , w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e R o m a n s , o f t h e l a t t e r is b a s i c a l l y t h e s a m e a s M a r k ' s . B u t most o f these letters w e r e written before A.D. 70. T h e fact s h o w s that a d e p a r t u r e - i f t h a t is w h a t it w a s - l i k e t h a t o f M a r k w a s p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t t h e i m p a c t o f the J e w i s h w a r a n d already quite a n u m b e r o f years earlier. Q u a s i - Z e a l o t antecedents are likely in the case o f P a u l .
2 4 1
W h y then w a s he
s u s p e c t to the J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y ? W h y d i d he e m b r a c e the p a r a - Z e a l o t belief o f C h r i s t i a n i t y at all if he w a s m o v i n g politically in a
different
d i r e c t i o n ? W h y , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w a s a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g p o s i t i o n vis-a-vis z e a l o t i s m like the o n e t a k e n b y the C h r i s t i a n P a u l n o t a l r e a d y p o s s i b l e for J e s u s ? T h e differences b e t w e e n J e s u s a n d P a u l m a y b e far less m a r k e d o n the political level t h a n in other q u e s t i o n s .
2 4 2
T r u e , B r a n d o n gives his case
s u p p o r t b y r e f e r e n c e t o A c t s 2 3 : i6ff, i n h i s o p i n i o n t h e a t t e m p t o f Z e a l o t m e m b e r s o f the J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y to get rid o f Paul b y w a y o f l y n c h law.
2 4 3
Q u i t e a p a r t , h o w e v e r , f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t P a u l is r e d u c e d i n s i z e t o t h e
figure o f a n apostate, the points at issue b e t w e e n h i m a n d the J e r u s a l e m authorities are such that they can hardly be subsumed under the rubric o f political zealotism. I t is a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t s c h o l a r s s h o u l d l o o k o u t for fixed p o i n t s , i n o r d e r t o d a t e the nascent C h r i s t i a n literature (a t e n d e n c y w h i c h w a s particularly c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y s c h o l a r s h i p ) a n d it is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t h a t t h e J e w i s h w a r is t a k e n a s a t o u c h s t o n e . T h e a r g u m e n t b a s e d o n t h e r e f e r e n c e o r o t h e r w i s e t o t h i s e v e n t i s , h o w e v e r , often o v e r w o r k e d . T h e C h r i s t i a n s , especially those w h o w e r e at h o m e in the R o m a n w o r l d , c o u l d interpret
many
events
as signs o f divine intervention,
not only
the
d e s t r u c t i o n o f J e r u s a l e m b u t e q u a l l y t h e a n a r c h y after N e r o ' s d e a t h , t h e eruption of V e s u v i u s - even a chain o f such events might have been seen as significant. T h e a b s e n c e o f s u c h references in w r i t i n g s scrutinised for t h e m d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y m e a n t h a t t h e s e d o c u m e n t s a r e o f e a r l i e r d a t e {pace J. A . T . R o b i n s o n ) ;
2 4 4
it m a y v e r y w e l l m e a n t h a t t h e a u t h o r s w e r e l e s s
c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the general scenery t h a n w e w o u l d w a n t t h e m to be. I n the s a m e w a y , a n a c t u a l reference (if proven) does not necessarily i m p l y that the e v e n t referred to h a d substantially c h a n g e d the outlook o f the writers; t h e r e f e r e n c e m a y h a v e b e e n a c a s u a l o n e o r o f a u x i l i a r y i m p o r t a n c e {pace B r a n d o n ) . T r u e , t h e c o m m u n i t i e s in Palestine h a d e v e r y reason to see G o d at w o r k in the actions of C a l i g u l a , the expulsion of the J e w s from R o m e a n d , s u p r e m e l y , in the d o o m of J e r u s a l e m . B u t they m a y h a v e b e e n readier to interpret the persecution the Christians themselves were undergoing as a 241
C p . Z M 5 9 (1968), io8ff.
2 4 2
C p . W . R . Farmer, The Modern Churchman n.s. n
243
Fall, p p . 135, 15ifRedating the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1976).
2 4 4
(1967/8), 119.
T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y f r o m R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n sign o f the f u t u r e
2 4 5
43
a n d they certainly did interpret the events m e n t i o n e d
a b o v e as c o n s e q u e n t i a l to the C r o s s - a v i e w w h i c h s u b s t a n t i a l l y influenced the presentation o f them. B r a n d o n ' s s c h e m e , u n l i k e E i s l e r ' s g r a n d d e s i g n , r e c e i v e d little a t t e n t i o n w h e n it a p p e a r e d i n 1 9 5 1 . T h e p o l i t i c a l a t m o s p h e r e h a d c h a n g e d s o m u c h that the Z e a l o t theory w a s hardly noticed or found worth mentioning.
2 4 6
H i s treatment o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t sources w a s considered old-fashioned a n d the interest he took in the J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n s militated against the then d o m i n a n t a h i s t o r i c a l a p p r o a c h to the N e w T e s t a m e n t . It w a s the total c h a n g e o f scene rather t h a n his o w n insistence in later p u b l i c a t i o n s that, in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the i m p a c t m a d e b y J e w i s h c o n t r i b u t i o n s , r e v i v a l o f the E i s l e r - B r a n d o n theories in the late s i x t i e s .
2 4 7
l e d to a
2 4 8
VII T h e J e w i s h c o n t r i b u t i o n t o r e s e a r c h i n e a r l y C h r i s t e n d o m w a s for a l o n g time
dominated
by
apologetic
motifs.
While
their
forefathers
had
m a i n t a i n e d the Tightness o f the c o n d e m n a t i o n o f j e s u s , the sons - from the time o f M e n d e l s s o h n o n w a r d - d i s c l a i m e d i n v o l v e m e n t in the execution o f Jesus.
2 4 9
T h i s m e a n t that the actual teaching o f j e s u s - not the christology o f
the E a r l y C h u r c h - r e m a i n e d a kind o f adiaphoron, w h i c h could be v a l u e d w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e . I n d e e d , a l r e a d y at the b e g i n n i n g o f the c e n t u r y it is s t a t e d Judaism.
2 5 0
nineteenth
that his t h o u g h t s are not at all at v a r i a n c e w i t h
A t t h e s a m e t i m e it i s , h o w e v e r , felt t h a t t h e r e is s o m e t h i n g
l a c k i n g i n J e s u s , s o m e t h i n g t h a t is n o t o n l y d e a r t o t h e J e w i s h h e a r t b u t 2 4 5
2 4 6
2 4 7
2 4 8
2 4 9
2 5 0
T y p i c a l is the interpretation o f the expulsion o f the J e w s from R o m e , as w e find it in 1 T h e s s . 2: 16; c p . ZThK 56 (1959), 294^ C . F . D . M o u l e , JThSt, n.s. 3 (1952), 106-8 (review o f B r a n d o n , Fall). For a penetrating critique o f B r a n d o n ' s views c p . J. J e r e m i a s , Neutestamentliche Theologie ( G u t e r s l o h , 1971), 2igf ( E T L o n d o n , 1971, p p . 2281). It is typical that S. S a n d m e l , w h o confesses to b e a sceptic with regard to the possibility o f reconstructing the historical Jesus (A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament (Cincinnati, 1956), p p . 173ft), feels nevertheless d r a w n to B r a n d o n ' s views and states his 'full a g r e e m e n t ' with his thesis (Saturday Review (1969), p . 88). A l t h o u g h in the case o f B r a n d o n himself the findings are not m e a n t to serve as a m o d e l for. the present ( W i n k , Union Seminary Quarterly Review 25 (1969) 50 is mistaken in assuming this). O n the contrary, it is rather an attempt to dissociate the c h u r c h from certain features o f its heritage. N i n e h a m ' s various papers (Explora tions in Theology ( L o n d o n , 1977); The Use and Abuse of the Bible ( L o n d o n , 1978)) m a y b e viewed as a parallel p h e n o m e n o n to that tendency - mutatis mutandis o f course. C a t c h p o l e , Trial, passim. T h i s t e n d e n c y can g o so far that S. W i s e posed the question: ' b e c a u s e C h r i s t e n d o m has r e n o u n c e d Jesus in fact, shall w e continue to d e n y him n o w that w e , his brother J e w s , are free to face his life and teaching a n e w ? ' (cited by H . D a n b y , The Jews and Christianity ( L o n d o n , 1927), p . 1 1 1 ) .
E
44
-
BAMMEL
f u n d a m e n t a l to the J e w i s h m i n d : the w e l l - b e i n g o f the J e w i s h n a t i o n as the raison d'etre o f t h e c o d e o f b e h a v i o u r . T h i s is n o t i c e d w i t h 2 5 1
already b y J. S a l v a d o r
disapproval
and sharply criticised by J. J a c o b s : 'Jesus died . . .
for t h a t h e c a r e d n a u g h t for o u r n a t i o n a l h o p e s . '
2 5 2
T h e s a m e s e n t i m e n t is f o u n d i n J . K l a u s n e r , t h e first J e w w h o v e n t u r e d a life o f j e s u s
2 5 3
a n d w h o c o n c l u d e s with the statement: 'to a d o p t the t e a c h i n g
o f j e s u s is t o r e m o v e o n e s e l f f r o m t h e w h o l e s p h e r e o f o r d e r e d n a t i o n a l a n d human existence'.
2 5 4
B u t t h i s is l i n k e d w i t h a n o t h e r p e r s p e c t i v e , w i t h a
quasi-Zealot interpretation.
' D u r i n g t h e e a r l i e r s t a g e o f h i s m i n i s t r y it
s e e m e d as if he, too, w e r e a political-spiritual messiah like the m e s s i a h s o f his a g e . '
2 5 5
K l a u s n e r accepts the idea o f a M a r k a n
2 5 6
other
watershed
a n d c o m e s o u t for t h e h i s t o r i c i t y o f t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t o f t h e s u f f e r i n g o f t h e messiah. T h i s , he e m p h a s i s e s , does not m e a n the death o f the messiah. J e s u s h a d it i n m i n d t o a n n o u n c e h i m s e l f p u b l i c l y a s m e s s i a h i n J e r u s a l e m a n d to c l e a n s e the T e m p l e in this c o n t e x t ; he h a d foreseen h a r d times to c o m e thereafter - t i m e s in w h i c h he m i g h t n e e d a r m e d p r o t e c t i o n a n d w a s to w i t h d r a w to G a l i l e e
2 5 7
- b u t h e b e l i e v e d i n d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n . T h e r e is
n o r e a s o n to a s s u m e t h a t he p l a n n e d a revolt a g a i n s t the R o m a n s a n d t h a t the c l e a n s i n g h a s to b e seen as a political a c t i o n .
2 5 8
T h e hostility of the
S a d d u c e e s he a r o u s e d thereby c o u l d not h a v e b r o u g h t a b o u t his d o w n f a l l , w e r e it n o t t h a t b y g i v i n g a n e v a s i v e a n s w e r o n t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e t r i b u t e m o n e y h e forfeited
the support
high-priestly party,
infuriated
o f the nationalistic because of Jesus's
s o m e h o w r e g a r d i n g h i m as a m e n a c e to the p e a c e ,
2 6 0
masses.
2 5 9
So
T e m p l e action
the and
got h o l d o f h i m in a
surprise action w h i c h w a s m a d e possible b y the information supplied b y J u d a s r e g a r d i n g his w h e r e a b o u t s . T h e t r a g e d y o f the event consists in the fact that J e s u s , w h o h a d relinquished Z e a l o t l e a n i n g s a n d returned to a P h a r i s a i c t y p e o f belief, h a d s o m u c h c o m e t o b e a t l o g g e r h e a d s w i t h t h e Pharisees about questions of detail that he did not receive protection from
2 5 1
Jesus Ckrist et sa doctrine i (Paris, 1838), 2g8fT, 3850". As Others saw Him ( L o n d o n , 1895) p . 210. C p . 'All Israel was pining to b e freed from the R o m a n y o k e , and he w o u l d h a v e us p a y tribute to R o m e for aye. D i d he feel h i m s e l f in s o m e w a y as not o f o u r n a t i o n ? ' ( p . 202; c p . p . 161). Jesus of Nazareth, H e b r . ed. J e r u s a l e m , 1922; E T L o n d o n , 1925; G T Berlin, 1930.
2 5 2
253
2 5 4
2 5 5
2 3 6
2 5 7
2 5 8
2 5 9
2 6 0
E T Jesus, p . 397. I b i d . p . 206. Characteristic for his a p p r o a c h is the reliance o n a h i g h degree o f credibility in the Christian sources, especially o f M a r k ( c p . p . 294); in this he is an heir o f the o l d e r t y p e o f Life-of-Jesus authors. S o he interprets Luke 22: 36ff and M a r k 14:28. K l a u s n e r , Jesus, p p . 3i2f. I b i d . p . 318. T h e s u m m a r y w h i c h I. M a y b a u m (Trialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims ( L o n d o n , 1973), p . 85) gives o f K l a u s n e r ' s portrait o f j e s u s is o n e - s i d e d . K l a u s n e r , Jesus, p p . 336, 348.
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
45
t h e i r s i d e a n d w a s , w h e n it c a m e t o t h e p o i n t , a t t h e m e r c y o f t h e S a d d u c e e s w h o treated the case only as a matter o f c o n v e n i e n c e .
2 6 1
I n g i v i n g this outline K l a u s n e r s u c c e e d s in b r i n g i n g J e s u s y e t a n o t h e r step
nearer
to the p a t e r n a l
religion. For a
time Jesus
w a s the
true
m o u t h p i e c e o f J u d a i s m a n d it is o n l y f a t a l d e v i a t i o n i n h i s a c t i v i t y , h i s neglect of national life Judaism
2 6 3
2 6 2
and, at the s a m e time, the features o f ' e x a g g e r a t e d '
in his t e a c h i n g , w h i c h s e p a r a t e h i m from J u d a i s m p r o p e r .
2 6 4
'He
lacks the P r o p h e t ' s political c o n c e p t i o n a n d the P r o p h e t ' s spirit o f national c o n s o l a t i o n in the political n a t i o n a l s e n s e . '
2 6 5
T h i s a t t e m p t a t Heimholung - a t K l a u s n e r ' s t i m e e m p h a t i c a l l y o p p o s e d b y orthodox Jews
2 6 6
- was taken up by Winter.
2 6 7
U n l i k e K l a u s n e r he m a d e
e x t e n s i v e u s e of, a n d c e r t a i n d e t a i l e d c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o , s o u r c e c r i t i c i s m . M o r e i m p o r t a n t , his investigation a p p e a r e d at a time w h e n the C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o n e t o g i v e f u n d a m e n t a l r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o its p o s i t i o n vis-a-vis t h e J e w s .
2 6 8
I t w a s for t h e s e r e a s o n s t h a t t h e b o o k m a d e
history. A d o p t i n g that p a r t o f L i e t z m a n n ' s t h e o r y o n the trial that c l a i m s the unhistoricity o f the report on the interrogation b y the S a n h e d r i n a n d m a k i n g h i m s e l f a c h a m p i o n o f it, h e a t t e m p t s t o d e n y t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a f o r m a l S a n h e d r i n t r i a l , w h i l e a l l o w i n g for a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n b y the
high priest
and,
perhaps,
his c o l l a b o r a t i o n in the
arrest.
2 6 9
The
i n v o l v e m e n t is m i n i m a l a n d a f f e c t s o n l y a f e w , w h i l e t h e r e w a s n o d i s c o r d b e t w e e n J e s u s a n d the P h a r i s e e s .
2 7 0
T h e c h a r g e for t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n w a s 262
26i V e r y similar, J a c o b s , As Others, p p . 153ff. Jesus, p p . 37if. I b i d . p . 374: 'nothing is m o r e d a n g e r o u s to national J u d a i s m than this exaggerated Judaism'. I b i d . p . 375: his teaching ' b e c a m e , in a sense, non-Judaism'. I b i d . p . 414. C p . A . F. M o o r e , ' A J e w i s h Life o f j e s u s , ' HThR 16 (1923), iooff; H . K o s m a l a , 'J. Klausners Jesus v o n Nazareth i m liberalen und o r t h o d o x e n j i i d . Urteil', Saat auf Hoffnung 6Q(i i),6ff The Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961; 2nd enlarged e d n . 1974). C p . Die evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und dieJudenfrage (ed. b y O e k u m e n i s c h e r Rat der K i r c h e n (Genf, 1945)); A . Bea, Die Kirchenunddasjudische Volk (Freiburg, 1966). F o r a J e w i s h response c p . S. Zeitlin, ' T h e E c u m e n i c a l C o u n c i l V a t i c a n I I and the J e w s ' in Studies ii ( N e w Y o r k , 1974), 582ff. W i n t e r , Trial, p . 48; 2nd edn., p p . 66f. S. b . C h o r i n , o n the other hand, admits a J e w i s h trial and c a m p a i g n s for its revision (Juden und Christen (Berlin, i960), p p . ofl). ' I n the w h o l e o f the N . T . w e are unable to find a single historically reliable instance o f religious differences between Jesus and m e m b e r s o f the Pharisaic guild, let alone e v i d e n c e o f a mortal conflict' ( W i n t e r , Trial, p . 133; 2nd edn., p . 186). T h i s is m u c h m o r e m a r k e d in the s e c o n d edition. I n d e e d , W i n t e r gives arguments for a later date o f the passages stating a hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees, w h i c h are very similar in kind to those presented at the same time by F. W e i s s (in R . M e y e r , Tradition und Neuschbpfung im antiken Judentum, L e i p z i g , 1965) and G . B a u m b a c h (Jesus von Nazareth im Lichte derjudischen Gruppenbildung (Berlin, 1 9 7 1 ) ) . H e stresses at the s a m e time the c o n n e c t i o n o f the Christians with the J e w i s h activists ('the sympathies o f J e w i s h Christians were with those J e w i s h parties that o p p o s e d R o m e 2 6 3
2 6 4
2 6 5
2 6 6
93
2 6 7
2 6 8
2 6 9
5
2 7 0
:
46
E.
BAMMEL
e n t i r e l y a p o l i t i c a l o n e ; it w a s t h e c h a r g e o f r e b e l l i o n . especially M a r k ,
2 7 2
2 7 1
T h e evangelists,
w e r e at p a i n s to c o n v e y the c o n t r a r y i m p r e s s i o n
2 7 3
- it is
in t r y i n g to u n e a r t h s u c h a t e n d e n c y t h a t W i n t e r s t a n d s n e a r e s t to B r a n d o n - a n d t h e y d i d s o b y i n v e n t i n g t h e s t o r y o f a S a n h e d r i n t r i a l . W i n t e r is p r e d o m i n a n t l y interested in d e m o n s t r a t i n g w h a t w a s the R o m a n c h a r g e . H e l e a v e s it o p e n h o w m u c h w a s t r u e i n it. I n d e e d , h e is e v e n i n c l i n e d , o r rather not disinclined, concerned him,
2 7 6
2 7 5
-
2 7 4
t o d e n y t h e t r u t h o f t h e c h a r g e a s f a r a s J e s u s is
the case w a s v e r y different w i t h those w h o
v e r y likely so a l r e a d y in his l i f e t i m e .
2 7 1
2 7 2
2 7 3
2 7 4
2 7 7
surrounded
T h i s is n o t h e l d a g a i n s t
a n d fought the R o m a n s ' (2nd edn., p . 180) o r styles them as messianic troublemakers, a ferment o w i n g to the activity o f w h i c h the respective J e w i s h c o m m u n i t i e s as a w h o l e had to suffer (2nd edn., p . 182). H e g o e s even so far as to c l a i m that the adverse portrait o f the H e r o d i a n s in the G o s p e l s is c o n d i t i o n e d b y the fact that H e r o d A g r i p p a II tried to dissuade the J e w s from w a g i n g w a r against the Romans. W i n t e r , Trial, p . 50; 2nd edn., p p . 68f; c p . 1 8 1 , 189. It is o b v i o u s that these lines o f a r g u m e n t are not consistent with each other. F o r criticism see C a t c h p o l e , Trial, p p . 72ff. W i n t e r ' s argument runs as follows: the R o m a n s were reluctant to interfere in religious matters but eager to s t a m p out political unrest - so they acted in the case o f J e s u s ( p p . 15ff). O n the other hand, the Sanhedrin had criminal jurisdiction, but there is n o e v i d e n c e that it m a d e use o f it in the case o f j e s u s . Therefore it was essentially a R o m a n matter. W i n t e r finds additional evidence in M a r k 1 4 : 4 8 b , 49, w h i c h verses he considers as a faint e c h o o f a tradition a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h J e s u s was arrested b y the R o m a n s as a precaution against insurrectionist activities ( p . 50). W i n t e r ' s theory is s u p p o r t e d b y O . C u l l m a n n (DerStaat im N.T. ( T u b i n g e n , 1956) p p . 2gf; E T L o n d o n , 1957, p p . 66f), w h o claims priority (Jesus and the Revolutionaries ( N e w Y o r k , 1970), p . 3 4 ) . C u l l m a n n is followed b y E. T r o c m e {Jesus de Nazareth ( N e u e n b u r g , 1 9 7 1 ) , p . 1 3 4 ) , whereas F. B o v o n (Les derniersjours de Jesus ( N e u e n b u r g 1 9 7 4 ) , p . 40) rejects a Zealcjt interpretation. W i n t e r receives s u p p o r t in the thesis put forward b y G . B r a u m a n n ( ' D e m H i m m e l r e i c h wird G e w a l t angetan' ( M t . 1 1 . 1 2 ) , Z A W 5 2 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , I04ff; ' M a r k u s 1 5 : 2 - 5 und M a r k u s 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 ' , ZNW 52 (1961), 273ff), a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h M a r k 14: 55fT is a d o u b l e t o f M a r k 15: 2ff, inserted in o r d e r to extend the guilt for the death o f j e s u s to the J e w s ( p . 2 7 7 ) . A certain parallelism b e t w e e n the reports in the a c c o u n t s o f the R o m a n a n d the J e w i s h p r o c e e d i n g s is o b v i o u s , but c o n d i t i o n e d b y the subject. M o r e e v i d e n c e is n e e d e d to justify the c o n c l u s i o n . W i n t e r , Trial, p . 24. It is less the influence o f the disaster o f the year 70 than the a p o l o g e t i c needs o f the u r b a n c o m m u n i t i e s that, in the o p i n i o n o f W i n t e r , caused the c h a n g e . ' O n l y w h a t his followers h o p e d . . . finds its expression in the gospels. W h a t Jesus himself thought, . . . w e simply d o not k n o w ' ( ' T h e Trial o f J e s u s ' , The Jewish
Quarterly 16 (1968), N o . 2/3, p . 37). 2 7 5
W i n t e r , Trial, p . 50. 276 < \ y y without hesitation that Jesus's followers cherished aspirations o f J e w i s h national i n d e p e n d e n c e . W e c a n n o t say whether they were e n c o u r a g e d to such aspirations by Jesus h i m s e l f (TheJewish Quarterly 16 (1968), N o . 2/3, p . 37); c p . n. 274. H e seems to think o f d e v e l o p m e n t s similar to those that h a p p e n e d in the e n v i r o n m e n t o f the Baptist: 'it was primarily the effect w h i c h his teaching exercised o n certain sections o f the p o p u l a c e that i n d u c e d the authorities to take action against h i m ' ( W i n t e r , Trial, 2nd edn., p . 189). Interesting is W i n t e r ' s treatment o f Sanh. 43a; he translates the accusation: 'led e
2 7 7
c
a
n
s a
T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y f r o m R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n
47
h i m - W i n t e r differs a t t h i s p o i n t f r o m K l a u s n e r ; o n t h e c o n t r a r y , J e s u s b e c o m e s to h i m a s y m b o l for t h e s u f f e r i n g o f t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n , i n h i s o w n time
at
the
Christians.
2 7 8
hands '
o f the
Romans,
in o t h e r
times
at
those
of
the
2 7 9
T h e r e s e e m s t o b e a f a r c r y f r o m E i s l e r to W i n t e r - i n d e e d n e i t h e r t h e f o r m e r ' s n a m e n o r the s o u r c e f a v o u r e d b y h i m p l a y s a role in the latter's a r g u m e n t . Still, there are points o f c o n t a c t w h i c h are obliterated b y the predominantly
a n a l y t i c a l p r o c e d u r e o f W i n t e r : the Z e a l o t inclination
a m o n g the disciples o f j e s u s , the m o r e restrained attitude o f j e s u s himself, t h e R o m a n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for t r i a l a n d e x e c u t i o n , t h e m i t i g a t i n g t e n d e n c i e s in the d o c u m e n t s o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t . O w i n g to this, a b l e n d i n g o f W i n t e r ' s
2 8 0
and Eisler's a p p r o a c h could be
a c h i e v e d i n t h e p o r t r a y a l o f J . C a r m i c h a e l . I t is E i s l e r ' s i n f l u e n c e t h a t is d o m i n a n t , a n d t h u s w e find a d e s c r i p t i o n o f 'the v i o l e n c e t h a t a t t e n d e d J e s u s ' s m o v e m e n t , its a n t i - R o m a n p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s a n d , a b o v e a l l , p e r h a p s its m a t e r i a l f a i l u r e ' .
2 8 1
J e s u s w a s r e a r e d in the e n v i r o n m e n t o f the
B a p t i s t , w h o h i m s e l f h a d o r g a n i s e d a g r o u p 'to o p p o s e the t h r o u g h p h y s i c a l secession from their territorial j u r i s d i c t i o n ' . away
2 8 3
2 7 8
authorities 2 8 2
H e broke
from J o h n a n d a t t e m p t e d to establish the k i n g d o m , not s o m e w h e r e Israel to revolt'. H e assumes that, if it refers to Jesus's attitude to the R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t , it derives - indirectly - from L u k e 23:2 and that, if it refers to the T o r a h , it was pure mystification. In any case, he denies any evidential value. It is necessary for him to disclaim the credibility o f the passage, b e c a u s e it states that there was a J e w i s h trial and execution. H e thereby deprives himself o f the possibility o f attributing revolutionary plans to Jesus and shifts the e m p h a s i s to J e s u s ' s followers: 'there is reason for thinking that s o m e expression o f such aspirations o c c u r r e d already in the life o f j e s u s ' [Trial, p . 145; 2nd edn., p . 202). T h e Eislerian theory is re-established thereby in a weaker form. C o n v e r s e l y S. A s c h pictures Jesus as having been crucified b y H e r m a n u s (The Nazoraean ( E T L o n d o n , 1939)).
2 7 9
2 8 0
2 8 1
2 8 2
2 8 3
H . - W . Bartsch b e c a m e an advocate o f the views o f W i n t e r on the Trial (Jesus. Prophet und Messias aus Galilaa (Frankfurt, 1970); Der Tod eines Revolutionars ( W u p p e r t a l , 1968)). H e p r o c e e d s further, h o w e v e r , and expresses the o p i n i o n that the messianic d e m o n s t r a t i o n s o f entry and cleansing caused o r necessitated J e s u s ' s h a n d i n g over to the R o m a n s ( p p . 43,47, 53). H e goes even so far as to state that the activities o f his followers were such that the Sanhedrin saw n o reason to enter into a collision course with R o m e for the sake o f so small a minority ( p . 128). D e p e n d e n t o n W i n t e r is P. E. L a p i d e , Jesus in Israel ( G l a d b e c k , 1970), p p . 53f. Similar statements in L a p i d e ' s p o p u l a r and diffuse b o o k Der Rabbi von Nazaret (Trier, 1974). Like W i n t e r in his s e c o n d edition L a p i d e , in his later work, a p p r o a c h e s the Z e a l o t solution. J. C a r m i c h a e l , The Death of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1963; Penguin edn. 1966), p . 157. I b i d . p . 142. Similarly A n d e r m a n n , w h o maintains that Jesus entered the u n d e r g r o u n d organisation o f J o h n , w h o was a ' T a m b o u r des W i d e r s t a n d s ' a l t h o u g h he remained a l o o f in the desert (Gesicht, p . 177). H e r e w e notice a difference from Eisler. W h i l e the 'breaking o u t ' is the final goal o f J e s u s a c c o r d i n g to the latter, it is the device o f an initial phase a c c o r d i n g to C a r m i c h a e l ( c p . p p . 145Q.
48
E.
BAMMEL
far a w a y , b u t b y s t o r m i n g J e r u s a l e m . for
a
time
-
commanders, hierarchy
2 8 6
the 2 8 5
so-called
2 8 4
thieves
H e held the T e m p l e in o c c u p a t i o n
at
the
Cross acted
as
subsidiary
w a s p r o b a b l y supported b y the y o u n g e r m e n o f the T e m p l e
and exercised sovereignty there.
o t h e r s , s e a r c h e s for a t u r n i n g - p o i n t
2 8 7
C a r m i c h a e l , like so m a n y
in the career o f j e s u s . H e
finds
it
a l l u d e d t o in M a r k 1 3 : 1 4 - a v e i l e d r e f e r e n c e t o P i l a t e ' s d e f i l e m e n t o f t h e sanctuary
by
turning-point
setting
up
Roman
standards
in
its
precinct.
2 8 8
The
is t h u s n e i t h e r a n e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e S c h w e i t z e r n o r o f t h e
E i s l e r t y p e . I t is a n e x t e r n a l e v e n t t h a t s e t s i n m o t i o n a m a n w h o , t h r o u g h his c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h the B a p t i s t a n d e v e n m o r e so after his b r e a k w i t h h i m , is a n y h o w
ready
for s u c h
an
action.
The
idea of an
earlier
s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t , is q u i e t l y g i v e n u p . J e s u s is p a r t o f t h e
period,
mainstream
o f J e w i s h life o f h i s t i m e . M e s s i a n i c c o n s c i o u s n e s s , u s u a l l y a d m i t t e d J e w i s h s c h o l a r s , is d e n i e d . this, b e c a u s e completely.
2 9 0
Winter's
2 8 9
T h e S a n h e d r i n trial does not interfere
thesis
enables
Carmichael
to d i s p e n s e
T h e m a n w h o acted as a J e w 'died as a J e w '
2 9 1
by with
with
it
at the h a n d s o f
t h e R o m a n s . T h e c l o s e r J e s u s h i m s e l f is l i n k e d w i t h h i s f a t h e r l a n d ,
the
r e a d i e r C a r m i c h a e l is to a l l o w for a q u i c k t r a n s m i s s i o n i n C h r i s t i a n i t y . T o Jewish
Christianity
and
the
year
70 -
the
touchstones
in
Brandon's
c r i t i c i s m - n o s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e is a t t r i b u t e d . H.
Maccoby
extremely
2 9 2
critical
goes e v e n further attitude
than
vis-a-vis t h e
Eisler. W h i l e displaying
Gospel
reports,
he
bases
an his
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f j e s u s o n his o w n interpretation o f c o n t e m p o r a r y history, w h i c h is l i n k e d w i t h c e r t a i n f a c e t s o f t h e J e s u s t r a d i t i o n i n s u c h a w a y t h a t t h e s e a r e d r a w n i n l i k e m e t a l s h a v i n g ' s b y a m a g n e t . T h e p e r i o d is v i e w e d a s d o m i n a t e d b y z e a l o t i s m - to the e x c l u s i o n o f a n y t h i n g else a n d J e s u s is m a d e
a para-Zealot
figure
contained denunciations o f the R o m a n rape . . , ' . the
'ideological world-victory of Judaism'
Roman power'.
2 8 4
2 8 5
2 8 8
2 8 9
2 9 0
2 9 1
2 9 2
2 9 3
2 9 5
therefore
as well: 'his p r e a c h i n g m u s t 2 9 4
2 9 3
and
have
He was a preacher of o f the
'overthrow
of
Identifying h i m s e l f w i t h the task, he a l l o w s h i m s e l f to be
C a r m i c h a e l , Death, p . 143. Jesus was assisted b y 2,000 a r m e d followers - so C a r m i c h a e l says, referring to w h a t he calls ' a medieval c o p y o f a lost version o f a w o r k o f J o s e p h u s ' ( p . 117). I b i d . p . 120. I b i d . p . 121. I b i d . p . 160. I b i d . p p . i67f. T h i s is s u p p o r t e d b y general remarks o n ' c h r o n o l o g i c a l d i s l o c a t i o n ' in the G o s p e l s ( p . 159). C a r m i c h a e l , Death, p p . 152ff. C p . p . 158; although he admits that the cleansing m a d e J e s u s collide with the J e w i s h authorities ( p . 133). C a r m i c h a e l , Death, p . 165. Revolution in Judaea. Jesus and the Jewish Resistance ( L o n d o n , 1973). M a c c o b y d e v e l o p e d his views in 'Is the Political Jesus d e a d ? ' , Encounter 46 (1976), 8ofT(Feb. N r . ) R e p l y , Encounter 48 (1977), 88ff (April N r . ) . M a c c o b y , Revolution, p . 130. I b i d . p . 173. I b i d . p . 157. 2 8 6
2 8 7
2 9 4
2 9 5
T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y f r o m R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n crowned
a
king,
transfiguration, rebellion' priest.
2 9 8
2 9 7
2 9 6
a
scene
which
was
transformed
to
49
that
of
the
to h e a d for J e r u s a l e m , to e n t e r t h e c i t y ' i n a n a c t o f
to o c c u p y the T e m p l e a r e a a n d , p e r h a p s , to a p p o i n t a n e w h i g h
B e i n g a n a p o c a l y p t i c i s t he did not, h o w e v e r , e n g a g e in
battle
against the R o m a n s b u t e x p e c t e d salvation from a divine miracle, as had b e e n a n n o u n c e d i n Z e c h . 9 - h e w a i t e d for it i n t h e a g o n y o f G e t h s e m a n e . H e w a s arrested 3 0 0
months'
2 9 9
b y t h e R o m a n s , k e p t in p r i s o n for ' s o m e w e e k s o r
a n d c o n d e m n e d as a r e v o l u t i o n a r y . H i s p r e a c h i n g w a s o f the
Pharisaic type;
3 0 1
n o t h i n g w a s o u t s t a n d i n g in i t ;
3 0 2
he w o u l d h a v e been
f o r g o t t e n in J u d a i s m , w e r e it n o t t h a t C h r i s t i a n i t y h a d g o t h o l d o f h i m b y w a y of'falsification of everything that Jesus stood for'.
3 0 3
T h e d i f f e r e n c e is
s u c h that, o n e w o u l d think, the a s s u m p t i o n o f the unhistoricity would
more
Romanticism'
easily explain 3 0 4
the
emergence
of that
'sad
ofjesus
masochistic
c a l l e d C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d its f a n t a s t i c G o s p e l s t h a n
the
a u t h o r ' s p o r t r a y a l o f j e s u s . T h e r e are m a n y c r a c k s in the p i c t u r e a n d the s p e e d w i t h w h i c h t h e a u t h o r p r o c e e d s f r o m a n u n p r o v e n h y p o t h e s i s t o its u s e a s a s o l i d b a s i s for t h e n e x t i d e a is b r e a t h t a k i n g . T h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e T o l e d o t h J e s h u is j u s t n o t i c e a b l e ,
3 0 5
an influence w h i c h h a d been m u c h
m o r e in p r o m i n e n c e in the J e s u s p o r t r a i t o f H . J . S c h o n f i e l d . A f u r t h e r s t a g e is r e a c h e d b y H . C o h n .
3 0 7
3 0 6
J e s u s h i m s e l f is firmly p l a c e d
w i t h i n J u d a i s m ; n o d e v i a t i o n is c a s t i g a t e d . N o r is t h e o n u s p u t o n t h e h i g h p r i e s t s ; a n y t r e a c h e r o u s i n c l i n a t i o n o n t h e i r s i d e is d e n i e d . c l e a n s i n g h a d their support, at least t a c i t l y .
3 0 9
3 0 8
E v e n the
I t is C o h n ' s b a s i c c l a i m t o
h a v e established the u n a n i m i t y o f the nation, w h i c h manifested itself in the u t m o s t p r o t e c t i o n offered to J e s u s . 296 I b i d . p p . l67ff. 298 I b i d . p . I 7 9 . 3 0 0
3 1 0
T h e so-called S a n h e d r i n trial is, in
297 I b i d . p . 1 7 4 . 299 I . flT. b i d
p
p
>
I93
3 0 1
Ibid. p. 2 1 7 . Ibid. p. 129. Slightly different o n M a c c o b y , Revolution, p . 1 9 1 . Ibid. p. 1 9 1 . Ibid. p. 135. C p . n. 300 with the s c h e m e o f the T o l e d o t h . Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1 9 3 9 ) . H e accepts the T o l e d o t h a c c o u n t o f the arrest as historical ( p . 254) and interprets it as referring to an action taken b y the disciples: after having taken refuge they raised s o m e o f the Galilaean Z e a l o t s and m a d e a d e m o n s t r a t i o n in force. T h e authorities w e r e forced to set Jesus free, but later o n he was c a u g h t in the T e m p l e etc.
3 0 2
3 0 3
3 0 4
3 0 5
306
3 0 7
3 0 8
3 0 9
3 1 0
H . C o h n , The Trial and Death of Jesus (in H e b r e w T e l - A v i v , 1968; E T L o n d o n , 1 9 7 2 ) ; c p . Reflections on the Trial and Death of Jesus (Jerusalem, 1 9 6 7 ) . Trial, p . 36; J o h n 1 1 : 4 8 is cited in support o f this. I b i d . p . 249. Jesus was arrested b y the R o m a n s . But the J e w i s h police force was present at the s a m e spot and o b t a i n e d permission to take Jesus into c u s t o d y until the next m o r n i n g . H e was c o n d u c t e d into the high priest's palace and found the high priest already waiting for him: s o m e t h i n g had to be d o n e quickly. W h a t ? ' T o prevent the execution b y the R o m a n s o f a J e w w h o h a p p e n e d to enjoy the affection and love o f the p e o p l e ' (Reflections, p p . 23Q. 'Witnesses had to be found to p r o v e his i n n o c e n c e '
50
E.
BAMMEL
fact, n o t h i n g b u t the a t t e m p t o f the l e a d i n g m e n in J e w r y to shield J e s u s a g a i n s t the R o m a n s a n d to a c h i e v e this b y w o r k i n g out a s c h e m e w h i c h c o u l d b e s t a g e d o n the f o l l o w i n g m o r n i n g in front o f the prefect. T h u s , the J e w s d i d for J e s u s a c c o r d i n g t o C o h n w h a t t h e y d i d for B a r a b b a s a c c o r d i n g to the G o s p e l s . T h e old idea o f a s h o w t r i a l Cohn.
3 1 2
3 1 1
3 , 2
3 1 1
is t h e r e b y g i v e n a n e w t w i s t b y
W h e n J e s u s refused to p l a y his p a r t , they h a d n o a l t e r n a t i v e b u t to
( p . 24). H e himself had to be p e r s u a d e d to p r o m i s e that he w o u l d not in future e n g a g e in a n y treasonable activities ( p . 24). T h e night meeting takes place in o r d e r to enable the Sanhedrin to intervene o n Jesus's behalf. T h e y satisfy themselves that the incriminating witnesses were false ( p . 25). Jesus himself has to b e p e r s u a d e d not to plead guilty. In fact, J e s u s remains silent for m o s t o f the time but w h e n asked b y the high priest he not o n l y admits but even adds a p r o p h e c y o f revenge - so the high priest 'gives u p in despair' ( p . 26). W h a t Jesus said was not c o n s i d e r e d as b l a s p h e m y . T h e r e f o r e it is only the high priest w h o rends his clothes and not the w h o l e c o u r t . T h e y deliver him to the R o m a n s - it is likely that he is led u n b o u n d . W h e n J e s u s proves to b e unwilling to c o l l a b o r a t e with the leaders o f the Sanhedrin, 'they c o u l d d o nothing m o r e ' ( p . 32). ( N . N o t o w i t s c h , Die Liicke im Leben Jesu (Stuttgart, 1894), presents a picture o f the Trial w h i c h is similar: the J e w s d o everything in their p o w e r to free Jesus, while o n l y Pilate wants his e x e c u t i o n . H i s sketch is b a s e d o n sources w h i c h , he claims, he himself had d i s c o v e r e d in T i b e t . ) T h e great a d v a n t a g e o f this theory is that the author is able to c o m b i n e (a) e m p h a s i s o n the illegalities with (b) the suggestion that there was a meeting. But it is very difficult to follow his reason for positing a J e w i s h c u s t o d y , if a R o m a n arrest a n d incrimination had taken place. T h e interpretation o f the 'trial' is certainly e n g e n d e r e d b y the m e m o r y o f w h a t h a p p e n e d in Palestine d u r i n g the time o f the British m a n d a t e . But it needs m o r e than a p o e t ' s imagination to interpret the report this w a y . A n d the w h o l e participation o f J e w s in the trial before Pilate h a d to b e interpreted o u t o f existence. C o h n d r a w s attention to the possibility o f the J e w s acting o n t w o levels. Rightly so.* It is most likely that understandings existed b e t w e e n the J e w i s h parties o n the basis o f w h i c h o n e o f t h e m carried o u t negotiations with the R o m a n s , w h i c h were flanked b y demonstrations o r other actions engineered b y other parties. T h e c o n s i d e r a b l e success the official speakers o f J u d a i s m had o n c e and again before the outbreak o f the J e w i s h revolt w o u l d b e i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e otherwise. It is likely that the trial o f j e s u s was influenced b y dealings o f this kind as well: several, if not all, o f the Jewish parties (the fashionable v i e w that the Pharisees had n o share in the c o n d e m n a t i o n o f j e s u s ( W i n t e r , Trial, passim; B a u m b a c h , Jesus, p . 91) has little to b e said for it) had b e c o m e i n v o l v e d , s o m e o f t h e m had b e c o m e very unfavourably d i s p o s e d towards h i m , w h i l e at the s a m e time the fate o f B a r a b b a s , w h o was very dear to o n e o f these parties, h u n g in the b a l a n c e . It is likely that this set o f circumstances w o r k e d against J e s u s . C p . J. Blinzler, Der Process Jesu ( R e g e n s b u r g , 1969), p . 30. T h e r e is, o f course, n o r o o m for the betrayal b y J u d a s (Trial, p p . 79fl). T h e relative p r o m i n e n c e given to J u d a s is very often a test case in m o d e r n literature. T h o s e w h o a d m i t a political issue in the life o f j e s u s tend to concentrate the p r o b l e m s a r o u n d the figure o f j u d a s ( c p . G . Buchheit, Judas Iskarioth (Gutersloh, 1954); W . J e n s , Der FallJudas (Stuttgart, 1975), w h o gives the Z e a l o t theory a s y m p a t h e t i c hearing ( p p . 32fl), a l t h o u g h the a u t h o r himself is inclined to look in a different direction for the solution o f the p r o b l e m ) . It is in keeping with this that J. R . Harris views J u d a s as the foremost disciple (The Twelve Apostles ( C a m b r i d g e , 1927), p p . 93f, while S h a w in the u n p u b l i s h e d play The Household of Joseph g o e s so far as to picture J e s u s as h a v i n g been lured b y J u d a s from his surroundings in Nazareth to the city o f J e r u s a l e m ( W . S. Smith, Shaw on Religion ( L o n d o n , 1967), p . 15). T h i s is not, h o w e v e r , the case
T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon
51
let fate have its way. T h e condemnation because o f his pretension to be a king - something that 'smacks o f treason'
313
- was the inevitable result.
O n the basis o f this thesis it is hardly comprehensible that a special fellowship o f followers o f j e s u s came into existence, let alone that they diverged from the Jews and even less that they left Jerusalem for Pella and this is the view taken by the contemporary Jews according to C o h n
3 1 4
-
turned traitors. Cohn's theory shows that the attempt to confine Jesus within Judaism, if carried too far burdens the subsequent history with insoluble problems. It is, however, most symptomatic o f how far Jewish scholarship - not only literary imagination
315
- can go in order to achieve
the Heimholung in das judische Volk. According to these views Jesus belongs, more or less, to the Pharisaic type. T h e question o f his o w n community
317
3 1 6
Zealot inclinations and those o f his
is left more open. T h e success reached by the incorporation o f
Jesus in Judaism is such that the particular question o f affiliation
to
zealotism could be treated with a certain latitude. It may be, on the other hand, that the Zealot solution called for attempts to explore
other
connections as well. T h e latest attempt to portray Jesus as a thaumaturge
318
may be seen as such a case. Is it too bold to assume that after other solutions have been attempted the circle will be completed and Jewish scholarship will return to favouring a quasi-Zealot c o m b i n a t i o n ?
319
'
320
in J e w i s h tradition, w h e r e the 'traitor' d o e s not figure in the majority and, possibly, the oldest forms o f the texts. Eisler's reconstruction manifests an affinity with this strand o f J e w i s h tradition. H e is followed in this b y M a c c o b y w h o , b y ingenious interpretation, rules J u d a s and the treachery o u t o f existence (Revolution, p p . 2630). A n interpretation o f the betrayal, altogether different, is ventured b y C . R o t h , Iscariot ( L o n d o n , 1929). C p . recently H . L . G o l d s c h m i d t and M . L i m b e c k , Heilvoller Verrat? Judas im Neuen Testament (Stuttgart, 1976). 3 1 3
3 1 4
3 1 5
3 . 6
3 . 7
3 . 8
3 . 9
C o h n , Reflections, p . 177. I b i d . p . 262. C p . A . A . K a b a k , The small path (Jerusalem, 1938; in H e b r e w ) . G . V e r m e s , Jesus the Jew ( L o n d o n , 1973), p . 50: ' Z e a l o t o r not. . . .' C o h n , Reflections, p . 249. V e r m e s , Jesus, p p . 58ff. A highly individual interpretation is given b y H . L a n d a u ('Jesus in j i i d i s c h e r Sicht' in D e s c h n e r , Jesusbilder, p p . 397!!). It was Stephen, the Hellenist, w h o threatened the J e w s with the destruction o f the T e m p l e to b e performed b y Jesus, w h o was this is. L a n d a u ' s suggestion - still alive at this time (J. O ' N e i l , The Theology of Acts 2nd e d n . ( L o n d o n , 1970) h o l d s an even m o r e radical v i e w in assuming that Stephen was not a C h r i s t i a n ) . T h i s threat w a s found alarming, pressure w a s exercised o n the Sanhedrin to get h o l d o f j e s u s , w h o was arrested without difficulty, whereas 'James a n d the others' e s c a p e d after an unsuccessful attempt to resist ( p . 307). T h e trial itself is seen as entirely a R o m a n o n e ( n o p r o p e r reason is g i v e n ) , the G o s p e l reports - the earliest o f w h i c h , M a r k , w a s written a h u n d r e d years after the event ( p . 310) are stimulated b y the desire to win R o m a n favour a n d to dissociate Jesus from the J e w s ; they are untrustworthy. T h e facts had b e e n different. Jesus, an Essene and successor o f the T e a c h e r o f Righteousness ( p . 303) had enjoyed the veneration o f the
E.
52
BAMMEL
T h e impulse given by the Zealot interpretation led on the non-Jewish side to reflections which manifested themselves in three different approaches. Pike's reconstruction - the title o f the b o o k is a m i s n o m e r follows most closely, both in details and outlook, the path o f interpretation in terms o f revolution; it is in fact a florilegium with a definite preference for Eisler and Brandon. T h e work, however, stops short o f attributing a revolutionary intention to Jesus himself. T h e cleansing was meant to arouse the conscience o f the nation and to bring about a situation which would enable G o d to intervene. It was the divine action that Jesus was waiting for at Gethsemane, the non-arrival of which led him to prohibit his disciples from making use o f the swords they had collected. Deeply committed to the liberation o f Israel, he wondered, however, whether the people were able to comprehend 'the kind o f things he had been teaching his disciples and that were taught at Q u m r a n ' or whether they had to be led through d o o m to the final liberation. Without having launched a revolt he became suspect because Barabbas had attacked the Antonia at the same time as he cleansed the T e m p l e . He was arrested in a mopping-up operation after this event - the Barabbas incident may be based on fact - and sent to the Cross by the Prefect who made use o f his imperium. 321
322
323
324
325
T h e general view o f the course of history is the Zealot one into which the New Testament data are inserted, a procedure which results in a reluctance to accept all the consequences o f the Zealot interpretation. T h e development o f Jesus's own action and, indeed, his reflection is not thereby explained. It is, on the other hand, a refinement o f the theory of Reimarus that is to 326
327
328
w h o l e p o p u l a t i o n ; they had p l e a d e d for his release - the B a r a b b a s a c c o u n t as it is found in the G o s p e l s is d u e to a d u p l i c a t i o n ( p p . 31 iff). His m e m o r y was held in high regard even in the T a l m u d , the crucified o n e b e c a m e the s y m b o l o f the state o f the J e w i s h nation, and his n a m e was passed o v e r in silence until Israel's c o n d i t i o n o f d e p r i v a t i o n c a m e to an end ( p . 308). Exploiting L i e t z m a n n ' s theory o n the Sanhedrin trial the a u t h o r p r o c e e d s to theories o f his o w n w h i c h are d i s c o n n e c t e d a n d confused. 3 2 0
3 2 1
3 2 2
3 2 3
3 2 6
3 2 7
3 2 8
T h e only author w h o breaks out o f this circle is H . J . Schonfield w h o maintains that Christianity as a religion will have to g o , and equally J e w i s h nationalism will have to g o , because they are b o t h misinterpretations o f the messianic idea (The Politics of God ( L o n d o n , 1970), p . 52). F o r his reconstruction o f the historical events - he makes use o f B r a n d o n at this point - c p . his The Pentecost Revolution ( L o n d o n , 1974). The Wilderness Revolt b y D . K . Pike and R . S. K e n n e d y based o n ideas and notes o f J. A . Pike ( N e w Y o r k , 1972). Pike and K e n n e d y , Wilderness Revolt, p . 176. 3 2 4
3 2 5
I b i d . p . 193. I b i d . p . 163. I b i d . p . 225. I f there are difficulties, they are mastered b y means o f straightforward c o m m o n s e n s e without a p p l y i n g critical tools. Pike and K e n n e d y , Wilderness Revolt, p . 193. T h e authors very often p o i n t to such 'reflections'. Is this a sign o f a portrait o f j e s u s different from the o n e presented in the b o o k ?
53
T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon be found in the writings o f G . W . Buchanan,
329
according to whose view it
was the ideology o f and obsession with conquest that directed both Jewish and Christian theology. T h e concept o f the kingdom in the New Testament is accordingly entirely nationalistic.
330
O n the other hand, a concept o f
'passive ethics' had emerged which involved the toleration of hardship and martyrdrom, the final goal o f which was, however, the same as that o f the first concept. By suffering and the performance of ascetic practices and thus the acquisition o f treasures in heaven, G o d will be forced to step in himself and to bring about the fulfilment o f the covenant-conquest pledges. Acquainted with both schemes Jesus, following the Baptist, adopted the former one. But the death of John 'may have required Jesus to rethink his whole program and to reconsider the role o f the M e s s i a h '
331
and, left
without a divine c o m m a n d , to abandon the aim o f military struggle in favour o f meritorious suffering. It is again the idea o f change which is developed here. It is presented in a way which combines Reimarus with the second phase o f Schweitzer. This is done, however, in such a manner that Jesus suffers his death in keeping with this scheme - no indication o f a new experience, as was assumed by Schweitzer, is included. There is therefore no r o o m or need for reconsideration by the disciples after his death. T h e rapid
formation
and
growth o f the communities and
equally
their
self-denying practice can be explained quite easily - this is the difference over against Reimarus. By retrojecting back the turning-point into the life o f j e s u s , Buchanan is also able to place militant
332
and 'pacifist' sayings o f
Jesus side by side - both are original in their respective periods; the rigid Tendenz-cnticism
o f Brandon is avoided by this means. There is no doubt
that an impressive picture is presented o f forces which were for a long time dominant. It is achieved at the price o f depriving both Jesus and nascent Christianity o f anything that is outstanding and original. Both phenomena are only projections o f concepts which had been in force already. Eisler's portrait o f j e s u s was already faded, Buchanan's lacks any significant features and makes it quite incomprehensible why early Christendom took a development so different
from the Jewish
sects which
Buchanan
emphasises as parallel phenomena. Similar, although less one-sided, is J. L e h m a n n .
333
H e more or less
accepts Carmichael'^ thesis o f political motives in the movement o f j e s u s and points to Zealot leanings o f not less than six o f Jesus's disciples.
3 2 9
334
He
The Consequences of the Covenant ( L e i d e n , 1970); H . S. R e i m a r u s , The Goal ofJesus and his Disciples ( L e i d e n , 1970; i n t r o d u c e d b y B u c h a n a n ) , p p . 27-32. B u c h a n a n , Covenant, p p . 69, 90. I b i d . p . 40. I b i d . p p . 38!*. Jesus-Report. Protokoll einer Verfdlschung (Diisseldorf, 1970; E T N e w Y o r k , 1971; L o n d o n , 1972). L e h m a n n , Jesus-Report, p p . i 2 6 f T ( E T p p . 1040*).
3 3 0
333
3 3 4
3 3 1
3 3 2
54
E-
reprimands
BAMMEL
Carmichael,
however,
for
having
disregarded
Ansatzpunkt and for having done so for convenience's sake: connection with
Qumran. Jesus taught like the
community; little in his message was original. nor a revolutionary
337
336
335
the
new
this is Jesus's
men o f the
desert
H e was neither a saviour
but just a rabbi. It was due to historical accidents
that, at the end o f his life, he, like the Essenes, engaged in a form of action which was interpreted as a political crime by the R o m a n s . ecclesiastical filtering
338
Conversely,
tried to obliterate any traces o f both
involvement and Essene heritage.
political
339
T h e Zealot theory is never far away from the Jewish mind
when
approaching Jesus. It is the approach which is the supreme achievement o f making him equal to oneself.
340
It is so much the model that the social
interpretation o f j e s u s is still almost entirely absent
341
from the Jewish
enterprises. Whereas this works in favour of giving Jesus a place in the Valhalla o f the Jewish nation it has rather the opposite effect on the non-Jewish side. If the theory is carried through, and not only applied to one particular phase, it creates a portrayal o f a Jesus engaged in particular questions, a portrayal which is bound to dissociate him from the great questions o f mankind. This is especially noticeable in L e h m a n n ,
342
w h o claims: 'the Christ w h o m the
church preaches has nothing but the name in c o m m o n with the historical
3 3 5
3 3 6
3 3 7
3 3 8
3 3 9
3 4 0
3 4 1
3 4 2
I b i d . p . 31 ( E T p . 28). C p . Pike's v i e w . T h e u n g u a r d e d h o v e r i n g b e t w e e n a Q u m r a n and a Z e a l o t a p p r o a c h is typical o f a g o o d p a r U o f the m o r e p o p u l a r literature. It w o u l d b e justified if a closer link b e t w e e n Q u m r a n i t e s a n d Z e a l o t s c o u l d b e established. T h i s is indeed the theory o f C . Rofti, w h i c h , h o w e v e r , has not met with universal approval. L e h m a n n , Jesus-Report, p p . 1 3 9 / ( E T p . 113).
I b i d . p p . 30, i2of, 140; c p . p . 188 ( E T p . 27f, 98. 113; c p . p . 149). I b i d . p . 136 ( E T p . 1091); J. L e h m a n n , Die Jesus G.M.B.H. (Dtisseldorf, 1972), p p . i8f. F o r a critique o f L e h m a n n , c p . E. L o h s e , EvK 3 (1970), 652ff. T h e views taken b y E. B r o m m e (Allegorisierte Geschichte-gelebter Glaube (Berlin, 1975)) form an imaginative c l i m a x . H e persuades h i m s e l f to his o w n satisfaction that the t e r m i n o l o g y used in the N . T . represents an allegorical presentation o f military terms a n d , i n d e e d , events; that ' b e l o v e d s o n ' m e a n s an eminent a n d trustworthy emissary o f the Essenes; that the fight against the d e m o n s m e a n s battles against h u m a n enemies; the healing o f the c e n t u r i o n ' s servant the c o n q u e s t o f C a p e r n a u m ; J e s u s ' s teaching in s y n a g o g u e s m e a n s g i v i n g instruction to Essene c o m m u n i t i e s ; the transfiguration is J e s u s ' s p r o m o t i o n to the p o s i t i o n o f i n d e p e n d e n t c o m m a n d e r ; etc., etc. It enables the J e w thereby to shake off a certain cultural inferiority c o m p l e x , w h i c h w a s a p p a r e n t in former generations. Perhaps with the e x c e p t i o n o f a remark in F. A n d e r m a n n : J e s u s ' k a m v o n d e r Basis d e r gesellschaftlichen P y r a m i d e , u n d er b r a c h t e v o n unten her einen Radikalismus mit, v o r d e m es d e m J o h a n n e s grauen musste' (Dasgrosse Gesicht ( M i i n c h e n , 1970), P- 177)T h e s a m e is already true for F. M u r a w s k i .
T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon
55
343
Rabbi J(esus)'; be is only used 'as an excuse for an entirely different faith'. This being so, the church lost the integrity which is necessary in order to approach the questions o f life. T h e effect, however, is almost the same on both sides. T h e J e w who incorporates Jesus into his own heritage does so at the cost o f moving him away from Christianity, o f widening the gap between Jewry and Christendom and o f denouncing Paul and Christianity. T h e non-Jew, w h o pictures Jesus as Zealot takes this as a sufficient reason for dispensing with a Christian heritage which is built on so strange a foundation. T h e Zealot interpretation serves as a means o f and justification for dissociation from Christianity. T h e socialist writers explain the origin of Christianity without admitting a constitutive influence o f its 'founder', o f the person o f j e s u s . Jewish historiography tends to explain early Christendom as a deviation from Jesus, who is interpreted solely within the Jewish context. Both views converge. T h e y both benefit from the scheme o f the Tubingen school from Baur to Bultmann and radicalise its findings. O n the other hand, Christian scholars o f this generation find themselves under a certain pressure not to depart (too much) from what has become the communis opinio among Jews. A n important change o f climate is indicated by this. While the generation o f Harnack felt - for scholarly as well as practical reasons - that the Greek line of development taken by the church's history, for all its shortcomings, was the right course, and while they had a deep distrust towards the attempts to enliven the oriental and Jewish roots o f Christendom, the opposite is now the case: the climate is in favour o f as little departure from the Jewish heritage as possible and - in certain questions at least - of a tacit agreement with what appears to be the Jewish position. T h e effect is a stalemate. Scholars eager to fall in with the interests o f their Jewish fellow-workers develop the Zealot theme with great gusto while they tend to remain silent about what is truly revolutionary in Jesus, his animus against the law, his lack o f compliance with what was, on the basis o f the law, the established order o f the day, his relationship to G o d 344
345
343
Jesus-Report, p . 187 ( E T p . 149; not c o r r e c t ) . I b i d . p . 192 ( E T p . 153). H . M a r s c h (alias B e r m a n Saklatvala), The Rebel King ( N e w Y o r k , 1975) is, in spite o f the title, not a Z e a l o t portrait o f j e s u s , but rather an attempt to picture h i m as having parted c o m p a n y with the nationalistic expectation at the time o f the temptation and as having remained disinclined to b e c o m e a ' R e b e l King'. It g o e s so far, in s o m e cases, that it even affects the picture o f the passion o f j e s u s ; thus L a n d a u claims: not those w h o rejected the preaching o f j e s u s but those w h o divinised him p l a c e d o n his shoulders the cross, w h i c h he had to carry and fixed to w h i c h he was to die (Jesusbilder, p . 305).
3 4 4
3 4 5
56
E.
BAMMEL
and his regard for the individual. M e n o f genius from Nietzsche 347
346
to
348
Werfel and C a m u s noticed this, while it plays a minor role in contemporary studies. Jesus revolted against the Torah o f his fathers, nay he wrestled with G o d , but it is not likely that he descended to ordinary revolutionary activity or allowed himself to be used by the mouthpieces o f the different activisms o f his day. 349
VIII T h e scene o f American intellectual church life in the first decades o f this century was dominated by the eager zeal to present Jesus's message as a social g o s p e l .
350
'
351
It is typical for the American atmosphere that it was this
3 4 6
H e states: ' D i e s e r heilige A n a r c h i s t , d e r das niedere V o l k . . . z u m W i d e r s p r u c h g e g e n die herrschende O r d n u n g aufrief- mit einer S p r a c h e , falls d e n Evangelien zu trauen w a r e , d i e auch heute n o c h n a c h Sibirien fiihren wiirde, w a r ein politischer V e r b r e c h e r , so weit e b e n politische V e r b r e c h e r in einer a b s u r d u n p o l i t i s c h e n G e m e i n s c h a f t m o g l i c h w a r e n . Dies b r a c h t e i h n ans K r e u z ' (Werke, e d . K . Schlechta ( M i i n c h e n 1955), ii. 1189). C p . N i e t z s c h e ' s penetrating characterisation o f j e s u s : 'die Leidenschaft g e w o r d e n e Rechtschaffenheit' (Der Antichrist, p . 35).
3 4 7
H e makes G a m a l i e l say: ' I c h widerrufe m e i n e n W i l l e n iiber J e s u s v o n Nazareth! M a g er ein heiliger P r o p h e t g e w e s e n sein, ich nenne ihn Feind. D e r alte W i d e r s p r u c h ist er, d e r Aufruhr in d e r W o l l e des L a m m s ' (Paulus unter den Juden ( W i e n , 1927), p . 170). F o r the p r o b l e m c p . E. Stauffer, 'Jesus u n d seine B i b e l ' in Abraham unser Vater. Festschrift Otto Michel, e d d . O . Betz, M . H e n g e l a n d P. S c h m i d t
(Leiden, 1963), p p . 44ofT. 348 ' W h y hast thou forsaken m e ? T h i s w a s a revolutionary cry ( u n cri seditieux), w a s not it?' ( A . C a m u s , La Chute ( P a r i s 1956), p . 131; G T u8ff). K l a u s Berger's Die Gesetzesauslegungjesu 1 ( N e u k i r c h e n , 1972), for all its merits, is a telling e x a m p l e o f this state o f affairs. r
3 4 9
3 5 0
S. M a t h e w s , The Social Teaching of Jesus ( N e w Y o r k , 1897); F. G . Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question ( N o w Y o r k , 1900; G T Giessen, 1903); W . R a u s c h e n b u s c h , Christianizing the Social Order ( N e w Y o r k , 1923); Christianity and the Social Crisis ( N e w Y o r k , 1924). A different line is taken b y F. D . H e u v e r , The Teaching of Jesus concerning Wealth ( C h i c a g o , 1903); c p . H . E. hucock, Jesus and the American Mind ( N e w Y o r k , 1930). F o r criticism c p . H . Frick, Das Reich Gottes in amerikanischer und deutscher Theologie der Gegenwart (Giessen, 1926).
3 5 1
It is parallel to the Christian Social m o v e m e n t in W i i r t t e m b e r g and Switzerland at the b e g i n n i n g o f the century, w h i c h is m a r k e d b y the n a m e s o f B l u m h a r d t a n d R a g a z . F o r an evaluation c p . U . v o n d e r Steinen, Agitation fur das Reich Gottes ( M i i n c h e n , 1977) and M . J . Stahli, Reich Gottes und Revolution ( H a m b u r g , 1980). Christian S o c i a l i s m in G r e a t Britain had d e v e l o p e d along different lines. T h e m o v e m e n t started earlier - before the G e r m a n lives o f j e s u s h a d b e c o m e a force. T h e r e is little reflection o n Jesus's o w n position. O n e gets the impression that the social tendencies e m e r g e d s p o n t a n e o u s l y and that the c o m b i n a t i o n with the N . T . a n d , i n d e e d , the O . T . , is rather an afterthought (e.g. C . K i n g s l e y interpreted L u k e 4: 16 as referring to the Hall year in his famous s e r m o n o f 1851 and m a d e this the starting p o i n t for his social p r o p o s i t i o n s ) . T h e link is performed b y the utilisation o f certain N . T . features as m o t t o e s (e.g. J. L . D a v i e s , Morality according to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ( L o n d o n , 1867)), while very o c c a s i o n a l l y m o d e r n thoughts ( ' T h e w o r k o f j e s u s C h r i s t . . . is . . . s h o w n to b e secular w o r k ' : S. H e a d l a m , The Service of
T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon
57
aspect of politics that was discussed. T h e attempt to modernise Jesus in this way was carried out without much historical insight and with the help o f arbitrarily selected citations from the works o f German
theologians.
Something similar happened in the sixties when the view that Jesus was a revolutionary spread like a prairie fire over the five continents. In the time in between a claim, substantially different but in other ways related, was made. T h e sentence Jesus was black' is recorded to have been expressed in 1 9 2 4 .
3 5 2
It is not clear what was meant by this: whether Jesus
was actually black in his lifetime,
353
or the risen Lord gives his concern to
the black, or whether the expression was intended to be symbolic. In any case, a special relation between Jesus and the black underdog is assumed. This is a line that was taken up many times. W h a t may have been meant initially as a sentiment, an expression o f consolation, became something different when it was linked with black aims. Whereas it had been the suffering Christ w h o had given comfort to the maltreated negro, it was now claimed that Jesus's violent death sanctifies violent struggles for j u s t i c e . Whereas G o d ' s compassion for the black man had been stressed, emphasis is now shifted: 'black is h o l y ' .
355
354
the
Whereas the simple life ofjesus
had been taken as appealing to the black, it was now maintained that the Zealot-type
activism
called for similar
actions.
356
Even
where
this
Humanity ( L o n d o n , 1882), p . 3) c r o p u p . C . N o e l is s o m e t h i n g o f an e x c e p t i o n . H e describes Jesus as a revolutionary a n d his p r o c l a m a t i o n as directed t o w a r d s a n e w w o r l d o r d e r , a k i n g d o m o f j u s t i c e and c o m r a d e s h i p , w h i c h he wishes m e n to build u p o n earth (The Life of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1939), p p . 212, 486, 580). It is this 'collective h o p e ' ( p . 582) he finds significant. H e therefore emphasises the political implications o f the ministry and denies a pacifist interpretation ( p . x v m , (2nd e d n . ) p . 487), while c o m i n g o u t even m o r e sternly against a Z e a l o t understanding (he is disinclined to follow Eisler ( p . xix: Jesus w o u l d p r o b a b l y not h a v e a p p r o v e d o f the ' m a d a c t i o n ' d e s c r i b e d in the S l a v o n i c J o s e p h u s ( p . 564)) a n d sets Jesus against the imperialism o f the Zealots, p p . 274!!). T h e temptation o f the k i n g d o m is a temptation for N o e l ' s internationalism as well; he avoids dissociating himself from Jesus b y c l a i m i n g that the R o m a n pretensions were based o n external d o m i n i o n and w e r e therefore 'essentially i n h u m a n ' ( p . 296). B y interpreting the temptations as w a r d i n g off particular expressions o f political h o p e ( c p . p . 2841) he finds himself able to maintain his c o n c e p t o f the k i n g d o m , an idea N o e l d e v e l o p s from the p r o p h e t i c and Baptistic p r o c l a m a t i o n rather than from an interpretation o f the d o m i n i c a l message. M u c h o f N o e l ' s c o n c e p t looks like a secularised version o f F. D . M a u r i c e ' s Kingdom of Christ ( L o n d o n , i/ii 1937). F o r an evaluation o f the w h o l e m o v e m e n t c p . L . B r e n t a n o , Die christlichsoziale Bewegung in England ( L e i p z i g , 1883) a n d , m o s t recently, E . R . N o r m a n , Church and Society in England 1770-1970 (Oxford,
1976). 3 5 2
3 5 3
3 5 4
3 5 5
3 5 6
L e i p o l d t , > m y M < / , p . 286. T h i s is the o p i n i o n o f A . B . C l e a g e , The Black Messiah ( N e w Y o r k , 1968). B. C a r r at the L u s a k a C o n f e r e n c e o f 1974; c p . A . Hastings, 'Christianity and R e v o l u t i o n ' , African Affairs 74 (1975), 360. J . H . C o n e , Black Theology and Black Power ( N e w Y o r k , 1969), p . 69. L i b e r a l i s m ' b y a n y m e a n s necessary' as J. H . C o n e puts it (Black Theology, p . n ) .
58
E.
BAMMEL
reconstruction o f the life o f j e s u s was not accepted it is argued that 'the Nazarene, although he was not a revolutionary Zealot, as risen Lord became involved in the black r e v o l u t i o n ' .
357
'
358
A link is established in this
way with the c o m m o n belief o f the black Christian. It is the returning Christ w h o plays a role in his life,
359
while the reference to the historic Jesus
as an inspiration to revolution comes primarily from white counsellors. T h e black man himself is inclined to single out certain elements in the Bible and to re-interpret them in the light o f his own expectation. This can be done in a committed way and in a more detached manner which only makes use o f the traditional material. Characteristic for the latter is the motto: 'seek ye first the political kingdom and all the rest will be added to you'.
360
Basically it is lack o f objective interest in Jesus and early Christianity that becomes manifest in this way. Even the sketch o f the future as it is drawn in Christian and post-Christian religions developed by the coloured man tends to b e c o m e a future without Christ in the majority o f the sources.
361
It is, perhaps, symptomatic that the cypher 'Black Messiah' or
3 5 7
J. H . C o n e , ' S c h w a r z e T h e o l o g i e i m Blick a u f R e v o l u t i o n ' , EvTh 34 (1974), 13 (the w h o l e issue, p p . 1-112 of EvTh entitled Zur schwarzen Theologie, w a s translated into English a n d a p p e a r e d in Union Seminary Quarterly Review 31 (1975/6), iff).
3 5 8
T h e s a m e author maintains that J e s u s is 'the c o m p l e t e o p p o s i t e o f the values o f white culture' (Black Theology of Liberation (Philadelphia, 1970), p . 215), an analysis that w o u l d give him a position in b e t w e e n 'irrelevant for our times' and 'irrelevant for the time o f the historical J e s u s ' ( p . 214) and he maintains ' I f Christ is not b l a c k then w h o is h e ? ' ( p . 217). H e sees as the historical kernel o f the N . T . reports the manifestation o f j e s u s as the O p p r e s s e d o n e w h o s e earthly existence was b o u n d u p with the o p p r e s s e d o f the land ( p . 202). In his recent God of the Oppressed ( N e w Y o r k , 1975) C o n e admits that a c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f j e s u s with the Z e a l o t s c a n n o t b e d e f e n d e d o n historical g r o u n d s ( p . 274). H e turns, h o w e v e r , the 'uncertainty' against those w h o a d v o c a t e a different o p i n i o n and asks: ' H o w can w e b e sure that J e s u s w a s not violent?' ( p . 223). H e sees those w h o disagree with h i m as 'the c o n t e m p o r a r y representatives o f the scribes a n d lawyers' ( p . 223), lists a w h o l e series o f 'establishment s c h o l a r s ' ( p . 272Q and admits o n l y o n e e x c e p t i o n , K a s e m a n n . F o r a s y m p a t h e t i c a n d searching consideration o f C o n e ' s principles c p . J. L . S e g u n d o Liberacion de la teologia ( B u e n o s Aires, 1975; E T N e w Y o r k , 1976, esp. p p . 25ff). It must b e a d d e d that in the o p i n i o n o f C o n e the term ' B l a c k t h e o l o g y ' d o e s not c o m p r e h e n d the fullest m e a n i n g o f the D i v i n e revelation. It is, h o w e v e r , its necessary w a y o f b e c o m i n g c o n c r e t e - like the liberation from E g y p t , like the a p p e a r a n c e o f the m a n J e s u s (EvTh 34 (1974), 88, 90).
3 5 9
3 6 0
3 6 1
C p . note 361. A l s o c p . C o n e , God of the Oppressed, p . 119, w h o goes so far as to state that the emphasis o n the h u m a n i t y o f Christ was the emphasis o f black slaves. It is the nationalist version o f the 'translation' given b y S. H e a d l a m : 'live as m e m b e r o f a righteous society, a n d individually y o u will benefit' ( W . S. Smith, The London Heretics 1870-1914 ( L o n d o n , 1967), p . 185). For the statement itself c p . H . J . M a r g u l l , Aufbruch zur Zukunft (Giitersloh, 1962), p . 70; M . W a r r e n , Problems and Promises in Africa today ( L o n d o n , 1964), p . 40. T h i s b e c o m e s o b v i o u s from the sources cited b y M a r g u l l . T h e cases referred to o n p p . 94 a n d 96 are rather the e x c e p t i o n a n d represent m o v e m e n t s o f a period already b y g o n e . T h e e x a m p l e o f a revelation chain in w h i c h Christ represents a stage that is
59
T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon
'Black Christ' tends to be supplemented by 'Black theology'. If that feature should turn out to be o f a lasting nature, it would indicate a departure that is far more crucial than the presentation o f the portrait o f a revolutionary Christ. It is mainly through C . M o r r i s
362
that the latter idea is suggested to the
black man. T h e Winter-Cullmann theory, according to which Jesus was executed as a political criminal, is taken by Morris as probably matching the facts: Pilate may have been right in putting Jesus to death. from this that Jesus was not non-violent.
364
363
It results
And indeed Morris finds
instances in the Gospels that support this view: Jesus's statement on the tribute money is 'fighting talk';
365
the entry had to be understood politically
and the cleansing o f the T e m p l e , o f that 'haunt o f R o m a n collaborators', was meant to be a 'symbolic condemnation o f any collaboration'.
366
He
finds it significant that the Zealots are nowhere condemned in the New Testament, considers the pacific portrait ofjesus given by the evangelists as untrustworthy, nay, finds it hard to imagine that they believed i t
367
and states his agreement with Brandon.
themselves
368
It may be that his sketch ofjesus is meant rather to awake the European Christians than to foster revolution in Africa. His advocacy o f v i o l e n c e may be taken this w a y .
370
369
It has to be emphasised that it is action Morris is
interested in. His thinking revolves around what is said in the Parable of the Last Judgement.
371
H e has harsh words to say on a theology o f revolution
which is all too often a way o f avoiding action. had no immediate e c h o
3 6 2
3 6 3
3 6 6
3 6 9
3 7 0
3 7 1
373
372
While Morris's manifesto
in Africa, where it was written; while it was
superseded b y the n e w p r o p h e t H u n g is given o n p . 103. F o r the t e n d e n c y to v i e w Jesus as a figure o n the fringes o r to p r o c l a i m the returning Christ as a political liberator, c p . E. D a m m a n n , ' D a s Christusverstandnis in d e n nachchristlichen K i r c h e n u n d Sekten Afrikas' in E. Benz, Messianische Kirchen, Sekten und Bewegungen im heutigen Afrika ( L e i d e n , 1965). Unyoung, Uncoloured, Unpoor ( L o n d o n , 1969). Ibid. p . i n . I b i d . p . 102. I b i d . p . 113. I b i d . p p . u6f. I b i d . p . 102. I b i d . p . 121. ' V i o l e n c e m a y well not establish a Paradise but it can destroy an Inferno' ( C . M o r r i s , s e r m o n in G r e a t St M a r y ' s , C a m b r i d g e , M a r c h 1970). T h e r e are features in M o r r i s ' s activity w h i c h are o p e n to q u e s t i o n . It is his attempt to j u m p o n the b a n d w a g o n and to b e trendy. A c t i o n for social and political j u s t i c e in the tradition o f o l d tendencies in the c h u r c h e s to r e d u c e and to abolish o u t r a g e o u s injustice ( c p . e.g. P. M a r s h a l l , The Anti-Slave Movement and Bristol (Bristol, 1968)) - tends to e r o d e interest in personal salvation a n d to politicise the c h u r c h ( c p . R . E. K e n d a l l , 'Political i n v o l v e m e n t for the Christian', Epworth Review 2 0975)> M Q . Include me out. Confessions of an Ecclesiastical Coward ( L o n d o n , 1968 and, in a revised 3 6 4
3 6 5
3 6 7
3 6 8
form, 1975), p p . 40, 113. 3 1 2
3 7 3
Include, p p . 41, 46f. F o r C . M o r r i s ' s basic attitude towards politics c p . L . C h a r l t o n , Spark in the Stubble ( L o n d o n , 1963), p p . 87f. T h e situation lends s u p p o r t to the v i e w that the social structure o f Africa c o n t a i n e d
60
E.
BAMMEL
treated with reserve even by the sophisticated negroes of North A m e r i c a ,
374
a parallel and far more radical battle cry had been promulgated already by A . B. Cleage. Jesus is seen as the inaugurator of a movement which became so widespread and well-established that the disciples could move freely without worries about money and other support. T h e Zealots functioned as the 'revolutionary underground part' o f the same organisation.
375
In
fluences stemming from Brandon are obvious at this point; the matter is, however, expressed in overwhelmingly socialist terminology. This Jesus was 'in constant opposition to the established power structure',
376
he was
'engaged in a liberation struggle against the whole gentile w o r l d ' .
377
It is the
black man's task to let himself be called back to this, Jesus's original teaching.
378
It is in this activity that Jesus serves again as an example, not so
much, or rather not at all, in his death. attempts to give meaning to C a l v a r y , salvation,
381
which is stigmatised
counter-revolutionary,
382
379
380
Dark shadows fall on the church's on the otherworldly conception o f
as individualistic and
on justification
theology', which is Paul's and not Jesus's o f the H o l y Spirit'.
384
by faith,
383
branded
against
as
the 'old
- all this is nothing but a 'waste
385
Cleage names the 'Black experience' as basic for the developing o f a new value system. T h e model for this experience is found in the history o f Israel
386
rather than in the life ofjesus. T h e latter is mentioned occasionally
but emphasis is given to the O l d Testament, the history of which is linked, in a rather arbitrary way, with African tribal religion - so much so that the black people are singled out and proclaimed as ' G o d ' s chosen p e o p l e ' .
387
s o m a n y b a l a n c i n g factors that an outburst w a s not inevitable (thus Hastings, African Affairs 74 (1975), 3601). H o w different the African situation still is b e c o m e s a p p a r e n t from J. S. P o b e e , Towards an African Theology ( A b i n g d o n , 1979). 3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
3 7 7
3 7 8
3 8 0
3 8 1
3 8 2
3 8 4
3 8 5
3 8 6
3 8 7
M . J . J o n e s , Black Awareness (Nashville, 1971), p p . 12if. A . B . C l e a g e , Black Christian Nationalism ( N e w Y o r k , 1972). I b i d . p . 182; 'the R o m a n p o w e r structure i n c l u d i n g the temple in J e r u s a l e m ' (2071). I b i d . p . 45; c p . p p . 53, 174. 3 7 9
I b i d . p . 175. I b i d . p . 188. I b i d . p p . 6of, 183. H e c o m p a r e s it spitefully with 'the o l d U n c l e T o m ' s w a y s ' ( p . 58 etc.). I b i d . p p . 183, 188, 201; c p . p p . 53, 73. I b i d . p . 58; c p . p . 217. I b i d . p p . 186, 190. I b i d . p . 136 a n d Y . b . J o c h a n a n ' s attack against the ' d r e a m e r ' Paul, w h o turned to R o m e (in C l e a g e , Nationalism, p . 291). 3 8 3
I b i d . p . 256. I b i d . p p . 192, 202, 2o6f, 239 etc.; c p . C o n e , God of the Oppressed, p . 137, and I . R . W a s h i n g t o n , The Politics of God (2nd e d n . , Boston, 1970), p . 157. C l e a g e , Nationalism, p . 175; c p . p . 239. In a similar vein W a s h i n g t o n , Politics, p . 156. C l e a g e h o l d s that J u d a i s m is essentially a black religion. H e points to the E g y p t i a n b e g i n n i n g s a n d lists a n u m b e r o f characteristic features w h i c h in his a n d his c o l l a b o r a t o r s ' o p i n i o n derive from African tribal religion. T h e c o n c l u s i o n that Jesus himself w a s black is o b v i o u s , and equally the d e d u c t i o n from it: 'historically b o t h
T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon
61
Tendencies which are noticeable here and there are expressed much more openly and crudely by this author than in other publications. Whatever may be the outcome o f the political movement started by Cleage, the tendencies he had given voice to are likely to come up again in this or another form. A third focussing point o f unrest was the explosive situation in South America. It was met by a church which was at first and at best only equipped with a Las Casas type o f t h e o l o g y ,
388
with compassion for the
suppressed which is given expression in the act o f protest. Even C . Torres is no exception to this. Certain scriptural passages - especially the Parable o f the
Last Judgement
pronouncements,
389
and
Romans
13:8 -
figure as mottoes in
his
while what reflection there is on the situation has to be
supplied from the Marxist intellectual armoury. T h e desire to enact an imitation o f Christ
390
may have led him to force his violent death.
Apart from the situation which sparked off these manifestos it was the Christian-Marxist dialogue which influenced the state o f discussion and led to theological penetration. This discourse, which started on a larger scale in the sixties, was opened by the Marxists'
391
confession that they were 392
in agreement with and had even taken up die Sache Jesu.
Conciliation was
voiced, appreciation ofjesus was expressed although it was admitted that Jesus was not a revolutionary 'like the Zealots, like Bar K o c h b a ' . in
this dialogue
that
the
appreciation
o f Jesus,
described
3 9 3
It was
as
the
revolutionary par excellence, was turned against the church, against those w h o stamped out the fire which he had kindled.
religions declares J e w i s h if are used
394
It was in the same
b e l o n g to us' (Nationalism, p . 175). T h e author p r o c e e d s even further and that black p e o p l e as such have 'the legitimate right to b e Christian o r they w i s h ' ( p . 175). It is interesting that the terms 'Christian' and 'Jewish' interchangeably.
3 8 8
C p . C . L a n g e , ' K o l o n i a l i s m u s - das Z e u g n i s v o n Las C a s a s ' (Diss. Berlin, 1972). 389 Q T o r r e s , Revolution als Aufgabe des Christen ( M a i n z , 1969), p p . 25f; Vom Apostolate zum Partisanenkampf. Artikel und Proklamationen ( H a m b u r g , 1969), p p . 125^ 143. C. Torres, Revolutionary Priest. Complete Writings, ed. J. Gerassi (Pelican edition, L o n d o n , 1973) p p . 270I*. H e also refers to M a t t . 25 as a movens for his fight in his justification for the petition for laicisation; c p . H . Liining, C. Torres, Priester und Guerrillero ( H a m b u r g , 1969), p . 115. 3 9 0
3 9 1
3 9 2
3 9 3
3 9 4
T h e statement his m o t h e r m a d e after his death ( ' W o u l d Christianity exist, if Jesus had d i e d in his b e d ? ' ; Liining, Torres, p . 158) is an indication o f this. S o m e o f them w e r e neutralised a n d r e p r i m a n d e d in their o w n parties subse quently. C p . E. B l o c h ' s essay, Im Christentum steckt die Revolte ( Z u r i c h , 1971). R . G a r a u d y , VAlternative (Paris, 1972), p . 124 ( G T W i e n 1973, p . 116, E T L o n d o n , 1976, p . 96). Jesus is d e s c r i b e d as 'breaking tabus' ( p . 118; G T p . i n , E T p . 91). ' H e is not a r e v o l u t i o n a r y ' ( p . 124; G T p . 116; E T p . 96), but b y being the m a n he is, he is j u s t the person a revolutionary is able to agree with a n d even 'to believe in' ( p . 126; G T p . 118; E T p p . 97Q. T h e R e i m a r u s s c h e m e o f a radical c h a n g e after the death o f j e s u s is a p p l i e d b y K .
62
E.
BAMMEL
dialogue that Jesus was attacked as the man of'total protest' whose attitude is more akin to the 'anarchism' of Baader, Meinhof and Mahler than to the principles o f Marxist revolution.
395
O n the other hand, it was in this
discussion that Christian criticism in the manner o f the prophets was invoked as the means o f tracing the authentic Karl Marx, w h o had been neutralised by a satisfied Communist establishment about something like a permanent revolution.
397
396
and even to bring
O l d patterns o f reaction
re-emerged in this way. The
reflection
revolution',
398
on
the
Christian
a political t h e o l o g y ,
399
side resulted
in
a
'theology o f
political hermeneutics, a theology o f
F a r n e r in the following w a y : the c h u r c h turned Jesus's protest into a kind o f non-protest, an opiate. T h e theology o f liberation might lead to a liberation o f the t h e o l o g y . T h e theology o f revolution might result in a revolution o f the followers o f Jesus: in a de-Christianisation in the direction o f j e s u s . H e a d d s to this the i m p o r t a n t qualification: o n l y forces o f a general kind might b e a b l e to achieve this; 'the Christians are hardly a b l e to a c c o m p l i s h it: they h a v e b e e n already far t o o l o n g "just C h r i s t i a n s ' " ( J e s u s als Brandstifter-Christus als Brandloscher' in I. Fetscher ( e d . ) , Marxisten und die Sache Jesu ( M i i n c h e n , 1974), p p . 62ff). C p . K . Farner, Theologie des Kommunismus? (Frankfurt, 1969). 3 9 5
3 9 6
3 9 7
3 9 8
3 9 9
L . Kofler, 'Jesus u n d die O h n m a c h t ' , in Fetscher, Marxisten, p . 50. W h i l e Engels h a d c o m p a r e d early C h r i s t e n d o m w i t h the p r e - M a r x i s t c o m m u n i s t societies o f the early nineteenth century it is Kofler w h o sees Christ - he c o n s i d e r e d it as irrelevant w h e t h e r he actually lived o r not - in the line o f those w h o p r o c l a i m e d 'total protest' ( p . 49), a line w h i c h culminates in a n a r c h i s m : 'it is for this reason that T o l s t o i c o u l d b e a Christian and an A n a r c h i s t at the same time' ( p . 49). T h e total Ohnmacht (helplessness) felt b y 'Christ' led to resistance to the established o r d e r , to a b s t i n e n c e from it, to o p t i n g out entirely (Verweigerung). T h u s Christ is the e x p o n e n t o f rebellion w h i c h is not at all identical with a revolution w h i c h is c o n s c i o u s o f its a i m s . T h e use o f the n a m e 'Christ as a m o t t o in the m o d e r n political struggle is therefore an indication o f the e m o t i o n a l , unreflected and non-rational character o f the rebellion initially signalised b y that n a m e ( p . 52). T h i s is a caveat from the M a r x i s t side w h i c h indicates the limits o f their appreciation o f early C h r i s t e n d o m . T h e o b s e r v a t i o n , a l t h o u g h c o u c h e d in sociological language, is not without certain grains o f truth. A . T . v a n L e e u w e n , Revolution als Hoffnung (Stuttgart, 1970), p . 213. R . Shaull in C . O g l e s b y a n d R . Shaull, Containment and Change ( N e w Y o r k , 1967), p . 238. F o r a critique from the side o f o r t h o d o x M a r x i s m c p . I. B a u e r a n d A . Liepert, Die 'grosse Wende' des Roger Garaudy (Frankfurt, 1971), p p . 59ff, I32f, a n d , not altogether different, C . O r d n u n g , Christ und Revolution. Theologische Konzeptionen zwischen Desorientierung und Wegweisung (Berlin, 1974), p p . 42ff. J . C o m b l i n , Theologie de la revolution (Paris, 1970). T h e term had already been c o i n e d b y M . S c h r o t e r in 1964 ( c p . E . Feil a n d R . W e t h , Diskussion zur Theologie der Revolution ( M u n c h e n / M a i n z , 1969), p . 291). C o m b l i n ' s w o r k w a s hailed b y G a r a u d y ; the idea o f the nearness o f G o d in Christ appeals to h i m and he goes s o far as to d e s c r i b e Christianity as a 'religion o f a c t i o n ' and indeed d e c i s i o n , and tojustify 'militant a c t i o n ' from this basis (De VAnatheme au Dialogue (Paris, 1965), G T in R . G a r a u d y , J. B . M e t z a n d K . R a h n e r , Der Dialog ( H a m b u r g , 1966), p . 51 ( E T , b a s e d o n G T ( L o n d o n , 1967), p . 46)); G a r a u d y , LAlternative, p . 118 ( G T p . i n ; E T P- 96). H . Peukert ( e d . ) , Diskussion zur politischen Theologie ( M a i n z , 1969).
T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon the w o r l d , theology.
400
402
a theology o f liberation,
401
6
3
in the search for a liberation o f
W h a t is typical for these designs which began to flourish at
about the same time is the attempt to give them a wider basis: in the exodus which is viewed as an act o f legitimate disobedience,
403
in phenomena o f
church history from J o a c h i m to Miintzer, in a covenant revelation, that means in progressive
revelation,
404
in Jewish messianism, in
philosophy o f history in the guise o f E. B l o c h , theology, for
406
405
Hegel's
in the heritage o f natural
while the reflection on Jesus plays only a minor role. It is typical
this approach that its leaders, Moltmann and
Metz, are
heavily
indebted to the influence o f Federal theology and Aristotelian Thomistic theology respectively. M o l t m a n n deals with the question of Jesus's own position at length, follows H e n g e l
408
and is inclined to part with Brandon's Zealot theory,
while resurrecting a political theology for other reasons that
Christian
theology
Herrschaftsverhaltnisse',
411
postulates
the
410
'Abbau
and
407
409
claiming politischer
the destruction o f political power structures,
400
J. B. M e t z , Zur Theologie der Welt ( M a i n z / M u n c h e n , 1968; E T L o n d o n , 1969). M e t z describes Jesus as a 'revolutionary w h o c o m e s , in action and suffering, into conflict with the establishment' (Dialog, p p . 1261) and attributes to early C h r i s t e n d o m an expectation w h i c h is p u g n a c i o u s (kdmpferisch) and w h i c h aims at the transformation o f this w o r l d ; Christian h o p e is creative, it is to be d e s c r i b e d as ' p r o d u c t i v e e s c h a t o l o g y ' . O n the other hand, he protests against the taking o f political t h e o l o g y just as an ' i d e o l o g i c a l paraphrase o f progressivism' ( p . 129) and professes the Christian task to 'deritualize' the progressive i d e o l o g y ( p . 130). T h i s t h e o l o g y is not u n a w a r e o f the need for justification vis-a-vis Christ, without, h o w e v e r , b e i n g able to give c o n c r e t e expression to this awareness. It is s y m p t o m a t i c that o n l y such c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the Diskussion zur politischen T h e o l o g i e w h i c h take u p a critical position ( H . M a i e r in Peukert, Diskussion, p . 8; W . Pannenberg, ibid., p p . 232ff) refer to d o m i n i c a l sayings as p r o v i d i n g a n o r m .
4 0 1
4 0 2
4 0 3
G . Gutierrez, Theologia de la Liberacion ( S a l a m a n c a , 1972; E T L o n d o n , 1974; G T M i i n c h e n / M a i n z , 1973). J. L . S e g u n d o , Liberacion de la teologia ( B u e n o s Aires, 1975). C o m b l i n , Theologie.
^J.
M o l t m a n n , Theologie der Hoffnung ( M i i n c h e n , 1964), p p . 85ff; E T L o n d o n , 1967,
PP- 95ff^ M o l t m a n n , Theologie, p p . 3 i 6 f . M e t z , Theologie; c p . G . Bauer, Christliche Hoffnung und menschlicher Fortschritt. Die politische Theologie von J. B. Metz als theol. Begriindung gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung ( M a i n z , 1976). Der gekreuzigte Gott ( M i i n c h e n , 1972), p p . 1 igff ( E T L o n d o n , 1974, p p . i37ff). War Jesus Revolutionary (Stuttgart, 1970); 'Christus und die M a c h t ' in E. Kellner, Christliche Politik ( W i e n , 1976), p p . i7ff. C p . , h o w e v e r , M o l t m a n n ' s qualification, Gott, p . 135, note 59. 4 0 6
4 0 7
4 0 8
409
Ibid. p p . i33ff ( E T p p . 130.fi).
4 , 0
Ibid. p p . 293ff ( E T p p . 317!^).
4 1 1
I b i d . p . 304 ( E T p . 328 d o e s not give an adequate r e n d e r i n g ) . H e goes so far as to say that the c o n d e m n a t i o n o f j e s u s in the n a m e o f the political authority o f the d a y deprives such authorities o f their credibility: 'Political rule can o n l y b e justified " f r o m b e l o w " ' ( p . 305; E T p . 328).
64
E.
BAMMEL
and leaving open the way in which this liberation is to be achieved.
412
In South America itself a leap was felt to be necessary from a theology which appeared so traditional that its values could hardly be brought to life. North American influences, stemming from Niebuhr and his p u p i l s on
413
the one hand and from Bonhoffer on the other, had given some
preparation, when the revolutionary situation caused an eager appropria tion o f intellectual structures provided by Marxism and sophisticated theologies mainly o f German p r o v e n a n c e .
414
Brandon's theory was picked up quickly in order to provide a biblical basis for activism. M . Dutheil became the protagonist o f this approach in South A m e r i c a .
415
It is however significant that, partly under the influence
of Cullmann, this approach soon faltered. G. Gutierrez, while denying the apolitical character o f the message ofjesus most emphatically, and drawing out political connotations and dimensions to the maximum, comes to the conclusion that 'the Zealots were not mistaken in feeling that Jesus was simultaneously near and far a w a y '
416
- a sentence which indicates the
direction o f his search and the extent to which he is intrigued by Eisler and Brandon.
417
O n the one hand the measure o f agreement is emphasised and
Jesus's points o f departure are characterised by the phrase 'even more revolutionary than the Z e a l o t s '
418
; on the other hand the non-violent
aspects o f this activity are stressed and a theology of revolution - revolution properly s p e a k i n g - i s treated with great reserve.
419
J. Miguez Bonino, while
admitting that Jesus 'did not enroll himself with the Zealots' - 'for whatever reason' - 'contends that he left no doubts about whether he was on the side of the p o o r and oppressed or the power structures (religious and political) 4 . 2
4 . 3
4 . 4
After h a v i n g attempted to dissociate Christian e s c h a t o l o g y from any p h i l o s o p h y o f history, he falls prey to the d a n g e r o f millenarianism w h i c h he himself h a d previously attacked (Theologie, p p . 21 off; E T L o n d o n , 1967, p p . 230ft). C p . A . P. N e e l y , 'Protestant A n t e c e d e n t s o f the Latin A m e r i c a n T h e o l o g y o f L i b e r a t i o n ' ( D i s s . A m e r i c a n University, W a s h i n g t o n , 1977). F o r general information c p . F. Siebeneichler, ' C a t o l i c i s m o p o p u l a r - P e n t e c o s t i s m o ' , Kirche: Religion in Lateinamerika (Frankfurt, 1976); S. W i e d e n h o f e r , Politische Theologie (Stuttgart, 1976); A . Blatezky, Sprache des Glaubens in Lateinamerika (Frankfurt, 1978); E. Dussel, History and the Theology of Liberation ( N e w Y o r k , 1976); R . Gibellini, Frontiers of Theology in Latin America ( L o n d o n , 1980); M . H o f m a n n , Identifikation mit dem Anderen ( G o t t i n g e n , 1978); L . Boff, ' D a s A n l i e g e n d e r Befreiungstheologie' in Theologische Berichte 8 ( Z u r i c h , 1979), 7ifT. M o r p h o l o g i c a l l y not w i t h o u t parallels to the theology o f G e r m a n Christians, liberation t h e o l o g y m a y , h o w e v e r , last longer a n d d e v e l o p differently b e c a u s e the external factors w o r k rather in its favour than against it.
4 1 5
'El C r i s t o d e la n a t i o n y el C r i s t o del T e m p l o ' , in La fe,fuerza historica ( B a r c e l o n a ,
4 1 6
A Theology of Liberation, E T ( L o n d o n , 1974), p . 231 ( G T p . 223).
W O 4 , 7
4 1 8
4 1 9
Ibid., p p . 226f, 245 ( G T p p . 2161). I b i d . , p . 227 ( G T p . 217). I b i d . , p . 250 ( G T p . 230).
T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon o f his t i m e ' ,
420
65
and he is able to deduce a justification o f violence from
Jesus's position.
421
J. Sobrino states: Jesus 'shared some o f the basic views
and outlooks o f the Z e a l o t s ' ,
422
but adds important qualifications.
outcome of the consideration of this historical problem is -mutatis
423
The
mutandis-
not very different from the state o f discussion in Europe, and adds some weight to the observation that the call for an indigenous theology has not made much headway so far: Tor the m o m e n t . . . the theology o f liberation has not offered any improvement on the current slogans'.
424
Symptomatic is the uneasiness about 'the lack o f any sense o f crisis about the meaning o f C h r i s t '
425
and the attempt to draw out certain features in the
life o f j e s u s and to link them with other phenomena. So declares Fierro: Jesus's confrontation paradigmatic messianism'.
with the powers o f his day is just as much a
history as the Exodus story; it 'includes a theology o f 426
T h e incorporation o f the Exodus motif, the messianic longing for a new order,
429
427
o f the prophetic criticism,
428
of
and the interest in John the Baptist,
provide the basis for the weaving o f a 'mythistory' o f a new kind
431
430
that
becomes evocative for the man of today and enables him to proceed on what is called engagingly the 'long m a r c h ' .
432
It is in this context that M a r x is
viewed as standing in the tradition o f the O l d Testament prophets. representatives o f liberation
4 2 0
theology prefer
to speak
433
Other
o f messianic
Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation ( U . K . title Revolutionary Theology Comes of
Age) ( P h i l a d e l p h i a / L o n d o n , 1975), p p . i22f. 4 2 1
I b i d . , p p . 117f; c p . p p . 125, 128. J . S o b r i n o , Cristologia desde america latine ( R i o H o n d o , 1976; E T Theology at the Crossroads, L o n d o n , 1978), p . 212. I b i d . p p . 3691": an alternative to Z e a l o t i s m . H . A s s m a n n , Practical Theology of Liberation ( L o n d o n , 1975 ( p u b l i s h e d in M a r y K n o l l u n d e r the title Theology for a Nomad Church) — Teologia desde la praxis de la liberacion, S a l a m a n c a , 1973), p . 76. S o b r i n o , Cristologia, p . 2. A . Fierro, El evangelio beligerante (Estella, 1974; E T The Militant Gospel, L o n d o n , 1977), p . 160. Fierro writes in Spain, but is in close c o n t a c t with South America. J . S e v e r i n o Croatta, Liberaciony Libertad ( B u e n o s Aires, 1973). 428 M i g u e z B o n i n o , ' V i o l e n c e and L i b e r a t i o n ' in Christianity and Crisis 32 (1972), i68ff. T h i s w a s sharply criticised b y K . L e h m a n n in 'Diskussion zur politischen T h e o l o g i e ' , p . 193, and in K . L e h m a n n ( e d . ) , Theologie der Befreiung (Einsiedeln, 4 2 2
4 2 3
4 2 4
4 2 5
4 2 6
4 2 7
1977). 4 2 9
R . Shaull, ' T h e o l o g y and the T r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f Society' in Theology Today 25
4 3 0
N o t c o m p l e t e l y n e w : R a g a z had already pointed to this 'missing link' b e t w e e n O . T . and N . T . revolutionary p r o p h e t i s m (Die Bibel. Eine Deutung I V , 1948, p . 102). Fierro, Militant Gospel, p . 170. H . G o l l w i t z e r in Feil a n d W e t h , Diskussion, p . 43. M i g u e z B o n i n o , Christians and Marxists ( G r a n d R a p i d s a n d L o n d o n , 1976), p p . 68f.
(1968), 25.
4 3 1
4 3 2
4 3 3
66
E.
presence
434
BAMMEL
or messianic humanism.
indirectly, is o f varied importance.
435
436
T h e example o f j e s u s , directly or It becomes, however, central again
where suffering instead of revolutionary action is seen as the task o f the day. T h e tendencies
are outflanked
by the challenge to dispose o f the
theologischer Mehrwert o f the theology o f revolution.
437
This is directed against
the attempt to distil any direct advice from the teachings o f j e s u s , against any rapid application o f his teaching, and instead suggests taking the way ofjesus as a historical project which may function as a simile, working as a factor in the process o f what is called 'socializing an entity'. especially Jesus himself serve as a s y m b o l
439
438
T h e bible and
which evoke reflection on
present-day tasks. It is true, the historical dimension is thus maintained. There is no hesitation in stating that Jesus is not completely identical, with the political struggle of our d a y s .
440
T h e identification with actual problems
under the motto 'Christ the revolutionary' or even 'Christ among the Poor' is admitted to be short-sighted. practicability
441
It is the combination o f distance and
that is striking in this approach. What wins victory is
serviceability for the strife: only such features in Jesus's way o f life as make a contribution in one way or another speak to the revolutionary man. T h e oscillation between eschatological 4 3 4
442
and historical
443
justification o f
P. L e h m a n n in Feil and W e i t h , Diskussion, p . 183. A n exegetical basis for this is given b y J. P. M i r a n d a , Being and the Messiah. The Message of St John ( M a r y K n o l l ,
1977). 4 3 5
R . A l v e s , A Theology of Human Hope ( W a s h i n g t o n , 1969), p . 98. 436 M i g u e z c o n c l u d e s his Revolutionary Theology Comes of Age with the famous sentence with w h i c h Schweitzer b r o u g h t to an e n d his Quest ( p . 174). L . O s s a , Die Revolution - das ist ein Euch und ein freier Mensch. Zur Inkulturation des Christentums in Lateinamerika ( H a m b u r g , 1973) p . 164. I b i d . p . 151. T h e realisation that the present time is not to b e u n d e r v a l u e d in relation to a post-revolutionary future ( p p . 1491) serves as an e x a m p l e for the efficacy o f the c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f Jesus's w a y . I b i d . p . 81. ' E i n gleichzeitiger, w e n n a u c h politischer Christus praesens musste s t u m m b l e i b e n , d a er nur d i e Gestalt der g e g e n w a r t i g e n Ideale darstellt, die seine Vertreter in ihn projizieren' ( O s s a , Revolution, p . 147). W h a t is the nature o f the difference? Is it the distance a revolutionary has to keep vis-a-vis his less perceptive followers? T h e r e is something in this c o m p a r i s o n , a l t h o u g h its value is restricted b y the fact that it was not in a superficial w a y that J e s u s intervened in the struggle o f his time. Instead, he a i m e d at the greater Steuem.ngskapaz.itdt ( c a p a c i t y for self-determination) o f m e n . C p . J . G . D a v i e s , Christians, Politics and violent Revolution ( L o n d o n , 1976), p . 101. C p . p . 58. C p . also H . M c C a b e : ' E v e r y revolution w h i c h deals with structure less ultimate than this (death) is an i m a g e of, and a preparation for, the resurrection o f the d e a d . T h e C u b a n or V i e t n a m e s e revolution is a type o f the resurrection in the sense that w e speak o f O l d T e s t a m e n t events as types o f Christ' (Law, Love and Language ( L o n d o n , 1968), p p . 133Q. T h u s R . F. Smith, 'Eine T h e o l o g i e d e r R e b e l l i o n ' (in Feil a n d W e t h , Diskussion, p p . 1590) claims that there is an affinity b e t w e e n J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n and rebellious mentality. P. L . L e h m a n n sees Jesus as an offshoot o f this heritage (Feil and W e t h , 4 3 7
4 3 8
4 3 9
4 4 0
4 4 1
4 4 2
4 4 3
T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon
67
revolution is a feature which distracts from the main point, from the fact that the whole attention o f these advocates o f change is devoted to the present situation. Not only is it significant that this situation is given the one-sided description
'revolutionary';
444
it is more revealing
that
the
criteria for reflection are taken from what appears to be the revolu tionary process. This process becomes the xaiQog, in which G o d is found, it is on the verge o f becoming, so to speak, a source o f revelation itself.
445
This sentiment - prepared already by the lack o f an objective foundation in the Bultmannian t h e o l o g y
446
-
is a pervasive undercurrent, while
secondary questions like the one on violence versus non-violence are openly discussed.
447
It was unavoidable in the logic o f the process that the linkage
with the past, even with the historical Jesus, proved to be too tenuous to last. Thus R. F. Smith turns against seeing as absolute an event o f the past or o f the future.
448
L. Ossa tends to reduce the relevance o f j e s u s to those features in him which may serve as mirroring the political and social process.
449
J. H . C o n e
mocks at the emphasis on the humanity o f Christ as the attitude o f black slaves.
450
It is only a case o f drawing the consequences o f this, when the
reference to 'historical texts' is rejected with contempt
451
and the relevance
o f the church is seen as entirely conditioned by its functioning in society.
4 4 4
4 4 5
452
Diskussion, p . 176). R e l i a n c e o n the J e w i s h heritage is a p h e n o m e n o n parallel to the J e w i s h design to enlist Jesus in the J e w i s h p a n t h e o n . J . M o l t m a n n , ' G o t t in d e r R e v o l u t i o n ' (in Feil and W e t h , Diskussion, p . 82). C p . A . R i c h , ' R e v o l u t i o n als theologisches P r o b l e m ' (Feil a n d W e t h , Diskussion,
p . 142). ^ A d m i t t e d b y B u l t m a n n himself; c p . E. B u s c h , Karl Barths Lebenslauf ( M i i n c h e n !975)> P- 403; ( E T L o n d o n , 1976, p . 389). C p . M . H e n g e l , Gewaltund Gewaltlosigkeit (Stuttgart, 1971, E T Philadelphia, 1973; L o n d o n , 1975); D a v i e s , Christians; A . K e e , A Reader in Political Theology ( L o n d o n , 1974), p p . 136fT; J. Ellul, Violence ( L o n d o n 1970); N . N . , Violence in Southern Africa. A Christian Assessment ( L o n d o n , 1970). 4 4 7
4 4 8
In Feil a n d W e t h , Diskussion, p . 170. Die Revolution, p p . i42f. Black Theology, p . 119. W . D . B u c k o w , Das Elend der sozialistischen Opposition in der Kirche ( M i i n c h e n , 1969), p . 115. B u c k o w , Das Elend, p p . 99, 105f. C l e a g e is ready and eager to m a k e use o f the c h u r c h as a basis for the b u i l d i n g o f ' B l a c k counterinstitutions' ( p p . 2271). H e rejoices in the g r o u p experience, in the ' i n c a r n a t i o n ' a c c o m p l i s h e d in it ( p . 254). H e feels uneasy, h o w e v e r , a b o u t the term ' c h u r c h ' and w o u l d like to replace it b y 'Black nation' ( p . 134; c p . p p . 240, 2461). T h e c h u r c h is, if anything, a cadre like the disciples, w h o were trained b y Jesus to serve as cadres c o m m i t t e d to the revolution ( p . 221). T h e message o f that institution w o u l d e m e r g e from the Black experience, its task w o u l d b e the liberation o f the Black w o r l d rather than salvation, let alone an a p p e a l to the individual (the animosity against the 'protestant heresy' o f individualism is very strong; p p . 7of, 189, 251, 254 e t c . ) .
m
4 5 0
4 5 1
4 5 2
68
E.
BAMMEL
Whether arising from contempt or not, from disregard or quiet moving away - the tendency indicates the extent o f the inclination just to listen to the voice o f the day, a tendency which may recall the saying: 'what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own s o u l ? ' 4 5 3
453
B r a n d o n ' s theory has recently b e e n taken u p b y G . Luling. H e sees the Passover m e a l o f j e s u s as the initiatory rite for a holy w a r a n d interprets especially the d i p p i n g o f h a n d s as a rite o f swearing in o f conspirators (Verschwdrungsritus) ( ' D a s P a s s a h l a m m u n d die altarabische " M u t t e r der B l u t r a c h e " , d i e H y a n e , ZRGG 34 (1982), especially p . 141, 144-6). F o r a criticism o f B r a n d o n c p . J. H a d o t , Histoire des Origines du Christianisme, Jesus et les Zelotes. Etude critique des theses de S. Brandon (Brussels, 1977).
F. F. B R U C E
The date and character of Mark i
' T h e Gospel o f Mark' is our designation, but it is not Mark's: he sets out to relate what he calls 'the gospel o f j e s u s Christ, the Son o f G o d ' , a gospel which begins with the ministry of John the Baptist. John's ministry marked the beginning o f the fulfilment o f those wide areas o f Hebrew prophecy which looked forward to the consummation o f Yahweh's saving work on earth. Jesus, introduced in the context o f j o h n ' s ministry, is the one through w h o m this saving work is accomplished. His designation as Son o f G o d in the prooemium is not textually certain, but no doubt o f his identity is left by the heavenly voice which addresses him at his baptism, ' Y o u are my beloved Son . . .' (Mark i: n ) , and acclaims him at the transfiguration, 'This is my beloved Son; listen to him' (Mark 9: 7 ) . At the end o f Mark's narrative, where we might expect to hear a similar affirmation, we d o indeed hear it, but not from heaven: it is voiced at the cross by the most unlikely of the dramatis personae there. T h e Roman centurion, hearing Jesus's last shout and seeing the manner of his death, says, 'Truly this man was the Son o f God!' (Mark 1 5 : 3 9 ) . 1
Otherwise Jesus is hailed as Son o f G o d only by the demon-possessed, w h o might be presumed to have some contact with the wider knowledge available in the spirit-world (cp. Mark 5 : 7 ) . T h e disciples d o not speak to him in these terms, and Jesus makes no such claim himself - not, at least, until his appearance before the Sanhedrin. There, in answer to the high priest's question, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son o f the Blessed?' he replies, 'I am'; but immediately recasts the words into those of his own choice: 'you will see the Son o f man sitting at the right hand o f Power, and coming with the clouds o f heaven' (Mark 1 4 : 6 1 1 ) . In other words, says Mark, Jesus was indeed the Son o f G o d , but he preferred to speak o f himself as the Son o f man - not by way o f antithesis, but because the designation 'the Son o f man' provided a more suitable 2
1
In M a r k 1: 1 'Son o f G o d ' is o m i t t e d after J e s u s Christ' b y 8 * 0 28 and a n u m b e r o f other witnesses. It is retained in N E B 'in view o f its strong attestation ( m o s t o f the ancient G r e e k M S S and all the Latin e v i d e n c e ) and as in keeping with the " S o n o f G o d " C h r i s t o l o g y o f M a r k ' ( R . V . G . Tasker, The Greek New Testament ( C a m b r i d g e
and O x f o r d , 1966), 413). 2
C p . M a r k 1: 24 ('the H o l y O n e o f G o d ' ) . T h e M a t t h a e a n addition o f ' t h e S o n o f the living G o d ' to Peter's confession ( M a t t . 16: 16) is absent from M a r k 8:29.
69
70
F. F.
BRUCE
vehicle for what he wished to convey about his person and mission than 'Son o f G o d ' or even 'messiah' would provide.
II T h e story ofjesus, as told in the Gospel of Mark, takes the primafacie form o f a continuous narrative, falling into a few well-defined divisions: (a)
Introduction: the baptism and the temptation ( i : i—13)
(b)
T h e Galilaean ministry ( 1 : 1 4 to 9: 5 0 )
(c)
T h e road to Jerusalem ( 1 0 : 1 - 5 2 )
(d)
T h e Jerusalem ministry ( 1 1 : 1 to 1 3 : 3 7 )
(e)
T h e passion narrative ( 1 4 : 1 to 1 5 : 4 7 )
(J)
T h e empty t o m b ( 1 6 : 1-8)
But the appearance o f continuity could be due in large measure to the evangelist himself. T h e passion narrative, it is generally conceded, was handed d o w n in Christian tradition as a self-contained unit: this is implied, for example, in Paul's remark that, on each occasion when the memorial bread and cup were taken, the story of'the Lord's death' was recited (1 C o r . 1 1 : 2 6 ) . It should probably be added that Mark's general outline of Jesus's movements was also handed down in the tradition and indeed corres ponded to historical fact, for he did teach in Galilee, he did meet his death in Jerusalem, and however frequently he journeyed from Galilee to Jerusalem, one such journey must have been the last, and that journey may well have taken in a Peraean ministry, as is implied in Mark 10: 1. Moreover, that the closing phase o f his Galilaean ministry included the feeding o f a multitude, followed not long afterwards by a crucial acknowledgement o f his identity by Peter, is attested in the narrative o f the~tk>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
T h e date and character o f Mark
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 teacher^and 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
T h e date and character o f Mark
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
T h e date and character o f Mark
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
T h e date and character o f Mark
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.
T h e date and character o f Mark
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
T h e date and character o f Mark
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.
Some observations on Tendenzkritik
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
Some observations on Tendenzkritik
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.
Argumentum e silentio
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 .
Argumentum e silentio
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
109
I 10
E. BAMMEL
while Antipas nevertheless had to try to keep up the pattern of expenses set by his father. T h e famine at the end o f the forties, aggravated by the
preceding
9
Sabbath year, and the uncertainty o f communications, conditioned by the 10
guerilla warfare o f the sicarii,
are likely to have resulted in a certain
economic decline. T h e completion o f the T e m p l e in A . D . 64 meant the redundancy o f a great number o f skilled workers and posed short-term economic problems. T h e only strike o f which we know, however, is an action taken by the bakers o f Temple bread and makers o f incense.
11
In fact the social condition o f the Poor was not comparable with that o f similar social strata in the surrounding countries. PaoiXixf) X ^ Q a but private property.
13
12
T h e soil was not
T h e peasants were not just Xaoi,
labourers without legal titles to land, but personae. T h e position had been different
in
Galilee, where
the
country
had
been
Hellenistic cities and royal estates in Seleucid times.
14
divided
between
T h e conquest by the
Hasmonaeans meant on the one side the dissolution of the city constitutions and on the other an improvement o f the situation o f the indigenous population.
15
rural
16
True, a certain part o f the land became the private property o f the Herodians, and the majority o f this was subsequently sold by the R o m a n s . 9
1 0
11
1 2
1 3
17
J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem, p . 159 ( E T , p . 142), W h e t h e r these e p i s o d e s h a d a m o r e far-reaching effect o n first-century Palestine than previous events still awaits investigation. T h i s is stressed, perhaps even o v e r - e m p h a s i s e d , b y J o s e p h u s . A c c o r d i n g toJeremias,ymtfa/*m, p . 27 ( E T , p . 25), the o n l y social m o v e m e n t at this time. T h e e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s resulting in c o m p a r a t i v e calmness, as they are p r e s u p p o s e d in the G o s p e l s , are m u c h closer akin to those o f the reformed p e r i o d o f the R o m a n Kolonat than to those o f the O r i e n t o r o f pre-Spartacus R o m e . T o c o n c l u d e from this that the G o s p e l s reflect R o m a n c o n d i t i o n s rather than Palestinian o n e s , as w a s d o n e b y A . K a l t h o f f (Die Entstehung des Christentums ( L e i p z i g , 1904), p p . 42f; E T p p . 541), is w r o n g h e a d e d . Kreissig, Zusammenhange, p p . 26f; E. B i c k e r m a n n , Les Institutions des Seleucides (Paris, 1938), p . 179. O n e - s i d e d and not very c l e a r l y - d e v e l o p e d views are expressed b y H . G . K i p p e n b e r g , Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Judda ( G o t t i n g e n , 1978), p p . io6ff. F o r the c o n d i t i o n s after the J e w i s h war, c p . A . b e n - D a v i d , Talmudische
Oekonomie (Hildesheim, 1974), p p . 58ff. 1 4
1 5
1 6
A . A l t , Kleine Schriften ii ( M i i n c h e n , 1953), p p . 4o8f. T h e o p i n i o n o f W . Bauer (Festgabe fur Ad. Julicher, T u b i n g e n , 1927, p . 21), that a j u d a i s a t i o n o f Galilee w a s i m p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e o f lack o f settlers, is not s u p p o r t e d b y e v i d e n c e . F o r the m o s t recent discussion, c p . E. M . M e y e r s , ' T h e Cultural Setting o f Galilee: T h e C a s e o f R e g i o n a l i s m and Early J u d a i s m ' in Aufstieg und Niedergang der rbmischen Welt ii (Berlin, 1970), 686-702.
T h e alliance between the H a s m o n a e a n s and the penniless rural p o p u l a t i o n w h i c h is stressed s o m u c h b y W . W . Buehler, The Pre-Herodean Civil War and Social Debate (Basel, 1974), p . 67, m a y b e partly d u e to this factor. T h i s segment o f the p o p u l a t i o n was, h o w e v e r , m u c h m o r e p r o n e to being attracted to messianic figures. " J o s . AJ 18 §2.
T h e Poor and the Zealots
111
But this happened under conditions which were more favourable for 18
husbandmen and tenants than in the surrounding countries. T h e number of smallholdings was comparatively large. This means that the percentage of those who were dependent either as tenants or as casual labourers was reduced in proportion. Slaves, at least Jewish slaves, were rare. Rural unrest was less motivated than in most countries o f the Mediterranean world. Nevertheless, Jewish literature is aware of the social differences as well as of the unnatural state o f the Poor. T h e consciousness is kept alive by the memory o f the Deuteronomic legislation, according to which the land was to be divided anew into equal allotments after fifty years, and is conditioned by
the experience - spelled out chiefly in the Psalms
19
- that G o d is
especially the G o d o f the Poor. Thus those w h o were in a less destitute position than the corresponding classes in the neighbouring countries were able to give voice to their grievances in the knowledge o f the divine assistance; and on the other side, whatever oppression existed in the Jewish commonwealth, it could not be carried to extremes, because even the oppressors were aware o f the divine promises for the Poor. It is due to this almost
unique
conjunction o f circumstances
that something
like a
movement o f the Poor could arise in Palestine, while the rest o f the Orient remained silent and the Occident was shaken by uprisings o f a purely e c o n o m i c nature. T h e expression o f their discontent is traceable only here and there,
20
testifying both to a subliterary status o f the Poor and to the inseparable amalgam o f social consciousness with other, religious, themes. T h e first document is derived from the end of the second century B . C . , after the end o f the M a c c a b a e a n wars and the emergence o f a new and disappointing establishment. Incorporated in the Book o f Sirach ( 1 3 : 17fT), it is a piece on its o w n . poor,
21
It states plainly that there is nothing in c o m m o n between rich and
that there exists no xoivoovict between them
1 8
19
2 0
(verse
15),
2 2
a
A different view is taken b y F. C . Grant, The Economic Background of the Gospels ( O x f o r d , 1926), p p . 1 if. C p . A . O p p e n h e i m e r , The 'Am Ha-aretz'. A Study in the social history of the Jewish people in the Hellenistic-Roman Period ( L e i d e n , 1977). T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e for the a s s u m p t i o n o f H . G . K i p p e n b e r g and G . Theissen (Soziologie der Jesusbewegung ( M i i n c h e n 1977), p . 42 ( E T L o n d o n 1979, p . 41); it is an otherwise interesting sketch) that the sale resulted in an increase o f social tension. V e r y characteristic is Ps. 145:7-9: a&ixoi>ii£voi, Jtetvarvreg, JIEJIE&Tjuivoi, xaTeQQaYnevoi, xixpXoi, 6 i x a i o i , JIQOOTJA.VTOI, ogcpavog, xr\QO\.
E.g. m o s t strikingly in the Q u m r a n pesher to Ps. 37. It is framed b y a passage that gives casuistic advice (13:9) at the beginning and c o m e s o u t with a qualified s u p p o r t for wealth at the end (13: 24); a different view is taken b y G . W o h l e n b e r g , J e s u s Sirach und die soziale Frage', Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift viii (1897), 342. 22 ( = nman); that m e a n s that Volksgemeinschaft d o e s not exist any longer between them.
21
112
E.BAMMEL
characterisation o f class disruption that is highlighted by the fact that it starts off with the citation o f the Stoic phrase: homo homini amicus ( 1 3 : 1 5 ) , and goes on to emphasise that, contrary to this, the poor man is like an 6vaYQO£ in the desert which is the prey o f the lion a
a (35eXvYM' by
t
n
e
rich.
24
23
and even considered as
T h e passage, which disagrees with the whole 25
outlook o f W i s d o m literature, seems to have been taken from a manifesto o f those who consider themselves as JlTO/CH and at the same time as eijoepeig and xajieivot. It is this intertwining o f social and religious language that becomes typical for this literature. Characteristic are Enoch iogff and Ps. Sol. with their equation o f
JITCD/CH
and o a i o t . T h e conviction that the Poor are the
very tool o f G o d finds its most thoroughgoing and forceful expression in the statement of Ass. Mos. 1 : 1 2 : the world was created because o f the plebs (= 26
Amme
ha-arez)
Formulations similar to those o f the Book o f Enoch occur in Magnificat o f Luke 1
2 1
the
a passage that belongs to a set o f stories on the
28
birth o f the Baptist, the speaker of which is thought to have been originally Elizabeth the mother of J o h n .
2 3
2 4
29
T h e social radicalism
30
o f these verses is in
S o already J o b 24:5. T h e e n e m y o f G o d is pictured as a lion in i Q H o d . 5 : 7 - 1 9 ; c p . A c h i k a r 2: 57. Is this a phrase used b y the rich w h o b r a n d e d the p o o r as an element inimically d i s p o s e d t o w a r d s the present o r d e r ?
" C p . ThWNTVi 8 9 f ( E T vi, 894Q. It is not necessary to s m o o t h a w a y the stern saying b y suggesting a conjecture (as has been d o n e b y C . C l e m e n in his edition, Die Himmelfahrt des Mose ( B o n n , 1904), p . 5). T h e r e is s o m e truth in the famous statement o f Nietzsche: ' I n dieser U m k e h r u n g d e r W e r t e (zu d e r es gehort, das W o r t "'arm" als s y n o n y m fur " h e i l i g " u n d " F r e u n d " zu b r a u c h e n ) liegt die B e d e u t u n g des j i i d i s c h e n V o l k s : mit i h m b e g i n n t d e r Sklaven-Aufstand in d e r M o r a l ' (Jenseits von Gut and Bose, A p h o r i s m u s 195). 3
2 6
2 7
2 8
cs
L u k e 1: 53 is given b y s y in the form: he has filled the p o o r with his g o o d n e s s a n d d e s p i s e d the rich, since they are e m p t y (translated a c c o r d i n g to A . M e r x , Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem dltesten bekannten Texte (Berlin, 1897), p . 106. F. C . Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe ( C a m b r i d g e , 1904), ad. l o c , regards the s e c o n d h a l f o f the sentence as c o r r u p t . T h e spiritualising reading is certainly s e c o n d a r y , b u t is p o s s i b l y a parallel version that g o e s b a c k to an early ( c p . R e v . 3:17), p e r h a p s e v e n pre-Christian p e r i o d . T h e Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, w h i c h derives from Italy, also reads: pauperes impleuit bonis (PL 56. 809). M . D i b e l i u s , Die urchristliche Ueberlieferung von Johannes dem Taufer ( G o t t i n g e n , 1911),
p p . 67fT. 2 9
T h e derivation o f the Psalm o f M a r y from the Baptist tradition is m a d e certain b y the parallels L u k e i:68ff and the prehistory and c o m p o s i t i o n o f Protoluke, i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f the reading 'Elisabeth' e m p h a s i s e d b y A . v a n H a r n a c k , ' D a s M a g n i f i c a t d e r Elisabet ( L u k . 1, 46-55) nebst einigen B e m e r k u n g e n zu L u k . 1 u n d 2', SBA (1900), p p . 538ff; reprinted in Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche (Berlin, 1931), 62ff; c p . A . M e y e r , Das Ratsel des Jakobusbriefes, (1930), p . 149, n. 3; H . Sahlin, Der Messias und das Gottesvolk, Acta Seminarii Neotest. Upsaliensis xii (1945), p p . 15gff; a different interpretation in L. G o p p e l t , ThWNT\\, 17 n. 43 ( E T vi, 17 n. 43). O n the possibility o f an earlier origin, w h i c h w o u l d not
T h e Poor and the Zealots
ii3
keeping with the tenor o f what is, according to tradition, the general preaching o f the Baptist,
31
whereas the special advice in Luke 3: 1 0 - 1 5 is so
much o f a piece with Luke's own social teaching that it can only be regarded as the evangelist's replacement o f something that was more radical in character
32
and offensive to the ears o f the R o m a n government.
33
The
Baptist's attack against Antipas can be seen as a symbolic action in imitation o f Phineas the Zealot. Confirmation for this is to be found in Josephus. His report, which states that a wider audience (aM.01) became 34
excited (fJQ0T)aav) and that it was possible to interpret the call ^anxio\i(b owievai
35
as an undertaking that constitutes nouarum rerum cupiditas and
might lead to aJTOoracug and (iexa|3oX,rj, makes sense only if the Baptist's preaching contained elements o f the kind that is indicated in the Gospels. 36
T h e Zealot m o v e m e n t , which - according to Josephus at least - arose in A . D . 6, immediately aimed at the consent and co-operation o f the masses by focussing their resistance on the valuation o f property (for the purpose o f taxation) and the counting o f the population. Social unrest, quite apart from the theological argumentation,
37
was bound to have been stirred up by
this - Simon is said to have already destroyed the mansions o f the wealthy.
38
T h e guerilla actions, carried out in the open countryside, depended equally on some kind o f assistance given by the rural population. T h e social side o f the activity is emphasised by the fact that one o f the first actions carried out by the insurgents in Jerusalem in A . D . 66 consisted in setting fire to the archives where the deeds o f loans were deposited, inciting thereby the
e x c l u d e h a n d i n g d o w n via and elaboration b y Baptist circles, c p . M e y e r , Das Ratsel, a n d P. W i n t e r , ' M a g n i f i c a t a n d Benedictus - M a c c a b a e a n Psalms?', BJRL 37
(1954), 328ff. 3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
3 5
3 6
3 7
38
F o r the reversal t h e o l o g y c p . D . L . M e a l a n d , Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels ( L o n d o n , 1980), p p . 4iff. It must, h o w e v e r , b e emphasised that the d o m i n a n t forces in J u d a i s m m o v e d a w a y from this position. T a r g . Is. 53. 9 states that the wealthy will b e an object o f c o n t e m p t , while nothing is said o f the exaltation o f the P o o r . Syriac B a r u c h 70:4 g o e s s o far as to maintain that the preference given to the P o o r will b e a sign o f the eschatological w o e s , w h i c h m e a n s a negative feature. H i s a u d i e n c e is the masses ( M a r k 1:5; M a t t . 1 1 : 7 ) , not the leaders ( M a r k 11:27ft*). C p . NTSt 18 (1971/72), i05f. Kreissig's interpretation o f the passage misses the point completely. F o r L u k e ' s caution in this respect see W . H . C . Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church ( O x f o r d , 1965), p p . 15iff. F o r this reading see W . Brandt, Diejudischen Baptismen, B Z A W 18 (1910), p . 145. C p . E . L o h m e y e r , Das Urchristentum i ( G o t t i n g e n , 1932), 3if. F o r the p r o b l e m o f the priority o f the sicarii a n d their relation to the Z e a l o t s see G . B a u m b a c h , ' Z e l o t e n u n d Sikarier', ThLZ 90 (1965), c o l . 727ff; Die antiromischen Aufstandsgruppen (in J. M a i e r a n d J. Schreiner, Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums ( W i i r z b u r g , 1973), p p . 2730), a n d recently M . H e n g e l , Josephus-Studien. Festschrift 0. Michel ( G o t t i n g e n , 1974), p p . i75ff. M a t e r i a l in M . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten ( L e i d e n , 1961), p p . 132ff. J o s e p h u s , BJ, 2 §57.
114
e.bammel 39
aJlOQOt against the EVJlOQOl. Their leader could be characterised as an 40
oixeiog dialog. Simon b . Giora, one o f the leaders of the last phase o f the rebellion, managed to gather a following by promising freedom to the slaves.
41
It is evident that the currents o f social unrest that existed in Israel were swallowed up by the Zealots. There is, however, no evidence that the terminology o f the theology o f the Poor played any role in their argument. O n the contrary, the very fact that it was not before the end o f the B a r - K o c h b a rebellion that a re-emergence o f the Jtioxog-consciousness, albeit with a significant change,
42
is noticeable among those w h o had been
the activists, indicates that the ways o f Zealots and the Poor had parted in the preceding period. In
the
meantime
the
theology o f the
Poor was adopted
by
the
Judaeo-Christians. This had already happened in Jerusalem in the first decades o f the Christian c h u r c h
43
and became a constituent factor in the
outlook o f that branch o f Christendom. Such a phenomenon is intelligible only if there existed no other movement that seized upon the terminology o f the Poor. It is reasonable to suppose that such elements among the Poor as did not agree with the activism o f the Zealots found shelter, a new perspective and at the same time receptivity towards their o w n ideology in certain communities o f nascent Christianity.
II T h e problem o f a possible influence on nascent Christianity consists o f two questions: firstly, whether early Christianity emerged from those levels o f society
44
and whether it in turn tried to influence them; and secondly,
3 9
I b i d . 2 §427.
4 1
I b i d . 4 §508. D o e s J o s e p h u s a p p l y a topos? F o r an interpretation o f the p a s s a g e c p .
4 0
I b i d . 2 §443.
O . M i c h e l , 'Studien zu J o s e p h u s . S i m o n bar G i o r a ' , NTSt 14 (1967/68), 402f; M . H e n g e l , Gewaltund Gewaltlosigkeit ( T u b i n g e n , 1971), p p . 30,59f. ( E T L o n d o n , 1975, 4 2
4 3
4 4
PP. 59*) • It is Krroaon = serfdom, n o t nvas = p o v e r t y , that is seen b y A k i b a as the state o f Israel that indicates the i m p e n d i n g salvation.
C p . ThWNTv'x, 908, 9 1 1 - 1 3 ( E T vi, 908, 912-14). Galilee h a d b e c o m e n o t o r i o u s as the h o t b e d o f nationalist unrest already at the b e g i n n i n g o f H e r o d ' s reign, and c o n t i n u e d to gain equal fame w h e n the R o m a n s took o v e r ( c p . E. Stauffer, Jerusalem und Rom ( B e r n , 1957), p p . 81 f). T h e fact that s o m e o f the disciples o f j e s u s h a d n a m e s w h i c h c o m m e m o r a t e d the M a c c a b a e a n heroes s h o w s that tendencies o f this kind had taken root in the p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s d o e s not, h o w e v e r , m e a n that e v e r y o n e in Galilee w a s ready to s u p p o r t z e a l o t i s m actively. T h e fact that Jesus started his p r e a c h i n g in s y n a g o g u e s , that is to say in essentially Pharisaic institutions, a n d that his a r g u m e n t a t i o n is d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s the Pharisees and against Pharisaic accusations s h o w s that it w a s this w o r l d a n d c l i m a t e that was his starting-point. T h e remark in L u k e a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h
T h e Poor and the Zealots whether leaders o f the church had
special connections with
115 political
activists. T h e indications given in the gospels on the first followers ofjesus point to the
lower stratum
professions,
46
45
o f independent or at least semi-independent
without entirely excluding other spheres (Mark 2: 1 4 ; Luke
8: 3; J o h n 18: 1 5 ) .
4 7
T h e conclusion that they therefore represented the piety
of the Anawins is mistaken.
48
Nor can the followers characterised by the
term JlQOo5ex6|l£VOl (Luke 2: 2 5 , 3 8 ; Mark 1 5 : 4 3 ) be brought into close association with this movement. There is more evidence for some kind o f a connection with the Zealots. Judas Iscariot was, according to the plausible suggestion o f Wellhausen, a 9
sicarius* Simon is called Kavavaiog, a word that probably equals Zealot. Instead o f Thaddaeus the name Judas Zelotes
50
is used in abh and some
7iQOo6ex6nevoi w e r e a m o n g the associates o f Jesus's parents - a detail w h i c h is a m o r e integral part o f that tradition than the Magnificat - provides a further indication for a 'spiritual h o m e ' in a climate o f peaceful expectation, although the k n o w l e d g e o f activist m a c h i n a t i o n s can never have been far a w a y from Jesus's sphere o f action. T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e for a Z e a l o t p r o v e n a n c e , let alone for m o r e extravagant views such as the o n e a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h ' M a r y seems to have trained several [ o f her s o n s ] as pioneers o f n e w revolutionary thought and a c t i o n ' ( H . J o h n s o n , Christians and Communism ( L o n d o n , 1956), p . 49). N o r is there any foothold for the v i e w entertained b y F. A n d e r m a n n that Jesus's father met the end o f a rebel (Das grosse Gesicht ( M i i n c h e n , 1970), p . 172). 4 5
4 6
4 7
ax
l
C p . A c t s 4:13: d Y Q a w i ° • • • i&tdraxi. For the p r o b l e m o f the social level o f the early Christian c o m m u n i t i e s c p . A . D e i s s m a n n , Das Urchristentum und die unteren Schichten ( G o t t i n g e n , 1908); M . W e b e r , Grundriss der Sozial-Oekonomie 3 ( T u b i n g e n , 1922), p p . 275ff; B . G r i m m , ' U n t e r s u c h u n g e n zur sozialen Stellung der friihen Christen in der r o m i s c h e n Gesellschaft' (Diss. M i i n c h e n , 1975), p p . 36f and especially A . v o n Harnack, ' D a s Urchristentum u n d die sozialen Fragen', Preussische Jahrbucher 131 (1908), 449f: 'the proletariate p r o p e r l y speaking has never exercised a d o m i n a n t influence in the c o m m u n i t i e s and those proletarians w h o j o i n e d the Christians were raised to a higher level thereby'. L u k e points with a certain emphasis to p e o p l e b e l o n g i n g to the higher strata o f society in the e n v i r o n m e n t o f j e s u s o r o n the fringes o f Early C h r i s t e n d o m ; this is p r o b a b l y a s e c o n d a r y feature. T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e that Jesus had been reared in a wealthy house as G . W . B u c h a n a n , J e s u s and the U p p e r C l a s s ' , NovTest 7 0
(1964/65), 195ft , assumes. 4 8
T h i s is the line taken b y W . Sattler in his influential c o n t r i b u t i o n to the Festgabe fur A. Julicher ( T u b i n g e n , 1927), ' D i e A n a w i m i m Zeitalter Jesu Christi' ( p p . iff). Similar ideas are found already in M . Friedlander, Die religibsen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judentum im Zeitalter Jesu (Berlin, 1905). Das Evangelium Marci (Berlin, 1903), p . 25; F. Schulthess, ZNW 21 (1922), 250ft . Different suggestions are m a d e b y H . Ingholl, Studia Orientalia. J. Pedersen dedicata ( C o p e n h a g e n , 1953) and recently b y B. Gartner, Die rdtselhaften Termini Nawarder und Iskarioth ( U p p s a l a , 1957), p p . 4iff; c p . D . Schirmer, ' R e c h t s g e s c h i c h t l i c h e U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u m J o h a n n e s - E v a n g e l i u m ' (Diss. Erlangen, 1962), p p . 179ft , w h o adopts the theory o f C . C . T o r r e y ' T h e N a m e " I s c a r i o t " ' , HThR 36 (1943), 57IE J. R . Harris, The Twelve Apostles ( C a m b r i d g e , 1927), p p . 8of, g o e s so far as to identify him with Nathaniel.
49
0
0
5 0
I 16
E.BAMMEL
other old Latin M S S . o f Matt. 1 0 : 3 .
5 1
This evidence has to be taken
together with the indications for Baptistic antecedents o f some o f the disciples
52
and the activist inclinations o f two o f them.
53
This is enough to
54
show that the circle was not a community far removed from the questions of the d a y .
55
But the fact that they had moved away from their former
loyalties to Jesus and that Jesus acted as the undisputed authority among them
is
p r o o f that
nothing
like
a
direct
and
immediate
zealotic
impregnation took place in the company o f j e s u s . T w o o f the documents o f nascent Christianity show a special interest in social questions. While Mark contains an ethical code ( 1 0 : 1—31) with a short section on the dangers o f wealth (verses 1 7 - 3 1 ) ,
5 6
Q is filled with
remarks on the vicissitudes o f the faithful. T h e special regulation for the disciples not to carry money etc. (Matt. 10:9) may reflect this situation. T h e allusions to persecution and the appeal not to worry (Luke I2:22ff) are the dominant theme. There are, however, two sayings, the tenor of which is different and which demand special attention. 5 1
5 2
5 3
5 4
T h i s m e a n s that the last three n a m e s in the list o f M a t t h e w represent Z e a l o t activists. W h e t h e r this reading originated b y accident o r goes b a c k to an i n d e p e n d e n t tradition must b e left u n d e c i d e d . C p . D i b e l i u s , Johannes der Tdufer, p p . io6ff. M a r k 3: 17; L u k e 9:54; c p . A . Stumpff, ThWNTii, 888 ( E T ii, 886). It m a y b e that the difference between the Baptist (and his circle) and Jesus w a s felt already at an early stage. A n u m b e r o f those w h o surrounded J o h n and J e s u s had b e e n given additional n a m e s w h i c h characterised them. It is not unlikely that the s o l e m n phrase o f J o h n 1:29 (i6e 6 d^ivog xxA.) is an extension o f the s i m p l e appellation djivoc; and that, in this form, it goes b a c k to the Baptist. I f that is the case, the n a m e alludes to Jesus as to a m a n o f p e a c e in contradistinction to inter alia t h e ' s o n s o f thunder'.
5 5
R . Eisler, Jesous Basileus ii ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1931), 69°, links Peter (and J o h n ) with the B a r j o n i m w h o are m e n t i o n e d in Gittin. S u p p o s e that this c o m b i n a t i o n were c o r r e c t , it w o u l d rather point to an appellation c o i n e d with the intention o f d a m n i n g the Christians b y giving the revolutionaries a 'Christian' n a m e than to a linkage o f Peter with revolutionary activists. It is, h o w e v e r , m u c h m o r e likely that barjonim is an o p p r o b r i o u s appellation b y w h i c h the Z e a l o t s are sarcastically called ' G r e e k s ' (thus L . G o l d s c h m i d t , Der babylonische Talmud, ed. minor, vi (Berlin, 1932), 364) - a characterisation w h i c h is very c o m p r e h e n s i b l e from the b a c k g r o u n d o f R a b b i n i c t h e o l o g y . I f this is true, the appellation ceases to have any c o n n e c t i o n with the Christians. In any case, the reference to the B a r j o n i m derives from a Sammelbericht o n the destruction o f J e r u s a l e m (Gitt. 55b~57a), the elements o f w h i c h are o f different p r o v e n a n c e . T h e Syriac version o f J o h n 18: 10 makes Peter carry a s w o r d habitually ( c p . A . M e r x , Das Evangelium des Johannes (Berlin, 1911), p . 428) - an interpretation w h i c h is not unnatural in the oriental e n v i r o n m e n t and h a r d l y sufficient an indication for listing h i m as a Z e a l o t .
5 6
T h e passage is largely parallel to 9: 33ff. 10: 13-16 equals 9:36°, 42; 10: 17-28 is parallel to 9: 43-8; 10: 29-31 to 9:49°; 10: 32-4 equals 9: 30-2 and 10: 35-45 is to b e taken together with 9:33-5. T h i s s h o w s that c h . 10 is based o n an earlier formation, w h i c h is i n t r o d u c e d b y the regulation o n marital life (verses 1-12) a n d in w h i c h the section o n offence is replaced b y a p a r a g r a p h o n the specific d a n g e r o f wealth.
The
P o o r and the Zealots
117
III Jesus's answer to the question o f the disciples sent by the Baptist
(Matt.
1 1 : 4ff; Luke 7:22(1) is given in the tradition o f the Lukan text almost without variants. by
57
the evangelist;
58
Its sixth phrase should not be regarded as an addition s
Luke 7: 1 8 - 2 3
* ^
entirety to the a c c o u n t o f the writer
59
a
rt
0
° c o m p l i c a t e d to be laid in its
and it is verse 2 1 that strikes o n e as a
redactor's insertion in w h i c h Luke m a d e his o w n addition
(KV£V\I&T(OV
novr\Q(bv). It is m a d e u p o f a formula based o n expressions from Isaiah: 2 9 : i 8 f (xoocpoi, Tvcptan, jctcdxoi),
3 5 : 5 1 * (xucpAoL, x o x p o i xu>\oi,
(lOYitaxtan),
6 1 : i f ( j i x o x o i , o w e x Q i M i E v o i , aiX(xdX.0)TOi, T/uqptan), but it cannot be wholly explained from this source. Certain other lists are even closer. T h e substratum o f the formula o c c u r s in the form o f a pattern in references to those excluded from the special c o m m u n i t y .
60
It is also handed d o w n as a
catalogue in connection with the i n a d e q u a c y o f i d o l s with the charitable actions d e m a n d e d o f m a n . eschatological
doctrine,
which
proclaims
the
62
61
and in connection
Finally it o c c u r s as an acceptance, healing,
preferential treatment in the messianic age o f those indicated in its list.
5 7
63
or In
O m i s s i o n o f the fourth phrase b y 998 b 1, o f the fifth phrase b y 1574 033. T h e reversal o f the fifth and sixth phrases b y s y 700 is the result o f schematising application o f the principle o f c r e s c e n d o . T h e T a t i a n tradition too gives the Lukan text almost w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n - the m o r e remarkable since T a t i a n otherwise often follows Matthew. s ( c )
5 8
T h u s E . v o n D o b s c h u t z , ' D e r heutige Stand der L e b e n - J e s u - F o r s c h u n g ' , ZThK N.F.5 (1924): deriving from the 'pauperistisch gestimmten L u k a s ' . T h e s a m e v i e w in G . D . Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew ( O x f o r d , 1946), p . 125 (the latter apparently following F . C . Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe ii ( C a m b r i d g e , 1904), 239).
5 9
T h e passive form o f the v e r b ( c p . 4: 18, 43) makes a L u k a n origin unlikely. I Q S a . 2:5f. E p . Jer. 35-7. 62 £ s r . ( = 2 Esdr. 1-2) 2: 18-20. G i n z a R . 1: 201 (sick, blind, lepers, cripples, those crawling o n the g r o u n d ( c p . E . Stauffer, 'Antike Jesustradition u n d J e s u s p o l e m i k i m mittelalterlichen O r i e n t ' , ZNW 46 (1955), 2, 17), deaf-mutes, the d e a d , preaching t o the J e w s ) . Parallel traditions: G i n z a R . 2: 1, 136; J o h a n n e s b u c h 243 ( t w i c e ) . Paraphrases: (a) J o h a n n e s b u c h 79f ( b l i n d , l a m e , d u m b ) ; (b) Slav. J o s . Bell. 1, 364ff ( l a m e , blind, p o o r ) ; (c) S i b . 8, 2050° (vexooi, x ^ot> xoxpoi, xvcpXoi, ov taxXeovxeg, xotvog (3iog xal JtXoiJxog; the position o f vexQOi at the beginning is c o n d i t i o n e d b y the exclusively eschatological e m p h a s i s ) ; S i b . 1, 35iff (vooeooi, &jii|ico|ioi, xucptan, XwXoi, xoocpoi, ov XaAiovxeg, 6aiu,oveg, vexooi); S i b . 8, 279H (oixxooi, vexuag, vooov) (d) Ps. C l e m . Horn. 1, 6, 4 (xcocpoi, xucpXoi, xvM.01, x<*)A.oi, Jiaoa vooog, 6ai|ioveg, XeJiooi, vexooi; c p . S i b . 1, 351 ff); (^) T e s t . A d a e ( e d . E. R e n a n , Journal Asiatique (1853), ii, 4441)? 3> 2f ( b l i n d , lepers, deaf, d u m b , h u n c h b a c k s , those sick o f the palsy, d e m o n s , possessed, the d e a d , the b u r i e d ) . Contrast with this the miracles o f the Antichrist: O r . S i b . 3: 66: vexvag oxrioei xat or|u.axa nok\6\ Jtoirjaei ( c p . 2: 167); the same in the A n d r e a s - C o m m e n t a r y o n R e v . 56: 27 a n d the E l u c i d a r i u m o f H o n o r i u s {PL 172:1163); Ps. H i p p . 23, 106, i4:XejiQoi, jiao&Xuxoi, Saiuoveg . . . vexooi (the m o r e striking since Ps. H i p p . - a c c o r d i n g to W . Bousset, Der
6 0
6 1
5
6 3
w
0
I 18
E.BAMMEL
all these variations the formula points back to a pre-Christian period.
64
Noteworthy are (a) an original core: blind, lame, deaf (and d u m b ) ; (b) the introduction o f the possessed or (respectively) 5ai[ioveg not until the Judaeo-Christian tradition;
65
(c) the omission o f the Poor outside Q , with
the exception o f 5 Esr. 2 (egens) and Slav. Jos. Bell. This allows one to conclude on the one hand that the formula already showed a certain tendency to vary in its Jewish setting, while on the other hand one may recognise tendentious elaborations as well as supplementary or decorative 66
phrases. T h e inclusion o f the Poor must be regarded as one o f the former. In content this addition breaks the uniformity o f the formula, which can otherwise be summarised under some such heading as J i d o a vooog. T h e 67
difference is further emphasised by Evayyeki^ovxai;
6 4
as compared with
Antichrist ( G o t t i n g e n , 1895), p . 25 ( E T L o n d o n , 1896, p . 4 1 ) - a p a r t from this is from c. 22 d e p e n d e n t o n E p h r a e m . T h e confutation o f the raising o f the d e a d must be a case o f a m o r e recent, possibly Christian, counter-form; in addition the other type: A p . Eliae 33: iff.: lame, deaf, d u m b , blind, lepers, sick, possessed, but n o raisings from the d e a d (the s a m e in A p . Z e p h . 125, and similar E p h r a e m Syr., Horn, de Antichristo 9; further material in Bousset, Antichrist, p p . u6f). C o m p a r e with this the depictions o f the A g e o f Salvation a c c o r d i n g to L e v . R . 18:4 o n c h . 15: 2 ( S - B 1 , 5941): those with h a e m o r r h a g e s , lepers, lame, blind, d u m b , deaf, cretins; Pesiq R . 7 (28a): lame, blind, d u m b , deaf, those with h a e m o r r h a g e s , lepers; M i d r . S o n g o f S o l . 4:7, 1: those with haemorrhages, lepers, lame, blind, d u m b , deaf, cretins, simpletons, idiots, those with cleft palates. E p . Jer. 'nicht spater als 2 J h d t . v. C h r ' . ( O . Eissfeldt, Einleitung in dasAlte Testament ( T u b i n g e n , 1964), p . 737; E T O x f o r d , 1965, p . 595); 5 Esr. 2nd century A . D . (thus H . W e i n e l in Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, ed. E. H e n n e c k e 2nd edn. (1924), p . 391; c p . o n the other h a n d idem in HAT, p p . 332, 335); but 2: 20-233 ( o r b ? ) is m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y a foreign b o d y . O r . S i b . 3:63ff first century B . C . ( c p . Bousset, Antichrist, p p . 59f; E T p p . 951); v a g u e r R z a c h , / W I I A , 2131);in the same w a y O r . S i b . 8: 205ff is J e w i s h ( c p . R z a c h , PWIIA., 2144). T e s t . A d a e , 3, 2ff has received Christian additions; for the J e w i s h basis c p . H . W e i n e l in Eucharisterion furH. Gunkel ii ( G o t t i n g e n , 1923), 162. T h e r a b b i n i c p r o n o u n c e m e n t s o n the p e r i o d in the desert have n o firm textual foundation and are therefore secondary historisations o f what w e r e originally purely eschatological statements. T h u s they point u n a m b i g u o u s l y to an origin before the time o f the floreat o f those in w h o s e n a m e s the tradition is h a n d e d d o w n ( S i m o n b . J o c h a i , Elieser b . J o s e , both m i d d l e o f the 2nd century A.D.).
6 3
6 6
6 7
Ps. C l e m . Horn. 1, 6, 4 ( c p . note 58) and, in a shorter form Rec. v. 10. T h e formula in Pistis S o p h i a (ed. C . S c h m i d t , p p . 1801), w h i c h even starts the list with the d a i u o v i a , seems to derive from this strand o f the tradition. T h e s u m m a r y in Jesus M e s s i a h Sutra, logion 179 (P. Y . Saeki, The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China ( T o k y o , 1951), p p . 1421) also includes the d e m o n s . T h e s a m e is true for the b e g i n n i n g o f Acta Pil. ( c h . 1) and the letter o f Pilate to C l a u d i u s . Interesting is the c h a n g e o f emphasis in Justin's presentation: the preaching to the P o o r c o m e s first (Dial. c. Tr. 12). T h i s feature p r o b a b l y derives from a Gemeindetradition w h i c h reflects J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n influences ( c p . T U 93 (1964), p . 61). C p . notes 78 and 79, p . 120. Isa. 29: 19, 5 Esdras 2: 20 and Slav. J o s . 1, 364ff are to be u n d e r s t o o d in terms o f a state o f material prosperity. In Isa. 61:1 (summarising title), this will be the case
too despite the
zvayytkioaaftm.
T h e Poor and the Zealots
119
the preceding verbs this indicates something quite different. T h e fact however that evaYY^^ovxai is made formally parallel to &va(3Xijiouoiv X T X . emphasises the effectiveness o f the activity therein indicated: the Poor 68
are put in possession of the message, they alone. This emphasis is achieved by means o f a new direction in content, made all the more striking when viewed against the formal reminiscence o f Isaiah, the replacement of Isaiah's double event by a single happening.
69
T h e formula (Matt. 1 0 : 8 ,
1 5 : 3of; Mark 7: 3 7 ; on the other hand Matt. 10: 1 = Luke 9: 1 ( c p . 10: 9 ) ) thus reveals itself to be the expression o f a conscious turning aside from the normal Jewish tradition
70
(nor can it be brought into connection in its
acumen with the other formulae containing a phrase on the P o o r ) .
71
Perhaps,
however, this passage, which has its roots in the tradition of ideas about the Messianic Prince o f Paradise,
72
also has an idiosyncratic position in Q , 72
where Jesus is, apart from this, never designated as In both parts the formula is not dominical.
74
XQIOT6<;.
It must have c o m e into
existence before the time of Q . That it should go back to Jewish circles is in itself possible, but the complete silence o f the Jewish sources with regard to a phrase on the Poor, when they are so abundant apart from this, is against it. M o r e likely it came into being within the Baptistic circles which had turned to the early Christian community, circles in which the political ingredient
75
had apparently quickly evaporated. Its later history - apart
from the insertion o f the 5ai|ioveg or 6ai[xovi£6p,evoi the disappearance Matthew;
77
76
- is marked by: (a)
o f the gospel o f the Poor in the early tradition o f
(b) the remodelling o f the gospel o f the Poor into a teaching
^ T a n c h u m a B §7 a n d L e v . R . 18:4 have their acumen in the fact that even the blind etc. are t h o u g h t o f as i n c l u d e d in the A g e o f Salvation o f the w a n d e r i n g in the desert, whereas in the formula o f L u k e 7 it is for the blind etc. especially and preferentially that salvation is c l a i m e d . 6 9
7 0
71
7 2
7 3
7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
In Isaiah a passage o f time is envisaged b e t w e e n the p r o c l a m a t i o n and the event itself. W h e t h e r this w a s still the intention in the source o f L u k e 4: 17ff remains uncertain. Luke himself ( c p . A c t s 10:38) conflates the t w o . W i t h regard to w h i c h the breadth o f this tradition - right u p to the Q u m r a n i t e s and on the other side into the N e w T e s t a m e n t - is to b e taken into a c c o u n t . 5 Esra 2 is just an imperative, it d o e s not reflect o n the objects o f charitable activity. Slav. J o s . Bell. 1 is certainly post-Lukan - whether o r not it is possible to attribute historical weight to the passage (as d o e s F. Scheidweiler, 'Sind die Interpolationen i m altrussischen J o s e p h u s wertlos?', ZNW 43 (1952), 168). C p . R . M e y e r , Der Prophet aus Galilaa (Leipzig, 1940), p p . 26f. T h e tradition is not otherwise taken u p in Q , p r o b a b l y h o w e v e r in e.g. M a r k 1:13. T h e possibility o f priestly tradition is c o n s i d e r e d b y G . Friedrich, ' B e o b a c h t u n g e n zur messianischen H o h e p r i e s t e r w a r t u n g in d e n Synoptikern', ZThK 53 (1956), 286. C p . m o r e recently E. Stauffer, ' M e s s i a s o d e r M e n s c h e n s o h n ? ' , NovTest 1 (1956), 83. C p . ThWNTvi, 907 ( E T vi 908). It w o u l d have d e m a n d e d the m e n t i o n o f the release o f prisoners. T h u s already L u k e 7:21. T h a t it b e l o n g e d to the original M a t t h a e a n text is m a d e likely b y : {a) the general
120
E.BAMMEL 78
(c) the cutting out o f
Jixcoxot e u q p g a i v o v x a i
in a side stream, in
topic for the Jews in the Judaeo-Christian tradition; in favour o f
EvayyekitpvTai
79
particular o f the Tatian tradition, by means of which the last line loses its emphasis; and (d) certain abbreviating formulations. T h e Baptist's questioning o f j e s u s is historical.
81
80
T h e genuine core o f
what was handed d o w n as Jesus's answer is to be found in Luke 7: 2 3 / M a t t . 11:6
8 2
- perhaps it was spoken while Jesus was performing an act o f
healing.
83
T h e first o f the beatitudes own,
84
was given by Luke in a special form o f its
which relates directly to the audience (6: 1 9 , more direct than in
Matthew)
85
and
secondly addresses them merely
as JITCDXOI.
86
The
i m p r o b a b i l i t y o f p o s t - M a t t h a e a n L u k a n influence; (b) the witness o f the T a t i a n tradition, w h i c h follows L u k e here - b e c a u s e the texts o f M a t t h e w w e r e not u n a n i m o u s ! (c) the substantial r e m o d e l l i n g w h i c h M a t t h e w has undertaken in the parallel passage 1 5 : 3 0 ^ (d) if M a t t . 1 1 : 3 is a piece o f its o w n with separate derivation in Q , it e n d e d the sayings s o u r c e in this and n o other form; t w o forms at the time o f Q are unlikely. C p . Stauffer, Jerusalem und Rom, p p . i6f. 7 8
7 9
c
al
T h u s s y a n d the M S S . B and C o f syP in b o t h s y n o p t i c passages (for the d e p e n d e n c e o f syP o n the T a t i a n tradition c p . M . Black, ' T h e Palestinian Syriac G o s p e l s a n d the Diatessaron', OrChr 36 ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 101, and C . Peters, ' P r o b e n eines b e d e u t s a m e n arabischen Evangelientexts', OrChr 33 ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 1 9 5 ) , and also the Persian Diatessaron ( e d . G . M e s s i n a (Biblicaet Orientalia 14 ( 1 9 5 1 ) ) , 9off. In c o n t e n t this m e a n s (a) a b r i d g e to Isa. 29: 19 (just as syP and A r a b . D i a t . correct L u k e 4: 18 a c c o r d i n g to the L X X ) a n d (b) a c o m p r o m i s e with regard to the division in the textual tradition o f M a t t h e w . al
al
8 0
8 1
T h u s in C h r y s o s t o m ' s h o m i l y twice ( b l i n d , lame, deaf, p o o r ; W . T i l l , Mitteilungen d. Dt. Arch. Inst. Kairo 16 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , p . 324. and in Sharastani (deaf, blind, palsy; H a a r b r u c k e r , Ash-Sharastanis Religionspartheien und Philosopken-Schulen i ( H a l l e , 18501), 260). O n the other hand, elements o f the formula are forged together with other n o t i o n s , in o r d e r to give a full picture o f Christ's activity (thus Ev. N i c . 1 : . . . c o m m a n d i n g the w i n d s , walking o n the lake and m a n y other m i r a c l e s ) . W . G . K i i m m e l (Verheissung und Erfullung (2nd e d n . Z u r i c h , 1 9 5 3 ) , p . 1 0 3 , E T L o n d o n , 1 9 5 7 , p . 1 1 1 ) regards the narrative as an im wesentlichen alte, zuverlassige Ueberlieferung'; ( c p . also O . C u l l m a n n , Christologie des Neuen Testaments ( T u b i n g e n , 9 5 7 ) > P- 1 6 2 , E T L o n d o n , 1959, p . 159; and Dibelius, Johannes der Tdufer, p p . 33fF). B u l t m a n n , Tradition (3rd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1958), p p . i 6 3 f ( E T O x f o r d , 1 9 7 2 , p p . 1511) regards verses 5 f as original, but detaches the formula from the situation. Even if L u k e 7 : 2 1 is frame-narration, n o n e the less there m a y b e o l d tradition b e h i n d the detail; L u k e here treats his s o u r c e m o r e carefully than d o e s M a t t h e w . F. Spitta, ' D i e S e n d u n g d e s Taufers zu J e s u s ' ThStKr8% ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 5346°, regards verse 21 as o l d e r than verse 22. F o r the latest investigations see C . M i c h a e l i s , ' D i e Ji-alliteration d e r Subjektsworte d e r ersten vier Seligpreisungen', NovTest 10 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , I48ff; H . Frankemolle, ' D i e M a k a r i s m e n ' , BZ n.s. 15 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 52ff. C . K a h l e r , 'Studien zur F o r m - u n d T r a d i t i o n s g e s c h i c h t e der biblischen M a k a r i s m e n ' (Diss. J e n a , 1 9 7 4 ) . A t an earlier stage o f the tradition those w h o are addressed as jixcdx°£ are the uxxGrjxai ( c p . 6 : 2 0 a , 40), a state o f affairs w h i c h , h o w e v e r , L u k e ( s e d u c e d b y the cries o f w o e ? ) alters b y m e a n s o f the n e w addressees ( c p . 6: 1 9 ; 7: 1; 6: 17 (levelling out f o r m u l a t i o n ) ) . A d o l f Schlatter, Lukas (Stuttgart, 1 9 3 1 ) , p p . 238f d o e s not differentiate. T h e M a t t h a e a n form, w h i c h often appears in the textual tradition - already in s y i
J
8 2
8 3
8 4
8 5
8 6
c
T h e Poor and the Zealots
121
pronouncement is elucidated by means o f the following beatitudes, which address those w h o are oppressed or persecuted, and therefore permit the conclusion that, in the first example as well, it is a case o f outwardly visible suffering. T h e JCTCD/CH differ only in so far as their lack of impediment (for in the context JITCDXOI is also a heading for the sick who are designated in 6: ljf) is a permanent condition, whereas the other addressees suffer the effects o f particular situations in salvation history. T h e saying is further illuminated by the symmetrically recurring cry o f woe oval iJ^iiv TOig Jttaruaioig . . . (6: 2 4 ) , which explains JITCDXOI e contrario and excludes the possibility o f an understanding according to Matt. 5: 3, but also makes it clear that the (3aoiX,eia is intended as a recompense (jTaQaxX/n,oic;). This recompense takes place in the future - to this extent the saying can be understood eschatologically but partly already in the present, since the addressees are already healed ( 6 : 1 9 ) . T h e saying, which is made up o f eight parts, is not uniform. Items 4 and 7 (verses 2 2 f and 2 6 ) are clearly amplifications, whose removal makes the reference o f items 2 , 3, 6 , and 7 (verses 21 and 2 5 ) to the situation o f persecution uncertain, particularly since the pointer vi3v is also an addition. N o n e the less this does not entirely get rid o f the difference between 1 (verse 2 0 b ) and 2 and 3 (verse 2 1 ) , as the various O T I formulations that follow indicate. A separate provenance for 1 and 2 + 3 must therefore be regarded as possible. At least by this point 1 will already have had a social flavour. For the association o f 1 with 2—3 is to be attributed also to the fact that the enemies of the Poor - the Rich - were the chief persecutors, with regard to which it is significant that the word JlTcaxog, clearly because it was traditional, was no longer adequate as an expression o f the experience o f persecution. A parallel to the amalgamation poor/persecuted may be seen in the formula [xax&Qioi 01 JTCOOXOI xai 01 6ia)x6jA£VOi evexev 5ixaiocn3vr]s . . . (Pol. Phil 2:3), which should most 87
88
89
90
9 1
92
93
( c p . H . v o n S o d e n Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer dltesten erreuchbaren Textgestalt i ( L e i p z i g , 1902) ad. l o c . ) - is a later assimilation. T h e earliest witness for the u n c o r r u p t L u k a n text is Tertullian ( c p . A . v o n H a r n a c k , Marcion 2nd e d n . L e i p z i g , 1924), a n d , i f H . v o n S o d e n is correct in his criticism o f H a r n a c k ( ' D e r lateinische Paulustext bei M a r c i o n und Tertullian', Julicher-Festschrift, e d d . H . v o n S o d e n a n d R . B u l t m a n n , T u b i n g e n , 1927, p . 239), even M a r c i o n . 8 7
8 8
8 9
9 0
9 1
9 2
9 3
T h e description in verse 22 is l o n g - w i n d e d , b e c a u s e it aims at a c c u r a c y . T h e r e f o r e vvv o r ev exeivfl xfl riuiocjt is there a d d e d . T h u s G . Bomkamm, Jesus von Nazareth (Stuttgart, 1956), p . 184, n. 21., E T p . 202, n. 21. T h u s M . D i b e l i u s , Botschaft und Geschichte i ( T u b i n g e n , 1953), 120. A l t h o u g h it seems as if the interpretation that is given to verse 20c in 24b intends to m a k e the (3aoiA.eia an exclusively future blessing. W h i c h p e r h a p s took p l a c e already at the time w h e n the beatitudes and the cries o f w o e were combined. C p . E . K l o s t e r m a n n , Das Lukasevangelium ( T u b i n g e n , 1929), p . 79.
E.BAMMEL
122
likely be regarded as a separate formulation o f Jewish or community theology origin, independent o f Matthew and L u k e .
94
T h e indications that have emerged about the genesis o f the
Lukan
passage show that the first beatitude does not derive from Luke himself (and cannot therefore
be used for the evaluation
o f his own social
tendencies without certain caveats). This does not yet, however, decide the question o f the priority o f either the Lukan or the Matthaean form. T h e hypothesis, occasionally ventilated, o f a derivation from two independent sources finds support in the fact that the formula
mv^atf =
JlTCO/oi TCp
jrv8i)(iaTi, the non-occurrence of which had been taken as the decisive argument for the more reliable wording o f the Lukan beatitude, has been traced recently in a Qumran source (i Q Mil 14.7). T h e assumption that different forms of makarisms of the Poor (with or without a promise) existed side by side - four formulae are known to us - and exercised their influence on different Christian manifestos is to be preferred to the attempt to trace them back to one form. T h e beatitudes were, in one form or another, a stock phrase at the time o f j e s u s and it is therefore unlikely that one o f them belongs to those sayings which are typical o f the dominical preaching. O n the other hand, the prominence given to the
JITCDXOI
-formulae and
their variety evince the flooding o f the early communities with elements o f the theology of the Poor and indeed the readiness of the Christians to expose themselves to such influences. T h e growing influence o f the Baptistic heritage in the early community is likely to have played its part in this development. It may have fostered and stimulated the emergence o f the adulation o f the P o o r .
95
IV T h e view o f the twelve disciples which became the standard one certainly militates against the hypothesis o f Zealot influences on Jesus and his circle. J o h n calls Judas ToxaQiobTrjg and at the same time xXeJtTT)g. Both terms seem to describe the same thing. xXeJtTY)g is an unfavourable expression for 96
what is c o m m o n l y called >.r|OTrjg - a term applied to both Zealots and 9 4
9 5
9 6
J . W e i s s , Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (2nd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1900), p . 181, conjectures that P o l y c a r p used a ' v o r k a n o n i s c h e R e d a k t i o n d e r M a k a r i s m e n ' . H o w far 6ia)x6u.evoi wck. goes b a c k to M a t t h e w himself, as is a s s u m e d b y H . K o s t e r (Synopt. Ueberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vdtern, T U 65 (1957), 118), is not clear. T h e c l a i m that C a i a p h a s took offence especially at Jesus's praising o f the P o o r a n d his p r o m i s e o f earthly r e d e m p t i o n ( R e c . 1. 61) m a y reflect such d e v e l o p m e n t s in the early c o m m u n i t y . In J o s e p h u s the term XT)crcai points clearly to insurrection activity. Its m e a n i n g includes the notion o f pretension to authority in certain cases (see R . M a c M u l l e n , The Roman Concept Robber-Pretender, R I D A 3rd Series 10 (1963), p p . 2211). In the political p r o p a g a n d a language o f the e m p i r e it even describes the usurper.
T h e Poor and the Zealots
123
sicarii. T o this is added in J o h n 1 2 : 6 an interpretation which casts even 98
more doubt on Judas's integrity. T h e basis of the whole development in the blacklisting o f Judas is the linking o f the traitor with the Zealots and therefore, by inference, the separation ofjesus and his true followers from that movement. It is in this context that an allusion in J o h n 1 0 : 8 gathers momentum: XXEJIXCU
98
xai Xr\oxai are called 'those w h o c a m e ' . This may refer to figures
who came as contemporaries ofjesus and made saviour claims, to men w h o were o f the Zealot type. T h e phrase had been used before in the parable o f 1 0 : 1, although only the first part o f it was developed both in the course o f the parable and in its subsequent interpretation (verse 1 0 ) . T h e positive example is only expressed by one term. It is therefore likely that in a more primitive form the parable had contained only one negative term. As xXeJiXTig is the term which fits the contents of the parable it is to be assumed that this word belongs to the original narration,
99
while h(]Oxr\(; came in in
order to make a new point. It goes with the direct identification o f the shepherd with Jesus as we find it in verses 1 iff.
100
T h e xaXog Jioi^ir|V, a term
capable o f political interpretation in the ancient world, is reinterpreted in these verses. T o give the negative term a political direction by the addition o f xai A.T]Oxa£ would be a corresponding re-emphasis. It results from this that the Xr|Oxrjg with its political associations is likely to have been brought in in order to emphasise the difference between Jesus's position in his church and that o f pretenders among their followers. T h e dominical kernel o f the parable alludes to the religious leadership in
9 7
T h e characterisation o f the J u d a s as a m o n e y - g r a b b e r (John 12:6) is thus to b e taken as an artificial reinterpretation o f the m e a n i n g o f the attribute. T h e c h o i c e o f the term xXejrrng (rather than Xriarrjg) m a y b e partly d u e to the fact that the thief s w o r k is often associated with night, while the very action w h i c h d e t e r m i n e d the portrait o f J u d a s in the early c h u r c h took p l a c e in 'the h o u r o f darkness'.
9 8
JIQO i\iOV is to b e found o n l y in part o f the tradition. It is significant that the Syriac tradition, w h i c h is d o t t e d with anti-Jewish statements d o e s n o t seize u p o n this. O n the o t h e r h a n d , it is equally characteristic that K , a text w h i c h tends to c o m p r o m i s e b y o m i s s i o n , d o e s not r e p r o d u c e these w o r d s . M i g h t it b e that s o m e t h i n g like the reading o f N o n n u s (Jiaoog eu,oxJ) was the alternative before the scribe o f S and perhaps even the original reading? C p . As. Is. 4:6: I a m G o d , before m e there has been n o n e . T h e s e c o n d half o f the saying w a s refashioned in G n o s t i c tradition. Basilides claims that all the p r o p h e t s before the saviour spoke from the ruler o f the
•
firmament (Hipp. Ref. vii. 25:5) and the Naassene B o o k o f B a r u c h is even m o r e specific: they had prophesied, because they had been enticed b y the serpent. Failing to a c c o m p l i s h the s a m e with Jesus, the serpent crucified h i m . It is in keeping with this t e n d e n c y that Pistis S o p h i a , c h . 102 (257.25), gives the phrase 'keep a w a y from r o b b e r y ' (originally an extension o f J o h n 10:8b?) an entirely m e t a p h o r i c a l meaning. 9 9
1 0 0
M e r x , Johannes (Berlin, 1911), p . 250, holds the o p p o s i t e v i e w . A c c o r d i n g to J. W e l l h a u s e n , Das Evangelium Johannis (Berlin, 1908), p . 48, already in verse 7.
E.BAMMEL
124
Israel, which will not be accepted by the door-keeper, that is, G o d . It is without direct political connotations. Its meaning could, however, be easily extended to refer to the new political self-styled leaders as well; and it certainly exposed Jesus and his followers to the animosity and even hatred of those w h o in their political direction pressed the nation into their own fold.
101
O f crucial importance is the cleansing o f the T e m p l e .
102
It is this event
that comes nearest to revolutionary activity and it is this narrative that contains the watchwords indicating Zealotism: £f|X,og and h(]OTr\<;. T h e story is preserved in two strands o f tradition - surprisingly there is no record o f it in Jewish or extracanonical sources. T h e narrative itself is supplemented by interpretative remarks. T h e Johannine report contains two sentences o f this kind, each o f them introduced by e^vrjo9r]aav.
103
Mark on the other hand contains a statement o f j e s u s , preceded by the description o f an action ( 1 1 : 1 6 ) , which, however, is due to the redactor, as it is reproduced neither by Luke nor even by Matthew, to whose theology it would have been congenial. T h e statement itself is a combination o f O l d Testament passages in the manner of a Teacher of Righteousness exegesis something that is in keeping neither with the Markan presentation nor with what we know o f the dominical references to the O l d Testament. It is therefore
likely that the original form o f the
narrative lacked
any
interpretative statement, beyond, perhaps, a reference to the violated sanctity o f the House - probably not in the form o f a quotation.
104
An
interpretation is, however, supplied by the story o f the cursing o f the fig-tree, which in its two parts frames the cleansing and whjch seems to 105
form a unit with the latter already in pre-Markan tradition. Jesus's action
101 F o r recent investigations c p . O . Kiefer, Die Hirtenrede (Stuttgart, 1967) a n d A . S i m o n i s , Die Hirtenrede im Johannes-Evangelium ( R o m , 1967). 102 F recent studies see G . A b r a m z i k in Festschrift M. Plaut ( B r e m e n , 1971), 69fTand E. Salin, J e s u s und die W e c h s l e r ' in A . b e n - D a v i d , Jerusalem und Tyros o r
( B a s e l / T u b i n g e n , 1969), p p . 490°. 1 0 3
T h e s e c o n d o f these refers b o t h to the event itself and to the fragment o f a c o n t r o v e r s y r e p r o d u c e d in J o h n 2: 18-20. W h i l e it is the intention o f verses 2 i f f to give a d i s a r m i n g interpretation o f the p r e c e d i n g verse, this verse itself defies explanation; Jesus applies the t e c h n i q u e o f o u t m a n o e u v r i n g the challenge o f his enemies b y p r o v o k i n g t h e m to d o s o m e t h i n g - the actual suggestion to pull d o w n the T e m p l e w a s not o u t o f place, as the b u i l d i n g o f the H e r o d i a n T e m p l e w a s not undertaken w i t h o u t misgivings.
1 0 4
T h e action thus o p e n e d itself to different explanations: the possibility that it w a s directing itself against the trade set u p a n d m o n o p o l i s e d b y the h o u s e o f A n n a s w a s o n e o f t h e m . A n o t h e r , e m p h a s i s e d in M a r k 11: 16, w a s that Jesus was expressing his o p p o s i t i o n to the H e r o d i a n T e m p l e . T h e a m b i g u i t y o f his action to the outside w o r l d is a p h e n o m e n o n that should not b e d i s r e g a r d e d . It is not c o n n e c t e d with the entry pericope, as the lack o f jrdXiv in M a r k 11: 15 shows (whereas in verse 27 it is present). T h e t w o locations given in 1 1 : 1 are puzzling; but
1 0 5
T h e Poor and the Zealots deprives the
fig-tree
!25
o f its raison d'etre. T h e cleansing interrupts the
execution o f the sacrificial system for one moment and thereby makes it invalid. T h e two actions correspond to each other:
106
the cursing o f the
fig-tree is the interpretation o f the cleansing. It is a symbolic gesture that points to the end o f the cultic approach to G o d . T h e re-interpretation offered in the two strands o f the Gospel tradition portrays Jesus as a restorer of the original quality o f the T e m p l e , as someone who directs himself just against certain practices Zerubbabel T e m p l e .
108
107
and possibly is in favour o f the more modest
While the term £f)X.og, which was about to replace
the older term zedaka at this time, is characteristic in the Fourth Gospel for the description o f the attitude o f j e s u s , world is described by
\X\QTT\Z,.
109
it is in Mark that the anti-divine
T h e former indicates a time in which the
Christians were still able to use terms dear to the Jewish activists
110
and
even to advocate their master's action by hinting at the example o f the zealous Phineas,
111
whereas the latter marks a separation. T h e Johannine
usage must be the earlier one, while the Markan, although a citation from Jeremiah, is probably employed here with the secondary intention o f separating Jesus's action from the activities o f the Zealots. Although this latter interpretation is a rewriting, it is not at this point at variance with the original meaning o f the event: it is prophetic action that, by interrupting those
procedures
which
precede
the
cultic
performance
(even
the
ayoQa^ovxeg, the would-be worshippers, are turned away by Jesus, according to Mark 1 2 : 1 5 ) , symbolises the end o f the cult, and it is not a political or revolutionary action. This interpretation agrees both with the Judaeo-Christian tradition on Jesus's attitude with respect to the T e m p l e and with the role attributed to the T e m p l e saying in the Sanhedrin trial.
1 0 6
112
113
they find their interpretation in the assumption that o n e o f them was transferred w h e n the units 11: i f f and n : i2ff were forged together. A different v i e w is taken b y W . R . T e l f o r d , The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree
(Sheffield, 1980). 1 0 7
T h u s especially D . C h w o l s o n , Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes (2nd edn. L e i p z i g , 1908), p . 127. Reinterpretations o n the redactionary level are discussed b y R . E . D o w d a , ' T h e C l e a n s i n g o f the T e m p l e in the S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s ' (Diss., D u k e U n i v . , 1972).
108 M a r k 1 1 : 1 6 c o u l d b e taken as prohibiting the c o m p l e t i o n o f the H e r o d i a n T e m p l e . D e r i v i n g from Psalm 69: 10 - a p s a l m w h i c h c a m e to b e used christologically ( c p . M a r k 15: 36). C p . R e v . 2:9; 3:9, where the term ' I o u 6 a i o g is still c l a i m e d b y the Christian c h u r c h , whereas it is a b a n d o n e d in the Fourth G o s p e l . Later Christian tradition, h o w e v e r , makes h i m a d e s c e n d a n t o f C a i n . J e s u s is said to have c o m e in o r d e r to abolish sacrifices. It is not until the c o m p i l a t i o n o f the A p o s t o l i c Constitutions that the J e w s a c c u s e Jesus as destroyer o f the T e m p l e and taker a w a y o f sacrifices (verse 14). Both M a t t h e w a n d M a r k , although displaying significant differences in detail, agree in so far as they emphasise that the T e m p l e accusation did not lead to the desired result. H a d it been otherwise, a verdict w o u l d have been reached without 1 0 9
, 1 0
1 1 1
112
1 , 3
126
E.BAMMEL
A third focussing point is to be found in the saying in Mark 1 1 : 2 3 : the 6 9 0 5 must be a particular mountain; in all probability it is the T e m p l e mount. Taken in this way the logion is a parallel to the form o f Jesus's T e m p l e saying which is expressed in Matt. 26: 6 1 : 5i>vaum xaxcdvacu x d v vaov xov Qeov. W h a t Jesus is said to have claimed for himself in the latter passage is promised to the very faithful disciple in the former. T h e two sayings are complementary. They display a similarly radical attitude vis-a-vis the T e m p l e as is found in both the cleansing and cursing scenes. Jesus equally kept aloof from Schwarmertum, from apocalypticism, the disposition which once and again amalgamated with national expectation and Zealotism. Statements like Luke 1 7 : 2 1 express unequivocally his reserve vis-a-vis apocalyptic speculation and expectation.
114
His departure
from apocalypticism is the counter-proof, the proof for his parting from political expectation. Matthew
2 6 : 5 2 : Jidvxeg
. . .
01 A.a|36vxeg (i&xaiQav ev
^laxaiQY]
ajtotayuvxai, a proverbial saying which, possibly under the influence o f Mark 8: 3 4 , came into existence in the early church, sums up fairly the position o f j e s u s .
115
It is not inconsistent with this that a document, possibly going back to the first century, describes the hatred felt towards Jesus as caused by the fact that he had no zeal,
116
or was not a Z e a l o t .
117
An echo o f the impression
of the time is found in a Jewish source o f the Tannaitic period which claims that Jesus was put to death by Phineas, the r o b b e r .
118
1
riNDC ?,
the
Aramaic form o f the Greek A.r)Oxrjg, is obviously taken as an honorific title (like the Dutch 'geuzen'), while Phineas, the hero of the Zealots, is referred to
1 1 4
1 , 5
1 1 6
1 , 7
1 , 8
a d o . T e m p l e s were protected in the R o m a n e m p i r e and any violation was treated as an action against the p u b l i c peace and punished m o s t severely. C p . D . Juel, Messiah and Temple ( M i s s o u l a , 1977). E v e n the s y n o p t i c a p o c a l y p s e , a passage w h i c h is heavily o v e r l a i d b y material o f b o t h J e w i s h a n d Early Christian p r o v e n a n c e , directs its readers to p h e n o m e n a w h i c h , c o n t r a r y to a p o c a l y p t i c time-tables, are viewed under the heading O V J U D T O xekoq ( M a r k 13:7); and is designed, it its redactionary form at least (verse 10 is s y m p t o m a t i c ; the addition o f verses 32ff seems to express similar sentiments), to c a l m d o w n rather than to w h i p u p expectations. It is doubtful whether m o r e detailed a d v i c e was given in the c o m m u n i t y . T h e v i e w that M a t t . 5: 41 refers to the R o m a n practice o f forced l a b o u r a n d that the a d v i c e is implicitly p r o - R o m a n and anti-Zealot ( L . E. K e c k , A Future for the Historical Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1972), p . 254) is too neat. O d . Sol. 28: 10 - transl. J . H . Bernard (Texts and Studies 8.3 (1912), u o f ) ; J . R . Harris, An Early Christian Psalter ( C a m b r i d g e , 1910), p . 50. T h u s translated b y J . R . Harris, The Twelve Apostles ( C a m b r i d g e , 1927), p . 34. For the negative m e a n i n g applied to tflXoc, in early Christian literature c p . Ps. C l e m . Horn. 3.42, where the n a m e C a i n is interpreted b y £f|Xoc; and every kind o f Z e a l o t i s m is blacklisted thereby. S a n h . 106b. T h e theories that Phineas is a mistake for Pilate and that lista derives from a Syriac losta = august are, o f course, far-fetched.
T h e Poor and the Zealots
127
as an indication of Zealot activity. T h e statement describes Jesus's death as due to or influenced by punitive action taken by Zealot elements.
119
N o definite tendency can be deduced in those passages on the Poor - they are by far the smaller proportion - that can be attributed to Jesus. The challenge given to the rich young man is not intended as a principle, nor is it 120
it demands
recognises as
necessary.
meant to be an indication of the virtue of doing good to others; action, the action which Jesus's loving call
121
Jesus's love is directed to the individual; the words in which it is expressed are not meant to be understood as law. Occasionally the word occurs in a Beispielerzahlung (Luke 1 4 : 1 3 )
1 2 2
Jixooxog
or is taken up in the words in
which Jesus characterises a procedure which takes place before his eyes (Mark 1 2 : 4 2 ) . None the less, this happens surprisingly seldom. When Jesus describes the circle o f men to w h o m especially he has turned his compassion he prefers other words. It is to the his glory is revealed; he himself calls the (Matt, n : 2 8 ) , he blesses the
Jiai&ia
vr|Jiioi
(Matt. 1 1 : 25) that
HOJiLWVxeg x a i
Jtecpooxiofxevoi
(Mark 10: 1 4 ) , he portrays men in
their special needs (Matt. 2 5 : 2 5 ( 1 ) . The
xojtiujvxeg
are primarily those who suffer under the burden of the
law. It is, however, true that the exercise o f religion had become a privilege of those who had had some training in the law and of those who could afford to observe the law punctiliously. Those who suffer under the yoke of the law are therefore likely to belong to the lower strata o f society. T h e only clearly defined pronouncement on the (Mark 1 4 : 7 )
1 2 4
JTXCDXOI
123
is Jesus's refusal
to allow himself to be tied down to a social principle or
indeed to let his sympathies be regimented at all. Jesus does good himself (cp. Acts 10: 38 with Mark 1 4 : 7 ) , but he does not bind men to a law, nor 1 1 9
1 2 0
1 2 1
1 2 2
1 2 3
1 2 4
It is to b e m e n t i o n e d too that J o h n 16: i f refers, a c c o r d i n g to M e r x , Johannes, p . 400, to a persecution o f the Christian c o m m u n i t y initiated by Z e a l o t s . T h u s J. J e r e m i a s , ' D i e Salbungsgeschichte M c 14 3-9', ZNW35 (1936), 79. T h e oldest traceable form o f the answer given b y Jesus is near to the o n e h a n d e d d o w n in the Ev. H e b r . , in that the central section o f M a r k is lacking there. O n the other hand, this pointing to the c o m m a n d o f love is to b e taken as a s e c o n d a r y transformation o f the M a r k a n r\yanr]ae\. C p . A b o t h 1:5; T o s . Ber. 4:8, where the P o o r appear only as a s u p p l e m e n t to the invited guests. T h e r e are, it is true, features in his teaching, w h i c h militate in favour o f the Poor. T h e restriction o f business life w h i c h was necessitated b y a rigid o b s e r v a n c e o f the T o r a h ceased to exist. I n d e e d , the blessing given to the transgression o f the Sabbath law, as w e find it in the D version o f Luke 6: 5 at least, o p e n e d u p a n e w avenue. T h e abolition o f the hereditary law w h i c h b e s t o w e d titles exclusively o n the male offspring, must have been b r o u g h t about, if not b y Jesus himself, very soon in Judaeo-Christianity ( S h a b b . 116a) and resulted in a better social c o n d i t i o n both o f w i d o w and virgin. T h i s does not, h o w e v e r , m e a n that social considerations played a role in Jesus's preaching. T h e story is 'wahrlich wert, im E v a n g e l i u m zu stehen' - this is W e l l h a u s e n ' s j u d g e m e n t {Marcus, 2nd e d n . p . 109).
128
E.BAMMEL
does he emphasise the law; where he is, other legal principles with draw. All the same Jesus's way o f life corresponds to that of the Poor. It is not just that his illustrations and sermons prefer to address the Poor and that it is chiefly the ox^og (John 7: 49) that attaches itself to him; he proceeds through the country as a man without possessions, dependent on help and protection from others (e.g. Mark 1 : 3 1 ) . He is put under pressure, persecuted (Luke 9: 58; 1 3 : 3 3 ; 2 1 : 3 7 etc.) and takes refuge (John 1 1 : 5 4 ) . He is conscious o f his identity with the exploited and humiliated (Matt. 1 1 : 2 8 ) . Yet he does not make use o f the slogan which indicated their position and their hopes. This is clearly because it had been excessively overlaid and distorted by glowing expectations. Instead of this it is to the individuals in their various needs that Jesus speaks. 125
The most telling expression is given to this connection in Mark 8: 3 8 / L u k e 9: 26. This saying, the original wording o f which seems to be 'whoever is ashamed o f me and my (companions) . . .', refers to those individuals in his environment w h o are less respectable and less presentable, rather than to his disciples a l o n e . T h e verse expresses more than Jesus's concern for his group, it indicates his total identification with those w h o m he chooses to associate with. 126
T h o s e w h o had to abandon their abode because o f political or religious causes, or who from poverty had let themselves be led into actions o f despair, will have experienced similar ways o f life, although their backing in the population and the support given by their fraternities may have been more effective. Jesus's proclamation does not, however, coincide with the key-words o f the activists' appeal. ndxQtog v6|iog, £X.£v8eQia, salvation o f Israel are absent from his language. His actions d o not give a different impression; even the Cleansing of the T e m p l e is rather a symbolic action than a political manifesto. Compared with the political movements of his day Jesus is what is expressed by Paul, albeit in a different context, in the one word JtaQeioeXBcov: he is the one whose words and deeds were different both from the preceding and from the surrounding world. 127
128
129
1 2 5
1 2 6
1 2 7
1 2 8
129
T h e attempt o f Sattler (Ad.Julicher, p p . iff), which was taken u p b y W . G r u n d m a n n (Jesus, der Galilder ( W e i m a r , 1940)), to illustrate Jesus's self-consciousness from the b a c k g r o u n d o f the piety o f the A n a w i m is thus hardly tenable. It is o n l y the present c o n t e x t in M a r k 9: 1 (if the verse is not meant as an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the transfiguration story) w h i c h makes o n e think o f the disciples. J o s e p h u s , AJ 14 §41. A . Reifenberg, Ancient Jewish Coins (Jerusalem, 1947), p p . 60-6 (Jmn,). R e i f e n b e r g , Coins, p p . 58, 6of, 63f ( n t o w ) .
HELMUT
MERKEL
The opposition between Jesus and Judaism 1
Jesus was a J e w . This indisputable fact long ago led H . S. Reimarus, the founder o f the study o f the historical Jesus, to regard Jesus completely within the framework o f Judaism, and to consider it evident 'that Jesus had not the slightest intention o f doing away with the Jewish religion and 2
putting another in its place'. From this it became necessary to explain the N e w Testament accounts o f conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees as 3
the product o f exchanges between church and synagogue - an early 4
position which the form-critical approach has appeared to confirm. But if Jesus lived in harmony with his contemporaries, then the reason for his violent end must have lain in his political activity. Accordingly, from Reimarus to R . Eisler d o w n to S. G . F. Brandon Jesus has again and again been placed in the company o f Zealot resistance fighters.
5
Since the Enlightenment, too, the representation o f j e s u s as an Essene wisdom teacher has often been placed alongside representations o f him as an orthodox Pharisee and a nationalistic resistance fighter.
6
Since the
publication o f the Q u m r a n texts particularly, repeated attempts have been m a d e to connect Jesus with the Essenes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
O . M i c h e l , J e s u s d e r J u d e ' , in H . R i s t o w a n d K . M a t t h i a e ( e d s . ) , Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1961), p p . 31 off. Q u o t e d b y A . Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus ( E T L o n d o n , 1910), p . 17. C p . G . L i n d e s k o g , Die Jesusfrage im neuzeitlichen Judentum ( U p p s a l a , 1938). M o r e recent studies from this point o f v i e w i n c l u d e j . Isaac, Jesus et Israel (Paris, 1948), p p . 96ff; P. W i n t e r , The Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p p . 11 iff; S. B e n C h o r i n , BruderJesus ( M i i n c h e n , 1967), p p . i6f, 22, 74f; D . Flusser, Jesus ( R e i n b e c k bei H a m b u r g , 1968), p p . 43ff, E T Jesus ( N e w Y o r k , 1969), p p . 44-64. See also G . J a s p e r , Stimmen aus dem neureligibsen Judentum ( H a m b u r g , 1958). 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), E T The History of the Synoptic Tradition (2nd e d n . O x f o r d , 1968), p . 54. J . C . W e b e r , Jr., J e s u s ' s O p p o n e n t s in the G o s p e l o f M a r k ' , JBR 34 (1966), 2i4ff, entirely follows B u l t m a n n ' s c o n c l u s i o n s . A substantially different v i e w is taken b y H . F. W e i s s , ' D e r Pharisaismus i m L i c h t e d e r Uberlieferung d e s N e u e n T e s t a m e n t s ' in R . M e y e r , Tradition undNeuschbpfung im antiken Judentum ( L e i p z i g , 1965), p p . 89ff. C p . also his article ' O a o i o a l o g ' in ThWNT'w, 36ff. R . Eisler, I H Z O Y Z B A 2 I A E Y 2 O Y B A 2 I A E Y Z A 2 ii ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1930); S. G . F. B r a n d o n , Jesus and the Zealots: A Study in the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967). Further literature is cited in M . H e n g e l , War Jesus Revolutiondr? ( T u b i n g e n , 1970) ( E T Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Philadelphia, 1971)). C p . S. W a g n e r , Die Essener in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion vom Ausgang des 18. bis zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, i960). C p . especially A . D u p o n t - S o m m e r , Les ecrits esseniens decouverts pres de la mer Morte
129
I30
HELMUT MERKEL
O v e r against all these stands an impressive list o f scholars who have taken seriously the opposition ofjesus to his contemporaries which comes to light in various places in the Gospels. David Friedrich Strauss, the first radical critic o f the Gospel tradition, recognised as the simple historical outline of the life ofjesus that he grew up in Nazareth, had himself baptized by John, gathered disciples, wandered around the Jewish countryside teaching, set himself in opposition to Pharisaism throughout and summoned men to the Messianic kingdom; that he was finally brought down by the hatred and jealousy of the Pharisaic party, and died on the cross. 8
Since Strauss's time, the significance o f the opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees has been often emphasised by both radical and conservative 9
scholars. Rudolf Bultmann lists the 'breaking o f the Sabbath c o m m a n d - , ment, violation o f the rules o f purity, polemic against Jewish legalism, association with outcasts like tax-gatherers and prostitutes, sympathy for women and children' among the characteristics of Jesus's actions that can 'with some caution' be ascertained.
10
M o s t o f the more recent critical
portraits ofjesus also take account o f the opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees,
11
though to be sure it has been a matter o f debate whether Jesus 12
attacked only Pharisaic casuistry or the Torah itself as well. Recent study of the trial o f j e s u s has regarded this opposition as the decisive factor
(Paris, 1959), E T The Essene Writings from Qumran ( O x f o r d , 1961), p p . 368-78. Further material m a y b e found in H . Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament ii
(Tubingen, 1966), 54fT, 850". 8
9
D . F. Strauss, Das Leben Jesu 1 ( i s t e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1835), 72. T . K e i m , Geschichte Jesu von Nazara ii (Zurich," 1871), 337H" ( E T History ofjesus of Nazara'w ( L o n d o n , 1879), 4-27); B . W e i s s , Das Leben Jesuii (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1884), 99ff ( E T The Life ojJesus ii ( E d i n b u r g h , 1883), 2 8 9 - 3 0 5 ) ^ . Beyschlag, Das Leben Jesu ii ( H a l l e , 1886), 259ff; W . Bousset, Jesus, E T ( L o n d o n , 1906), p p . 59-70; P. \Nern\t, Jesus (3rd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1917), p p . 1070°; M . G o g u e l , La vie de Jesus (Paris, 1932) ( E T The Life of Jesus (London, 1933), p p . 343-6), G T ( Z u r i c h , 1934), p p . 219f; W . Heitmiiller, Jesus ( T u b i n g e n , 1913), p p . 97f.
1 0
R . B u l t m a n n , ' D a s Verhaltnis der urchristlicheh Christusbotschaft z u m historischen J e s u s ' ( E T as ' T h e Primitive Christian K e r y g m a and the Historical J e s u s ' , in C . E. Braaten and R o y A . Harrisville ( e d s . ) , The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ ( N e w Y o r k and Nashville, 1964), p . 22). T h e present translation differs slightly.
11
G . B o r n k a m m , Jesus von Nazareth (5th e d n . Stuttgart, i960), p p . 88ff, ET Jesus of Nazareth ( L o n d o n , i960), p p . 98-100; E . Stauffer, Die Botschaft Jesu (Bern, 1959), p p . 361T; E. H a e n c h e n , Der Wegjesu (Berlin, 1966), passim; M . H e n g e l , Nachfolgeund Charisma (Berlin, 1968), p . 63; H . Braun, Jesus (Stuttgart, 1969), p p . 72ff. C p . m y
12
A n attack b y Jesus o n the T o r a h itself is disputed b y J. J e r e m i a s , Neutestamentliche Theologie i (Giitersloh, 1971), ig8ff ( E T New Testament Theology i ( L o n d o n , 1971), 204-8). F o r the contrary v i e w see especially Stauffer, Botschaft; H a e n c h e n , Weg; H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p p . 78f.
survey in NTSt 14 (1967-8), 194-208.
T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism behind Jesus's indictment.
13
131
T h e supposed affinity of Jesus and the Zealots
has also been recently questioned; it has indeed been proposed that there was an unbridgeable gulf between them.
14
T h e representation of Jesus as a
Q u m r a n Essene has not remained uncontested either.
15
W i t h such an abundance o f opposing positions and views on the question, we might feel justified in giving up, especially since to many questions we feel able with a clear theological conscience to give a verdict o f non liquet with an appeal to Kahler and Bultmann.
16
O n the other hand, it
has been shown thatfaith has an interest in the historical facts about Jesus,
17
although this subject will not concern us further here. But what can we say about the actual possibility o f historical reconstruction?
I It is today generally recognised that the Gospels are o f a kerygmatic nature, so that an uncritical estimate o f their value is out o f the question.
18
The
fundamental breakthrough to this recognition was made by form-criticism, although it had already operated in 'liberal' study around the turn o f the century. A d o l f Jiilicher, for example, set out the problem strikingly in an evaluation o f the achievements o f Wrede, Wellhausen, and Harnack: The task will always be for us to distinguish within the Synoptic tradition what can probably be ascribed to the community, or perhaps what was composed by the community in venturing to correct older material, and what is more probably to be traced back to Jesus himself. Whenever 1 3
, 4
S o G . L i n d e s k o g , ' D e r Prozess J e s u i m judisch-christlichen R e l i g i o n s g e s p r a c h ' , in Abraham unser Vater (Festschrift O . M i c h e l ) (Leiden, 1963), p p . 325(1; D . R . 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 T r i a l ' , in E . B a m m e l ( e d . ) , The Trial of Jesus, (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1971), p p . 47!!, a n d idem, The Trial of Jesus ( L e i d e n , 1971), p p . io7ff. H e n g e l , War Jesus Revolutionary \ O . C u l l m a n n , Jesus und die Revolutionaren seiner Zeit ( T u b i n g e n , 1970) ( E T Jesus and the Revolutionaries ( N e w Y o r k , 1970)). C p . the s u m m a r y in Braun, Qumran ii, 541T, 85(1.
1 5
1 6
G . Strecker, ' D i e historische u n d theologische Problematik d e r Jesusfrage', EvTh 29
(1969)* 4 5 3 ^ 17
1 8
O . M i c h e l , ' D e r "historische J e s u s " und d a s theologische G e w i s s h e i t s p r o b l e m ' , EvTh 15 (1955), 349fT; J. J e r e m i a s , Das Problem des historischen Jesus (Stuttgart, i960) E T The Problem of the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia, 1967); W . G . K i i m m e l , Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments nach seinen Hauptzeugen (Gottingen, 1969, p p . 22Q; P. S t u h l m a c h e r , ' K r i t i s c h e M a r g i n a l i e n zur gegenwartigen Frage nach J e s u s ' , in Fides et communicatio (Festschr. M . D o e r n e ) , ed. D . Rossler et al. ( G o t t i n g e n , 1970), p p . 34iff. T h i s is the weakness o f the c o m p r e h e n s i v e study o f W . Beilner, Christus und die Pharisaer ( W i e n , 1959). T h e w o r k o f K . Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu ( N e u k i r c h e n , 1972), while rich in material, also raises d o u b t s a b o u t m e t h o d . W h a t the a u t h o r considers a ' c o m p r e h e n s i v e traditio-historical m e t h o d ' ( F o r e w o r d ) , often operates like ' c o m b i n a t o r i a l m a g i c ' . C p . also note 79, p . 140.
132
HELMUT MERKEL characteristic
traits are striking in a disorganized mass o f material,
whenever w o r d s o f peculiar stamp and character meet us, then this is . . . the surest p r o o f o f authenticity.
19
Wilhelm Heitmiiller, whose presentation o f j e s u s was debated by the Prussian chamber o f deputies,
20
formulated five critical canons, o f which
the first was that in spite o f legendary and mythological elements and in spite o f the not inconsiderable overlaying attributable to the belief o f the c o m m u n i t y that w e have to clear away, w e have material o f historical value in the gospel tradition whenever there are elements in it which cannot be reconciled with the belief o f the c o m m u n i t y to which the material as a whole belongs. W h a t is not consonant with this belief cannot have g r o w n out o f it. T h e s e elements often s h o w themselves to be at variance with the belief o f the c o m m u n i t y through their omission or alteration by later writers.
21
' W e can have complete confidence [in the residuum o f material satisfying this criterion]. W e can extend this confidence to everything that stands in an organic relation to it.'
22
Further indicators o f authenticity were the local
colour o f narratives, Aramaisms, and forms o f traditional material suitable for memorisation. With these principles Heitmiiller offered a way of making Jiilicher's methodology more precise. Ernst von Dobschiitz expressed himself similarly.
23
This position changed with Bultmann. He wanted to abandon any presumption o f reliability in dealing with the Gospel tradition,
24
believing
that nothing more than the earliest stratum o f the tradition could ever be discerned; to what extent Jesus was behind it could no longer be determined. 1 9
25
H e also extended the criteria for authenticity: Jesus must
A . Jiilicher, Neue Linien in der Kritik der evangelischen Uberlieferung ( T u b i n g e n , 1906),
pp. 73^ Jesus ( T u b i n g e n , 1913). C p . the F o r e w o r d , p p . iiiff. I b i d . p p . 34f. I b i d . p . 40. ' D e r heutige Stand d e r Leben-Jesu-Forschung', in ZThK N . F . 5 (1924), 64!!. In o r d e r to p r o v e that the G o s p e l ' d i d not originate in the ideas o f the time o r the aspirations o f m e n ' , v o n D o b s c h i i t z emphasised t w o facts: (1) ' T h e gospel tradition m a d e c h a n g e s in w o r d s a n d narratives, a sign that it found s o m e things offensive.' (2) ' I n this process, s o m e individual traits were preserved w h i c h c o u l d n o t have been m a d e u p since they are in direct contradiction with later attitudes . . .' ( p . 65). H e went o n to refer to the local c o l o u r , A r a m a i s m s , and Jewish c o n c e p t s in the Gospels. A p r e s u m p t i o n still shared b y Heitmiiller, Jesus, and M . Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (4th e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1961) ( E T From Tradition to Gospel ( L o n d o n , 1934), p p . 2931), and Jesus (3rd e d n . Berlin, i960, p . 19 ( E T Jesus (Philadelphia, 1949), p . 22).
20
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
R . B u l t m a n n , Jesus (Berlin, 1926) ( E T Jesus and the word ( N e w Y o r k a n d L o n d o n , J934). PP-
I2
0-
T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism
133
stand out not only from the later community but also from Jewish moral teaching and piety.
26
O n this foundation rests the 'criterion o f underivability' developed by Ernst Kasemann in his famous lecture.
27
Inasmuch as this formulation has 28
been acknowledged in principle by scholars of widely differing opinions, it can be considered an accepted result o f the discussion o f method to date. T h e most weighty objection that can be raised - and which has been repeatedly raised
29
- against this criterion, was stated by
Kasemann
himself, viz., that 'we shall not, from this angle of vision, gain any clear view o f the connecting link between Jesus, his Palestinian environment and his later c o m m u n i t y ' .
30
T o get a complete picture o f the proclamation o f Jesus,
we could overcome this objection in part by following Heitmuller's method and regarding everything that was 'in organic relation' to the residuum o f underivable material as authentic. However, for the question at issue here we
have
to discover first
what
this residuum
o f material
is
that
unmistakably goes back to Jesus, and for this undertaking by itself the 'criterion o f dissimilarity' (as Norman Perrin calls it) is suitable. Criteria o f form,
31
however, can provide valuable checks: source-critical, form-critical,
and redaction-critical analysis must obviously be combined with con siderations o f content. This comprehensive method o f investigation
2 6
2 7
32
may well overcome the
R . B u l t m a n n , Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition ( G o t t i n g e n , 1964), p . 222, E T History of the Synoptic Tradition ( O x f o r d , 1972), p . 205. E. K a s e m a n n , ' D a s P r o b l e m des historischen J e s u s ' , in Exeget. Versuche i ( G o t t i n g e n , 1965) ( E T ' T h e P r o b l e m o f the Historical J e s u s ' , in Essays on New Testament Themes ( L o n d o n , 1964), p p . 15-47): ' I n o n l y o n e case d o w e have m o r e o r less safe g r o u n d under o u r feet: w h e n there are n o g r o u n d s either for deriving a tradition from J u d a i s m o r for ascribing it to primitive Christianity, and especially w h e n Jewish Christianity has mitigated o r modified the received tradition, as having found it t o o b o l d for its taste' ( p . 37).
2 8
W . G r u n d m a n n , Die Geschichte Jesu Christi (2nd edn. Berlin, 1959), p p . i6f; H . C o n z e l m a n n , 'Jesus Christus', RGG iii, 623; Stauffer, Botschaft, p p . 10, 16; O . C u l l m a n n , ' U n z e i t g e m a s s e B e m e r k u n g e n z u m "historischen J e s u s " d e r Bultm a n n s c h u l e ' , in R i s t o w and M a t t h i a e , Der historische Jesus, p p . 266ff, esp. p p . 277f; E. L o h s e , ' D i e Frage n a c h d e m historischen Jesus in der gegenwartigen neutestamentlichen F o r s c h u n g ' , ThLZ 87 (1962), 168; E. B a m m e l , ' E r w a g u n g e n zur Eschatologie J e s u ' , in StEv iii, 3fT, esp. p . 19; C . B u r c h a r d , J e s u s ' , in Derkleine Pauly ii (Stuttgart, 1967), 1346; N . Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1967), p p . 38f; H . G . K l e m m , ' D a s W o r t v o n d e r Selbstbestattung der T o t e n ' , NTSt 16 (1969/70), 6ofT, esp. 74;Jeremias, Theologie i 2 ( E T p . 2); H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p . 96.
2 9
C u l l m a n n , ' U n z e i t g e m a s s e B e m e r k u n g e n ' ; P. Stuhlmacher, 'Kritische M a r g i n a lien'; J e r e m i a s , Theologie i, 2. K a s e m a n n , ' D a s P r o b l e m ' ( E T p . 37). Jeremias, Theologie, p p . igff ( E T i, 3-37). M . L e h m a n n , Synoptische Quellenanalyse und die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus (Berlin, 1970), also p r o p o s e s a ' c o - o p e r a t i o n o f criteria'. For similar proposals, see P. Stuhlmacher, ' T h e s e n zur M e t h o d o l o g i e gegenwartiger Exegese', Z A W 6 3 (1972),
3 0
3 1
3 2
HELMUT MERKEL
134
sceptical attitude (which seemed at first to be required by form-criticism) that it is impossible to get back behind the post-Easter community. W e appeal here to the fundamental remarks o f H . Schurmann, w h o has shown that it is not the post-Easter community but the pre-Easter circle o f disciples that is the earliest recoverable social entity.
33
W e may resolutely
give up all a priori guarantees for the trustworthiness o f the tradition as a whole.
34
Everything depends on the examination o f individual traditions.
II T h e Gospel tradition has preserved several instances in which Jesus placed himself in direct opposition to Jewish religious practice. (a) First o f all there is the saying in Matt. 8: 22 par. in which Jesus invites the violation o f something that is a religious duty in all cultures. Matthew and Luke have blunted the edge o f the saying by altering its context, and the further history o f its exegesis shows that this saying remained offensive.
35
There can, then, be no doubt o f its authenticity.
36
(b) It has long been recognised that Jesus's attitude to women was unusual.
37
T h e extraordinarily low estate o f women in J u d a i s m
38
and the
generally reserved and critical estimate o f them in early Christianity
39
guarantee, at least in principle, that those traditions in which the 'religious equality o f w o m e n '
40
can be read d o go back to Jesus.
(c) Jesus's rejection o f fasting, in its original form in Mark 2: i8f, must have been astonishing and, for a religious teacher, disqualifying.
41
T h e fact
i8ff, esp. 22; and D . G . A . Calvert, ' A n E x a m i n a t i o n o f the Criteria for Distinguishing the A u t h e n t i c W o r d s o f Jesus', NTSt 18 (1971-2), 2090°, esp. 219. 3 3
3 4
3 5
3 6
3 7
H . S c h u r m a n n , ' D i e vorosterlichen A n f a n g e d e r L o g i e n t r a d i t i o n ' , in R i s t o w a n d M a t t h i a e , Der historische Jesus, p p . 342ff. A g a i n s t H . Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings ( O x f o r d , 1957), a n d B. G e r h a r d s s o n , Memory and Manuscript ( L u n d , 1961). T h e references to the r a b b i n i c transmission o f tradition m a y perhaps serve as a c o u n t e r w e i g h t to radical scepticism, but they d o not bear e x a m i n a t i o n in individual cases. C p . the criticism o f W . D . D a v i e s , The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount ( C a m b r i d g e , 1964), p p . 464!^ a n d H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p p . 58ff. C p . also K l e m m , ' D a s s W o r t ' . S o also H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p . 16. C p . A . O e p k e , ' v i m ] ' , in TDNT'i, 784^ Stauffer, Botschaft, p p . 68ff; Braun, Jesus, p . I02f; H e n g e l , ' M a r i a M a g d a l e n a und die Frauen als Z e u g e n ' , in Abraham unser Vater,
p p . 243fT. 3 8
C p . esp. S - B iii, 61 if; iv, i226f; and J. Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu (3rd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1962), p p . 395ff ( E T Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1969), p p .
359-76). 3 9
1 C o r . 11: 7f; 14: 341T; 1 T i m . 2:1 if; L u k e 14:26; R e v . 14: iff. ^ H e n g e l , ' M a r i a M a g d a l e n a ' , p . 243. F o r this see m y a r g u m e n t in ' M a r k u s 7.15 - das J e s u s w o r t liber die innere V e r u n r e i n i g u n g ' , ZRGG 20 (1968), 360-3; and J. Roloff, Das Kerygma und der irdische
4 1
Jesus (Gottingen, 1970), p p . 223ff.
T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism
135
alone that this pericope in its Markan form actually constitutes a justi fication
for the practice o f fasting in the church (zktvoovxai
. . . T O T E VT)OTElJOOuaiv),
42
5e f ^ e Q a L
shows that verse 1 9 a , which is critical of fasting,
cannot be derived from the thinking o f the early church, which (as Matt. 6: i6ff and Did. 8.1 clearly show) placed a high value on Christian fasting.
43
T h e form-critical objection to the authenticity o f Mark 2: i 8 f holds that Jesus is here defending not his own but his disciples' conduct, and that by this device the community is appealing to Jesus to justify its own c o n d u c t . This line o f argument is spelled out twice by Bultmann;
45
44
none the
less it should now be given up, since it is quite natural that Jesus should have been called to account for shortcomings in the conduct o f his followers.
46
Jesus's critical position toward the Sabbath and ritual purity will be treated in detail below, since in these cases it is a question not only o f characteristically Jewish custom but o f the Law itself.
Ill Jesus's attitude to the outcasts o f society must have given rise to very serious conflicts. (a) Tax-gatherers were among the most hated classes o f people in ancient Judaism.
47
Their profession belonged to that class of occupations which
'were not only despised, nay hated, by the people; they were de jure and officially deprived of rights and ostracized'. the tax-gatherers,
49
48
T h e special favour of Jesus for
evidenced in all strata o f the tradition, has to be
understood as an outrageous provocation from the Jewish point of view. O n the other hand, the question was no longer a problem for the later church, whose references to tax-gatherers, although widely distributed, are few in 4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
47
48
4 9
D i b e l i u s , Formegeschichte, p p . 62f ( E T p p . 65Q. Roloflf, Kerygma, p . 226, continues to defend the authenticity o f the rule o f fasting in M a t t . 6: i6ff. N o n e the less, the picture o f Jesus as a reformer o f the religious institutions o f J u d a i s m seems to fit the M a t t h a e a n christology rather than the historical Jesus. B u l t m a n n , Synoptischen Tradition, p . 17 ( E T p . 16). Ibid. p . 48. S o especially, E. Stauffer, ' N e u e W e g e der Jesus F o r s c h u n g ' , in Gottes ist der Orient (Festschrift O . Eissfeldt) (Berlin, 1959), p p . 167!!. C p . the earlier essay o f C . H . D o d d , 'Jesus as T e a c h e r and P r o p h e t ' , in G . K . A . Bell and A . D e i s s m a n n ( e d s . ) , Mysterium Christi ( L o n d o n , 1930), p p . 53-66; Roloff, Kerygma, p . 55; and 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 (1972-3), iff.
C p . S-B i, pp. 378f. J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem, p . 346 ( E T p . 3 1 1 ) . M a r k 2 : 1 5 - 1 7 ( p r e - M a r k a n ; see R . Pesch, ' D a s Z o l l n e r g a s t m a h P , in Melanges Bibliques en hommage au R. P. Beda Rigaux ( G e m b l o u x , 1970), p p . 630); M a t t . 11: 18f par. ( Q ) ; Luke 18:9-14; 19:2-10 ( L - m a t e r i a l ) ; M a t t . 21: 3 i f ( M - m a t e r i a l ) .
HELMUT MERKEL
136
number.
50
This fact admits o f the conclusion that the texts which describe
Jesus's association with tax-gatherers correspond to neither Jewish nor Christian thinking, and so reflect Jesus's own attitude. It must have been scandalous to all Jesus's contemporaries that he received into his company the 'notoriously sinful Israelites who have separated themselves from the true Israel'.
51
T h e reproach taken up by Jesus that he was a 'glutton and a
drinker, a friend o f tax-gatherers and sinners' (Matt. 1 1 : i 8 f par.) is the best possible illustration o f this attitude o f j e s u s and its rejection.
52
It is not
merely a moral disqualification that is expressed here, but the accusation according to religious law that Jesus was a 'disobedient according to Deut. 2 1 : 2of, was punishable by stoning.
son', w h o ,
53
(b) T h e mixed race of the Samaritans was just as hated and scorned in the time o f Jesus as the tax-gatherers. authentic
55
54
W h e n Jesus, in the
undoubtedly
parable o f the 'good Samaritan' (Luke 10: 3off), let the deed o f
human kindness be performed ideally by none other than a Samaritan, it must have been taken as an insulting affront by any patriotic Jew. H . G . K l e m m has rightly pointed out that in Luke 10: 3 0 - 5 , just as in the parables 5 0
5 1
5 2
53
In the s y n o p t i c s , the m e n t i o n o f tax-gatherers is almost always taken o v e r in traditional material. R . Pesch, ' L e v i - M a t t h a u s ' , ZNW$g (1968), 4off, tries to s h o w a redactional origin for Mark 2: ijf. T w o facts tell against this thesis: (1) the discontinuity between verses 14 and 15 ( n o t i c e d as early as J. W e l l h a u s e n , Das Evangelium Marci (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1909), p . 17, w h i c h w o u l d have been a v o i d able if verse 14 was editorial; and (2) the a b s e n c e o f the n a m e Levi from M a r k ' s list o f apostles in 3: i6ff. Matt. 5:46 has been regarded since A . H a r n a c k , Spruche and Reden Jesu ( L e i p z i g , 1907), p p . 46f ( E T ( L o n d o n , 1908), p . 62), as the m o r e original form o f the saying paralleled in L u k e 6: 32f. Matt. 18:17 seems to have its origin in p r e - M a t t h a e a n tradition (see R . H u m m e l , Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche undJudentum im Matthausevangelium .(2nd e d n . Miincheri, 1966), p . 23. Matt. 21:32 m a y b e redactional (so B o r n k a m m , ' E n d - E x p e c t a t i o n and C h u r c h in M a t t h e w ' , in G . B o r n k a m m , G . Barth and J. H e l d , Uberlieferung und Auslegung im Matthausevangelium ( N e u k i r c h e n , i960), p p . 22ff, E T Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew ( L o n d o n , 1963), p p . 27f; G . Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (2nd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1966), p . 153; H u m m e l , Auseinandersetzung; U . L u z , ' D i e Jiinger i m M a t t h a u s e v a n g e l i u m ' , ZNW 62 (1971), 154), o r indeed the w h o l e parable: see m y a r g u m e n t in ' D a s Gleichnis v o n d e n " u n g l e i c h e n S o h n e n " M t X X I . 28-32', NTSt 20 (1972-3), 2540°. T h e J o h a n n i n e tradition ignores all encounters b e t w e e n Jesus a n d tax-gatherers. O . M i c h e l , ThWNT viii, 103 ( E T TDNT viii, 104). O n the authenticity o f M a t t . 11: i8f, see E. Schweizer, ' D e r M e n s c h e n s o h n ' , in Neotestamentica (1963), 72f; C . C o l p e , ThWNT v\\\, 434, E T TDNTviii, 431; and J. J e r e m i a s , Die Gleichnisse Jesu (7th e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1965), p p . i6of ( E T The Parables of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1963), p p . 1611). S t a u f f e r , ' N e u e W e g e ' , p . 175; J e r e m i a s , Theologie, i, 265f ( E T 2611). B r a n d o n touches o n this c o m p l e x o f issues only in a subordinate clause (Zealots, p . 201), w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g its far-reaching implications. S - B i, 538ff; Jeremias, Jerusalem, p p . 387ff ( E T p p . 352ff).
5 4
55
J e r e m i a s , Gleichnisse, p p . 202ff ( E T p p . 202ff); Perrin, Teaching, p p . i22ff; H . G . K l e m m , ' D a s Gleichnis v o m Barmherzigen Samariter' (Diss. E r l a n g e n - N u r n b e r g ,
1967).
T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism
137
0
in Matt. 1 8 : 23!!, 2 5 : 32ft , and Luke 1 5 : 1 iff, a 'reversal o f perspectives, a victory o f human
kindness
attitudes' is accomplished.
56
over inflexible principles and
hardened
Jesus's lack o f prejudice, evident in this %
parable, is reflected also in the story o f the 'grateful Samaritan' (Luke 1 7 : 1 iff) and in the conflict between his disciples and the inhabitants o f a Samaritan village (Luke 9: 52ft) ,
5 7
O n l y the saying in Matt. 1 o: 5 f shares the
prejudice o f the time against the Samaritans. Joachim Jeremias has to be sure demonstrated the great antiquity o f this text,
58
but the evidence o f
Aramaic idioms proves only that the saying was handed down by the earliest, Aramaic-speaking church. Since Matt. 1 0 : 5 f fits into the Jewish and Jewish-Christian horizon and at the same time contradicts authentic tradition about Jesus, the conclusion that it is o f secondary origin is attractive.
59
(c) If our assignment o f Matt. 1 0 : 5 f to the Jewish-Christian church is correct, then one o f the most difficult texts for the problem of'Jesus and the Gentiles' is removed from the discussion. N o planned limitation o f the Christian mission can be seen in the earliest sources; the historical Jesus 60
could not have imposed it on himself or his disciples. T o be sure, we may not follow F. Spitta
61
and make Jesus the first missionary to the Gentiles,
but the texts make it clear that Jesus displayed a fundamental openness to Gentiles which corresponded to his attitude to 'tax-gatherers and sinners' and Samaritans. As illustrations there are several specific individual cases 0
0
( M a r k 7: 24ft par., Matt. 8: 5ft par.), whose original history is in any event not easy to reconstruct, as well as the sayings in Luke 1 0 : 2 3 , 13: 28f,
62
5 6
5 7
58
6 0
6 1
6 2
9ff>
in which Jesus sets up the Gentiles as contrasting examples over
K l e m m , Gleichnis, p . 421. T h e authenticity o f L u k e 17: 1 i f f was d o u b t e d already b y P. W e r n l e , Die synoptische Frage (Freiburg, 1899), p . 94, a n d t h o r o u g h l y disputed b y R . Vtsch,Jesu ureigene Taten? ( F r e i b u r g - B a s e l - W i e n , 1970), p p . 350°. C p . , h o w e v e r , the reply to this criticism b y M . H e n g e l , Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit ( T u b i n g e n , 1971), p . 65. Roloff, Kerygma, considers the narrative to b e i n d e p e n d e n t tradition but the m e n t i o n o f the Samaritan s e c o n d a r y . O n L u k e 9: 52ff, c p . H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p . 67. B o t h texts are o r g a n i c a l l y related to the r e s i d u u m o f underivable material. J - J e r e m i a s , Jesu Verheissung fur die Vblker (2nd edn. Stuttgart, 1959), p p . i6f ( E T Jesus Promise to the Nations ( L o n d o n , 1958), p p . 19Q. S o t o o E. K a s e m a n n , ' T h e B e g i n n i n g s o f Christian T h e o l o g y ' , in New Testament Questions of Today ( E T ( L o n d o n , 1969), p . 87); F. H a h n , Das Verstandnis der Mission im Neuen Testament, (2nd e d n . N e u k i r c h e n - V l u y n , 1965), p . 87; H a e n c h e n , Weg, p . 228; M . H e n g e l , ' D i e U r s p r i i n g e d e r Christlichen M i s s i o n ' , NTSt 18 (1971/72), 36. T h e a r g u m e n t o f H . K a s t i n g , Die Anfdnge der urchristlichen Mission ( M i i n c h e n , 1969), p p . 11 off, that M a t t . 10:5 a n d 15:24 are c o m p o s i t i o n s o f the evangelist, is not c o n v i n c i n g , since A r a m a i s m s d o not o c c u r in redactional material. A g a i n s t J e r e m i a s , Verheissung. F. Spitta, Jesus und die Heidenmission (Giessen, 1909). J e r e m i a s , Verheissung, p . 48 ( E T p . 85), favours the M a t t h a e a n form o f this saying, but W . Trilling, Das wahre Israel (3rd e d n . M i i n c h e n , 1964), p p . 88f, has s h o w n that y
5 9
Il:2
HELMUT MERKEL
i 8 3
against the failure o f Israel. Finally, this openness ofjesus even with regard to non-Jews, is connected with the fact that Jesus detached religion from 63
national soil. By this 'un-limitation' he made the essential preparation for 64
the Gentile mission. This fact, that Jesus burst through traditional ways o f thinking in his position toward tax-gatherers, Samaritans, and Gentiles, goes unappreciated
by Brandon. Every representation
o f Jesus as a
religious conformist runs aground on it.
IV It was a binding axiom for all Jews that the Torah was the
final
dispensation o f the purpose o f G o d , although differences might appear in the interpretation o f this divine precept. shared this contemporary v i e w ,
66
65
It is widely assumed that Jesus
but several texts have to be adduced in
which a conflict o f j e s u s with the Torah can be denied only by a forced exegesis. (a) T h e saying o f Matt. 8: 2 i f par. discussed above not only represents a disregard for part o f the 'core of Jewish piety' but can be 'taken as an attack on the reverence toward parents enjoined in the Fifth C o m m a n d m e n t ' .
67
T h e same goes for the narratives o f the calling o f the disciples in Mark 1: i6ff, which, as Rudolf Pesch has shown, rest on 'recognizable historical foundations'.
68
'In Mark 1: 2 0 , the unconditional willingness to follow Jesus
is at stake. In this case the call o f j e s u s requires a break with the Fifth Commandment.'
69
(b) Strict observance o f the Sabbath was required by the T o r a h ,
70
and
special halakhot for its more exact observance were developed in Q u m r a n as well as Pharisaic circles.
6 3
6 4
6 5
6 6
6 7
6 8
6 9
7 0
7 1
71
N o w there is widespread agreement among
L u k e is the earlier. A g a i n s t J e r e m i a s ' s w i d e - r a n g i n g c o n c l u s i o n s from the L u k a n 'inaugural s e r m o n ' , c p . H a e n c h e n , Weg, p . 272, n.2. A . H a r n a c k , Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums i (4th e d n . L e i p z i g , 1924), 39 ( E T The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1908), p . 36). C p . H e n g e l , NTSt 18 (1971-2), 36. S. W . G u t b r o d , ThWNT iv, 1054-9; H . Braun, Spdtjudisch haretischer undfruhchristlicher Radikalismus i ( T u b i n g e n , 1957), 2ff, 150°, 48ff, goff. See the literature cited in note 3, p . 129, and J e r e m i a s , Theologie i, 204-8. H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p . 29. Pesch, 'Berufung und S e n d u n g , N a c h f o l g e und M i s s i o n ' , ZKTh 91 (1969), i f f ( q u o t a t i o n p . 18). Stauffer, Botschaft, p . 29. F o r this a n d w h a t follows, see W . Rordorf, Der Sonntag ( Z u r i c h , 1962); ( E T Sunday ( L o n d o n , 1968)). Q u m r a n : C D X . 1 4 - X I . 1 8 ; c p . Braun, Radikalismus \, 69^ E. L o h s e , Umwelt des Neuen Testaments ( G o t t i n g e n , 1971), p p . 73f, i28f; S. T . K i m b r o u g h , Jr., ' T h e C o n c e p t o f S a b b a t h at Q u m r a n ' , RdQ 5 (1966), 483!! For r a b b i n i c material see S - B i, 6i5ff.
T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism scholars that the controversies
139
over the Sabbath reported in both the
Synoptic and Johannine traditions reflect the attitude of Jesus.
72
It is not
merely a matter o f an attack on the Pharisaic Sabbath halakha, as Jeremias maintains,
73
since the sayings in Mark 2 : 2 7 and 3 : 4 plainly qualify
the
absolutely unquestionable commandment to keep the Sabbath holy, whose violation is made punishable in the Torah by death. Even the oldest Gospel did not tolerate the saying in Mark 2: 2 7 in its unconditional form, in which the welfare o f man is placed above the norm fixed by the T o r a h , but blunted it by a christological argument: not man, but the 'Son of man', is lord of the Sabbath.
74
Finally, Matthew omits Mark
2: 2 7 and lets the conflict over the Torah fade away.
75
In the same way,
Matthew recasts the second controversy over the Sabbath in Mark 3: iff. ' T h e Sabbath commandment remains in force in principle. T h e T o r a h is the c o m m o n ground o f the debate. Only its interpretation and practical application are at issue.'
76
From all this, the underivability o f Jesus's
criticism o f the Sabbath can be concluded. (c) T h e subject o f cultic purity and impurity is also among the most important elements o f the Torah; in Q u m r a n and among the Pharisees it 77
underwent various halakhic treatments. T h e saying in M a r k 7: 1 5 , OU&8V eoxiv e^coBev xov
dvBQWJtou eiojioQeu6(ievov eig avxov
6 5i>vaTai
xoivdxjai auxov, offers a radical criticism o f this whole concept. I have
7 2
C p . E. L o h s e , 'Jesu W o r t e u b e r d e n S a b b a t ' , in Judentum-Urchristentum-Kirche, Festschr. J. Jeremias (2nd edn. Berlin, 1964), p p . 79-89; a n d Rordorf, Der Sonntag,
p p . 551T ( E T p p . 61-5). " J e r e m i a s , Theologie i, 201 ( E T p . 209). C p . K a s e m a n n , ' D a s P r o b l e m ' , 38f; Braun, Radikalismus i, p . 70 n. 1; R o r d o r f , Der Sonntag, p p . 631!. T h e analysis o f Roloff, Kerygme, overlooks the c o n n e c t i o n between M a r k 2: 25f and 28 d e m o n s t r a t e d b y B a m m e l , ' E r w a g u n g e n ' and also p o i n t e d out by H . H i i b n e r , Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition ( W i t t e n , 1973), p . 120. B y the introduction o f £ j i £ i v a o a v , M a t t h e w emphasises the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e to the e x a m p l e o f D a v i d ( M a t t . 12: 1), he a d d s a s e c o n d proof-text w h i c h , in contrast to M a r k 2:27, actually satisfies the r a b b i n i c d e m a n d s (see D . D a u b e , The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism ( L o n d o n , 1956), p . 71), and he calls the disciples i n n o c e n t (12: 7). T h e o m i s s i o n o f M a r k 2:27 b y M a t t h e w a n d L u k e seems to have been differently m o t i v a t e d : w h a t s e e m e d to J e w i s h Christians t o o critical o f the T o r a h c o u l d have s e e m e d to G e n t i l e Christians t o o partial to the institution o f the S a b b a t h . T h e conjecture o f W e r n l e , Synoptische Frage, p . 55, that the o m i s s i o n c o u l d reflect an earlier text o f M a r k is thus unnecessary, and m o r e than unnecessary since L u k e ' s takeover in 6:5 o f the M a r k a n transitional formula x a i eksyev a i i x o i g betrays his k n o w l e d g e o f M a r k 2: 27. T h i s tells against the hypothesis o f Hiibner, Gesetz, p p . 117ff, w h o supposes that M a t t h e w and Luke were influenced b y a Q form o f the c o n t r o v e r s y . But even if he were correct, it w o u l d remain unexplained w h y M a t t h e w and L u k e s h o u l d simultaneously desert M a r k in favour o f Q . 7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
H u m m e l , Auseinandersetzung, p . 45. L e v . 1 if; 15; N u m . 5: iff; 19; D e u t . 14: 3ff; 23:9ff; etc. For the r a b b i n i c material see S - B i, 695ff; for Q u m r a n material see Braun, Radikalismus i, 29, 34f, 54,58, i04ff. O n the w h o l e question see W . Paschen, Rein und Unrein ( M i i n c h e n , 1970).
140
HELMUT MERKEL
elsewhere
presented
a detailed
survey
o f the
many softenings
and
re-interpretations that this saying o f j e s u s has suffered in the last 200 years.
78
Unbiased exegesis, however, can only maintain that 'the man w h o
denies that impurity from external authority can penetrate into man's essential being is striking at the presuppositions and the plain verbal sense 79
of the Torah, and at the authority o f Moses himself. Again in this case the state o f the secondary additions and later omissions offers the
most
probative check on the authenticity o f the saying. Mark himself blurs Jesus's opposition to the Torah by connecting 7: 1 5 with the controversies over hand-washing and the validity o f the halakha (7: iff). H e also limits the saying, which applies to all the commandments about purity, to the food laws (7: 1 9 c ) , and he diverts attention from the deeper opposition by means o f the peremptory,
'parenetically sonorous but theologically inoffensive 80
catalogue o f v i c e s ' . T h e transformation o f the whole debate by Matthew, a
78
ZRGG
7 9
20 (1968), 341-50.
K a s e m a n n , Exeget. Versuche i (1965), 39; so B o r n k a m m / « M j , p . 90, E T p . 98; Braun, Qumran ii, 72; Stauffer, ' N e u e W e g e ' , in Gottes ist der Orient, p . 171; H a e n c h e n , Weg, p p . 256^ Perrin, Teaching, p p . i46f; S. K a w a s h i m a , J e s u s u n d d i e j i i d i s c h e n Speisevorschriften' (Diss. Erlangen-Niirnberg, 1969); H u b n e r , Gesetz, p p . i42ff. A g a i n s t this, it represents a step b a c k w a r d s w h e n Paschen, Rein, understands the w h o l e saying o n the basis o f verse 15b. V e r s e 15a s h o u l d be taken at least as seriously! T h i s must also be said against Jeremias, Theologie i, 202 ( E T ) v
p p . 2091).
8 0
T h e attempt o f Paschen and H u b n e r to trace an earlier form o f the tradition b e h i n d the saying o f j e s u s in M a r k 7: 15 c a n n o t b e discussed here. M y o w n reconstruction is treated critically b y W . G . K i i m m e l , 'Aussere u n d innere Reinheit bei Jesus', in Das Wort und die Worter (Festschrift G . Friedrich) (Stuttgart, 1973), p p . 35-46. T h e difference o f views is d e t e r m i n e d b y a difference in the degree to w h i c h the 'criterion o f dissimilarity' is a c c e p t e d . H a p p i l y , K u m m e l ' s recognition o f the force o f J e s u s ' s criticism o f the T o r a h is not i m p a i r e d . Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, p p . 463ff, g o e s t o o far in softening the criticism o f the T o r a h in saying ' T h e n o t i o n o f purity is not abolished, but o n l y transferred to the realm o f the spiritual' ( p . 464), in order to b e able to illustrate 'the great p r o x i m i t y o f this m a x i m to Hellenistic J u d a i s m ' with a c o m p a r i s o n with Philo, de Spec. Leg., iii, 2o8f. I have previously s h o w n ( Z R G G 20 (1968) see note 41, p . 135) that the spiritualised n o t i o n o f purity w a s well k n o w n , but Berger is still at fault in his c o n t e n t i o n that the a n n u l m e n t o f the letter o f the T o r a h w e n t along with this internalising in Hellenistic J u d a i s m . Philo, Berger's authority, expresses h i m s e l f definitely to the contrary: ' T h e r e are s o m e w h o , regarding laws in their literal sense in the light o f s y m b o l s o f matters b e l o n g i n g to the intellect, are o v e r p u n c t i l i o u s a b o u t the latter, while treating the former with easy-going neglect. Such m e n I for m y part s h o u l d b l a m e for handling the matter in t o o easy and off-hand a m a n n e r : they o u g h t to have given careful attention to b o t h aims, to a m o r e full and exact investigation o f what is not seen and in what is seen to b e stewards w i t h o u t r e p r o a c h . . . . T h e s e m e n are taught b y the sacred w o r d to have thought for g o o d repute, and to let nothing g o that is part o f the c u s t o m s fixed b y divinely e m p o w e r e d m e n greater than those o f our time.' (de Migr. Abr. 89^ transl. b y F. H . C o l s o n in L o e b Library, Philo, iv, p . 183). Stauffer, ' N e u e W e g e ' , in Gottes ist der Orient, p . 172.
T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism masterpiece o f his scribal method,
81
141
keeps the conflict over the Torah out o f
sight, and implies by the concluding formula
TO
6e aviJixoig X
E
Q
O L V
^pctyetv
oi) xoivoi xov avSoawrov that only the problem o f hand-washing had been discussed. 'In fact, the debate in Matthew ends with Jesus formulating a particular halakha concerning hand-washing which contradicts the Phar isaic o n e . '
82
Here too the tradition has preserved the attitude of Jesus only
with qualifications, and so testifies to the individuality o f Jesus. (d) Finally, the saying in Mark 1 0 : 9 , which denies the possibility o f divorce, is in explicit contradiction to the Torah (Deut. 2 4 : iff).
83
Already in
the oldest tradition it was thought necessary to underpin the unconditional saying o f Jesus with a proof-text (Mark 10: 6 - 8 ) , with casuistic stipulations (verses 1 i f )
8 1
8 2
8 3
85
8 4
and it is supplemented
in which the possibility of divorce is
T h e earlier thesis o f v o n D o b s c h u t z that M a t t h e w was a c o n v e r t e d rabbi ('Mat^thaus als R a b b i und K a t e c h e t ' , ZNW 27 (1928), 338ft) has b e e n m o r e recently s e c o n d e d b y H u m m e l , Auseinandersetzung, and (cautiously) b y W e i s s , ' D e r Pharisaismus' in M e y e r , Tradition, p . 127, and still awaits refutation. T h e latest a d v o c a t e o f a Gentile Christian origin for M a t t h e w , R . W a l k e r (Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium ( G o t t i n g e n , 1967)), has d o n e m o r e h a r m than g o o d to this thesis. It will not d o to assert o f all the J e w i s h elements in M a t t h e w that they are ' c o m p l e t e l y antiquated' o r have o n l y 'illustrative value' o r are 'purely homiletical e x a m p l e s ' , etc. Certainly W a l k e r ' s m a g i c formula 'that traditional material is o n e thing, the literary use m a d e o f it b y the author o f the G o s p e l is another' ( p . 128) c o m e s to grief in the controversies b e t w e e n Jesus and the Pharisees: in these M a r k is clearly the s o u r c e , and the r a b b i n i c elements are to be credited to M a t t h e w . T h e case is similar to the u.T|&e oap(3dT(p o f M a t t . 24: 20, w h i c h W a l k e r asserts is 'an a n a c h r o n i s m w h i c h has remained in the text as an irrelevancy' ( p . 134); a g l a n c e at the synopsis contradicts this. T h e j u d g e m e n t o f the r a b b i n i c scholar D . D a u b e still applies: ' M a t t h e w ' s is a R a b b i n i c G o s p e l ' (Rabbinic Judaism, p . 60). F o r the J e w i s h Christian p r o v e n a n c e o f M a t t h e w , see also H . S t e g e m a n n , ' " D i e des U r i a . " Z u r B e d e u t u n g der F r a u e n n a m e n in der G e n e a l o g i e v o n M t 1. 1-17', in Tradition und Glaube, Festgabe fur K . G . K u h n , e d . G . Jeremias et al. ( G o t t i n g e n , 1971), p p . 246-76, esp. p p . 274^ E. L o h s e , Entstehung des Neuen Testaments ( S t u t t g a r t - B e r l i n - K o l n - M a i n z , 1972), p p . 88f; W . G . K u m m e l , Einleitung in das Neue Testament (14th edn. H e i d e l b e r g , 1965), E T 1966, p p . 8ofT; A . W i k e n h a u s e r and J. S c h m i d , Einleitung in das Neue Testament (6th edn. F r e i b u r g - B a s e l - W i e n , 1973), p p . 243!!. H u m m e l , Auseinandersetzung, p . 46. W e l l h a u s e n long a g o recognised the criticism o f the T o r a h in this saying (Marci, p . 79), and he is followed b y B o r n k a m m , Jesus, p p . 9of ( E T p p . 98^; Stauffer, ' N e u e W e g e ' , in Gotte* istder Orient, p . 175; Braun, Radikalismus, p . 110; Jeremias, Theologie, i, 200 ( E T 207); H a e n c h e n , Weg, p . 341. For the authenticity o f M a r k 10:9 see also B. Schaller, ' D i e S p n i c h e uber E h e s c h e i d u n g u n d W i e d e r h e i r a t in der synoptischen Uberlieferung', in Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde, Festschrift J. Jeremias
(Gottingen, 1970), p p . 226fT. 8 4
8 5
O n this see H a e n c h e n , Weg, p p . 339^. Since the discussion o f E. B a m m e l , ' M a r k u s 10: 1 if. und d a s j u d i s c h e Eherecht', ZNW 61 (1970), 95fF, this verse c a n n o longer be c o n s i d e r e d a late, Hellenistic addition (against Schaller, ' D i e S p n i c h e ' , in Der Ruf Jesu, p . 229, n. 7). For the question o f authenticity, w h i c h B a m m e l explicitly leaves o p e n ( p . 101), the c o n t r a d i c t i o n with J e s u s ' s absolute prohibition o f d i v o r c e in 10:9 is still the d e c i d i n g factor.
142
HELMUT MERKEL
again presupposed. Matthew tacitly restores the authority o f Moses by putting the exception for adultery on the lips o f Jesus as part o f his concluding pronouncement (Matt. 1 9 : 9, c p . 5: 3 2 ) . In the Matthaean form 86
of the debate, Jesus is again presented as a Pharisaic scribal authority w h o defends the view o f the school o f Shammai in what was at the time a much-debated subject,
87
but who upholds the Torah according to its
original intention. It emerges clearly from the foregoing texts we have briefly examined that for Jesus the T o r a h formed 'no longer the focus and ultimate standard. . . . Jesus - unlike the whole body o f his Jewish contemporaries - stood not under, but above the Torah received by Moses at Sinai.'
88
This is the deepest
reason why there could be no understanding between Jesus and a J e w o f Q u m r a n or Pharisaic practice. T h e attack ofjesus on the Torah confronts us finally with the unprecedented claim ofjesus to authority, a fact which is being increasingly recognised by scholars.
89
V Since the Zealots stood near to the Pharisees doctrinally,
90
they too must
have been shocked by Jesus's criticism o f the Torah, as well as by his association with those w h o collaborated with the occupation government and by his openness towards the Gentiles.
91
If only by reason o f the
fundamental difference in their ways o f thinking which appears here, any alliance between Jesus and the Zealots is quite improbable. Three texts, however, have
to be pointed out which imply Jesus's unequivocal
renunciation o f the Zealot ideology. (a) T h e discussion o f tribute-money (Mark 1 2 : 136*), ticity cannot be d o u b t e d ,
93
92
whose authen
presupposes the problem raised by Judas o f
Galilee in forming the resistance movement: tribute to the pagan ruler was idolatry.
94
In his answer to the artful question, Jesus neither allowed
himself to be lured into conferring divine status on the existing power 8 6
8 7
8 8
8 9
9 0
9 1
9 2
C p . H u m m e l , Auseinandersetzung, p . 344. S o already v o n D o b s c h i i t z , ZNW 27 (1928), p . 344. H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p . 78. I b i d . p p . 761; Jeremias, Theologie, i, 239fT, E T p p . 25ofT. C p . also H . v o n C a m p e n h a u s e n , Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel ( T u b i n g e n , 1968), p p . iof, E T The Formation of the Christian Bible ( L o n d o n , 1972), p . 13. M . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten ( L e i d e n , 1961), p p . 89!^ c p . War Jesus Revolutionary, p p . 3of ( E T pp. 1 if). H e n g e l , Die Zeloten, p p . igoff. F o r this see Stauffer, Die Botschaft Jesu, p p . 95ff; B o r n k a m m , Jesus, p . n o ( E T
p p . I2lfl). 9 3
9 4
S o even B u l t m a n n , Tradition, p . 25 ( E T p . 26). H e n g e l , Die Zeloten, p p . i43ff.
T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism
143
structure, nor concurred with the revolutionaries w h o wanted to change the existing order and compel the coming o f the K i n g d o m o f G o d by the use o f force.'
95
Brandon's attempt to discover beneath the Markan form o f the
discussion o f the tribute-money an anti-Roman statement o f j e s u s which was recast for apologetic reasons, lacks any support. (b) T h e Parable o f the Patient Husbandman
96
(Mark 4: 26ff) is best
explained on the hypothesis that Jesus is here placing himself in opposition 97
to Zealot activism. Just as the husbandman cannot advance the moment o f the harvest, avTO\iaxr\ f| yf\ xaQJiocpoQei, so neither can anyone force the K i n g d o m o f G o d to come. Faith should wait for everything from G o d . Indeed, Jesus reinterprets the conception o f the coming o f the K i n g d o m o f G o d still further: it is no longer merely in the future, but in his work has already broken in! This is expressed not only in a number o f parables
98
but
also in a saying from the sayings-source in Luke 1 1 : 2 0 par.: et 6e ev 6axT/uXq)
QEOV
iytb exPaXXa) xa 6at|i6via, a o a ecp6aaev eqp' tijiag f|
paauXeia xov BeoxJ." Here again it becomes clear that the proclamation o f Jesus cannot be separated from his person. Brandon overlooks this range o f issues. (c) T h e crucial difference between Jesus and the Zealots, however, becomes clear in the matter of the attitude to one's fellow-men. Whereas the Zealots believed that it was necessary in the service o f G o d ' s cause to root out rigorously all law-breakers,
100
Jesus demanded unconditional love o f
one's neighbour and even one's enemy (Matt. 5: 43ff par.). In dealing with
9 5
9 6
9 7
9 8
9 9
1 0 0
L o h s e , Umwelt, p . 59. B r a n d o n {Zealots, p p . 346-9) a d d u c e s t w o arguments, w h i c h c a n n o t h o w e v e r b e sustained b y the texts in question: (1) Jesus w o u l d not have been recognised as messiah if he had not refused to p a y the tribute. Against this o n e must at least say with O . C u l l m a n n , Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments (3rd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1963), p . 126, E T The Christology of the New Testament (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1963), p . 126, that J e s u s s h o w e d extreme reserve t o w a r d the title M e s s i a h . H e actually considered the specific ideas c o n n e c t e d with the title as satanic temptations.' (2) Jesus is accused b y the J e w s in L u k e 23: 2 o f forbidding p a y m e n t o f tribute to Caesar. But the discussion b y G . Schneider in this v o l u m e , p p . 403-14, r e m o v e s the force o f this reference. O n this p r o b l e m , c p . also the contributions o f F. F. Bruce, p p . 249-63, and o f G . M . Styler, p p . 105-7. For Z e a l o t activism, see H e n g e l , Die Zeloten, p p . i27ff. F o r the p a r a b l e , see J e r e m i a s , Gleichnisse, p p . 151 f ( E T p p . 151Q, and B a m m e l , StEv iii, n . C . H . D o d d , The Parables of the Kingdom ( L o n d o n , 1935). In favour o f authenticity are W . G . K u m m e l , Verheissung und Erfullung ( Z u r i c h , 1956), p p . 981T(ET Promise and Fulfilment ( L o n d o n , 1961), p p . 1 0 5 - 7 ) ^ . Becker, Johannes der Tdufer und Jesus von Nazareth ( N e u k i r c h e n - V l u y n , 1972), p p . 82f; H . W . K u h n , EnderwartungundgegenwdrtigesHeil (Gottingen, 1966), p p . 190ft; Perrin, Teaching, p p . 631T; B a m m e l , ' E r w a g u n g e n ' , StEv iii, 13. Against it is H a e n c h e n , Weg, p . 148, but the considerations in this direction d o not seem probative. T h e p r o b l e m o f the relation o f present and future eschatology c a n n o t o f course b e discussed here. H e n g e l , Die Zeloten, p . 230.
HELMUT MERKEL
144
this passage, the tendentiousness o f Brandon's judgement once again interferes: Matthew, moved by the dangers which threatened the church in Alexandria during these difficult years, not only presented Jesus to his fellow-Christians as the Messiah who rejected armed violence to promote his cause, but he represents him as commanding his followers to show themselves similarly pacific in their conduct. 101
In this Brandon o f course neglects the fact that the commandment to love one's enemy is to be found already in Q (see Luke 6: 27f, 32ff)! In fact, since parallels to this unconditional requirement are lacking in both Q u m r a n and rabbinic literature,
102
and since the primitive church took up other
themes ( c p . R o m . 1 2 : 1 9 ; John 1 3 : 34f; 1 John 3: 2 3 ; Rev. 6: 1 0 ) , we may well 103
apply the criterion o f underivability: this ' M a g n a Charta oi agape'
can
only g o back to Jesus himself. If conduct toward one's fellow-men is to be so totally determined by love that not only are vindictive acts and thoughts to be eschewed but even intercession for one's enemy is required, then there can be no justification for Zealot acts of violence against a fellow-man. All ideals, however great or sacred they may be, must be subordinated to love for one's neighbour. With this precept Jesus placed himself outside all parties and groups o f his time. O n c e we become aware o f h o w often Jesus burst through the bounds o f conventional thought and behaviour, we must regard a conflict between him and the representatives o f the traditional order as unavoidable. In fact, the proclamation o f Jesus 'cannot be set within the Judaism o f the time without supposing that it made a fundamental breach in the framework o f Judaism'.
104
This historical situation is suitably .reflected theologically in
R o m . 1 0 : 3 and J o h n 1: 1 8 . Paul and J o h n have preserved here a significant feature o f the proclamation o f Jesus, even though the outlines o f the earthly Jesus may not otherwise show up clearly in their writings.
101
1 0 2
1 0 3
1 0 4
1 0 5
105
Zealots, p . 210. S o J e r e m i a s , Theologie, p . 207 ( E T p . 213); Braun, Jesus, p . 124. H e n g e l , War Jesus Revolutionary p . 20 ( E T p . 27). H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p . 79. T h e article w a s translated b y D r J. F. C o a k l e y . S o m e aspects o f the m o r e recent discussion are dealt with in m y article 'Jesus i m W i d e r s t r e i t ' in Glaube und Gesellschaft (Festschrift W . F. K a s h ) , ( B a y r e u t h , 1981), p p . 207-17.
B. R E I C K E
Judaeo-Christianity and the Jewish establishment, A.D. 33—66
During the middle third o f the first Christian century, that is, between the crucifixion o f Jesus, c. A . D . 3 3 , and the outbreak o f the first Jewish war, A . D . 6 6 , the centre o f Christianity acknowledged by all was constituted by the Jewish Christians in Palestine (Matt. 2 4 : 1 6 with par.; Acts 1 5 : 2; 1 Thess. 2: 1 4 ; R o m . 1 5 : 26f; Acts 2 1 : 1 8 ) . O u r understanding of the political attitude adopted by the church in the days o f the apostles - including the question whether the disciples o f Jesus had connections with Jewish zealotism must depend on what can be observed about the relations o f the Jewish Christians in Palestine with the Jewish authorities o f the period. Because the country was controlled by the Romans, the Jewish establishment represented by the high priest and the Sanhedrin was supposed to maintain g o o d relations with the R o m a n establishment represented by the prefect in Caesarea and the governor in Antioch, and indirectly with the princeps and senate o f the empire. For the same reason the positive or negative relations between the Jewish Christians o f the Holy Land and the Jewish rulers and leaders were o f importance for the political attitude o f the entire church during the apostolic period, A . D . 3 3 - 6 6 .
I The
story o f the passion told by the evangelists implies that Jesus was
accused o f two different crimes before the Sanhedrin and the prefect: (a) o f false teaching and (b) o f rebellion. Since the forensic context was in each case a different one, there had to be this double charge, (a) Before the Jewish Sanhedrin, the high priest referred to Jewish legislation and accused Jesus o f religious false teaching, here called blasphemy (Matt. 26: 6 5 with par.).
1
(b) Before the R o m a n prefect, the high priest referred to R o m a n
interests, and presented Jesus as a political troublemaker (Luke 23:2) w h o claimed to be the King o f the Jews (Matt. 2 7 : 3 7 with par.). T h u s the Nazarene was 'reckoned with transgressors' (Luke 22: 3 7 ) , sacrificed by the
•J. C . O ' N e i l l , ' T h e C h a r g e o f B l a s p h e m y at J e s u s ' T r i a l before the S a n h e d r i n ' in E . B a m m e l ( e d . ) , The Trial of Jesus, Cambridge Studies in Honour of C.F.D. Moule ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 72-7.
H5
I46
B. REICKE
populace instead o f a revolutionary assassin (Mark 1 5 : 7 ) , and crucified together with two bandits (Matt. 27: 3 8 with par.). After the death of Jesus, c. A . D . 3 3 , until the exodus o f the Jewish church shortly before the outbreak o f the first Jewish war, A . D . 6 6 (Eusebius, H.E. iii. 5 . 3 ) , the Palestinian Christians were repeatedly molested by the Jewish establishment or by the m o b . Several prophecies were also quoted in order to show that Jesus had already foreseen this analogy between himself and the believers (for instance, Matt. 10: 1 7 - 2 5 ; 2 4 : 9 - 2 2 with par.). But the historical evidence available implies that his disciples were in fact only accused o f false teaching or blasphemy (a), and there is no trace o f their having been accused o f rebellion (b). This is certainly an circumstance
with
Christians had
regard
to the
question
whether
the
important Palestinian
connections with the so-called Zealots, those Jewish
nationalists w h o , during the period in question, fought desperately against Greek influence and R o m a n sovereignty.
II Disciples o f Jesus were in fact merely accused o f (a) false teaching or even blasphemy in connection with different persecutions ascribed to the apostolic period, but never o f (b) rebellion. In three cases the charge was blasphemy, which had to be punished by stoning (Lev. 2 4 : 1 6 ) : ( 1 ) at the trial o f Stephen, A . D . 3 6 (Acts 6: 1 4 ; the blasphemy was his statement that Jesus is superior to Moses and the T e m p l e ) ; (2) at the arrest o f Paul, A . D . 5 8 (Acts 2 1 : 2 8 ; 2 4 : 6 ; Paul was alleged to have polluted the T e m p l e ) ; and (3) of James the brother o f Jesus, A . D . 6 2 (according t o j o s e p h u s , AJxx.
200, he was accused o f transgression
of the Law; according to Hegesippus in Eus. HE ii. 23.4, it was the scribes who stoned James because his confession of Jesus as the messiah irritated them). In connection with two other persecutions o f Christians in Palestine during the apostolic period, the charge was false teaching (below, 1 and 2 ) ; in two further cases there is no hint o f any denunciation or incrimination (below, 3 and 4 ) . ( 1 ) T h e arrest o f Peter and John in the T e m p l e , c. A . D . 3 4 , was said to have been arranged by the captain o f the T e m p l e together with other priests, and by the Sadducees (Acts 4: 1 ) . T h e y were embarrassed by the great success the apostles experienced among the people, w h o had seen them heal a lame man and heard them preach the gospel of resurrection which the Sadducees rejected as false teaching (4: 2 ) . For the moment, however, the Sanhedrin was not able to find them guilty o f any crime (4: 1 4 - 1 6 ) . (2) Some time afterwards, c. A . D . 3 5 - according to a parallel tradition
Judaeo-Christianity
147
also used by Luke, and presented by him in similar terms - the high priest arrested the apostles since he was jealous o f the enormous interest Peter aroused among the people because o f the signs he did (Acts 5 : 1 7 ) , but also since he was afraid o f being accused o f having caused the death o f j e s u s ( 5 : 2 8 ) . This time, it was reported, the Pharisaic Rabbi Gamaliel I declared before the Sanhedrin that if there were any reason for it G o d himself would destroy the community as he dissolved the infamous movements o f Theudas and Judas the Galilaean, the pioneer o f zealotism (Jos. AJ xviii. 2 3 ; BJ vii. 2 5 3 ) ; but otherwise he would protect the Christians against every human attack (Acts 5: 3 6 - 9 ) . Luke wanted to make clear that Gamaliel and the Sanhedrin left the question open whether the apostolic community led by Peter was comparable to the rebellious movements led by Theudas and Judas, or quite different from them. T h e subsequent development o f the Nazarene movement was supposed to be the criterion, for if Christianity did
involve anarchy, it would certainly be destroyed by G o d like the
insurrections o f Theudas and Judas. Every reader o f Acts knew that the church was flourishing, and the famous Pharisaic scholar had therefore given Christianity a double testimony confirmed by historical facts: the gospel was not comparable to any propaganda o f the Jewish revolutionar ies, but inspired by G o d .
2
(3) Judaea became a kingdom again for the years 4 1 - 4 under Agrippa I, the grandson o f Herod I. It was this snobbish Herod w h o , around A . D . 4 2 , gave orders to kill James the son o f Zebedee, and later to arrest Peter (Acts 1 2 : 2 - 4 ) . T h e execution of James was said to have pleased the Jews, and Luke saw here the reason why the persecution was continued by the arrest o f Peter ( 1 2 : 3 ) . This explanation is quite in harmony with the pro-Jewish and pro-Pharisaic policy that Agrippa I began to practise as soon as Claudius had made him king o f Judaea (Jos. 4 / x i x . 2 9 3 - 3 0 2 , 3 2 7 , 3 3 0 - 4 ) . During the years 3 7 - 4 0 , when Caligula had favoured Hellenism in the empire, Christianity had rapidly been spread over the whole o f Palestine and even to Phoenicia, Cyprus and Syria, reaching Hellenistic areas o f great importance (Acts 8: 4 to 1 1 : 3 0 ) . As was evident at the persecution o f Stephen in the year 3 6 (Acts 6: 1, 9 ) , the success o f the Gospel among the Hellenists irritated orthodox Jews. T h o u g h he favoured Hellenism abroad, Agrippa I arranged the persecution of James and Peter around the year 4 2 in order to confirm that he was the great protector o f Judaism in Palestine. It was for the same political reason that he neglected the interests o f the Hellenistic centres, Caesarea
and Samaria,
the population o f which
rejoiced when he died in the year 4 4 (Jos. AJ xix. 3 5 6 - 9 ) .
2
3
3
B . Reicke, Glaube und Leben der Urgemeinde ( Z u r i c h , 1957), p p . 5 5 - 1 1 4 . Seeing that J a m e s , the son o f Z e b e d e e , was reported to h a v e been killed ' b y the
I48
B. REICKE
(4) T h o u g h the famine around A . D . 4 6 and the apostolic council o f the year 4 9 reduced the Judaistic opposition to Hellenism and thus also to Christianity (Acts 1 1 : 2 8 - 3 0 ; 1 5 : 1 9 - 2 9 ; Gal. 2:gf), the years 5 0 to 5 2 brought about violent quarrels between legalistic Jews and their neighbours in R o m e , Alexandria, and Palestine. Indirectly the Christians had to suffer from this Kulturkampf. By an edict of A . D . 50, Claudius expelled the Jews from R o m e because of constant rioting among them in connection with the messiah (Suetonius, Divus Claudius xxv. 4 speaks o f a man called Chrestus), and for this reason Aquila and Priscilla came to Corinth (Acts 1 8 : 2 ) . Between the Greeks and Jews o f Alexandria there had been violent struggles in A . D . 3 8 , and they began again c. A . D . 50, when both groups had to send delegates to R o m e . Claudius, in the year 5 2 , and under the influence of Agrippa II, decided the issue in favour o f the Jews (Acta Alexandrinorum i v A , ii. i6f; i v c , ii. 2 1 - 4 , ed. H . Musurillo: The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford, 1 9 5 4 ) ; Acta Alexandrinorum (Lipsiae, 1 9 6 1 ) ) . At the same time, a real war took place in Palestine. First the Jews were irritated by the soldiers of the R o m a n procurator Cumanus, then they went to war against the Samaritans, well knowing that Cumanus protected the population o f the Hellenistic poleis, Caesarea and Sebaste. Their attacks were especially carried on by demagogic anarchists under the leadership o f a famous Zealot, Eleasar Dinaei, but also supported by aristocratic patriots under the leadership o f the former High Priest Jonathan. Like the Alexandrian struggle, this Palestinian war led to a trial before the Emperor in A . D . 5 2 , and since Agrippa 11 was successful in his defence o f the Jews, Cumanus and the Samaritans were condemned (Jos. BJ ii. 2 2 3 - 4 6 ; AJ xv. 1 0 5 - 3 6 ) . The same revival of Judaism was the background o f the Jewish abuse o f Christians in Judaea, of which Paul complained m a letter written in A . D . 5 2 (1 Thess. 2: 1 4 - 1 6 ) . Paul did not refer to any details and Luke avoided the story with regard to Agrippa 1 1 , but in different ways Jewish Christians o f Palestine must be understood to have become the victims o f the reinforced Jewish patriotism and zealotism, which triumphed in the trials o f A . D . 5 2 . Thus the historical evidence available shows that the double charge preferred against Jesus, implying (a) false teaching and (b) rebellion, was extended to Jewish Christians in Palestine only with regard to (a) religious heresy, but never with regard to (b) social or political rebellion. Some s w o r d ' ( A c t s 12:2), S. G . F. B r a n d o n has c o n c l u d e d that A g r i p p a I w a s also c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the seditious aspect o f Christianity: The Trial of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1968), p . 48. But in c o n n e c t i o n with this persecution, c. A . D . 42, the king's c o n c e r n w a s expressly said to b e to please the J e w s (12:3), and his general a m b i t i o n to strengthen Pharisaism w a s emphasised b y J o s e p h u s . T h e r e w a s n o reason for any J e w i s h o p p o s i t i o n to R o m e under the glorious K i n g A g r i p p a , and there is n o reason to believe that J a m e s and his fellow Christians had ever appeared to be a d a n g e r to the e m p i r e .
Judaeo-Christianity
149
persecutions took place without any legal trial, and no accusation is referred to. Generally the Christians were exposed to Jewish zeal for the law. T h e trials o f the years 3 4 to 3 6 were led by two high priests belonging to the family of Annas, and the charge implied preaching the gospel of resurrection (Acts 4 : if; 5 : 1 7 , 28) or criticism o f Moses and the T e m p l e (6: 1 1 - 1 4 ; 7: 1; 9: 1 ) ; in c. A . D . 4 2 the persecution was organised by Herod's grandson Agrippa I simply in order to please the Jews ( 1 2 : 1 ) ; in c. A . D . 5 2 the Zealot movement involved the Christians in the general terror (1 Thess. 2 : 1 4 ) ; in A . D . 5 8 Paul was nearly lynched by the m o b because o f their zeal for the T e m p l e (Acts 2 1 : 2 8 , 24: 6 ) , and made the Sadducees furious because of his belief in the resurrection ( 2 3 : 6 ) ; eventually, the trial o f the year 6 2 was caused by another high priest o f the Annas family who accused James the Lord's brother o f transgressing the Jewish law (Jos. AJxx. contexts the Christians are represented
200). In all these
as the victims o f the Jewish
establishment which fostered patriotism and zealotism.
Ill T h e history o f the church during the years 3 3 - 6 6 is only known from Luke in Acts and Paul in his letters, and it must be admitted that both authors might have left out details which they found embarrassing. Luke and Paul adopted an optimistic attitude to the R o m a n establishment (Acts 2 5 : 1 1 ; R o m . 1 3 : 4 ) , and in R o m e it was especially important for them to give the gospel a good reputation in official circles (Acts 28: 3of; Phil. 1: 1 3 ; 4 : 2 2 ) . Is it not possible that some o f the Jewish Christians shared the antagonism o f the Jewish Zealots against R o m e , although Luke and Paul did not describe any movement o f that kind? Here one has to observe the difference between the first and last half of the apostolic era, that is, between ( 1 ) the period 3 3 to 5 4 when Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius governed the empire and Peter was the leader o f the Jewish believers (Gal. 2: 7 ) , and (2) the period 5 4 to 6 6 when Nero was emperor, when Jewish zealotism became more and more predominant in Palestine, and James, the Lord's brother, was the leader o f the Judaean churches (Acts 2 1 : 1 8 ) .
4
( 1 ) There is not the slightest hint o f any connection between Jewish insurgents and Christian believers during the years 3 3 to 5 4 . O n the contrary, the Christians were repeatedly the victims of Jewish patriotism and zealotism during this period. A n argumentum e silentio is here inevitable, for the only alternative is the illogical conclusion that members o f the churches led by Peter were Zealots because the sources d o not mention it. 4
B . R e i c k e , Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 3rd e d n . (Berlin, 1982), p p . igiff, 238fT ( E T The New Testament Era ( L o n d o n , 1968), p p . 188-224, 3 7 5 0 2
-
I50
B. REICKE
(2) But indications of a certain Christian zeal for the law are in fact given by Luke in Acts and Paul in his letters with regard to the years 5 4 to 6 6 . This was the period when the notorious Hellenism o f Nero caused a reaction o f Judaism which became more and more violent, and then led to the first Jewish war, A . D . 6 6 - 7 0 . If the Zealot troubles had already imposed severe difficulties upon the Christians of Judaea around A . D . 5 2 (1 Thess. 2 : 1 4 ) , they grew into a veritable terror after Nero's enthronement in A . D . 5 4 . This terror compelled Jewish Christians to combine their belief with a zeal for the law, but it cannot be proved that they ever took part in revolution and violence. Josephus was seventeen years old when Nero became emperor in A . D . 5 4 , so his description o f the reaction in Palestine was based on personal recollections. H e had been an eager student o f law under the guidance o f Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, but then suddenly left Jerusalem, and spent the years 5 4 to 5 6 with a baptist community in the desert (Jos. Vita 9 - 1 2 ) . Bearing in mind his remarkable opportunism, one understands that Josephus seized the opportunity to avoid the political terror which broke out in the first years of Nero's pronouncedly Hellenistic government. In his works o n the Jewish war, he gave dramatic reports o f the violent resistance characteristic o f this period (Jos. BJ ii. 2 5 4 - 6 5 ; AJ xv. 1 6 0 - 7 2 ) . Just after Nero's enthronement bandits o f a new kind came up in Jerusalem, the assassins called sicarii, because they carried a curved dagger (sica) under their clothes. With this Parthian weapon they secretly killed people supposed to collaborate with the Romans. Throughout the country they set fire to the houses o f those w h o refused to support the resistance. Josephus said that everybody expected death any moment as one might in time o f war (BJ ii. 2 5 6 ) .
5
Under the pressure o f this political terror, Judaean Christians began to ask themselves whether it would not be advisable to accept the Jewish zeal for the law, and so be able to avoid the mortal danger. This led to a development o f Judaism within Christianity during the years 5 4 to 6 1 ; and the spread o f the zeal for the law can be followed in Paul's opposition to it. Although the apostolic council o f A . D . 4 9 had guaranteed equal rights to Jewish and Greek believers, supporters o f James, the Lord's brother, made Peter and Barnabas uncertain some years later, and they withdrew from
5
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 and R e l a t i o n ' , HThR, 64 (1971), 1—19, wants to find three stages in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f zealotism: (1) several representatives o f ' z e a l ' in the sense o f resistance to direct R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t ( p . 18); (2) the rise o f the sicarii A . D . 54 ( p p . 13, 18); (3) the organisation o f the Zealots, A . D . 67 ( p . 19). T h e i m p e t u s given b y the sicarii was in any case i m p o r t a n t for the further d e v e l o p m e n t o f the resistance m o v e m e n t .
Judaeo-Christianity
151
intercommunion with the uncircumcised. Paul was obliged to criticise Peter for this when he met him in Antioch after his second journey, A . D . 5 4 (Gal.
2 : 1 1 — 1 4 ) . H e had earlier been a Jewish Zealot w h o foughirviolently
against the Christians to defend the traditions o f the fathers ( 1 : 1 4 ) , and knew the destructive effects o f any zeal for the law ( 2 : i 8 f ) . Having left Antioch for his third journey, Paul was shocked to see the same exclusive Zealot movement dominating the Christians o f Galatia ( 4 : 1 7 ) . Then he was confronted with thejudaistic movement at Ephesus in 5 5 (Acts 1 8 : 2 5 ) , and finally at Corinth in 5 6 (1 C o r . 1: 1 2 ) . Writing from the capital o f Greece in 5 8 , Paul warned the Roman Christians behaviour and zealotism ( R o m .
against
unlawful
1 3 : 1, 1 3 ) . H e came back to Jerusalem a few
months later, and there found thousands o f Christians w h o had become Zealots for the law (Acts 2 1 : 20). T o avoid troubles, the friends of James, the Lord's brother, advised him to demonstrate a certain solidarity with M o s e s in the T e m p l e ( 2 1 : 2 3 ^ . It did not help, for the m o b accused Paul o f sacrilege, and only the R o m a n garrison saved him from being stoned ( 2 1 : 2 7 - 3 2 ) . Just as Paul had earlier been a zealous enemy o f the Christians, so he was n o w exposed to severe Jewish fanaticism. Luke indicated this analogy in a speech ascribed to Paul (Acts 2 2 : 3 ) . Paul himself referred to it while he was still in captivity after the Zealot riot in Jerusalem, and in very sharp language warned the Philippians against the influence of Judaistic materialism (Phil. 3: 2 , 6, 1 9 ) . In the capital o f the empire the danger o f zealotism was especially great, as was later confirmed by Clement o f R o m e when he found zeal to have been the reason for the persecution o f several Christians as well as for the catastrophe o f Israel (1 Clem. 5: 1 to 6: 4 ) . It is thus evident from Luke's narrative in Acts and from
Paul's
opposition in his letters that a certain zeal for the law was developed by Jewish Christians during the years 5 4 to 6 1 . But it can only be said o f this limited period. T h e zeal was caused by a desire to avoid the dangers o f the Jewish reaction against the pro-Hellenistic emperor Nero. For this very reason the documents seem to give a reliable picture when they d o not indicate the slightest Christian
participation in the Jewish activities
whether these activities were led by patriots or Zealots. O n the contrary, Christians w h o did not j o i n the extreme nationalists in Judaea were probably exposed to pressure or persecution, as emphasised by Josephus with regard to his countrymen in general (Jos. BJ ii. 2 6 4 ^ AJ xx. 1 9 2 ) . Paul experienced this in Jerusalem and Caesarea, A . D . 5 8 to 6 0 (Acts 2 1 : 2 8 ; 2 3 : 1 2 ; 2 5 : 3 ) . James, the Lord's brother, although the leading authority o f those Christians who recommended concentration on Mosaic traditions (Gal. 2 : 1 2 ; Acts 2 1 : 1 8 , 2 0 ) , was made the victim of Jewish nationalism in A . D . 6 2 . H e was accused o f transgression o f the law and stoned by the High Priest Ananus, then leader o f the aristocratic patriots w h o , during the years
I52
B. REICKE
62 to 6 6 , competed in rebellion with the demagogic Zealots (Jos. AJ xx. 185-214). T h e trial o f James, the Lord's brother, implies that he no longer represented that zeal for the law characteristic o f his supporters in the years 5 4 and
58 -
at least not so definitely that it satisfied
the Jewish
establishment. It is probable that James as well as Peter, although both represented pronounced Jewish-Christian points o f view in A . D . 5 4 (Gal. 2: 1 2 ) , were driven to change their policy around A . D . 6 0 , and desist from Jewish nationalism. At any rate the Epistles which carry their names reject inclinations to isolation and zealotism (James 4: 2; 1 Pet. 3: 1 3 ) . It must also be observed that many Christians left Jerusalem and Palestine during the years before the war began in 6 6 (Eus. H.E. iii. 5: 3 ) . While there may have been some contacts between Jewish Zealots and Christians in the period 5 4 to 6 0 , this possibility is reduced to a minimum in the subsequent years.
G.W.H.
LAMPE
A.D. 70 in Christian reflection T h e capture o f Jerusalem by Titus and the burning o f the T e m p l e seem, so far as we can j u d g e from the literature o f the succeeding century and a half, to have made a surprisingly small impact upon the Christian communities. It was only a comparatively short time after the rejection o f the messiah and the persecution o f his followers by the leaders o f Judaism when the spiritual and civil centre o f Judaism was spectacularly destroyed, and the T e m p l e 1
laid in ruins. W e might expect Christian apologists to have exploited to the fullest extent the extraordinary
opportunity offered to them by that
shattering event to vindicate the church's claim to be the true Israel, the rightful heir to the promises and blessings o f the covenant, and to declare G o d ' s judgement upon the 'stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears' (Acts 7 : 5 1 ) who had so stubbornly opposed that claim. N o special prophetic insight would have been required for any Christian to see in that disaster the decisive revelation o f G o d ' s condemnation o f the enemies o f Jesus and his reversal o f their verdict. W e might also expect the year 7 0 to mark a turning-point in the relationship between Jewish Christianity and Judaism and so too, perhaps, between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Yet in fact the literature o f the Christian movement contains relatively few allusions to the fall o f Jerusalem. T h e New Testament passages which may allude to it are somewhat enigmatic. Some are fairly certainly vaticinia post eventum, but most, and perhaps even all, could just be interpreted without total implausibility as genuine prophecies o f a catastrophe which the troubled history of Judaea in the three or four decades preceding the outbreak o f war would make it easy to foresee. T h e earliest Christian writing in which the destruction o f the T e m p l e is plainly and directly referred
to in an historical statement, as distinct from a prophetic
prediction or a parabolic saying, is the Epistle o f Barnabas ( 1 6 : 4 ) . It is therefore most precarious to argue from the silence o f any book o f the New 1
K . W . C l a r k , ' W o r s h i p in the J e r u s a l e m T e m p l e after A . D . 70', NTSt 6 (1959/60), 269ff, argues for the c o n t i n u a n c e o f the cultus o n the T e m p l e m o u n t b e t w e e n the year 70 a n d the S e c o n d R e v o l t , at least to the extent to w h i c h it is widely believed to have been maintained d u r i n g the B a b y l o n i a n Exile. T h e r e is certainly n o e v i d e n c e that the ruins, o r site, o f the T e m p l e were officially closed to w o r s h i p p e r s , like the t e m p l e at L e o n t o p o l i s . In any case, Clark is right in his insistence that the decisive catastrophe was n o t the destruction o f the T e m p l e b y T i t u s but H a d r i a n ' s establishment o f the cult o f Jupiter o n its site. H a d there been a J o s e p h u s to narrate the events o f 135 w e m i g h t appreciate this fact m o r e easily.
153
154
G
-
w
-
H
-
LAMPE
Testament about the fall of Jerusalem that it must have been written before 2
7 0 . It is equally misleading to suggest that no author writing after that date could speak o f the T e m p l e cultus in the present tense and fail to mention that in fact it had ceased to exist. T h e author to the Hebrews does this; but 3
so does the author to Diognetus ( 1 - 3 ) . J. Moffatt, speaking o f the need to place a work o f literature in its contemporary intellectual, social and political setting in order to understand it properly, points out that 'as the early Christian literature was not national. . . such synchronisms yield less for the New Testament than for almost any other group of ancient writings'. 'As a matter o f fact', he continues, 'the catastrophe is practically ignored in the extant Christian literature o f the first century. Beyond slight traces in the synoptic, especially the Lucan, version of the eschatological predictions made b y Jesus, and a possible echo in one o f the sources underlying the Apocalypse, no vibrations o f the crisis can be felt.' If the idea that the fall of Jerusalem was an epoch-making event (in the strict sense o f that term - a decisive turning-point in history) is strikingly absent from the early Christian literature, it is scarcely more prominent in contemporary Jewish writings. A . B. Davidson, discussing the theory that the Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed to Jewish Christians whose faith had been shaken by the destruction o f the T e m p l e , asserts bluntly that 'such a despair ought to have seized all Hebrews alike, whether Christians or not; but there is no historical evidence o f such a thing'.
4
M . Simon
contends that the evidence shows that the crisis o f 7 0 had little effect on Diaspora Judaism in general; the Jews o f R o m e , Carthage, and even Alexandria and Antioch, remained indifferent to an event which changed 5
nothing in their o w n situation. Others have gone further. According to E. Deutsch,
6
T h e Priesthood, the Sacrifices, the T e m p l e , as they all went d o w n at o n e sudden b l o w , seemed scarcely to leave a g a p in the religious life o f the nation. T h e Pharisees had long a g o undermined these things, or rather transplanted them into the people's homes and heart. Every man in Israel, 2
3
4
5
6
T h e m o s t that the a d v o c a t e s o f an early dating for s o m e o r all o f the b o o k s o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t , o f w h o m the most persuasive is J. A . T . R o b i n s o n , Redating the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1976), can h o p e to d e m o n s t r a t e is that n o passage in the N e w T e s t a m e n t absolutely necessitates a later date than the fall o f j e r u s a l e m . T h e y c a n n o t s h o w that a n y particular b o o k w h i c h fails to m e n t i o n that event, even w h e n to allude to it m i g h t seem to us to b e particularly relevant and apposite, must h a v e been written before it h a p p e n e d . Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (3rd e d n . E d i n b u r g h , 1918), p . 3, partly cited b y R o b i n s o n , Redating, p . 13.. Hebrews ( E d i n b u r g h , 1882), p . 21. Verus Israel (Paris, 1948), p . 54. ' N o t e s o f a L e c t u r e o n the T a l m u d ' , in Literary Remains of Emmanuel Deutsch ( L o n d o n ,
1874), P- 139-
A . D . 70 in Christian reflection
J
55
they said, is a priest, every man's house a temple, every man's table an altar, every man's prayer his sacrifice. L o n g before the T e m p l e fell, it had been virtually superseded by hundreds o f synagogues, schools, and colleges, where laymen read and e x p o u n d e d the L a w and the Prophets.
This is one-sided rhetoric. Rabbinic Judaism itself was more varied in its reactions, and besides the Pharisaic tradition idealised by Deutsch there existed also apocalyptic hopes of a rebuilding o f Jerusalem and the downfall o f the empire o f the Flavians ( c p . 2 Esdras n : 1 to 1 2 : 3 ) , Josephus's presentation o f the tragedy as the outcome of, and divine penalty for, folly and wickedness, the insistence of 2 Baruch ( 7 : 1 ; 80: 1 - 3 ) that it was a signal instance o f divine judgement on Israel, and o f Book 4 o f the Sibylline Oracles ( 1 1 5 - 2 7 ) that it was part o f G o d ' s universal judgement, directed primarily against the devotees o f temples, altars and animal sacrifices ( 2 7 - 3 0 ) and recently manifested in the homeland of the Romans themselves in the eruption of Vesuvius in the year 7 9 . It seems clear, nevertheless, that the early Jewish reaction to the event o f 70 scarcely suggests that it was seen as the totally catastrophic end o f an age. O n the contrary,
mainstream
Judaism appears to have accommodated itself remarkably easily to the cessation (if such it really was) o f the T e m p l e and the cultus. It is, however, only with Christian attitudes that we are now concerned. Here the evidence shows that by the time Christians had begun fully to develop an apology against Judaism which made use o f the themes o f the supersession o f the T e m p l e and the sacrifices, the vindication o f the Christian argument from prophecy, and the punishment o f the Jewish people for the crime o f the crucifixion, the second Jewish war had been fought, and the memory of the fall of Bether was fresher than that of the sack of Jerusalem by Titus. T h e event which evidently made an especially strong impression on Christian apologists was the exclusion o f the Jews from the heart o f their o w n land. This took place, declared Eusebius, primarily by the will o f G o d , as the prophets had prophesied, and secondarily by the prohibitions enacted by the R o m a n government (Chron. A . D . 1 3 5 ) . ' T h e whole nation', said Aristo of Pella, 'was prohibited entirely from setting foot upon the country round Jerusalem by the decrees and ordinances of a law o f Hadrian which forbade them even from afar to gaze on the soil inherited from their fathers' (Eusebius, H. E. 4 . 6 . 3 ) . ' S o ' , adds Eusebius, 'when the city was thus emptied o f the nation o f the Jews and its old inhabitants utterly destroyed, and when it was peopled by an alien race, the R o m a n city which then arose changed its name, and was called Aelia in honour o f him who was ruling, Aelius Hadrianus' ( 4 . 6 . 4 ) . Justin was greatly impressed by this exclusion o f the Jews from their own land on pain o f death. T o him it fulfilled such prophecies as Isa. 1 : 7 , 2 : 1 5 , 6 4 : 1 0 - 1 2 , and Jer. 5 0 : 3; it meant
156
G. W . H . LAMPE
also that circumcision, the former sign o f the covenant which some Jewish Christians in Justin's time still maintained, had become a kind o f brand o f 7
Cain, marking out Jews as wandering exiles. T h e events of the year 7 0 thus tended to be remembered in association with, and to some extent only as a prelude to, the even more final and crushing judgement of G o d executed in 1 3 5 against the opponents o f the church's claim to be the authentic Israel; and by the latter date the church's main preoccupation lay no longer with the establishment o f its position over against Judaism, but elsewhere. The outcome of the first Jewish war made relatively little difference to the church's understanding o f itself and its mission, and had no decisive effect on the situation even of Jewish Christians. It had become clear by that time that the future o f the Christian mission lay with the Gentile churches, a conclusion which had much more to d o with the progress of the Pauline and other missions to the Gentiles than with the fate o f j e r u s a l e m and the T e m p l e . By the sixties the growing-points o f the church lay far from Judaea, and the notion entertained by Origen (Horn. ix. 10 in Jos.) and by Sulpicius Serverus (Chron. 2 . 3 0 . 7 ) that the aim o f the Romans in 7 0 was to destroy both Judaism and Christianity at one blow is quite anachronistic. Jewish Christianity, as well as Gentile, had by this time established its own identity. It is true that the romantic imagination of Hegesippus, or perhaps the romantically nostalgic traditions o f Palestinian Christianity in the second century, pictured an extremely close link between the church o f Jerusalem
under James and the T e m p l e and its cultus. Hegesippus
describes James as a priestly figure, constantly offering intercessory prayer for the Jewish nation (Eus. H.E. 2 . 2 3 . 4 - 7 ) . After the war, of course, no such relationship was possible; but it is unlikely that it ever existed in the manner portrayed by Hegesippus, whose idea of James belongs to the exaggerated tradition, developed in the second and third centuries, according to which the leadership of James in the church ofjerusalem was imagined to have involved something like a transference o f the high-priesthood. During the war and in the ensuing three or four decades, it is true, the separation o f the Jewish Christians from Judaism
became complete.
According to Eusebius (H.E. 3 . 5 . 3 ) and Epiphanius (Haer. 2 9 . 7 , 30.2, Mens. 1 5 . 2 - 5 ) , perhaps using Hegesippus as their c o m m o n source, they left Jerusalem for Pella before the siege. Some at least returned to Jerusalem after 7P and maintained a Jewish Christian succession o f bishops there during the period between the two wars (Eus. H.E. 4 . 5 . 1 - 4 ) , continuing to observe the Law. There is no evidence, however, that this church was at all interested in the question o f the restoration o f the T e m p l e . N o Christian echoed the Jewish prayer, ' M a y it be speedily rebuilt in our days' (Tamid 7
C p . Justin, Dial. 16, 17. 1-4, 22, / Apol. 47.
A . D . 70 in Christian reflection
157
D
7-3 ( 3 3 ) Ta'anith 4.8 ( 2 6 b ) , Baba Metzi'a 2 8 b ) . T h e messianic and apocalyptic expectations o f the period of 2 Esdras, the Apocalypse o f Baruch, the war in Trajan's reign, and the revolt o f Bar K o c h b a were not shared by Christians; it is possible, indeed, that such warnings as Mark 1 3 : 5 - 6 and its parallels may reflect their reaction against them. W h e n the Second Revolt came these Jewish Christians became the object o f fierce persecution by the nationalists (Justin, / Apol. 3 1 ) . In the meantime, during the inter-war period, the Christians came to be excluded from the synagogue (cp. John 9: 22) and cursed in the words of the twelfth o f the Eighteen Benedictions (cp. Justin, Dial. 1 6 ) . But this state o f affairs was by no means new or unprecedented. It represented only an intensification o f a mutual separation and hostility between Jews and Jewish Christians in Palestine which had caused the latter to suffer violent persecution as early as the writing o f 1 Thess. 2: 1 4 , and which is reflected in the traditions recorded in Acts. T h e war, the flight to Pella, and the fall o f Jerusalem may have sharpened this separation and hatred and accelerated its develop ment, but they neither created it, nor, in all probability, greatly affected its growth, which the links o f the Jewish Christians with Gentiles made inevitable. 5
The main principles o f the Christian position had been established against Judaism well before the first Jewish war and the destruction o f the T e m p l e . T h e fall of Jerusalem might indeed be expected to have raised in a most dramatic manner fundamental questions about the identity o f G o d ' s elect people, and about the divine vindication of the claims which Christians made for Jesus. Yet in fact it could d o no more than confirm what Christians in the churches o f the Gentile world already believed. For them, as indeed for Jewish Christians as well, the decisive event which vindicated Jesus as the Christ, the Lord, the Son o f G o d , was not the destruction o f his enemies but his resurrection from the dead and his exaltation to G o d ' s right hand. T h e teaching o f Paul had vindicated the claim of the church to be the authentic Israel. T h e seed of Abraham was the community o f those w h o , like Abraham, were justified by faith; the covenant o f faith was therefore both older and newer than the covenant made at Sinai. Christ had been shown by Paul to be 'the end o f the Law' ( R o m . 10: 4) in more than one sense o f the word 'end'. By implication, at least, the Pauline gospel meant that the sacrificial cultus had been superseded; and well before the year 7 0 the foundations had already been laid for the theological structure that was to be built by the authors o f the Fourth Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews in relating, in their different ways, the work of Christ and his priesthood 'after the order of Melchizedek' to the priesthood and the sacrifices o f the O l d Covenant. From the letter to the Galatians Christians had learned that they were children o f the
i 8 5
G. W . H . LAMPE
Jerusalem which is 'above', the community which, because it enjoys the freedom o f the Spirit, stands over against its antithesis,
the
earthly
Jerusalem which is in servitude to the Law (Gal. 4 : 2 5 - 6 , c p . Phil. 3: 2 0 ) . The foundations, once again, had been laid for the later development o f the theme o f the 'heavenly Jerusalem' in Hebrews ( 1 2 : 2 2 ) , the 'new' or 'holy' Jerusalem which, according to the Revelation of John (3: 1 2 ; 20: 9; 2 1 : 2 ) , is to descend from heaven and in which the presence o f G o d will not be focussed or localised in any temple, and for the reinterpretation by the Fourth Evangelist o f the idea o f a holy place, established by G o d for worship, in terms o f a community which worships in the Spirit and truth (John 4 : 2 1 - 3 ) . Paul had already taught that the holy temple o f G o d , indwelt by the Spirit, is the congregation of Christian people, the temple o f the living G o d in which his presence assures the fulfilment o f the covenant promise, 'I will be their G o d and they shall be my people' (1 C o r . 3: 1 6 - 1 7 ;
2
C o r . 6: 1 6 ) ; and Paul had also shown that in a secondary sense
each individual believer is the temple o f the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 C o r . 6: 1 9 ) . In this area o f Christian theology, too, the foundations o f later developments, such as the teaching o f Eph. 2 : 2 1 and 1 Pet. 2 : 5 , and, through a combination o f the themes o f the 'temple o f the Spirit' and the ' b o d y o f Christ', o f John 2: 2 1 , had been firmly laid in the years before the Jewish war. A strong tradition, indeed, derived the idea o f the destruction o f the Jerusalem T e m p l e , and its replacement by a spiritual or heavenly temple 'not made with hands', from Jesus himself (Mark 1 4 : 5 8 ; Matt. 2 6 : 6 1 ) . Although the evangelists assert that it was false witnesses w h o accused Jesus o f having spoken in this sense, the charge is repeated by mockers at the Cross (Mark 1 5 : 2 9 ; Matt. 2 7 : 4 0 ) , and Luke, who omits this in his Gospel, introduces the same theme in his account o f the trial o f Stephen: false witnesses allege that they have heard Stephen say that this Jesus the Nazarene will destroy the T e m p l e (Acts 6: 1 4 ) . Long before 7 0 , therefore, the church as a whole, despite differences between, and within, the Gentile and Jewish Christian communities on christology and the place of the Law, had taken up its position on the central issues o f the vindication o f the messiahship ofjesus, the church's claim to be Israel in the true Abrahamic succession, the appropriation o f the scriptures as testimonies to Jesus and the church, the cessation o f the sacrifices and the reinterpretation o f the significance o f cultus and priesthood, and the replacement o f the earthly Jerusalem and the material T e m p l e by a heavenly city and a spiritual sanctuary, In some respect these conclusions were themselves based on attitudes current in Diaspora Judaism, where Law and synagogue, rather than T e m p l e and sacrifice, formed the heart and focus o f devotion, and where, in circles influenced by Alexandria, cultus, priesthood and T e m p l e
A . D . 70 in Christian reflection
159
had been reinterpreted along the lines o f Philonic 'spritualisation'. Even those Christians w h o , like Papias, Justin and Irenaeus, interpreted the Apocalypse and its prophecies o f the millennium literalistically, and located the reign of Christ and the saints in Jerusalem (e.g. Justin, Dial. 8 1 ) , did not imagine a restoration o f the T e m p l e and its system. Answers had also been worked out early in the history o f the church to the problem posed by the rejection of Jesus and the gospel by the leaders o f Judaism and most o f their followers. In the Epistle to the Romans Paul argued that the hardening and blinding o f the Jews were included within G o d ' s purpose for the salvation o f the world. It was a temporary divine dispensation to enable the Gentiles to hear and accept the gospel and so to stimulate the Jews, in their turn, to claim their rightful place within the true Israel o f the church. A more pessimistic m o o d informs Paul's violent attack on the Jews in 1 Thess. 2: 1 4 - 1 6 - so different from the thought of Romans 9 to 11 as to suggest to some commentators the possibility that the passage is an interpolation. In a fury o f indignation at the way in which his mission has been obstructed, Paul charges the Jews collectively with the murder o f the Lord Jesus and the prophets (cp. Acts 2: 2 3 , 7: 5 2 ) , and with persecuting himself. T h e y are displeasing to G o d and hostile to all men, preventing Paul from preaching salvation to the Gentiles, and thus 'filling up the full measure o f their sins always'. N o w , says Paul, G o d ' s wrath has c o m e upon them 'utterly' or 'for g o o d and all', in anticipation o f the final Judgement. Assuming that this denunciation is authentic, we can easily appreciate how little there was left for Christians to say when disaster actually overtook the T e m p l e and the priesthood. In this m o o d , at any rate, Paul was ready to believe that the eschatological wrath o f G o d had already come upon Judaism because, and in the very fact that, it had slain Christ and the prophets w h o had proclaimed him before the event, and was now persecuting and hindering the missionaries w h o were preaching him after the event. According to Romans 9 to 1 1 , Judaism was soon to become merged with the Gentile church by conversion and thus lose the separate identity which G o d was allowing it to retain only for the time during which the Gentiles were being gathered in. Alternatively, according to 1 Thess. 2: 1 6 , Judaism was already subject to irrevocable condemnation. In either case the destruction o f the T e m p l e would evoke little surprise. It would seem a natural outworking o f a situation which had long been established and to which the events o f 7 0 made no essential difference. In the later books o f the New Testament and in the literature o f the following century or so we find a development and consolidation o f attitudes towards Judaism which had already been formed in the time o f Paul. Thus the conviction that Christians are Israel, possessors o f a new and better covenant mediated by Jesus, reaches fuller expression in such
l6o
G. W . H. LAMPE
passages as Eph. 2: 191T; H e b . 2: 1 6 ; 7 : 2 2 ; 8 : 6 - 1 3 ; 1 Clem. 3 1 . 2 , and in varying forms it is implicit in the main thrust of the argument of Luke-Acts, Matthew, and, indeed, most o f the New Testament and early postcanonical writings. Paul's argument concerning the covenants o f the Law and the Spirit (Gal. 4 : 2 1 - 3 1 ) is transformed by the author o f Barnabas ( 1 3 , 1 4 ) , admittedly an extremist, into a virtual denial that the Israel o f the O l d Testament ever received G o d ' s covenant at all; the Jews never were the authentic Israel. A t the same time the belief that the blindness o f j u d a i s m is temporary and providential gives way to the alternative conviction that the Jews have irrevocably rejected the gospel and have themselves been rejected by G o d . Luke firmly believes that the gospel was the fulfilment o f the true tradition o f Israel, as the speeches of Stephen and o f Paul in his own defence (Acts 7: 2 - 5 3 ; 2 2 : 1 - 2 1 ; 2 3 : 6; 2 4 : 1 0 - 2 1 ; 26: 2 - 2 3 ) plainly declare; but although, right to the very end o f Luke's narrative, there are some Jews who understand that this is so and w h o become converted (Acts 28: 2 4 ) , the eyes o f official Judaism remain closed, its ears are dulled, its mind has become gross: it has fulfilled the prophecy o f Isa. 6 : 8 - 1 0 , and within the true Israel which n o w embraces both Jews and Gentiles the future clearly lies with the Gentile element (Acts 2 8 : 2 6 - 8 ) . Matthew presupposes a situation in which the church stands over against the renewed and consolidated Pharisaic Judaism o f the period after 7 0 ; the separation o f church from synagogue is complete, the church has its o w n organisation and ordinances (Matt. 1 8 : 15fF; 23: 7 - 1 2 ) , and Pharisaism is a powerful and bitter enemy. For the Fourth Evangelist 'the Jews' collectively are o f the devil (John 8 : 4 4 ) .
T h e seer o f the Apocalypse even denies them the
honourable name o f Jews; they are Satan's synagogue (Rev. 2 : 9 ) . Just as these attitudes towards Judaism had their roots in the decades preceding the Jewish revolt, so, too, the loyal, and sometimes even enthusiastic, attitude to the R o m a n empire o f Christian writers o f the period after 7 0 followed earlier precedent. Except for the Revelation o f John, this attitude is remarkably consistent, and it is probably right to interpret that book's denunciation o f R o m e and its prophecies o f R o m e ' s destruction as directed against the demonic aspect o f R o m e ' s sovereignty, that is, the imperial cult and the consequent persecution of Christians in the name o f a false king, lord and saviour (in fact, an anti-Christ), rather than against the empire itself from the standpoint o f Jewish, or ChristianJewish, nationalism. There was always an inevitable ambivalence in the Christian attitude to the empire. T h e duty o f loyal citizenship, on the one hand, was matched on the other by the duty o f passive resistance and martyrdom if the state demanded the worship which Christians believed to be due to G o d alone. Apologists such as Tertullian found no inconsistency in extolling the virtues o f the Christians as loyal citizens w h o prayed
A . D . 70 in Christian reflection
161
constantly for the welfare o f the emperor, and at the same time threatening those who persecuted Christians in the emperor's name with G o d ' s judgement and hell fire. There need have been no more inconsistency in the co-existence within the church during the sub-apostolic age o f the apocalyptist's visions o f the beast with the exhortations o f 1 Peter to honour the emperor and fear G o d as parallel and related aspects of Christian duty. Luke's picture o f the imperial authorities as the friends of Jesus and the church, at least when they were not intimidated by the Jews, and his careful explanations that it was only through ignorance or misunderstanding that Christian leaders could be associated with, or confused with, Jewish revolutionaries like Judas o f Galilee, Theudas, or the 'Egyptian' (Acts 5 3 6 , 3 7 ; 2 1 : 3 8 ) , are fully in line with Clement's emphatic assertion o f devotion to the empire (1 Clem. 6 0 - 6 1 ) and his remarkable choice o f the R o m a n army as a model for ecclesiastical discipline ( 3 7 ) . This is an attitude which leads on to the claim o f Melito o f Sardis that it was by divine dispensation that Christianity and the empire of Augustus originated at the same time; that the empire can assure its o w n prosperity by protecting Christianity ; and that it was only the wicked emperors, Nero and Domitian, w h o persecuted the church and then only because they had been misled by malignant persons (Eus. H.E. 4 . 2 6 . 7 - 1 1 ) . All this, except conceivably 1 Peter, belongs to the period after 70; but the sentiments are not new, for they merely echo and enlarge upon the almost equally forceful words o f Paul in R o m . 1 3 : 1 - 7 , inculcating the Christian duty of obedience to the emperor as a minister o f G o d . :
T o the period after 7 0 there very probably belong some, at least, of those 'prophetic' passages in the Gospels which may allude to the fate o f Jerusalem. In the Markan tradition, followed by Matthew and Luke (Mark 1 3 : 2 , Matt. 24: 2; Luke 2 1 : 6 ) , the context o f the apocalyptic discourse o f Jesus is furnished by his prophecy o f the total destruction of the T e m p l e . It is possible to regard this as an actual prophecy, and to connect it with the obscure and ambiguous evidence that Jesus expected the T e m p l e 'made with hands' to be superseded. In any case, it resembles and echoes the prophecies o f M i c a h , Jeremiah and Ezekiel that G o d ' s imminent judgement on Israel would involve the overthrow of the T e m p l e (Mic. 3 : 1 2 cited a t j e r . 26: i 8 ; J e r . 7: 1 4 - 1 5 ; Ezek. 24: 2 1 ) . Yet the d o o m of the T e m p l e is pictured in terms of such extreme devastation ('Not one stone will be left upon another, all will be thrown d o w n ' ) as to suggest that a catastrophic fulfilment o f the prediction may be alluded to (not necessarily, o f course, with precise literal accuracy: the T e m p l e was burned rather than demolished), and that it either originated or was sharpened after the event which it predicts. The enigmatic prophecy of the 'abomination of desolation' (Mark 1 3 : 1 4 ;
162
G. W . H. LAMPE
Matt. 2 4 : 15) may also refer to the events o f 70. In its Markan form this is a vague and imprecise application to a coming catastrophe in Judaea o f a traditional apocalyptic symbol derived from the heathen altar,
and
probably also the statue, erected in the T e m p l e by Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 9 : 2 7 ; 1 1 : 3 1 ; 1 2 : n ; 1 M a c e . 1: 5 4 ; c p . 2 M a c e . 6: 2 ) . It has to be borne in mind that early Christian eschatology tended to be cast in the mould o f the M a c c a b a e a n crisis and therefore to follow a pattern laid d o w n in the book o f Daniel. This typological convention makes it extremely difficult to assign such material as that contained in 2 Thess. 2: 3 - 1 2 or in the 'synoptic apocalypse' to particular historical situations. T h e implication o f this passage is that the T e m p l e (Mark speaks o f the 'abomination' standing where it (properly, he) ought not, and Matthew explains this phrase as meaning 'in the holy place') will suffer some horrible heathen profanation. A m o n g many interpretations which have been offered we find: the emperor Gaius's attempt to introduce his statue into the T e m p l e in 3 9 to 4 0 ; the expected appearance o f antichrist ( c p . 2 Thess. 2: 3 - 4 ) ; the desecration o f the T e m p l e by the internecine strife among the Jewish factions during the R o m a n siege (but Daniel's 'abomination' must denote heathen idolatry); the entry o f the R o m a n forces; or, as some late patristic commentators
supposed, the introduction
into the
Temple
8
precincts o f a statue of Titus. Luke reinterprets this saying. He substitutes 'the desolation' o f Jerusalem for the allusion to the 'abomination o f desolation', and explains that this will be brought about by besieging armies (Luke 2 1 : 2 0 ) . It is likely that Mark and Matthew as well as Luke may be thinking o f an invasion o f the T e m p l e by Roman forces, and that they are associating this with some specific act o f desecration. Possibly this was the famous occasion when the troops o f Titus brought their standards to the T e m p l e , set them opposite its eastern gate, and offered sacrifices to them.
9
It must, however, again be remembered that the language o f this passage, even in its Lukan form, is quite imprecise. T h e symbol o f the 'abomination o f desolation' was an apocalyptic commonplace, part o f the Danielic typology o f Antiochus Epiphanes and his violation o f the T e m p l e . Even Luke's picture o f a besieged city, though true enough as a description of what befell Jerusalem in the war with R o m e , is an echo o f many passages of the O l d Testament. This is equally true of the similar prophecy of a siege
8
See
G . R . B e a s l e y - M u r r a y , A Commentary on Mark
Thirteen ( L o n d o n ,
1957),
PP- 54-729
J o s . BJ 6.316; c p . i Q p H a b . 6.3-5: ' ( T h e K i t t i m ) sacrifice to their standards a n d w o r s h i p their w e a p o n s o f w a r ' ; T e r t . Apol. 16: ' T h e w h o l e military religion o f the R o m a n s consists in venerating the standards, swearing b y the standards, setting the standards before all the g o d s ' .
A . D . 70 in Christian reflection
163
and destruction o f the city in Jesus's lamentation over Jerusalem (Luke 1 0
1 9 : 4 3 - 4 ) with its echo o f Isa. 29: 3 - 4 . T h e prophecy may be only a general warning that, as in the days of Jeremiah whose theme was the association o f false religion with the Temple, the rejection o f prophetic warnings o f judgement by the leaders o f the nation, and impending divine punishment, G o d ' s judgement is again approaching and will again be executed by heathen enemies. Yet a saying may have a specific application to a particular historical situation even though it may be expressed in general terms and in conventional typological forms. W e still have to ask why the evangelists gave prominence to this passage, and the most probable answer seems to be that it is really a 'prophecy' after the event, whether in its Lukan form only or in the Markan/Matthaean as well. If this is so, it indicates the beginning o f Christian reflection on the significance o f the disaster o f 70. T h e proper response of Christians in Judaea was to flee from the city without delay; the use o f the second person, 'pray ( y e ) ' , in Mark 1 3 : 1 8 / M a t t . 24: 20 indicates that the whole warning is to be understood as being directly addressed to Jesus's followers. It is, again, a warning which echoes the traditional M a c c a b a e a n pattern: Christians are to act like the loyal devotees o f the Law in the time o f Antiochus, when Mattathias and his sons fled to the mountains, leaving all their possessions in the city (1 M a c e . 2: 2 8 ) . T h e question is whether this passage may possibly be referred to by Eusebius when, probably following Hegesippus, he records that the Jerusalem church received an oracle by revelation, as a result of which they moved out o f the city to Pella before the outbreak o f the war (H.E. 3 . 5 . 3 ) . T h e destruction o f Jerusalem was evidently seen, according to this tradition, as an act of divine vengeance for the violence done to Christ and his apostles, executed after G o d ' s holy people, the Christians, had been evacuated from the city like Lot from S o d o m . W e need not now consider the vexed question whether the c o m m a n d to flee, given in the 'Synoptic apocalypse', may have been suggested after the event by the actual flight o f the Christians to Pella, or whether (as seems much less probable) it may have been itself the origin o f the entire Pella tradition. Nor is it important that the command, literalistically interpreted, would have been impossible to carry out; flight would no longer be possible from Jerusalem (though perhaps still feasible from the rest of'Judaea') once the city had been encircled by armies and the 'abomination' had arrived. What is relevant here is the fact that if it is indeed post eventum this passage contains the beginnings o f Christian theological reflection on the fall o f Jerusalem.
1 0
See C . H . D o d d , ' T h e Fall o f J e r u s a l e m and the " A b o m i n a t i o n o f D e s o l a t i o n " ' ,
JRS 37 (1947), 47-54-
164
G. W . H . LAMPE
The event o f 70 is G o d ' s judgement. These are the 'days o f retribution' (cp. Luke 2 1 : 2 2 ) which fulfil the Deuteronomic prophecy o f G o d ' s wrath upon apostate Israel (Deut. 32: 3 5 ) , and which, according to Luke's picture ofjerusalem 'trodden down by the Gentiles until the times o f the Gentiles are fulfilled', also bring the fulfilment o f the prophecy o f Zech. 1 2 : 3 . In other passages peculiar to his Gospel Luke develops the theme o f G o d ' s judgement on Israel, provoked by the rejection o f the appeal and challenge o f j e s u s : in the warning to the daughters ofjerusalem (Luke 23: 2 7 - 3 1 ) ; and, more subtly, at the end o f the Passion story: 'The crowd w h o had assembled for the spectacle, when they saw what had happened, went home beating their breasts' (23: 4 8 ) . Taken together with Luke's insistence on the responsibility o f the Jews for Jesus's death after Pilate's threefold verdict o f acquittal, these words imply that already, at the time of the crucifixion, the people o f Jerusalem were expecting that divine retribution would be exacted from them. Later tradition makes this explicit. According to a 'Western' manuscript tradition,
11
the crowds cry, ' W o e to us for the things
that have been done today on account o f our sins; for the desolation o f Jerusalem has drawn near'. This seems to be derived from the tradition in the Gospel o f Peter (25) which enlarges on the guilt and terror of the Jewish leaders. After the begging o f the body ofjesus, 'the Jews and the elders and the priests, knowing what great evil they had done themselves, began to lament and to say, " W o e for our sins; the judgement and the end o f Jerusalem has drawn near" ' . In the parable o f the wicked tenants (Mark 1 2 : 1 - 9 ; Matt. 2 1 : 3 3 - 4 1 ; Luke 2 0 : 9 - 1 6 ) , the threat o f destruction is possibly, but by no means certainly, an allusion to the fall ofjerusalem. Matthew ( 2 1 : 43) strengthens the threat by adding, 'Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation producing the fruits o f it'. G o d ' s special relationship to Israel, with its promises, blessings and obligations (for this is apparently what is meant in this context by the phrase 'the kingdom of God', not as usually in Matthew, 'the kingdom of heaven'), is to be transferred to the Christian church. This need not, however, contain a veiled allusion to the destruction ofjerusalem; it could equally well refer to the supersession o f Pharisaic Judaism by Christianity. The
' Q ' tradition includes a warning that the rejection o f j e s u s ,
the
climax o f the long history of Israel's persecution of the prophets, must bring a divine judgement on Jerusalem (Matt. 2 3 : 3 7 - 9 ; Luke 1 3 : 3 4 - 5 ) . It is quite possible, but again by no means certain, that this passage, which, in the warning 'your house is left to you (desolate)', echoes Jer. 22: 5 , reflects the actual destruction o f the T e m p l e and the city. If, however, it is only a 11 gi sys.c.^ T a t i a n ; c p . J. M . C r e e d , The Gospel according to Saint Luke ( L o n d o n , 1930) p . ?
288.
A . D . 70 in Christian reflection
165
general and imprecise threat ofjudgement against the leaders ofjudaism, it seems probable that it has been developed and made more specific in the Lukan lament o f Jesus over Jerusalem (Luke 1 9 : 4 1 - 4 ) , with its explicit references to the siege and total destruction o f the city. Admittedly, this is a conventional picture, employing familiar O l d Testament imagery; but this is not inconsistent with its use by the evangelist or his source as an allusion to the events o f 70: an allusion need not take the form of a literal description. T h e inference is that Jerusalem was blind to 'the things belonging to peace'. It did not recognise the time o f G o d ' s visitation; and it was for this reason, so Christians reflected, that the city perished. Luke
is not
alone among the
evangelists
in linking
the
divine
condemnation o f Jerusalem directly with the rejection and crucifixion of the Christ. Matthew similarly implies this in his story of the washing o f Pilate's hands and the cry of'all the people' (that is, Israel), 'his blood be on us and on our children' (Matt. 2 7 : 2 5 ) . In this dramatic scene Matthew makes the people themselves endorse the warning recorded in the ' Q ' tradition that 'all righteous b l o o d ' (Matt. 2 3 : 3 5 1 ) , or 'the blood of all the prophets' (Luke 1 1 : 501) will be paid for by 'this generation'. A further important contribution to Christian reflection on the fall o f Jerusalem is probably to be found in Matthew's peculiar insertion into his parable o f the marriage feast: 'but the king was infuriated and sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burnt down their city' (Matt. 2 2 : 7 ) . A case against the interpretation o f this passage as a post eventum allusion to the Jewish war has been argued, notably by K . H . Rengstorf.
12
He maintains that the theme o f an insult to a king or his representatives, provoking a punitive expedition and the destruction of the offenders' city by fire, is a traditional commonplace. T h e story recalls that o f the book o f Judith, and the episode of David and the Ammonites (2 Sam. 1 o: 1 to 1 1 : 1 ) , and its pattern recurs in the O l d Testament, the Assyrian annals, and Josephus. It is, in fact, a topos, used as such in rabbinic parables. Rengstorf claims that it would be strange to see Vespasian's forces as armies sent by G o d (despite the fact that Josephus finds no difficulty in believing that they destroyed Jerusalem because G o d had condemned it -BJ 4 . 3 2 3 , 6 . 2 5 0 ) , and he maintains that Matthew's parable is not historically focussed; it was not the destruction o f the city itself but the ruin o f the T e m p l e and the cessation o f the cultus that was the real disaster o f 70. H e does not, however, answer the difficult question why Matthew should have introduced this awkward digression into a story o f the rejection o f G o d ' s messengers by those w h o m he had originally invited, and o f the bringing in of others to take their place
1 2
' D i e Stadt d e r M o r d e r ( M t . 22: 7)', in W . Eltester, Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche (Festschrift fur J. J e r e m i a s ) , ZNW Beiheft 26 (i960), 106-29.
l66
G. W . H . LAMPE
at his feast - a story which, like its parallel in Luke 1 4 : 1 6 - 2 4 , would run smoothly and intelligibly but for this obtrusive verse about the king's revenge. It will not d o to reply that Matthew seems in any case to have conflated two stories (that of the replacement of the invited guests, and that of the man without a wedding garment) into a single parable, and that he may in fact have also combined these two with a third: a tale of the insulting behaviour o f a king's intended guests and o f the way in which he avenged his messengers. For the question remains why Matthew should have chosen to confuse his parable by interrupting its sequence with another story, inartistically and awkwardly inserted in what is virtually a parenthesis. The
obvious explanation would seem to be that Matthew sees in this
parable, probably to be assigned to the ' Q ' material, an opportunity to develop the theme o f the parable o f the wicked tenants ( 2 1 : 4iff) and to drive h o m e its point by an actual allusion to the fall ofjerusalem. He uses a conventional topos in order to d o this; but the historical event itself o f the revolt and its suppression could almost be said to follow a conventional recurrent pattern.
13
Matthew, then, like Luke, sets the rejection o f the Christ within the long history o f Israel's persecution o f the prophets, o f which it is the final culmination. It means that G o d has abandoned non-Christian Judaism, and the destruction ofjerusalem and the T e m p l e is the concrete evidence that this is so. Because the leaders of Judaism failed to believe in Jesus, the Romans had c o m e and removed the T e m p l e and the nation - as the Fourth Evangelist, with his typical irony, makes Caiaphas say they would d o if the Sanhedrin were to let Jesus g o and all men were to believe in him (John
11:48). Christian apologists naturally pursued this interpretation o f the fall o f Jerusalem as G o d ' s punishment o f the Jews for the crucifixion; but, apart from these rather scanty allusions in the Gospels, it occurs neither so early nor so often as we might expect. Where it is found it often stands alongside other apologetic arguments, such as the claim that the destruction o f the T e m p l e vindicated the argument from prophecy for the messiahship o f Jesus, that the O l d Testament cultus was intended only as a temporary dispensation, that the cessation o f the priesthood and sacrifices implies the supersession o f the Law. Barnabas
asserts that one purpose o f the
incarnation was that the full number o f the sins o f those w h o persecuted and slew the prophets might be summed up ( 5 . 1 1 ) . This implies, like the parable o f the wicked tenants, that Christ's death set the seal on the long 1 3
See further L . H . G a s t o n , No Stone on Another, NovTestSup xxiii ( L e i d e n , 1970); W . Trilling, Das WahreIsrael, S t A N T to ( M i i n c h e n , 1964); S. Pedersen, ' Z u m P r o b l e m der vaticinia ex eventu', ST 19 (1965), 167-88; W . G r u n d m a n n , Das Evangelium nach Matthaus, T h H K (Berlin, 1968).
A . D . 7 0 in Christian reflection
167
catalogue o f Israel's ill-treatment o f G o d ' s envoys, but it does not explicitly say that it brought about the events o f 70. Earlier in this epistle the fate o f the Jews is held up as a warning to Christians. Even after so many signs and wonders had been done among them, the people were abandoned by G o d . Christians, in their turn, must take heed not to be found to be the 'many called but few chosen' ( 4 . 1 4 ) . Here the desolation of Jerusalem is seen as punishment or as a sign o f reprobation, but it is not directly connected with the rejection o f Christ. Justin, too, argues that the scriptures
attest the justice o f G o d ' s
punishment o f the Jews by defeat and exile (Dial, n o ) ; the fact that they had been banned from Judaea under Hadrian's legislation, and circumci sion had b e c o m e a sign which debarred them from entering their o w n land, was
a measure o f their rejection by G o d (/ Apol. 4 7 , Dial.
1 6 ) . Justin is
chiefly concerned to develop the argument from prophecy. T h e fate o f the Jews was part o f the purpose o f G o d disclosed by the O l d Testament prophets; it confirms the
Christian
interpretation
o f the
messianic
prophecies. Justin does, however, at one point assert a direct connection between the downfall o f the Jews and the death of Christ: 'It is right and just that these things have happened to you. For you killed the Righteous O n e and his prophets before him' (Dial.
1 6 ; c p . Acts 3: 1 4 - 1 5 ; 7 * 5 2 ) . In the
Gospel o f Peter this theme is developed: the destruction of Jerusalem was retribution for Christ's death. It is just possible that the same thought appears in the Preaching o f Peter. A n extract from this work, cited by Clement (Strom. 6 . 1 5 . 1 2 8 ) , says that in the prophets we find the parousia (that is, the incarnation)
o f the messiah, his death,
his cross,
the
punishments inflicted on him by the Jews, his resurrection and ascension, JIQO
xov 'IeQOo6X,v|ia xxio6fjvai, xa8(bg iyiyQanxo ravxa Jiavxa, a e&ei
auxov jiaBeiv xai fiex' auxov a eaxai. V o n Dobschiitz ( T U xi, p p . 2 4 - 5 ) proposed to read XQiBfjvai for xxioBfjvai, understanding this to refer to the 'judgement' o f Jerusalem in 70, to which he believed [xex' auxov a eaxai to be an allusion. For a similar use of XQiGfjvai he compared Isa. 66: 1 6 and 1 C l e m . 1 1 . 1 , and for the idea itself he compared the Gospel o f Peter 2 5 , already mentioned above: f i Y Y
l o e v
^ HQioig xai xo xeXog 'IeQOVoa>.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
W I L L I A M HORBURY
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
W I L L I A M HORBURY
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\<;, 261); a n d finally YOrrres a n d XTJOTQLXOL b a n d together (264). ( T h i s passage is misleadingly said to e q u a t e the t w o , in E. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in the Time ofJesus Christ, as revised b y G . V e r m e s and F. M i l l a r (2 vols, to date, E d i n b u r g h 1973—9) i, 462, n. 29; but they are justly distinguished with reference to BJ vi. 286, ibid, ii, 6o5f w
t n
t n
Christ as brigand sedition,
73
in John 1 1 : ^{miracles
195
are specified; in John 1 9 : 7 the accusers
bidden to support their charge, point to teaching in breach o f the Torah. These are simply negative views o f the activities identified in Luke 2 4 : 19 as prophetic deed and word. Despite the innuendo o f subversion in polemic on these points (p. 1 8 3 , n. 2) and the recurrent charge o f sedition (p. 1 8 4 and nn. 9 and 1 0 ) , polemical accounts o f Christs's life continue to depict him as a false prophet rather than a bandit. W . Bauer's collection o f material shows that, even allowing for possible loss, our passage is exceptional.
74
There are instances, as we have seen, where polemical narratives o f Christ seem to depend ultimately on traditions incorporated into the New Testament rather than the New Testament writings themselves. It is the more striking that pagan and Jew, no less than Christian, appear to have proceeded from data on the life of Christ in which practices definable as the sorcery and deceit o f a false prophet predominated over activity which could be straightforwardly identified as insurrection.
7 3
7 4
( b y C . T . R . H a y w a r d ) . ) T h e m e n o f violence are likewise linked but contrasted with teachers a n d w o n d e r - w o r k e r s at the parallel AJ. x x . 167 (the distinction is o v e r l o o k e d b y Eisler, I H Z O Y Z i, 5i2f ( E T ( a b b r e v i a t e d ) p . 110)): i d u£v ofrv T(bv h[\ox(bv egya defiled the city, 01 6e yor\Te<; x o t cuiaxewveg p e r s u a d e d the p e o p l e . O n y6r\$ as the pejorative equivalent o f nQoyr\zr\<; (n. 3 a b o v e ) see E. Fascher, flPO&HTHZ (Giessen, 1927), p p . 207f; for yoT]xeia as primarily referring to self-proclamation, anaxr\ to its effect E. B a m m e l in B e t z - H a a c k e r - H e n g e l ( e d s . ) , Josepkus-Studien, p . 13 a n d n. 34. T h a t this l a n g u a g e w a s p r o b a b l y taken b y the evangelist to signify a political c h a r g e , but m a y in fact preserve a trace o f an accusation u n d e r J e w i s h law, is suggested b y D o d d , Historical Tradition, p . 117 n. 1, p . 217 n. 2. Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 468.
E.
BAMMEL
Jesus as a political agent in a version of the Josippon T h e restoration o f Augustus meant a return to the ancestral religion in its different forms. Non-compliance with this, impietaslaoepEia, tended to be equated with odium humani generis, to be viewed as xoivf) vooog. Whereas this was an accusation the Jews just managed to ward off, the charge haunted the Christians all the more. Without the privileged position o f a religio licita, without an established claim of being an ancestral religion and o f presenting time-honoured truths, they were almost defenceless against the pressure o f the Zeitgeist and open to politico-juridical suspicion. T h e situation was made even more difficult by the fact that there existed an inclination on the side o f the Jews to direct the rising anti-Semitism in the R o m a n administration against those who had split off from the main b o d y o f Judaism. Paul already encountered this tendency in Corinth (Acts 1 8 : 1 2 ) . Josephus positions his description ofjesus ominously close to that o f certain detestable Jewish charlatans and describes his followers as men w h o proceeded from bad to worse. Still, it took some time for the pagan observers to make themselves familiar with Christianity. Suetonius knows from hearsay that the Jews o f R o m e , instigated by a certain Chrestus (impulsore Chresto), were causing continual disturbances (assidue tumultuantes) and had to be expelled from the metropolis in the time o f Claudius. There is nothing in this report that indicates Christian ambitions directed against the government, if indeed it is true that Christians had played an active role in the clashes referred to by the Roman historian. Still, the incident shows that strife within an ethnic group could 1
2
3
4
5
1
For the sentiment o f the time c p . J. Leipoldt, Der soziale Gedanke in der altchristlichen Kirche ( L e i p z i g , 1952), p p . 9ff, 203. T h i s b e c a m e constitutive for the following centuries. S y m i m c h u s , the s p o k e s m a n for the mos majorum in fourth-century R o m e , gives expression to the same thing w h e n he says: ' w e pray for p e a c e to the ancestral g o d s ; for they all . . . m e a n the s a m e ' (Relatio iii. 10; O . Seeck = M o n u m e n t a G e r m a n i a e Historica. A u c t o r e s Antiquissimi 6 (Berlin, 1883).
2
T h e term is used in C l a u d i u s ' s letter to the Alexandrians and interpreted b y S. L o s c h , Epistula Claudiana ( R o t t e n b u r g , 1930). C p . W . H . C . Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church ( O x f o r d , 1965), p p . i54f, i58f and especially i64f. T h i s point is over-emphasised b y P. Styger, Juden und Christen im alten Rom (Berlin, 1934). C p . Josephus-Studien. Festschrift 0. Michel (Gottingen, 1974), p p . 15fT. C l a u d i u s 25.
3
4
5
197
198
be
E. BAMMEL
taken
as
sufficient
reason
for enacting
administrative
measures
summarily. While the Christians themselves are not referred to directly by Suetonius, 6
it is different with his contemporary Tacitus. He agrees fully with those who found
the
Christians propelled
7
by odium generis humani
while
indicating some reserve vis-a-vis the accusation raised against them o f having set fire to the city o f R o m e . That means that although he disclaims any actual political crimes,
8
he recognises an evil disposition
9
in
the
mentality o f the Christians and he views them as potentially dangerous.
10
11
T h e reaction o f the administration should be guided by the utilitas publica
rather than by any other considerations. It must, however, be added that the Christians are viewed as being as contemptible as every form o f Eastern and especially Jewish
12
cult, and that their objectionableness is even
deduced from the Judaean origin and
outlandish
character o f their
movement. Celsus sees exactly the same impulse in Judaism. T h e Jews decamped from Egypt like slaves running away from their master. Instigated by the YOTjieia o f M o s e s
13
they broke with the religion which they had there, yet
everything o f any value in Jewish religion is derived from the Egyptians. T h e principle underlying this criticism is clearly regard for the traditional religion as venerable in its various manifestations and worthy o f protection
6
7
Ann. x v . 44. T h e short reference had been taken to b e the only surviving part o f a large section in the Annates in w h i c h T a c i t u s describes Christ as a revolutionary, and w h i c h was mutilated b y a Christian scribe for that reason ( M . J o e l , Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des zweiten christlichen Jahrhunderts (Breslau, 1883) ii, 96Q. F o r criticism c p . C . F. A r n o l d , Die neronische Christenverfolgung ( L e i p z i g , 1888), p p . 28fT. G . A . M u l l e r , Pontius Pilatus (Stuttgart, 1888), p p . 28ff. F o r an interpretation o f the phrase, c p . H . Fuchs, ' T a c i t u s iiber die Christen', VigChr 4 (1950), 84ff; H . H o m m e l , ' T a c i t u s iiber die Christen', Theologia Viatorum 3 (1951), igff; J . B . Bauer, ' T a c i t u s und die ersten Christen', Gymnasium 64 (1957), 6if.
5 8
T h e matter w o u l d b e different, if R . v . d . A i m ' s interpretation ' w e g e n g a n z neuer V o r k o m m n i s s e Strafe verdienten (novissima e x e m p l a m e r i t o s ) ' c o u l d b e substanti ated {Die Urtheile heidnischer und judischer Schriftsteller der ersten vier Jahrhunderte iiber Jesus und die ersten Christen, Leipzig, 1864, p . 14). T h i s is, h o w e v e r , hardly the case.
9
T a c i t u s characterises the religion as a ' m a l u m ' , taking up thereby an established t e r m i n o l o g y ( v o o o g , v6oK]\xa, X o i u o g , pestis), w h i c h had been used o n c e and again against J u d a i s m already; c p . L o s c h , Epistula, p p . 14, 23^. C p . R . F r e u d e n b e r g e r , Das Verhalten der romischen Behdrden gegen die Christen im 2. Jahrhundert ( M i i n c h e n , 1967), p p . i8ofT. F r e u d e n b e r g e r , Verhalten, p p . 184!!. It is in keeping with this that Pliny desists from taking the initiative against the Christians and that he only p r o c e e d s to action if Christians have been d e n o u n c e d b y other citizens, while taking into consideration the general situation in his p r o v i n c e . T a c i t u s , Hist. v. 5.1: adversus omnes alios, hostile odium. O r i g e n , C. Cels. v. 41.
1 0
11
1 2
1 3
Jesus as a political agent by state and society. veo)T£QOi
15
14
199
T h e Jews deserted this ancestral religion, they are
and, even worse, they attempt to make others abandon their
own religion and adopt Judaism. Seen in this way, Christianity is a potential danger to an intensified degree. Derived from Judaism by a similar revolutionary process,
16
it
turned itself against it; it is the product o f an infinita revolutio. And indeed, the principle that governed Jewish as well as Christian history is still ]1
effective. Jesus is called oxdoECog aQXY\yETK\c; allusion to Acts 1 5 : 3 1
1 8
- perhaps in a playful
- but his disciples are worse than he was. A n d the
fact that the Christians split among themselves is the supreme example o f their character
19
and serves as a demonstration for the 'Gesetz, nach dem
sie angetreten.' Admittedly the Christians say that their G o d is the G o d o f Moses. If one looks closer, however, it is by no means apparent whose law is taken as valid, that o f Moses or that ofjesus. Celsus points to the difference between the precepts o f the t w o .
20
T h e discussion is not an academic one, if one
recalls that Judaism was a religio licita, whereas Christianity was not, if it could not identify itself as Judaism. Therefore the reproach o f d0e6lT)5, o f sacrilegium, which, because o f its constitutional position, one could raise against Judaism only in a modified way, falls on Christianity with undiminished weight. T h e man who venerates no ancestral gods has no gods, he is godless, he regards nothing as holy.
21
Therefore Christianity
lacks all respectability. 14
T h u s the teaching w h i c h Celsus sets against Christianity is not his o w n invention but rather the s u m o f what was universally recognised, the w i s d o m o f all p e o p l e . H e calls it xoivog vouog (i. 1) and ctQ/atog ^dyog (i. 14) or, emphatically taking u p a term w h i c h is often used b y Plato, dXr]6f|g Xoyog.
15
C. Cels. iii. 5. For the details o f Celsus's view o n the revolutionary character o f both J u d a i s m and Christianity c p . A . Wifstrand, Die wahre Lehre des Kelsos ( L u n d , 1942), p p . 13!!.
1 6
17
1 8
19
2 0
2 1
viii. 14; c p . iii. 7, 13, 14. In ii. 44 he speaks o f the possibility that s o m e o n e w h o is a A.r|aTrjg o r dvdQOcpovog m a y c l a i m with similar i m p u d e n c e that he is a g o d . T h i s makes it likely that oxdoecog dQXT|Y£TT)g is not used in its literal meaning. T h e e q u a t i o n Jesus = X,T|OTT]g was taken u p and given a different slant b y a polemicist w h o s e w o r k is attacked b y Lactantius (Mort. Pers. v . 2.121). H e is very often but not universally ( c p . the reservations m a d e by J. Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten ( L e i p z i g , 1907), p . 291) identified with Hierocles. T h e m e a n i n g , h o w e v e r , is different. In A c t s the intention is to emphasise the position o f j e s u s , whereas Celsus, while stating that the ordoig o f the Christians had its starting point in Jesus, directs his displeasure a n d horror wholly against those w h o had followed h i m . C. Cels. ii. 12. A similar term is used in the A c t s o f the A l e x a n d r i a n anti-Semitic martyrs: A p p i a n calls the e m p e r o r Xfloxaoxog (Acta Appiani iv. 8; W . A . M u s u r i l l o , The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs ( O x f o r d , 1954), p . 67). vii. 18. Is Acts 24: 14 where the claim is m a d e that the Christians serve the J i d t Q C p o g 0e6g to b e taken as an answer against like accusations? E p h . 2: 12 is, perhaps, the first Christian answer to this r e p r o a c h . C p . A . v.
200 And
E. BAMMEL indeed, Jesus appeared on the scene yesterday or the day before
yesterday.
22
This only confirms that there is no ancient
tradition in
Christianity. T h e dominical saying that one cannot serve two masters is a 23
qpa)vf| OT&oecDc; and this impression is given weight by individual features such as the rejection o f the oath. T h e claim that Jesus and the Christians came from the lowest levels o f society and direct themselves to these levels belongs to this context. T h e welcome given to sinners shows that the Christians have no law and no discipline and justifies the inference that they themselves
are x a x o i j Q Y O i .
imaginable scorn -
2 4
His disciples are heaped
they are characterised
with
all
as members o f despicable
professions, as stupid and without any integrity -
but
revolutionary
behaviour in the strict sense o f the word is not ascribed to them. Their behaviour towards their master was worse than what is c o m m o n in a Y
society o f robbers, who would not have deserted their Xr|OTdQX l?) Jesus's disciples d i d .
25
a
s
Their activity resulted in a number o f factions. It is
rather the disposition o f the Christians than any specific action that makes their religion a source o f danger to society.
26
Z x a o i & ^ e i v ngbq T O x o i v o v is the key phrase of Celsus's characterisation of the Christians.
27
H e thereby combines two different points raised against
them: (a) their turning away from the XoiJioL inclination
to res novae.
29
If they had
had
av0QCOJioi
2 8
and (b) their
their roots in one o f the
time-honoured and accepted religions, they would not have been attracted to a secluded form of life. If they had felt their responsibility for the c o m m o n H a r n a c k , Der Vorwurf des Atheismus in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten, T U 28 (1905); Tertullian Ad Nat. 1.10 (divortium ab institutis majorum); Lactantius, Mort. Pers. 34 (relinquere sectam parentum). 2 2
2 3
ii. 4; vi. 10. iv. 23. T h e term o x d o i g plays already a role in the p h i l o s o p h y o f Plato ( c p . G . M . A . G r u b e , Plato's Thought ( L o n d o n , 1935), p p . 129-49) d o f Platonism ( c p . J. D i l l o n , The Middle Platonists ( L o n d o n , 1977), p p . 368f). T h e m e a n i n g is h o w e v e r different. a
n
24
iii. 44ff.
2 5
C. Cels. ii. 12; ii. 59. C p . W . Nestle, ' D i e H a u p t e i n w a n d e des antiken Denkens gegen das Christentum', ARW 37 (1941/2), 70, gof, 97; ' Z u r altchristlichen A p o l o g e t i k i m N . T . ' , ZRGG 4(1952), I20f. v . 25. Sedition is, o f c o u r s e , a t h e m e that was very m u c h in the m i n d o f the A l e x a n d r i a n s . J o s e p h u s defends his o w n nation (that means those residing in E g y p t ) against the accusation o f seditio (C. Apion ii. 68). A g r i p p a II praises the E g y p t i a n J e w s for not having let themselves b e enticed b y the djiooxdoewg X E V T Q O V o f Alexandria (BJ ii. 385). H e thereby accuses the Greeks o f Alexandria o f inclination to o r d o i g .
2 6
2 7
2 8
2 9
viii. 8; c p . L i b a n i u s , Oratio 30. T h i s put the Christian apologists in a difficult position. S o m e o f t h e m - A r i s t i d e s , D i o g n e t u s , Bardesanes (Patrologia Syriaca, e d . F. N a u , ii (Paris, 1907), 607; 550-3) - still boasted the newness o f the Christian religion, whereas others - Justin, T h e o p h i l u s , T a t i a n - shied a w a y from this a n d e m p h a s i s e d the antiquity o f Christianity. T h e Christians are called vecoxegoi b y L i b a n i u s , Oratio 30.
Jesus as a political agent
201
welfare, they would not be tempted to look ahead to a complete change o f things. T h e phrase is thus rather the Platonic philosopher's general conclusion and an admonitory exclamation than a reference to events initiated or performed by the Christian community. Even the charge that the Christians are opposed to all civil authority - a 30
c o m m o n p l a c e in the polemical literature - points to inertia, reluctance or refusal to carry out public duties,
31
rather than to specific actions
against the government or its representatives.
32
directed
Celsus's position over
against Christianity is reasoned and based on a scheme which is more fully developed than that o f Tacitus. T h e polemicist magnifies tendencies, he warns against potential dangers. W h a t he fastens on are dispositions rather than actions. It is moral stigmatisation that is intended by Celsus's calumnious picture o f Christian principles. It is an appeal to reconsider their position rather than a direct accusation that is in his mind. This does not rule out the possibility that the argument could have practical consequences in a time o f high tension. Indeed, this was the reason why Origen felt it necessary to refute him in the time o f the persecutor Decius. Jewish tradition presents a variant o f this scheme. T h e connection between Judaism and Christianity is crystallised in the person ofjesus. H e is described as a prophet w h o became a pseudo-prophet, w h o taught strange teachings.
34
33
or as a teacher
These characterisations, however, c o m e to
be replaced by another: he was the pupil o f a rabbi. Since he was only this he was unable to teach any teaching: anyone w h o teaches a teaching in the presence o f his master is worthy o f death.
35
A n d it was more than doubtful
whether he was in a position to utter prophetic pronouncements. Any deviation from the traditional teaching was nothing but disobedience towards those w h o taught him. It is for this reason that the narratives about his behaviour vis-a-vis his teachers stress rather the impudence, the lack o f 3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
3 5
C. Cels. viii. 55, 65, 67; Ps. L u c i a n , Philopatris 25.26; c p . b e l o w p p . 37if. F o r an interpretation o f inertia, an accusation m e n t i o n e d b y Suetonius in his a c c o u n t o n T . Flav. C l e m e n s (Dom. 15.1), c p . W . P o h l m a n n , ' D i e heidnische, j i i d i s c h e u n d christliche O p p o s i t i o n gegen D o m i t i a n ' (Diss. Erlangen, 1967), 380°. T h e o x d o i g o f the Christians consists in his v i e w in their refusal to take part in the munera a n d the (bcpeXeia they gain therby for themselves (iii. 14). Tertullian, o n the o t h e r h a n d , emphasises that the Christians d o not take part in the revolutionary activities o f the d a y : ' n u m q u a m A l b i a n i , n e c Nigrini vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani' (Ad Scap. 2). T h e identification with Bileam serves this p u r p o s e . A l t h o u g h not entitled to d o s o . T h e teaching o f a teaching in the presence o f a master, as it is s u p p o s e d to have h a p p e n e d in the case o f j e s u s (Strassburg version, c h . 2; S. K r a u s s , Das Leben Jesu nach judischen Quellen (Berlin, 1902), p . 39; V i e n n a version, c h . 4; K r a u s s , p . 68) is eo ipso n o t o n l y an act o f irreverence but o f insurrection against the tradition w h i c h was ordained by G o d .
202
E. BAMMEL
respect on the side o f Jesus than the teaching o f abominable statements. It seemed inadvisable to reproduce Jesus's teachings and it was more serviceable to point to the underlying defects ofJesus's character and - this is the supreme Jewish argument - to a background and surroundings which explain everything in him. T h e only allusion to his teaching is the claim that he intended to abrogate the L a w , and the conclusion is spelled out that he rebelled against the great G o d , against the great G o d o f heaven. T h e Jewish polemicists occasionally give expression to this by using an opprobrious name for Jesus like tfttH . T h e most far-reaching o f these terms is p = son o f revolution, which is interpreted in the context by reference to his promulgating a new Torah; that means that it is used as a way o f pin-pointing Jesus's departure from the document o f the covenant. T h e other term which is capable o f political interpretation is p i D . It is, however, significant that the term is normally used when the strife between Jews and Christians is pictured. This fight is a standing feature in the accounts o f the events after the crucifixion and in some versions is said to have taken place already during the lifetime of Jesus. While O ^ I B is the normal term in these descriptions, a term used to denote the breach between Judaism and the new movement, it is not frequently employed in relation to the fellowship o f Jesus. VttttK is the standard expression in the Huldreich version o f the T o l e d o t h , while O ^ n s is used only once when the disciples are listed. Most surprisingly, however, it is not Jesus who is the 36
3 7
38
3 9
40
41
42
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
4 1
4 2
T h e A r a m a i c text p u b l i s h e d b y G i n z b e r g o n l y implies that 'Jesus the w i c k e d ' had intended to m a k e vain the T o r a h and the L a w and the C o m m a n d m e n t s ( S c h e c h t e r M e m o r i a l v o l u m e ii, 328 M s l b l . i o ) , while it enlarges o n the reaction w h i c h all Israel rose to e n g a g e in. T h e H u l d r e i c h text (J.J. Huldreich, nsian VW> /vn^in 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
Jesus as a political agent
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).
Jesus as a political agent
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
O^IB
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).
Jesus as a political agent
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 exo^ev/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.
T h e Feeding o f the Multitude
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 eQTj^iog 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&^OVTeg, 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 dvayxd^eiv 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 dvayxd^Eiv 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
T h e Feeding o f the Multitude
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
T h e Feeding o f the Multitude
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
T h e Feeding o f the Multitude
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 e^aioexov 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
T h e Feeding o f the Multitude
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
T h e Feeding o f the Multitude
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 &
1 7 0
1 7 1
1 7 2
1 7 3
1 7 4
s
236
E. BAMMEL
the temptation story. T h e reluctance to let Jesus express this fellowship with men (Matt. 3: 1 5 ) , the refusal to let him go the way o f suffering (Mark 8: 3 3 ) and, above all, the alluring suggestion o f a messianic career are seen as the crucial points where a confrontation with inimical forces takes place. T h e traditions about the o c c a s i o n , the character
179
176
the length,
177
the o p p o n e n t s
178
and
o f Jesus's temptation vary; indeed, different Jewish ideas
about both the testing and tempting o f the man o f G o d were already available. Q , the earliest account o f the ministry o f j e s u s , presents a &cpiT)oiv airtov 6 didPoXog). T h i s supports the v i e w that 3:14, 15 derive from Q a n d that there is a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the seducing questions o f Satan and the t e m p t i n g suggestion o f J o h n . It m a y b e that just Jt&oa oixaiocruvT) is a p r o d u c t o f the evangelist, while the b e g i n n i n g and the end o f the sentence are p r e - M a t t h a e a n . T h e standard translation o f the line is d e p e n d e n t o n dqpeg at the beginning o f the sentence w h i c h is, h o w e v e r , m o r e a Fullsel than a constitutive element. T h e p r o p o s e d interpretation is c o m p a t i b l e with a rite o f baptism in w h i c h the 'baptiser' is merely the witness (thus in J e w i s h b a p t i s m ) o r in this case the o n e w h o admits to b a p t i s m ( c p . L u k e 3: 7 v. 1.). 1 7 5
1 7 6
1 7 7
1 7 8
1 7 9
M a r k ' s presentation is quite different. Jesus w a g e s a running battle with the d e m o n s . H e encounters them in the majority o f his healings. M o r e o v e r , in M a r k 8:33, Satan addresses h i m again in the person o f Peter. T h e answer that Jesus gives brings us o n to the level o f Q : the S o n o f G o d w h o thinks xd xoi3 9eoxJ a n d is therefore transfigured before he goes to Jerusalem! In Q the o p i n i o n o f others that J e s u s acts in the n a m e o f B e e l z e b u b is all that remains o f this. T h e J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n tradition has it that Jesus in his baptism had already b e e n purified b y fire ( c p . TV 93 (1966), p p . 53ft). L u k e views the temptation as o c c u p y i n g the w h o l e p e r i o d o f forty d a y s , whereas M a t t h e w puts it at the end o f this p e r i o d , w h e n Jesus was hungry. M a r k emphasises that Jesus w a s with the w i l d beasts. T h i s means not a fight against them, such as h a d been p e r f o r m e d b y so m a n y giants right u p to Siegfried the dragon-slayer, but rather c o m m u n i t y with the animals, i.e. the restoration o f Paradise. After sending o u t his S o n it pleased G o d to p l a c e h i m in the setting and c o n d i t i o n s o f the first m a n . T h i s h a p p e n s in the wilderness w h e r e he is alone, in surroundings u n t o u c h e d b y h u m a n culture o r d e c a d e n c e o r sin. T h e desert is the p l a c e o f salvation. W h e n Jesus leaves this setting, he is i m m e d i a t e l y in a situation o f conflict with Pharisees etc. T h e e m p h a s i s w h i c h is thus b r o u g h t to light allows o n e to c o n c l u d e that verse 13a is n o t original, but rather an insertion intended to bring the story into close c o n n e c t i o n with M a t t h e w a n d L u k e . T h e r e f o r e the story as told b y M a r k has a quite different significance: it relates h o w G o d confirms the baptismal p r o c l a m a t i o n in a further a c t i o n , whereas in Q this p r o c l a m a t i o n is tested. T h e c o n t i n u i n g significance o f the scene c o r r e s p o n d s to the testing, while in M a r k the testing p r o p e r begins with 1:23 and ends with the transfiguration. C p . p . 235 nn. 171 a n d 172. In Q the temptation is the necessary correlative to the Baptism. T h e r e f o r e it is the test o f J e s u s ' s c l a i m to be S o n o f G o d . It w o u l d after all have b e e n possible for Jesus to have used the status b e s t o w e d o n h i m for private purposes, to have regarded .this status as an aQJiayjiog. It is in keeping with this fundamental i m p o r t a n c e o f the temptation that Jesus is attacked b y Satan h i m s e l f - after all an angelic figure! - w h o is forced to a d m i t defeat b y retreating. Satan k n o w s exactly w h o Jesus is a n d his o n l y c h a n c e is to s e d u c e h i m to s o m e t h i n g that is in line with J e w i s h expectation. In M a r k Jesus is harassed b y the d e m o n s , w h o gradually recognise h i m while they are never able to lure h i m . E a c h o f these designs indicates a m o r e d e v e l o p e d , a m o r e ' m y t h i c a l ' c h r i s t o l o g y than what w e find in J o h n 6.
T h e Feeding o f the Multitude
237
heightened picture. It is a telescoped sketch o f events - a form not unfamiliar to the student of Jewish literature - rather than just a poetical 180
figment.
This enabled the author to bring out most forcefully what was
the true temptation in the life ofjesus: the messianic claim. Q agrees in this with what seemed to be the kernel of the Feeding scene. It is in keeping with the thoroughly stylised character o f the pericope that Satan withdraws (dcpirjOTv) at the end of the scene,
181
while the accounts of the Feeding agree
in indicating that Jesus withdraws. T h e two remarks are complementary and underline the crucial nature o f what happened. Thus, Q does in fact lend support to the view that the events surrounding the Feeding mark the decisive turn in the ministry o f j e s u s .
182
VI T h e messianic question must have posed itself to Jesus. Almost all o f the charismatic direction,
183
figures
o f this
century
harboured
inclinations
in
this
very often with a Zealot bias. Jesus himself was a scion o f the
house o f David, o f that house with which messianic expectations were closely linked. A s soon as he had entered the arena, the consideration whether the authority which he radiated had anything to d o with his descent and whether he was put under an obligation by it must have impressed itself on the audience and on Jesus likewise. It is indicated in many details o f the Gospel reports that the question was presented to Jesus in its different facets. His closer following was no exception to this.
184
It is
especially the Lukan work that indicates the closeness o f the disciples to an expectation which included the MxQCoaig o f Israel - up to the cross and even b e y o n d
1 8 0
1 8 1
1 8 2
1 8 3
1 8 4
1 8 5
185
- and takes pains to dissociate Jesus from such suggestions.
T h u s E. M e y e r , Ursprung und Anfdnge des Christentums i (Stuttgart, 1921), 94. I f he w e r e right, it w o u l d reflect the experience o f the c o m m u n i t y behind Q . L u k e qualifies this with &XQI x a i Q o i ) . In 22: 3 he reappears a n d takes possession o f J u d a s , w h o thereupon seeks an evxaiQict (verse 6) to take steps against Jesus; and indeed in 22:53 the a>oa . . . TOV o x o x o u g has arrived. T h i s is the first n e w intervention o f Satan a c c o r d i n g to the s c h e m e o f this G o s p e l , i.e. the ministry itself is u n t o u c h e d b y his skirmishes. It is the a c c e p t a b l e year par excellence. T h e p r o p o s e d interpretation is in its m a i n point in a g r e e m e n t with the brilliant exposition given b y O . Pfleiderer, ' D i e evangelische Erzahlung v o n der V e r s u c h u n g J e s u in d e r W u s t e ' , ZWT 13 (1870), 20iff. C p . H . G r e s s m a n n , Der Messias ( G o t t i n g e n , 1929); J. K l a u s n e r , The Messianic Idea in Israel ( N e w Y o r k , 1955). O n i a s is the exception. Peter's confession reflects the terminology o f messianism. It is, h o w e v e r , in this context the stock phrase a puzzled disciple clings to rather than the attempt to push Jesus forward. T r a c e s o f entreaties a m o n g the disciples m a y possibly b e found in L u k e 9: 54. T h e t h e m e o f the A/UTQoaoig is given p r o m i n e n c e at the beginning (1:68; 2: 38) and at the e n d (24: 21) o f the G o s p e l . T h e correction is only slightly indicated in the first
238
e.
bammel
T h e almost complete lack o f XQtorog-statements in the other Gospels and of their refusal to take them as the consummation of witness to Jesus where they occur underlines this. Whereas in the Feeding stories the meal is the occasion at which the break between Jesus and the popular eschatology takes place, it is in Luke 2 4 that the meal gives illumination to the disciples assembled in Emmaus. Jesus withdraws.
186
Still, the event must have made its impression on
those w h o took part. T h e masses follow J e s u s tradition converge in assuming this.
188
187
- different branches o f the
Indeed, the Feeding could be taken
as the beginning o f the revival o f the wondrous events o f the desert time, as part o f a sequence o f actions which would culminate in 'salvation'. T h e entry to Jerusalem show that such hopes were latent even at this stage and could be kindled at any time. It is against this background o f the flaring up o f old expectations that Jesus's statements have to be viewed. Not only had the enthusiasm o f the multitude been dashed, not only was the crafty machination o f the few brought to naught, but equally the perseverance o f those w h o had taken a close interest in J e s u s
189
was to be disappointed. It is in consequence o f this
that Peter's confession is given a cool, if not directly hostile,
190
reception,
p l a c e , while it is m a d e the central point o f the last teaching o f j e s u s : neither is the liberation the task o f j e s u s nor Israel his object, but the suffering and the entering into his g l o r y . T h e suffering might have been taken as a prelude to the liberation a n d i n d e e d it is taken s o b y the malefactor w h o is pictured sympathetically - b u t this is e x c l u d e d as well: there will b e not a f]\iiga xfjg eXevoewg (23:42 in D ) , Jesus is not to return ev xfj fiaoikeiq. oov, in a state o f royalty, but to b e m o v e d to the JiaQd6eioog, a p l a c e w h i c h d o e s not figure in the t e r m i n o l o g y o f messianism. T h e confrontation with messianic aspiration is also emphasised in the main b o d y o f the Gospel. 1 8 6
1 8 7
It m a y b e that the D addition E^EYEQSeig (translated brilliantly b y H i r s c h , Fruhgeschichte i, 77: 'er raffle sich auf) to ryv&yx.a.O€V is original. It points to m o v e m e n t a n d tension o n the side o f j e s u s . T h e m e n t i o n o f the prayer in the following verse is in keeping with this. G o g u e l d r a w s attention to the fact that the prayer w h i c h follows J e s u s ' s withdrawal is o n e o f three recounted in M a r k a n d he assumes {Jesus, G T 24of; E T 373!) that it is equal in i m p o r t a n c e to the prayers at the b e g i n n i n g and at the end o f his ministry.
M a r k 6: 54f is a puzzle. It is not o n l y the case that a Sammelbericht w h i c h starts with 55b is linked with s o m e t h i n g else ( c p . W e l l h a u s e n , Evangelium Marci, ad l o c ) . V e r s e s 54, 55a are not o f a piece. M a t t h e w w h o shortens the w h o l e p e r i c o p e , presents a l o n g e r text at this place, possibly an attempt at reconstructing o n e w h i c h had been lost b y mutilation. T h e readings d j t E 6 Q a u o v (referring to the disciples) a n d Jt£Qie6()a|XOV (referring to the masses) seem to represent the beginning and end o f the line lost b y mutilation. 188 M a r k 6:55 JteQie6rjau.ov = they rushed round the lake: J o h n 6:24ff. W e have to think especially o f the Baptistic m o v e m e n t . D o e s the C h r y s o s t o m text (see note 55, p . 218), while leading in the right direction, single o u t o n l y o n e side o f what happened? E. W e n d l i n g maintains that verse 33a, b followed verse 29 in U r m a r k u s (Entstehung), p . 116; slightly deviating from his Ur-Marcus ( T u b i n g e n , 1905), p . 29. 1 8 9
1 9 0
T h e Feeding o f the Multitude
239
and that it is replaced by the proclamation o f the Son o f man's suffering - a point which is so crucial that even the 6y(ko^ is informed about it. T h e evangelist emphasises that - contrary to his normal procedure o f speaking in symbols (parables) - it happened plainly;
191
that means that Jesus
dissociated himself from messianism unmistakably and p u b l i c l y .
192
Messianic aspirations were dangerous at this time - the fate o f so many pretenders gives ample evidence o f this. O n e would expect Jesus to be safer after having disclaimed such ambitions. T h e denial o f messianism was, however, equally dangerous. T h e messianic idea was deeply rooted in Jewish
history
and
the
contemporary J u d a i s m .
193
expectation
had
reached
boiling point
in
Whatever differences existed about the time and
the person, no one was prepared to come out openly against messianism in principle.
194
T h e turning a w a y
195
o f someone w h o had been reared in the
atmosphere o f messianic expectation kindled by the Baptist's proclama tion, and w h o perhaps at one time had wondered whether such a future might be his o w n vocation -
this renunciation
could be taken as a
backsliding; it was bound to provoke those w h o were disappointed to hold Jesus's descent and former statements against him and to assemble such ammunition as could be found. No
wonder that critical observers
1 9 1
1 9 2
1 9 3
1 9 4
196
felt obliged to gather
direct
M a r k 8: 36 w a s the e n d and c l i m a x o f the story a n d followed verse 33 i m m e d i a t e l y ( p . 114). M a r k 8:31. E . M e y e r (Ursprung p . 117) assumes that Peter's confession w a s followed in the original text b y his urging Jesus to play the role o f the messiah in line with the standard J e w i s h e s c h a t o l o g y , a n d that it was this challenge that forced Jesus to r e p r i m a n d h i m . It is possible that s o m e t h i n g o f this kind h a p p e n e d ( c p . , h o w e v e r , note 184, p . 237) a l t h o u g h traces o f such an event are not any longer noticeable. A c c o r d i n g to R . Leszynsky (Die Sadduzaer (Berlin, 1912), p p . 99, 103) even in the S a d d u c a i c party. J o s e p h u s ' s o w n position is a telling e x a m p l e ; c p . W . W e b e r , Josephus und Vespasian
(Berlin, 1921), p p . 2500°. 1 9 5
H e b b e l , w h o w r o t e sketches for a d r a m a 'Christus* in the year o f his death (1863), m a d e the difference b e t w e e n the Baptist and Jesus the basis o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the play. J o h n is the deceiver, Jesus the d e c e i v e d . I n n o c e n t l y he b e c o m e s a tool in the h a n d s o f the Baptist, w h o makes use for his o w n p u r p o s e s o f Jesus's p o w e r to w o r k w o n d e r s and the messianic a p p e a r a n c e w h i c h he has given without himself being a w a r e o f it. W h e n J o h n c o m e s to his end he confides to Jesus his m a c h i n a t i o n s and urges h i m to p r o c e e d likewise: pious fraud after the e x a m p l e o f M o s e s ( ' « i s t das grosste Opfer, was du zu bringen hast, dass du dich zum frommen Betrug entschliessest, wie Moses'). It is this event w h i c h o p e n s Jesus's eyes. G r a d u a l l y he is able to leave b e h i n d the Baptistic influence, to free himself even from the thought o f an earthly k i n g d o m a n d to p r o c l a i m a heavenly o n e ( F . H e b b e l , Sdmtliche Werke, Erste A b t e i l u n g v (Berlin, 1904), 3i6fl). It is not clear from the fragments what aims the poet had visualised for the Baptist.
1 9 6
T h e v i e w taken b y M . G o g u e l (Jesus, note 630; E T p . 372 n. 1) that the sign h a d been d e m a n d e d b y followers in the original tradition c a n hardly b e maintained; even less
24O
E. BAMMEL
information. T h e mention o f a questioning by the Pharisees, o f attempts
197
to expose his position with complete clarity, had its place in these circumstances.
Its outcome must have been unsatisfactory
from
the
Pharisaic point o f view. O n e might have thought that the Pharisees, w h o had stayed aloof from political intrigues in recent generations,
198
who
seemed to have made it a principle to keep away from the realm of political action,
199
and w h o waited for a messiah sent by G o d , would have been
pleased with a m o v e which would have recommended Jesus to them, had it not been the case that he denied messianism altogether. This fact, however, made it imperative for them to fall in with what the ruling powers in Jerusalem had already indicated by their preliminary action. lives
t n e
200
Apart from
Y turned against Jesus.
Jesus's withdrawal was by no means a move which would dispel the suspicion
201
felt against him by the Herodian administration: w h o could be
sure that his retreat was a final one, that he was not preparing for another period o f action? T h e fact that Jesus had to remain outside the territory o f Antipas shows that vigilance continued. T h e situation which was to become decisive in the Trial emerges on the scene. A series o f actions taken by friends and sympathisers was aimed at removing Jesus either physically
202
or mentally
203
from
confrontation. A period which is marked by division, determination
206
204
a course o f
fear
205
and yet
among his disciples was to follow. Jesus himself must have
wondered what course to take. Eventually he made his decision, which, almost two hundred years ago, received its most apt characterisation from Herder: 'Meuchelmorderisch wollte Jesus nicht umkommen; er ging frei nach Jerusalem vors Angesicht der Obrigkeit und seiner W e n n es das Leben gait, so wollte er dort sterben.'
Hauptfeinde.
207
the o p i n i o n that the sign w a s m e a n t to b e the signal for a messianic uprising ( G T p . 240; E T p . 372). '97 M a r k 7 : 1 5 8 : 1 1 - 1 3 ; 9:14. J . W e l l h a u s e n , Die Pharisaer und die Sadducder (Greifswald, 1874), p . 101. A . Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus (Giitersloh, 1932), p . 212; he seems h o w e v e r , to put t o o m u c h trust in claims m a d e b y J o s e p h u s for a p o l o g e t i c reasons. 200 M a r k 3:22 is to b e interpreted as a statement w h i c h has j u d i c i a l relevance: a s o l e m n w a r n i n g is issued, w h i c h w a s to b e followed b y even sterner action. It is o n e - s i d e d to characterise Jesus's m o v e m e n t s as c o n d i t i o n e d b y his 'innere, ihn fast verzehrende U n r u h e , z u m Ziele zu gelangen' ( K . W e i d e l , Jesu Persbnlichkeit, 3rd e d n . H a l l e , 1921, p . 96). 198
1 9 9
2 0 1
2 0 2
2 0 4
2 0 5
2 0 7
2 0 3
L u k e 13:31 M a r k 8:32. M a r k 8: 15: J o h n 6:66. G o g u e l ' s d e s c r i p t i o n that M a r k - o v e r against the facts wants to d e p i c t the situation o f a g r a d u a l awareness o f the character o f j e s u s b y his disciples (Jesus, G T p . 237; E T p p . 369Q c a n n o t b e maintained. M a r k 10:32. J o h n 1 1 : 16. Erloser, cited from Werke, e d . b y S u p h a n , xix, 179. 2 0 6
H . St J .
HART
The coin of 'Render unto Caesar . . (A note on some aspects of Mark 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 ; Matt. 22:15-22; Luke 20: 20—26) 1
T h e provocative question e^ecmv xfjvoov KcuoaQi 5 o w a i (Mark 1 2 : 14: D and some other authorities read for xfjvoov, epexegetically, emxecpaXcuov - we have to d o with a poll-tax, not with indirect taxation) introduces what, maybe, was the first instance o f the use o f a coin, imaginatively, as a 'visual aid', in teaching. It added vividness, and a sense of drama, to the tale. Jesus calls for the appropriate coin qpEQexe \ioi 5rivaQiov iva L'&a) (Mark 1 2 : 1 5 ; Matt. 2 2 : 1 9 varies this - EJti5ei§axe jioi T O vo\iio\ia
xov xf|voou.) It is
immediately forthcoming. N o one doubts that it is indeed 'the money o f the tribute'. T h e 6r]v&Qiov is the kind o f coin in which the tribute is calculated 2
and in which, by implication, it is to be paid. W e may note in passing that perhaps Jesus did not have such a coin about him. This is not stated. But it was perhaps so, for whatever reason. It would have been artistically desirable for the denouement that the coin should have been provided by the Pharisees and Herodians w h o have posed the original question and no d o u b t they are the 'they' of 0 1 5 e fjveyxav (Mark 1 2 : 1 6 ; Matt. 22: 1 9 0 1 5 e JiQOcniveYxav auto) 5r]vdQiov). But there is no reason to suppose as some have supposed that Jesus had no such coin about him because such a coin was itself an idolatrous object at which in the spirit o f the strictest o f the 3
those strict sectarians mentioned by Hippolytus, or o f the famous Nahum
1
2
3
T h i s note is intended to s u p p l e m e n t the treatment o f the incident as a w h o l e b y Professor F. F. B r u c e in this v o l u m e under the title ' R e n d e r to C a e s a r ' (see p p . 249-63). S o m e o f the e v i d e n c e assembled for this note has a c c o r d i n g l y been suppressed, to a v o i d o v e r l a p , b u t it has not been found c o n v e n i e n t to avoid all overlaps. T h i s is c o m p a t i b l e with the provisions o f the P a l m y r a inscription (IGRR, I I I , 1056, OGIS 629) o f w h i c h use is m a d e b y Professor B r u c e ( p . 258). C p . the c o m m e n t , o n the G o s p e l story, o f L e o K a d m a n the distinguished numismatist o f Israel: ' T h e s e questions a n d answers were o n l y possible w h e n Jesus c o u l d a s s u m e that the silver pieces found in the purse o f the m a n in the street were R o m a n o r R o m a n imperial coins, with the i m a g e a n d legend o f the e m p e r o r ' , Congresso Internazionale di Numismatica ( R o m e , 1961), ii, Atti ii ( R o m e , 1965), 70. H i p p o l y t u s , Refutatio omnium haeresium i x . 26, e d . P. W e n d l a n d ( L e i p z i g , 1916). T h e y w o u l d not even carry coins, equating t h e m with i m a g e s .
241
242
H. ST J.
HART 4
or M e n a h e m the son o f Shimai, Jesus might have been reluctant even to look. O n the contrary he declared himself quite ready to look at it — (peQETE |!Oi 6r|vdQiov i'va i5a) - calling for it for this very purpose. T h e coin was produced - for all to see. N o question was made by any involved in this encounter o f the idolatrous or blasphemous character or implication o f the type and legend to be seen on the coin. T h e point of the story was not there.
5
T h e question which followed was a straightforward question: x£vogr| eixcbv 6
avxr\ xai r\ EJUYQacprj; the answer, certainly dramatic, perhaps reluctant, is equally straightforward - in one word Kaioagog. All our three witnesses are in agreement. T h e coin which was called for, and was forthcoming, was in the correct tribute currency. It was a 5r]vaQiov, a denarius. T h e point o f calling for the coin, and o f the subsequent question, was that the issuing 7
authority was Caesar's. It was Caesar's m o n e y . Both portrait and legend, eixcbv and emyQacprj, testified precisely to this. Perhaps
the
preliminaries
were
somewhat
mystifying.
But
they 8
introduced the ruling ofjesus (Mark 1 2 : 1 7 ) on the original question, with telling effect. It caused great surprise (Mark 1 2 : 2 2 , Luke 20: 2 6 b ) . It was unanswerable (Luke 20: 2 6 a ) . But the concern o f this note is not with the climax o f the whole encounter but with the coin. Can we suggest with any confidence to what series o f R o m a n imperial denarii the denarius which was shown to Jesus,
and
exhibited for all to scrutinise, belonged? There is a standard 'identification' 9
which is probably quite right. It should however be remembered that no such 'identification', however probable, can ever be proved to be right, nor will it add anything to our understanding of the Gospel narrative. W h a t the 4
O n N a h u m a n d the r a b b i n i c evidences for h i m , see, conveniently, the discussion b y H e r b e r t L o e w e in his b o o k Render unto Caesar ( C a m b r i d g e , 1940), p p . 88ff. N a h u m earned the h i g h title o f ' a m a n o f the h o l y o f holies' ' b e c a u s e all his life long he never g a z e d u p o n a c o i n ' , ' b e c a u s e o n c o i n s there were h u m a n devices a n d d e v i c e s o f living creatures'.
5
C p . 'the i m a g e s o f princes printed o r s t a m p e d in their coins, w h i c h w h e n Christ d i d see in a R o m a n c o i n , w e read not that he r e p r e h e n d e d it'. H o m i l y Against Idolatry (the t w o b o o k s o f H o m i l i e s a p p o i n t e d to b e read in c h u r c h e s , O x f o r d ,
6
F o r a similar question, in a very different c o n t e x t , A r r i a n , Disc. Epict. iv. v . 17. xivog
1859)exei xov xaoaxxfjga xovxo xo xexodooaoov; for eixwv as in the Gospels here c p . Herodianus
(historicus)
1.9.7
vouxouxxxa £ x 6 u x a a v exxexxmwuiva
xt|v
exeivou eixova. 7
8
9
' C a e s a r ' s m o n e y ' o r ' c o i n ' was p r o b a b l y a p o p u l a r phrase, a l m o s t equivalent to 'legal tender', c p . xo xov x a i o a o o g vou-iouu in A r r i a n , Disc. Epict. iii. A very interesting conjecture a b o u t the form o f Jesus's responsum is m a d e in J. D u n c a n M . Derrett, Law in the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1970), p . 335. T h e standard identification (see next p a r a g r a p h ) is very w i d e l y a c c e p t e d . It is not usual to trace it b a c k b e y o n d the first edition (1864) o f F. W . M a d d e n , History of Jewish Coinage and of Money in the Old and New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1864, reprinted N e w Y o r k , 1967), p . 247, although the 'identification' is o l d e r than M a d d e n .
T h e coin o f 'Render unto Caesar'
243
coin had to contribute as a 'visual aid' is all recorded there. O u r question springs only from natural curiosity. If as is probable the denarius was a denarius o f Tiberius himself, the reigning Caesar whose tribute and tribute money is under discussion, there is remarkably little choice and a highly probable 'identification'. T h e imperial mints o f Tiberius are listed in the great catalogue o f Mattingly. All his denarii are attributed to the mint o f Lugdunum in Gaul. There are only two series: (a) a series dated to A . D . 1 5 / 1 6 ( T R P O T X V I I ) which was not continued, and (b) the series o f the standard 'identification'. It bears no dates, but the titles o f the emperor are continued on the reverse with P O N T I F M A X I M , and as Tiberius became Pontifex maximus on 1 0 M a r c h A . D . 1 5 we have a terminus a quo for the series which was issued in quite extraordinary numbers at intervals throughout the rest o f his reign. T h e legends (obverse T I C A E S A R D I V I A V G F A V G V S T V S and reverse P O N T I F M A X I M ) remain constant, the types (obverse head o f Tiberius laureate, and reverse seated lady, perhaps Livia as P A X ) also remain constant, save for minor, though doubtless significant, variations in the presentation o f the seated lady who persists as the reverse type. Annotated examples may be studied in Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire, plates 22 and 2 3 . T h e series belongs with a long series o f aurei also o f Tiberius from the same mint, and both were issued in continuation as it were o f a series ofaurei and denarii issued late in the reign o f Augustus which shared the same fundamental reverse type. This 'type is o f special significance', writes D r Michael Grant, 'because, when the princeps [Augustus] died soon afterwards, his successor Tiberius - changing only 10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
1 0
11
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
C p . Derrett, Law p . 329, and the beginning o f note 2, ibid. p . 338. T h e provisions m a d e b y G e r m a n i c u s in the Palmyra inscription ( c p . F. F. B r u c e , b e l o w p . 258) m a k e it p r o b a b l e that there was a notable increase in the avail ability o f R o m a n imperial coins in Syria in the early years o f T i b e r i u s ' s reign. H a r o l d M a t t i n g l y , Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, i ( L o n d o n , 1923), I20ff. M a t t i n g l y , Coins i, p . 121, n u m b e r s 7 - 1 1 . M a t t i n g l y , Coins, i, p p . i25ff, n u m b e r s 34-8, 42-5, 48-60. M . G r a n t in R . A . G . C a r s o n and C . H . V . Sutherland, Essays in Roman Coinage presented to Harold Mattingly ( O x f o r d , 1956), p . 112, suggests they were minted 'at m o r e than the single mint o f L u g d u n u m ' . E v i d e n c e , conveniently, V . E h r e n b e r g and A . H . M . J o n e s , Documents illustrating the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius ( O x f o r d , 1949), p . 47. T h e extraordinary n u m b e r s o f this series found in m o d e r n times had already attracted the attention o f J o s e p h Eckhel, see his Doctrina Numorum Veterum, V o l . vi ( V i e n n a , 1796), p . 188. For this identification o f the lady, M a t t i n g l y , Coins, i, 124, and p p . cxvii, and cxxxi; M . G r a n t , Roman Anniversary Issues ( C a m b r i d g e , 1950), p . 39; C . H . V . Sutherland, Coinage in Roman Imperial Currency ( L o n d o n , 1951), p . 84, note 8. M a t t i n g l y , Coins, i, p p . i24(f, n u m b e r s 30-3, 39-41, 46, 47. M a t t i n g l y , Coins, i, p . 91, n u m b e r 544 (aureus) and n u m b e r s 545f (denarii).
244
H. ST J.
HART
the obverse - continued to use the same reverse type, and scarcely any other, throughout the twenty-three years o f his reign'. It is interesting to read in continuation 'this type was issued in many millions o f examples (including, perhaps, the "Tribute Penny" o f the N e w Testament) over a period o f nearly a quarter o f a century. This is a duration more char acteristic o f our modern coinage than o f the incessantly changing cointypes o f the R o m a n Empire. . . . '
2 0
In another place D r Grant classifies
this denarius among coins intended for empire-wide circulation. proposal to see here T O vo\iio\ia narrative, was first made long a g o ,
21
The
xov xf|vaou, and 5iivaQiov o f our 22
and has been generally accepted by
New Testament scholars, and is very probable indeed. M o r e than that note D r Grant's wise word 'perhaps'
23
in the above quotation - can hardly
be said. A n y denarius o f Augustus, or a denarius o f Tiberius in the dated series to which reference has been made above, might also be a candidate for the distinction o f this 'identification'. T h e conditions are plain. T h e coin must 2
be one which it is natural to call a denarius. * It must bear the eixcbv and ejUYQacprj o f Caesar. Augustus and Tiberius are the only two Caesars w h o can be considered, for obvious chronological reasons. T h e great numbers in which the denarius o f the standard identification were issued tell powerfully in its favour. It is statistically the most probable suggestion. Is it consistent with the monetary situation in Roman 'Palestine'
25
in the
period o f the ministry o f Jesus? T h e answer is yes. But the question demands some scrutiny because hitherto early imperial denarii (i.e. those o f 2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
M . G r a n t , Roman Imperial Money ( L o n d o n , 1954), p p . I33f. In C a r s o n a n d Sutherland, Essays, p . 112. C p . note 9, p . 242. H e is, u n d e r s t a n d a b l y , a little less cautious elsewhere. See his Roman History from Coins ( C a m b r i d g e , 1958), p p . 83f, w h e r e he mentions very n u m e r o u s finds o f this denarius o f T i b e r i u s in southern I n d i a , and says ' T h i s is the so-called " T r i b u t e P e n n y " o f the Bible. It is identified with the " p e n n y " that w a s b r o u g h t to J e s u s . . . . N o o t h e r denarius o f T i b e r i u s circulated nearly so extensively.' T h i s tells against the suggestion to bring into consideration the coins o f Philip the T e t r a r c h , e.g. in E . K l o s t e r m a n n , Das Markus-evangelium ( T u b i n g e n , 1950), o n M a r k 12: 16. Philip issued n o silver coins. F o r this m u c h - s t u d i e d subject reference m a y b e m a d e to the following: E. Schiirer, Geschichte des Judischen Volkes im ZeitalterJesu Christi (Hildersheim, 1964, r e p r o d u c i n g L e i p z i g edition o f 1907, ii, 7iff); L . C . W e s t , Gold and silver standards in the Roman Empire, N u m i s m a t i c N o t e s and M o n o g r a p h s , N u m b e r 94 ( N e w Y o r k , 1941), p p . 47O F. M . H e i c h e l h e i m , An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, iv, (Baltimore, 1938), 2i2f; 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 . 124. N o n e o f these relate the literary to the n u m i s m a t i c e v i d e n c e . S u c h studies are o n l y b e g i n n i n g . F o r that see the p a p e r o f D r C . H . V . Sutherland at the International N u m i s m a t i c C o n v e n t i o n at Jerusalem, 1963 to w h i c h reference is m a d e b e l o w , a n d the sadly i n c o m p l e t e p a p e r entitled ' T h e m o n e t a r y d e v e l o p m e n t o f Palestine in the light o f coin h o a r d s ' b y the late L e o K a d m a n w h o d i e d at the b e g i n n i n g o f that c o n v e n t i o n , printed in the Proceedings, p p . 31 iff. C p . information d e r i v e d from D r Y a ' a k o v M e s h o r e r cited b e l o w .
T h e coin o f 'Render unto Caesar'
245
Augustus and o f Tiberius) have been rather few in authentic finds in Palestine. J. Spencer Kennard, Jr, made much o f this in Render to God, A study of the Tribute passage, and was able to quote only four specimens o f the denarius o f the standard 'identification' which were known to have been found in Palestine. H e does not seem to doubt that a denarius was indeed shown to Jesus, or that it was likely to have been a specimen of the standard 'identification'. But he denies that it was the money of the tribute. H e sees the denarius as a rare novelty in the context o f the Gospels. He argues that the tribute would have been paid in other silver currency, not minted far away at Lugdunum in Gaul. T h e cogency of arguments so based is however very questionable, since there has been no systematic recording of the detail and locality o f finds until quite recent decades. Kennard's book was published in 1 9 5 0 and the right comment even then would probably have been 'wait and see'. In an important paper entitled ' T h e pattern o f monetary development in Phoenicia and Palestine during the early Empire' read at the International Numismatic Convention in Jerusalem in December 1 9 6 3 , D r C . H . V . Sutherland notes: 'It is for the period d o w n to A . D . 7 0 that literary evidence is most generous in giving a complementary impression o f monetary economy in the area, and especially in Palestine.' H e refers to the evidence afforded by the New Testament and pronounces the picture 'a normal G r e c o - R o m a n one o f the time'. He says later: 'There is little, until now, in the nature o f hoard-evidence to amplify the sketch afforded by mint-analysis and literary evidence for the early Julio-Claudian period, though this will assuredly come in due course.' T h e right comment on our question in 1 9 6 3 was still therefore 'wait and see'. Then there is the Isfiya Hoard o f about 4 , 5 0 0 ancient silver coins discovered in i 9 6 0 near Isfiya on M t Carmel. This was all too briefly described by Leo K a d m a n w h o found in it 3,400 Tyrian shekels, about 1,000 half-shekels, and ' 1 6 0 Roman denarii of Augustus'. Here is hoard evidence beginning to corroborate the picture afforded by the literary evidence o f the N e w Testament and Josephus, certainly adding to the scanty evidence o f earlier authenticated finds, that the R o m a n denarius played its part in the monetary system o f Palestine in the time o f the Gospels. K a d m a n did not publish a detailed list o f the 1 6 0 denarii o f Augustus, and there was here no news o f more denarii o f 26
27
28
29
2 6
2 1
2 8
2 9
' T h e denarius represented the c o i n a g e o f the W e s t ; it was not the coin o f tribute', K e n n a r d , Render to God, p . 51. Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem ig6j ( T e l A v i v J e r u s a l e m , 1967), p . 91. I b i d . p . 93. In passing, as it w e r e , in his very interesting p a p e r ' T e m p l e dues and c u r r e n c y in ancient Palestine in the light o f recently-discovered c o i n - h o a r d s ' , p p . 6gfT of Atti, ii, ( R o m e , 1965). A n o t h e r version o f this p a p e r is in Israel Numismatic Bulletin 1 (Jerusalem, 1962), 9—11.
3
4
5
i 6
T h e coin o f 'Render unto Caesar' i and 2 are denarii o f Augustus, 3 and 4 are denarii o f Tiberius. A n y o f such coins, but most probably such a coin as 4, may therefore have been TO vo\iio\ia xov xrjvoou. 5 is a billion tetradrachm o f Alexandria. It is perhaps the best candidate, other than a denarius, for the 'identification'. It was roughly equivalent in value to a denarius; but there is the p r o b l e m o f the monetary isolation o f Egypt (see further H . St J. Hart, ' T h e C r o w n o f T h o r n s in J o h n 19, 2-$\JThSt n.s. 3 (1952), 66f. 6 is a 'shekel', 7 a 'i-shekef, both o f the mint o f T y r e . A c c o r d i n g to Mishnah, Bekhoroth^^y'm. 7, it was in Tyrian currency that the Jewish 'shekel-dues' were paid. T h e T e m p l e tax is discussed in this v o l u m e by W . H o r b u r y (see p p . 2 6 5 - 8 6 ) . N o s . 2 - 4 by courtesy o f the British M u s e u m . N o s . 1 and 5-7 by courtesy o f the Fitzwilliam M u s e u m , C a m b r i d g e .
Detail 1.
Augustus. L u g d u n u m . Denarius. Undated but 'c. 2 B . C - A . D . I I ' . C p . Mattingly, Coins, i, no. 538. Obverse: Head, laureate. C A E S A R A V G V S T V S D I V I F P A T E R P A T R I A E . Reverse: Gaius and Lucius: between them two shields and two spears. In field, lituus and simpulum; below these X . C L C A E S A R E S A V G V S T I F C O S D E S I G P R I N C IVVENT.
2.
Augustus. L u g d u n u m . Denarius. Undated, c. A.D. I 1-13. Mattingly, Coins, i, n o . 546. O b v e r s e : Head, laureate. C A E S A R A V G V S T V S D I V I F P A T E R P A T R I A E . Reverse: Seated female figure. P O N T I F M A X I M .
3.
Tiberius. L u g d u n u m . Denarius, A.D. 15-16. Mattingly, Coins, i, no. 8. O b v e r s e : H e a d , laureate. T I C A E S A R D I V I A V G F A V G V S T V S . Reverse: T h e emperor in quadriga. I M P V I I T R P O T X V I I .
4.
Tiberius. L u g d u n u m . Denarius. Undated. Mattingly, Coins, i, no. 60. Obverse: H e a d , laureate. T I C A E S A R D I V I A V G F A V G V S T V S . Reverse: Seated female figure. P O N T I F M A X I M .
5.
Augustus. Alexandria. Billon tetradrachm. C p . J. G . Milne, Catalogue of the Alexandrian Coins in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1933), nos. 38ff. Obverse: Head o f Tiberius, laureate. TiPeoioc; KaioctQ CePaarog. Date, L Z ( = 6 = A.D. 2 0 ) . Reverse: Head o f Augustus, radiate. ©eogCePaoroc,.
6.
T y r e . Shekel. Sylloge'Nummorum Graecorum, iv ( L o n d o n , 1971), n o . 6089. O b v e r s e : H e a d o f Herakles/Melkart. Reverse: Eagle on p r o w . T U Q O D Ieoac, Kai AouXou. Date, Z M ( = 8 0 - 7 9 B . C ) .
7.
T y r e . Half-shekel. Sylloge, iv, n o . 6093. T y p e s and legend as on 6. Date = 10/9 B.C.
248
H. ST J.
Tiberius.
30
HART
So, mindful of Dr Sutherland's prophecy, cited above, I wrote to
my very learned friend Dr Ya'akov Meshorer, o f the Israel M u s e u m in Jerusalem. From his reply, dated 1 April 1 9 7 1 , 1 am grateful to quote, with his kind permission, as follows: You rightly assumed these Tiberius denars are quite rare in this part of the world, though I occasionally spot one in the market. Excavations and published material is not much more encouraging. The only good example of a find including such coins is the famous hoard of Mount Carmel, discovered in i960. It was never properly published although most of it was registered by Mr L. Rachmany of the Israel Antiquities department. The hoard was discussed briefly in a paper published by Kadman in the Israel Numismatic Journal, 1 (1962), pp. 9-11. This hoard includes 3,400 Tyrian shekels, and 1,000 half-shekels dated from 40 B.C. to 53 A.D., and also 160 Roman denars. Although Kadman wrote that all the denars are of Augustus, I can say for sure that at least 30 of them are of the Tiberius type you are interested in. Some of these coins are in the possession of the Israel Antiquities Department, some are apparently in the collections of the 'Coins and Medals Co.', Jerusalem, and the rest were sold on the open market. and later in the letter: 'Father A . Spijkerman o f the Franciscan Biblical School in Jerusalem, four years ago bought such a denarius in Jericho, which had been found there.' In the light o f this evidence we may conclude, with Kennard and many others, that the standard 'identification' is in all probability right. W e may go further, against Kennard in 1 9 5 0 , and with many others before and since, and accept the implication - it is quite unexceptionable - o f the Gospel
narrative -
that the
Roman
imperial
contemporary variety, was indeed T O v6\iio\ia
denarius, o f whatever
xov x f | V O O V (Matt. 2 2 : 1 9 ) .
It remains highly probable that the coin shown to Jesus was one o f the huge second series of denarii of Tiberius according to the standard 'identification'. T o determine between this and his earlier series, or some earlier denarius o f Caesar Augustus himself, also bearing the etxcov and EJUYQOKprj of Caesar, is not n o w in our power, nor is it probable that it ever will b e . 3 0
3 1
31
In the R o m e version K a d m a n h a d already n o t e d o n e denarius o f T i b e r i u s a m o n g the 160 denarii. See also the plate and its a n n o t a t i o n s .
F. F .
BRUCE
Render to Caesar i In the context of Jesus's ministry in the outer court of the T e m p l e during his last
week
in Jerusalem
Mark
(followed
by
the
two
other
synoptic
evangelists) records this incident: T h e y send to him s o m e of the Pharisees and the Herodians to catch him in a statement. T h e y c o m e and say to him, ' T e a c h e r , w e k n o w that y o u are true and court n o o n e ' s favour: y o u d o not regard anyone's status,
1
but
teach the w a y o f G o d truly. Is it permissible to give tribute to Caesar or not? Shall we give it, o r shall w e not give it?' K n o w i n g that they were acting a part he said to them: ' W h y d o y o u try (to catch) m e (like this)? Bring m e a denarius; let m e see it.' T h e y brought him o n e ; and he says to them, ' W h o s e i m a g e is this? W h o s e n a m e is inscribed (on the c o i n ) ? ' 'Caesar's', said they. So Jesus said 'Give Caesar's property back to Caesar; give G o d what belongs to G o d . ' T h e y were lost in amazement at him.
2
W h i l e the point o f the incident is preserved in all three synoptic records, it is generalised in later stages o f the tradition. T h u s , in Papyrus Egerton 2 , it appears in the
form: 3
T h e y c a m e to him and tested him with a question: ' M a s t e r Jesus, we k n o w that you have c o m e from G o d , for the things w h i c h y o u d o bear witness b e y o n d all the prophets. Tell us therefore: Is it permissible to render to kings the things that belong to their rule? Shall w e render these things to them o r not?'Jesus, knowing their mind, was angry and said to them: ' W h y d o y o u call me " M a s t e r " with y o u r mouth without listening to what I say? Well did Isaiah prophesy o f you
4
when he said, " T h i s people
k n o w m e with their lips, but their heart is far from m e . In vain d o they w o r s h i p m e , [teaching] c o m m a n d m e n t s [ o f m e n ] . " '
1
2
3
4
5
5
Literally: 'you d o not care for ( m e d d l e with) any one, for you d o not look at the face o f men' ( c p . 1 Sam. 16: 7, 'man looks on the face [ M T ' e y e s ' ] , but Y a h w e h looks on the heart'). In general pXejieiv JIQOOCOJIOV is, like Oau^id^eiv JiQoaamov (Jude 16), s y n o n y m o u s with X.au.|3dveiv JIQ6OCDJIOV, ' t o b e partial', ' t o s h o w favouritism'. M a r k 12: 13-17; c p . M a t t . 22: 15-22; Luke 20: 20-6. G k 6t6doxaXe. W i t h the sentence introduced b y this w o r d c p . J o h n 3: 2. I s a . 29: 13 (cp. its quotation in M a r k 7:61). Fragment 2 recto, Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri, e d . H . I. Bell a n d T . C . Skeat ( L o n d o n , 1935), p p . 10-13. 249
25O
F. F. BRUCE
M o r e succinctly, in the Gospel o f T h o m a s , Logion 100 runs thus: They showed Jesus a piece of gold and said to him, 'Caesar's people are asking taxes from us.' Said he to them: 'Give Caesar what is Caesar's, give God what is God's, and give me what is mine.' 6
7
These last two passages are o f interest for the development o f the tradition under divergent influences; they throw no light on the significance o f the pericope in its earliest form, but reflect a situation in which the original urgency o f the question has been forgotten. T h e pericope in Mark can be categorised as an apophthegm or paradigm in the conventional terminology o f form-criticism. It was related for the sake o f the punch-line - the epigrammatic saying ofjesus which forms its climax. T h e saying cannot have circulated on its own: it is intelligible only as part o f the pericope. 8
T h e editorial hand is seen only in the introduction to the pericope: the mention o f Pharisees and Herodians together is striking. A n alliance between the Pharisees and Herodians, with the aim of destroying Jesus, has been mentioned earlier, in Mark 3 : 6 , in a Galilaean setting, at the end o f a series o f five controversial incidents. T h e suggestion that, in the material as Mark received it, the controversies o f 1 2 : 136°followed continuously on the five o f 2: 1 to 3: 6 is not convincing: those of 2: 1 to 3: 6 have a different form from those o f 1 2 : 136°, and the incident with which we are concerned presupposes a Judaean setting. It was in Judaea, not Galilee, that the tribute question was one o f practical moment, with the risk o f an impolitic answer being construed as seditious. T h e presence of Herodians here is not surprising if Herod Antipas was temporarily resident in Jerusalem ( c p . Luke 2 3 : 7 ) . 9
T h e Pharisees may have taken up a variety o f attitudes towards the R o m a n administration of Judaea, ranging from Sadduq, the Pharisee w h o joined with Judas o f Gamala in leading the revolt o f A . D . 6 , to Yohanan ben Zakkai, w h o counselled submission to R o m e at the time o f the greater 10
6
7
8
9
l0
' G o d ' is not found elsewhere in the G o s p e l o f T h o m a s ; here the G o d o f the O l d T e s t a m e n t , the d e m i u r g e , is p r o b a b l y intended, so that w e have an a s c e n d i n g o r d e r o f dignity: C a e s a r , G o d , Jesus. H e w h o m Jesus reveals is 'the Father', not ' G o d ' ; to e m b r a c e the saving k n o w l e d g e imparted b y Jesus as revealer o f the Father is to give Jesus his d u e . The Gospel according to Thomas ( C o p t i c text with English translation), e d . A . G u i l l a u m o n t , H . - C h . P u e c h , G . Q u i s p e l , W . Till and Y a s s a h ' A b d al M a s i h ( L e i d e n a n d L o n d o n , 1959), p . 51. C p . R . B u l t m a n n , Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (5th e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1961), p . 25 ( E T The History of the Synoptic Tradition ( O x f o r d , 1963), p . 26): ' T h e r e is n o reason, in m y v i e w , ' he a d d s , 'for s u p p o s i n g that this is a c o m m u n i t y p r o d u c t . ' C p . B . S . Easton, Christ in the Gospels ( N e w Y o r k , 1930), p p . 35f. J o s e p h u s , A J xviii. 4.
Render to Caesar
251
revolt sixty years later and acknowledged Vespasian in advance as 11
world-ruler and Temple-destroyer. T h e majority of them probably looked on the R o m a n dominion as a necessary evil, like Hanina the deputy high priest (prefect o f the priests) w h o is credited with the admonition: T r a y for e
the peace o f the empire (mal kut), since if it were not for fear o f it men would devour each other alive'.
12
A s for the Herodians, they were not a religious group but a party that promoted the interests o f the Herod dynasty and probably hoped for the re-integration o f Herod's kingdom under one o f his descendants. Although this would mean the end o f government by imperial procurators, they must have been p r o - R o m a n in their policy: only as allies or vassals o f R o m e could the Herods exercise any authority in Palestine.
13
It was as representatives o f two groups, then, that were not in principle hostile to the occupying power, that the deputation from the Pharisees and Herodians approached Jesus. T h e implication o f the narrative is that, if he had denied the propriety o f paying tribute to Caesar, they would have denounced him to the provincial government. This is Luke's explicit account o f their motive: they hoped, he says, that Jesus's answer would enable them 'to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction o f the governor'.
14
But their plan was thwarted. O n the other hand, men w h o
shared the Zealot outlook would have welcomed him as a sympathiser and ally had he returned a negative answer and would certainly not have denounced him to the authorities. T h e best that they could hope for, if they were already opposed to him, would be that an affirmative answer to the question 'Shall we give?' would lose him the sympathy o f all w h o chafed under the Gentile yoke. But a question like this from men o f Zealot outlook would more probably have been designed simply to find out where Jesus stood on this (to them) all-important issue. As it is, the question came from men whose motives, as Jesus read them, were more than suspect.
II Judaea first became tributary to R o m e when Pompey occupied it in 6 3 B.C.: 'he laid the region and Jerusalem under tribute', says Josephus.
15
For a time
" T B GUtin, 56b; c p . T B Yoma, 39b. Pirqe 'Abot 3: 2. T h e d e s i g n a t i o n o f H a n i n a as Pgan hakkdh nim i m p l i e s that he flourished before the fall o f the T e m p l e : ' p r o b a b l y the last to h o l d this office' ( H . L . Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, E T ( N e w Y o r k , 1959), p . 109). C p . W . O t t o , in / W S u p p l . ii, cols. 20off (s.v. ' H e r o d i a n o i ' ) ; H . H . R o w l e y , ' T h e H e r o d i a n s in the G o s p e l s ' , JThSt 41 (1940), i4ff. T h e H e r o d i a n s d i s a p p e a r c o m p l e t e l y from L u k e ' s narrative: in L u k e 20: igfTit is spies from the scribes and c h i e f priests w h o ask the question a b o u t the tribute m o n e y . L u k e 20: 20. BJ i. 154; c p . A J x i v . 74. n
a
1 3
1 4
1 5
252
F. F. BRUCE
it seems to have formed part o f one taxation unit along with Syria,
16
and
may well have suffered the disadvantages o f tax-farming by publicani, as so many other provinces did under the republic. Julius Caesar granted the Judaeans certain
concessions in respect o f tribute, showing special
consideration for the circumstances o f the sabbatical year, in which the fields were allowed to lie fallow.
17
Caesar's concessions were confirmed by
the R o m a n Senate after his assassination.
18
With the Parthian conquest and brief restoration o f the Hasmonaean dynasty in Judaea ( 4 0 - 3 7 B.C.), tribute was withheld from R o m e ; and when Herod made effective the kingship over the Jews which the Senate had conferred on him, and reigned as ally o f the R o m a n people (rex socius) from 3 7 to 4 B.C., Judaea was no longer tributary to R o m e . Herod naturally knew that handsome gifts to the R o m a n rulers would not be unappreciated, and he kept this practice up to the end o f his life, for in his will he bequeathed 1,000 talents o f silver (10,000,000 Attic drachmae) to Augustus and half as much to the Empress Livia and other members o f the imperial family.
19
He
had other sources o f revenue to defray his costly establishment and building enterprises than what his kingdom could supply, but it appears that the annual revenue which he drew from his kingdom was around 1,000 talents.
20
N o d o u b t his subjects felt his taxation burdensome enough, although there were other features o f his reign more burdensome than this. O n one occasion at least (c. 20 B.C.) he remitted one-third o f their taxes;
21
five years
earlier he had realised his o w n gold and silver plate to buy grain from Egypt for them during a famine. Archelaus after taxation.
22
Nevertheless, the first request they made o f
Herod's death was for a reduction in their annual
23
W h e n his kingdom was divided between three o f his sons by Augustus after
his death, Judaea
(with Samaria)
was allotted
to Archelaus.
Augustus, we are told, remitted one-fourth o f the Samaritans' tribute (presumably their tribute to Archelaus, not to R o m e ) because they had not 1 6
1 8
1 9
2 0
1 7
C p . C i c e r o , Prov. Cons. 10. J o s e p h u s , A J xiv. 202, 205f. J o s e p h u s , A J xiv. 2igff. J o s e p h u s , A J xvii, 146, 190. O n the talent in J o s e p h u s c p . F. H u l t s c h , ' D a s h e b r a i s c h e T a l e n t bei J o s e p h o s ' , Klio 2 (1902), 7off. T h i s is c o m p u t e d b y a d d i n g together the revenues o f the territories into w h i c h his k i n g d o m w a s d i v i d e d after his death - especially A r c h e l a u s ' s ethnarchy, 400 (BJ ii. 97) o r 600 talents (AJ xvii. 320); A n t i p a s ' s tetrarchy, 200 talents, and Philip's tetrarchy, 100 talents (A J xvii. 319). F r o m a k i n g d o m practically equal in extent to H e r o d ' s , A g r i p p a I later d r e w a revenue o f 1,200 talents ( 4 J x i x . 352). See W . O t t o in / W S u p p l . ii, cols. 876°(s.v. ' H e r o d e s ' ) ; A . Schalit, Kbnig Herodes (Berlin, 1969),
p p . 262ff. 2 1
2 3
J o s e p h u s , A J x v . 365. J o s e p h u s , A J xvii. 204.
2 2
J o s e p h u s , AJ x v . 305-9.
Render to Caesar
253
engaged in revolts such as had disturbed the peace o f Galilee and Judaea after Herod's death. According to Josephus, the annual revenue derived by Archelaus from his ethnarchy was 400 talents (so in the Jewish War) or 600 talents (so in the Antiquities) T h e figure given in the Antiquities may be a correction o f that given in the earlier work, or conceivably the two figures come from two different sources, and represent two variant ways o f calculating a talent. In either case, his subjects felt that the burden o f providing this revenue was too heavy. W h e n they greeted his appearance at his father's* funeral with an appeal to have their annual payments reduced, he listened patiently enough, so anxious was he to command popular good will, and promised to consider their plea on his return from R o m e , for which he was about to leave in order to secure the succession. But while he was in R o m e a delegation ofJudaeans arrived to seek an audience of Augustus and begged that their land might be relieved o f Herodian rule altogether. Their hopes that the accession o f Archelaus might bring an alleviation o f the high level o f taxation and other exactions demanded by Herod did not run very high: Archelaus had already, in a matter of weeks, shown himself to be a true son o f his oppressive father. What they desired, therefore, was to have their land attached to the province of Syria and to be ruled by the imperial legate posted there - their idea no doubt was that, subject to his overriding authority, they might enjoy more internal home rule than they had done under Herod. 24
25
26
27
Archelaus nevertheless was confirmed in his position as ethnarch o f Judaea (including Samaria), but his subjects' forebodings were amply realised, and in less than ten years Augustus deposed him, because his rule was so intolerably oppressive, and banished him to Gaul ( A . D . 6 ) . N o w those Judaeans who had asked for direct Roman rule were at last granted their request. Judaea received the status o f a R o m a n province o f the third rank, to be governed by a prefect appointed by Augustus from the equestrian order. Such a province was liable to pay tribute to the R o m a n state, and so a census was held under the supervision o f the legate o f Syria, P. Sulpicius Quirinius, to assess the annual amount which the new province could reasonably be expected to raise. Under the principate the tribute consisted mainly o f a tax on landed property (tributum agri or tributum soli), calculated on the estimated annual yield in crops and cattle, together with a tax on personal property o f other kinds (tributum capitis)? W e d o not 2 8
29
0
2 4
2 6
27
2 8
3 0
2 5
J o s e p h u s , A J xvii. 3 1 9 . BJ ii. 9 7 . A J xvii. 320. BJ ii. 8off;i4 J xvii. 300!!. T h e r e m a y b e an allusion to this delegation in L u k e J 9: 14. BJ ii. 1 1 1 ; A J xvii. 342ff. A J xvii. 3 5 5 , xviii. iff. C p . Digest L , x v . 4. 2; 8. 7. J o s e p h u s p r o b a b l y transfers the situation o f his d a y into 2 9
254
F
-
F
- BRUCE
know the amount o f tribute fixed by Quirinius's assessment; there is no reason to suppose that it was excessive by R o m a n standards, and it may have done little more than defray the expense o f maintaining the military and civil administration o f the province.
31
Eleven years later, indeed, we
find the provincials o f both Syria and Judaea petitioning for a reduction o f tribute because the scale o f payment was so burdensome.
32
There were, o f course, many kinds of indirect taxation (customs dues and so forth) superimposed on the direct taxation in the form o f tribute. But for the Jews o f Judaea the burden o f financial outlay was exceptionally heavy. In addition to the R o m a n tribute and other secular dues, they were obliged by religious law to pay for the maintenance of the Jerusalem T e m p l e and its large staff o f priests, Levites and other T e m p l e servants. T h e tithe which they had to pay regularly for this purpose (over and above the annual half-shekel poll-tax) was originally designed as an inclusive ten per cent income tax to be paid by subjects o f a theocracy.
33
T h e Deuteronomic
'second tithe' was originally an alternative to this but had now to be paid in addition to it, every third year.
34
But when the imperial tribute was
superimposed on the theocratic dues, the burden was well nigh intolerable: only an approximate estimate is possible in the absence o f anything like precise data, but the total taxation could have approached something like forty per cent o f the provincial i n c o m e .
35
Ill Yet it was not because o f the sheer weight o f taxation that the question o f tribute to Caesar was such a burning one in Jesus's day. T h e Herodian tribute had already been payable over and above the religious dues, and it may have been as high as the R o m a n tribute which replaced it. But at the time o f Quirinius's census in A . D . 6 a new doctrine began to be taught in Judaea, so distinctive that those w h o held it could be classed as a separate school o f religious thought.
36
According to this new doctrine, the payment o f tribute to the Romans
3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
3 5
36
an earlier p e r i o d w h e n he represents D a v i d as exacting these t w o forms o f tribute from E d o m {AJ vii. 109). A c c o r d i n g to BJ ii. 405, arrears o f tribute a m o u n t i n g to 40 talents were p a i d , at the instance o f A g r i p p a I I , in the s u m m e r o f A . D . 66; but it is not clear w h a t period this amount covered. T a c i t u s , Ann. ii. 42. 6. N u m . 18: 2iff. D e u t . 14:220°; c p . M i s h n a h Ma'as'er Sheni. C p . F. C . G r a n t , The Economic Background of the Gospels ( O x f o r d , 1926), p . 105. J o s e p h u s calls it an innovation a n d revolution (f| xd)V JiaiQicov xaivioig xai HexapoXV), AJ xviii. 9). C p . M . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten ( L e i d e n , 1961), p p . i32ff et passim.
Render to Caesar
255
was incompatible with Israel's theocratic ideals. This must have been because the Romans were pagans: no religious objection seems to have been voiced against the payment o f taxes to Jewish rulers, mortal men though they might b e
37
- not even to the Herods, w h o were undeniably Jews by
religious law. T h e author o f this new doctrine was Judas o f Gamala in Gaulanitis (otherwise Judas the Galilaean),
38
designated by Josephus as
the founder o f the 'fourth philosophy' among the J e w s
39
(the first three
being the Pharisaic, Sadducean and Essene orders). Josephus represents the Jewish
religious parties as
'philosophies', by analogy with
the
philosophical schools among the Greeks, and for the same reason he refers to Judas as a 'sophist'.
40
But Judas was indeed a religious teacher and the
founder o f a new school o f thought in so far as his insistence on the sinfulness o f paying tribute to a Gentile ruler appears to have had no precedent in Israel. O n the contrary, when Israel and Judah in earlier days became tributary to foreign rulers, the general attitude o f their religious leaders, and especially the prophets, was that this was Yahweh's judgement on his people for their unfaithfulness, and must be endured until he lifted it; until then, the withholding o f tribute from the foreign ruler was an act o f rebellion against Yahweh. This was pre-eminently true o f Zedekiah's withholding
tribute from Nebuchadrezzar,
although
Zedekiah
com
pounded his offence by committing perjury too, since he had sworn in Yahweh's name to be Nebuchadrezzar's loyal vassal. For his double offence 41
he was denounced by the prophet Ezekiel. Jeremiah, for his part, had warned Zedekiah from the beginning of his reign that Nebuchadrezzar was Yahweh's servant, to w h o m Yahweh had given his imperial sovereignty, and that Judah's security lay in submitting to the Babylonian y o k e . after
Zedekiah's rebellion, when in desperation
during
42
Even
the siege o f
Jerusalem he sent for Jeremiah to ask his advice, the prophet assured him that he might yet salvage something from the wreck if even at this late date he would capitulate voluntarily.
43
After the Babylonian exile, when Judaea became a minor province o f the Persian Empire, no one seems to have suggested that there was anything 44
wrong in paying tribute to the Great K i n g . Nehemiah, as governor (pehah) o f Judaea under Artaxerxes I, refused to draw the governor's allowance 3 7
3 8
3 9
4 1
43
4 4
W h e n J o s e p h u s represents J u d a s as castigating the J e w s for tolerating 'mortal masters' after G o d (BJ ii. 118), this is a piece o f rhetoric. H e is called the Galilaean in BJ ii. 118,433, and A J xviii. 23, x x . 102 ( c p . A c t s 5:37); in AJ xviii. 4 he is d e s c r i b e d as 'a Gaulanite from the city o f G a m a l a ' . A J xviii. 9, 23. ™BJ ii. 118.
Ezek. 2i:25ff.
42
J e r . 27:40".
J e r . 38: i7ff. I f H a g g a i and Z e c h a r i a h think o f the fall o f Persian p o w e r , it will b e a c c o m p l i s h e d
by the act o f G o d ( H a g . 2: 2off; Z e c h . 4: 7).
256
F. F. BRUCE
because o f the impoverished economy o f the province.
45
His predecessors
(and, we may be sure, his successors) were not so considerate, but no one questioned their right to the allowance, whether Gentiles.
46
they were Jews or
His near-contemporary Malachi makes a passing allusion to the
practice o f giving nothing but the best to the (Persian) governor (pehah), with the implication that it was perfectly natural and proper.
47
T h e Persian system was taken over by Alexander and his successors, and was accepted from 3 3 1 B.C.
48
until 'the yoke o f the Gentiles was removed
49
from Israel' in the days o f Simon the Hasmonaean ( 1 4 2 B.C.). T h e decades of Jewish independence under the Hasmonaeans made the imposition o f the R o m a n yoke in 6 3 B.C. the more irksome; yet there were pious people in Israel, like the Qumran community and the authors o f the 'psalms o f Solomon', w h o showed themselves true sons of the prophets by recognising in the R o m a n conquest (with the ensuing exaction o f tribute) a divine judgement on the Hasmonaeans.
50
N o voice, so far as we know, was raised
at that early stage o f the occupation to protest against the impiety o f Israel's being required to pay tribute to R o m e . Whether or not the resistance leader Hezekiah, executed by Herod in his capacity as military prefect o f Galilee 51
in 4 7 B.C., was the father of Judas of Gamala (and there is no evidence that he w a s ) ,
52
he is not credited with this attitude.
T h e first occasion when it was propounded, so far as our evidence goes, was at the time o f the Quirinius census when Judas o f Gamala, together with Sadduq the Pharisee, raised the standard o f revolt.
53
O f this Sadduq
we hear no more, but he may be linked with the Galilaean 'Sadducee' meaning perhaps 'follower o f (this) Sadduq' - who, according to the Mishnah, found fault with the Pharisees for including the name o f the (Gentile) ruler (for dating purposes) on their divorce certificates along with the name o f Moses (as author o f the law o f d i v o r c e ) . 4 5
4 6
54
N e h . 5: i4fT. I n addition to Z e r u b b a b e l a n d N e h e m i a h , the n a m e s o f two other J e w i s h g o v e r n o r s o f J u d a e a u n d e r the Persians are r e c o r d e d o n jar-handles found in i960 at R a m a t R a h e l , a c c o r i n g to Y . A h a r o n i , ' E x c a v a t i o n s at R a m a t R a h e l ' , The Biblical
Archaeologist 24 (1961), 98ff, esp. i n f . 4 7
4 8
4 9
5 0
5 1
5 2
5 3
5 4
M a i . 1:8. C p . J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f m e m b e r s o f the T o b i a d family w h o secured the c o n t r a c t for tax collecting in Coelesyria under the Ptolemies a n d Seleucids (4J xii. i6off). 1 M a c e . 13: 41. C p . i Q p H a b ix. 2ff; Ps. S o l . 1 7 : 5 ^ J o s e p h u s , BJ i. 204; A J x i v . 159 (he calls H e z e k i a h an diQxih(\cnY)<;). J u d a s , w h o raided the royal arsenal in S e p p h o r i s after H e r o d ' s death in 4 B . C . , w a s a son o f the aQxdflorris H e z e k i a h (BJ ii. 56; A J xvii. 27 i f ) , but J o s e p h u s d o e s not identify h i m with the leader o f the revolt o f nine years later. A J xviii. 4. M i s h n a h , Yadayim 4:8. T h e ' S a d d u c e e ' is otherwise called 'a Galilaean heretic'. T h e Pharisees point for a p r e c e d e n t to E x o d . 5: 2, w h e r e the n a m e o f a p a g a n ruler
Render to Caesar The
revolt was put
down, but
the
'fourth
257
philosophy' was
not
extinguished: to it, indeed, Josephus traces the insurgent policy which involved the Jewish state in the disaster o f A . D . 7 0 .
5 5
Although he does not
explicitly call Judas o f Gamala the founder o f the Zealot party, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is precisely what he was, and that the new doctrine that it was impious to pay tribute to Caesar was the distinguishing feature o f the Zealot outlook. N e w the doctrine might be; it could not fail to be popular. M a n y Judaeans would in any case resent the payment o f tribute to R o m e on patriotic and economic grounds, and they would not readily reject the idea that it was contrary to the law o f their G o d . Even if they went on paying it reluctantly, they could not but admire their fellow-countrymen w h o had the courage o f their Zealot convictions and endured savage reprisals for refusing to acknowledge Caesar's sovereignty or his right to tax them. If we accept Mark's dating o f the question about the tribute money during Holy Week, then around that very time there had been an outbreak of insurgency involving bloodshed, in which Barabbas
played a prominent
part.
56
Popular sympathies were engaged on the subject, and it was on no purely academic point o f legal interpretation that Jesus was invited to give a ruling.'
IV T h e disproportionately lengthy preamble to the question was scarcely framed with the simple purpose o f flattering Jesus: his questioners probably knew that he was not susceptible to such an approach. It indicates in general that they knew that they would get an impartial answer from him, because he did not adapt his answer to his hearers' preferences. It made no difference, they implied, w h o asked the question: the answer would be a straight one, truly expounding 'the way o f G o d ' . Such a topical question, posed in a public place, would immediately attract an eager crowd o f listeners, and the unsolicited testimonial given to Jesus in the preamble was probably intended as much for their ears as for his, with the idea o f putting him publicly on the spot. 'Is it permissible', they asked (meaning 'permissible' in terms o f the law o f Israel's G o d ) , 'to give tribute to Caesar or not?' T h e word rendered 'tribute' is xfjvaog, a loanword from Latin census ('assessment', ' t a x ' ) ;
57
it
occurs as a loanword in rabbinical literature also, and could perhaps have
5 5
5 7
( P h a r a o h ) not m e r e l y a c c o m p a n i e s but p r e c e d e s the n a m e o f Y a h w e h h i m self. A J xviii. 6ff. M a r k 15: 7. S o also M a t t . 22: 17; L u k e substitutes cpooog (20:22). 5 6
258
F. F. BRUCE
been used by Jesus's questioners if they spoke to him in Aramaic, or even in Hebrew. Jesus's reply, 'Bring me a denarius; let me see it',
58
suggests that the
R o m a n tribute was to be paid in R o m a n money. That this was indeed so is indicated on a Greek inscription from Palmyra (dated A . D . 1 3 6 / 7 )
5 9
which
lays d o w n that various dues are to be paid in denarii (eig 6r]vdQiov) and cites as evidence a rescript o f Germanicus Caesar (who exercised a maius imperium in the eastern provinces from A . D . 1 7 to 1 9 ) to Statilius (perhaps financial procurator o f Syria), directing that all state taxes (xihf]) are to be 60
collected in asses (eig doo&Qiov), i.e. in R o m a n coinage (the as being then one-sixteenth o f a denarius in value). The verb translated 'render' is &JTO6I6(D[U, the natural verb to use in such a context. It is used of Jesus's handing back the scroll in the Nazareth. synagogue to its lawful custodian (Luke 4: 2 0 ) . It is specially used of paying various kinds of dues - of returning a deposit to its owner (Lev. 6: 4 , L X X ) , of refunding an advance, as in the parable o f the good Samaritan (Luke I 0 :
35)) o f restoring goods wrongfully taken, as in the Zacchaeus incident
(Luke 1 9 : 8 ) , o f repaying debts to a creditor, as in the parables o f the unforgiving servant (Matt. 1 8 : 3 4 ) and the two debtors (Luke 7 : 4 2 ) , o f paying a fine or damages, as in Matt. 5: 2 6 par. Luke 1 2 : 5 9 , or (as here) o f paying taxes ( c p . R o m . 1 3 : 7 ) . In these instances it is implied that the person to w h o m payment or repayment is made is the rightful owner or recipient of whatever is paid or repaid; the action amounts to giving back to someone property to which he is entitled. Caesar, it is implied, is entitled to demand tribute; to pay him tribute is to give back to him what is in any case his. A n d the tribute money has just been acknowledged to be his. Mark does not explicitly say 'Therefore render to Caesar . . .', as d o M a t t h e w Luke,
62
61
and
but the 'therefore' is as clearly implied in Mark's asyndeton as it is
expressed by Matthew and Luke. It could be said, o f course, that the Judaeans' use o f Caesar's coins did not necessarily imply their recognition o f Caesar's sovereignty or his right to demand taxes from them. As Professor Derrett points out, Jews in Judaea and elsewhere used Tyrian coinage at this time to pay their T e m p l e dues, but this would not be taken to mean that they acknowledged Tyrian sovereignty (how could they, since T y r e itself was subject to Rome?) or that 58
59 60
6 1
6 2
So Luke 20: 24; Matthew has TO vo\iio\ia xov x f | v o o v , 'the coin for the tribute', but adds: 'And they brought him a denarius' (22: 19). W. Dittenberger, OGIS 629, lines 153-6. We might understand eig a o o & Q i o v in the sense of Lat. adassem ('to the last as'), but the analogy of eig &r)vdoiov two lines above is probably determinant. In any case, Roman coinage is indicated. &JTO&OT£ OVV (Matt. 22:21). x o i v u v ctJio&oxe (Luke 20: 25).
Render to Caesar
259
the Tyrians ought to have their tetradrachms and"didrachms given back to them as though they belonged to Tyre because they had been minted there.
63
But the Tyrian coins bore no human ruler's name or image, and in
any case the use o f Tyrian coins for the payment o f the T e m p l e tax was not a political issue.
64
W e must recognise the ad hoc and ad hominem character o f
Jesus's reply: the denarius, he argued, belonged to the man whose name and likeness were so plainly stamped on it - let him have it back! His reply may well have carried an implication beyond this. So offensive, because o f the breach o f the Second C o m m a n d m e n t involved,
65
was a
human image on a coin in the sight o f some strictly orthodox Jews that the exceptional holiness o f a third-century
rabbi, Nahum ben Simai, is
illustrated by the fact that never in his life did he allow his eyes to look at the portrait on a c o i n .
66
Hippolytus, to the same effect, says o f some Essenes
whose practice of self-discipline went beyond the normal rules o f their order that they would not even touch such a coin, since they held it unlawful not only to make, but even to carry or look at images o f any kind.
67
There may,
then, be the further ad hominem implication in Jesus's answer that such a coin as was produced for his inspection was fit only for Gentiles to handle, so that the best thing a pious Jew could d o with it was to turn it over to them at once. W e must g o farther and enquire what Jesus meant by adding 'render to G o d what belongs to G o d ' . O n e interesting suggestion made in recent years is that o f Professor Brandon (from w h o m I differ with reluctance), according to w h o m these words were the real gravamen o f his reply, since they effectively nullified the superficial meaning o f the words immediately preceding them. Israel,
69
pagan
68
A m o n g the things that belonged to G o d was the land o f
and therefore no part o f its produce should be handed over to a ruler.
H a d Jesus meant
this, his meaning was expressed so
cryptically that it might well have been missed. True, the Zealots would have agreed that the things belonging to G o d comprised both the land o f
6 3
6 4
6 5
6 6
6 7
6 8
6 9
J. D . M . Derrett, Law in the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1970), p . 321. Derrett's chapter, ' R e n d e r to C a e s a r . . .', p p . 3 1 3 ^ provides a specially full and v a l u a b l e bibliography. T h e acceptability o f the T y r i a n tetradrachm for p a y i n g the T e m p l e tax w a s d u e not to its being imageless - it b o r e o n o n e side the likeness o f M e l k a r t (!) in the traditional form o f Herakles, and an eagle the other side - b u t to its consistently high level o f silver purity. C p . A . B e n - D a v i d , Jerusalem und Tyros ( T u b i n g e n , 1969), p p . 6ff. C p . also L e v . 19:4, ' d o not turn ( y o u r face) to idols'. T J 'Abodah Zarah 3: 1; c p . T B Pesahim, 104a, w h e r e he is called M e n a h e m . H i p p o l y t u s , Refutatio omnuim Haeresium ix. 26. S. G . F. B r a n d o n , J ^ H t f and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p p . 345ff; c p . his The Trial ofJesus of Nazareth ( L o n d o n , 1968), p p . 66ff. C p . L e v . 25:23, 'the land is m i n e ' .
260
F. F. BRUCE
Israel and the sovereignty over it which was acknowledged by the paying o f tribute. But the words would not have been understood thus unless the. hearers knew independently that this was the speaker's view. Certainly such a subtle way o f giving a Zealot response would have provided no opportunity o f denouncing Jesus to the R o m a n administration. It would probably be just as inopportunely subtle to say in criticism o f this interpretation that even if the things belonging to G o d included the land o f Israel, this would exclude the payment o f the tributum agri (soli) but not o f the tributum capitis. It is much more to the point to observe that the particularity o f Jesus's question about the denarius, bearing the imperial inscription, leads straight to the conclusion that it is self-evidently Caesar's: whatever else belongs to G o d , a coin which by its very form and appearance contravenes his law cannot be regarded as his. M o r e important still: Jesus's attitude in such a matter is much more likely to have followed the tradition o f the prophets than the much more recent precedent o f the 'fourth philosophy'. It was not for nothing that, according to Matthew, some o f Jesus's contemporaries said he was Jeremiah. Jesus's counsel o f non-resistance to R o m e was on all fours with Jeremiah's counsel o f submission to Babylon, and equally liable to be denounced as treasonable. Yet in the last days o f the Judaean monarchy the country had no more devoted patriot than Jeremiah, and in A . D . 30 no one more earnestly than Jesus prayed for the peace o f Jerusalem and endeavoured to make the city see that its welfare lay in quietness and not in armed rebellion. T h e kingdom o f G o d which he proclaimed would indeed supersede the current world-empire, but the triumph o f the kingdom o f G o d would be inherited by the 'little flock', not by the men o f violence. 70
71
72
According to Professor Derrett, Jesus meant that by giving Caesar what was Caesar's they would be giving G o d what was G o d ' s - in other words, ' O b e y the commands o f the king [emperor] and obey (thereby) the commandments o f G o d ' , or ' O b e y the commands o f Caesar provided that the commandments o f G o d are not broken in your doing s o ' . This ruling he regards as based on Eccles. 8: 2 , ' K e e p the king's c o m m a n d ' , to which Jesus appealed in default o f anything so explicit in the T o r a h . T h e words 73
74
7 0
7 2
7 4
M a t t . 16: 14.
7 1
73
C p . Luke 1 9 : 4 1 ^
L u k e 12:32; 16:16 ( c p . M a t t , n : 12). D e r r e t t , Law, p p . 335^ I b i d . , p p . 323^ c p . I. A b r a h a m s , ' G i v e unto C a e s a r ' , in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, series 1 ( C a m b r i d g e , 1917), p p . 62flf, and H . L o e w e , Render unto Caesar: Religion and Political Loyalty in Palestine ( C a m b r i d g e , 1940), p p . 21, 115f, b o t h o f w h o m m e n t i o n the reference to E c c l e s . 8:2 in Tanhuma (Noah, §10, exposition o f G e n . 8: 16), where the p a y i n g o f taxes is explicitly stated to b e o n e w a y o f keeping the king's c o m m a n d . L o e w e also m e n t i o n e d Prov. 24: 21, w h e r e fearing Y a h w e h a n d the king is c o u p l e d with the injunction not to m e d d l e with those w h o are given to c h a n g e ( M T ; L X X is different); any c o n n e c t i o n with o u r present p e r i c o p e , m o r e
Render to Caesar
261
o f Eccles. 8: 2 are literally rendered 'Watch the king's mouth', which Professor Derrett relates to Jesus looking at the emperor's face on the coin and also, allusively, to the unusual expression in Mark 1 2 : 1 4 , 'you d o not look at (into) the face of men'. This account of the matter is interesting, but of doubtful cogency. Even less convincing is the view that 'what belongs to G o d ' here is the T e m p l e tax, as though Jesus meant, ' Y o u must pay your tribute to Caesar, and you must also pay your annual half-shekel to G o d . '
7 5
There is a
pericope in the First Gospel which deals with the payment o f the T e m p l e tax,
76
but the introduction o f this subject would be less appropriate here.
Jesus placed a very low value on money or, as he commonly called it, 'mammon';
in saying that Caesar was welcome to the money which
belonged to him in any case, he was (by his own standards) paying no excessive honour to Caesar.
77
In this context no great honour would have
been ascribed to G o d by a ruling that G o d should have the money which was due to him, or to the maintenance o f his Temple. 'What belongs to G o d ' is much more likely to mean the dedication o f one's whole life: the seeking o f his kingdom and righteousness. Obedience to G o d ' s will is not compromised by letting Caesar have the money which bears his name. If among the bystanders there were Zealots or Zealot sympathisers, 'Jesus' answer must have seemed a deplorable c o m p r o m i s e ' ;
78
nothing less
than a categorical denial that Caesar had any right to tribute from the people o f G o d would have been acceptable to them. By their standards giving to Israel's G o d what belonged to him demanded the withholding from Caesar o f the produce o f his land or the property o f his people. As for Jesus's questioners, they derived little advantage from their attempt to impale him on the horns o f a dilemma. He had in so many words acquiesced in the payment o f tribute to R o m e , and given them no occasion to report him to the governor. Perhaps they hoped that he would forfeit the
7 5
7 6
7 7
particularly with ov u i X e i 001 Jieoi, o i ) 6 e v o g ( M a r k 12: 14), is a very remote possibility. C p . Grant, Economic Background, p p . 100, 102, w h e r e such a v i e w is envisaged although D r G r a n t ' s o w n interpretation is that 'the lawfulness o f earthly tribute b e c o m e s a petty question o f politics, best settled b y a c q u i e s c e n c e , since that frees the m i n d s a n d energies o f m e n for their true task as sons o f G o d and m e m b e r s o f His K i n g d o m ' ( p . 135). M a t t . 17:24-7. C p . W . H o r b u r y , b e l o w , p p . 265-86. C p . E. Salin, J e s u s u n d d i e W e c h s l e r ' ( a p p e n d i x to A . B e n - D a v i d , Jerusalem und Tyros), p . 53: ' Y o u b e l o n g to G o d ; therefore give yourselves to the G o d to w h o m y o u b e l o n g . M o n e y is m a m m o n , and the R o m a n e m p e r o r is the representative o f m a m m o n o n earth. A w a y then with m o n e y , a w a y with m a m m o n ; throw the m o n e y to Caesar, w h o s e likeness it bears.' See also R . Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the
Baptist ( L o n d o n , 1931), p p . 33off. 7 8
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 . 64 ( E T Jesus and the Revolutionaries ( N e w Y o r k , 1970), p . 45.
262
good
F. F. BRUCE
will o f those
around
who cherished
sentiments
of
national
independence, but by bringing the explosive political issue d o w n to such a matter-of-fact level he defused it (for the time being, at any rate). W h e n it was considered in this light - the handing back to a Gentile ruler o f coins which bore his name and image, coins which for that very reason no truly pious J e w ought to possess - it could not continue to be treated as a matter o f the highest religious principle. Letting Caesar have his o w n coins could in no way limit the true liberty of any Israelite, or of the community of Israel as a whole. ' W h a t belongs to G o d ' is much more important than what belongs to Caesar; see to it that G o d is not deprived o f his due, whether by giving it to Caesar or to any other person or cause. Jesus not only avoided the dilemma but turned it to emphasise the central theme o f his ministry. If, however, untimely hopes o f a declaration o f independence had been raised by his entry into Jerusalem a day or two before, the answer about the tribute money must have discouraged them. Jesus did not c o m m a n d the same popular enthusiasm in Jerusalem by the end o f Holy Week as he did at its outset, and his words on this occasion may help to explain that.
V What, n o w , are we to make o f the charge brought against Jesus before Pilate, according to Luke's narrative, o f 'forbidding . . . to give tribute to 79
Caesar'? That Luke did not believe there was any substance in this charge is plain from the fact that he has previously incorporated the incident o f the tribute-money and reproduced the Markan form of Jesus's reply practically word for word. Luke is the only evangelist to formulate explicitly the charge brought against Jesus by his accusers, but all the others imply that it included a claim on Jesus's part to be king o f the Jews. Luke spells it out in detail: ' W e found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.' Possibly Luke, having some knowledge of judicial practice, puts into words what Mark implies, without any other source to draw upon; possibly he had access to an independent account o f the trial in which the charge was formulated in these threefold terms. Either way, his representation
is
80
consistent with R o m a n cognitio procedure, and is 'technically correct'. But when Jesus's accusers informed Pilate that he claimed to be a king, they intended Pilate to understand 'king' in the ordinary political sense o f resistance-leader, which inevitably involved a repudiation o f Caesar's 7 9
L u k e 23: 2. C p . H . P. K i n g d o n , Messiahship and the Crucifixion, StEv iii = T U 88 (Berlin, 1964), p p . 77ff; a n d G . S c h n e i d e r , b e l o w , p p . 403-14.
8 0
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 , 6
2
2
I 9 3 ) > PP- 5> 3 -
Render to Caesar
263
authority and a refusal to countenance the payment o f tribute to him. Luke's words, 'forbidding . . . to give tribute to Caesar', add nothing to what can be inferred from the other gospels, and cannot be used as an argument suggesting that, despite the plain implication o f Mark's tributemoney incident, Jesus did nevertheless deprecate the paying o f tribute to Caesar. Like many other Gospel pericopae, that about the tribute money has more than one life-setting. Its life-setting during the ministry - more particularly during the later Jerusalem ministry - of the historical Jesus is plain enough. But it was not remembered and recorded simply as an interesting incident in the life o f j e s u s : it was recorded as a precedent for the guidance o f his followers. Thus when Paul directs his Christian readers to render rulers their dues - 'taxes to w h o m taxes are due, revenue to w h o m revenue is d u e ' - he may not be quoting, or even recalling, Jesus's words but he certainly reproduces their intention, albeit in a less inflammable atmosphere. A time was soon to come, however, when Caesar demanded from the followers o f j e s u s things which they believed were due to G o d alone, and they discerned the logic o f their Master's teaching clearly enough to say ' N o ' to Caesar. 81
8 1
R o m . 13: 7; c p . 1 Pet. 2: 136°. S e e C . D . M o r r i s o n , The Powers that Be ( L o n d o n , i960).
W.HORBURY
The Temple tax T h e early church could learn the Lord's teaching on taxation from Matt. 1 7 : 2 4 - 7 , Mark 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 and parallels, and a passage o f the
Unknown
1
Gospel (Pap. Egerton 2 , Fragment 2 , recto). Matt. 1 7 : 2 4 - 7 , viewed with the narratives o f the tribute-money, was often also referred to R o m a n 2
taxation, although the half-shekel was sometimes recognised as a Jewish 3
levy. T h e story continues to figure in discussion of Jesus's attitude to tax
1
2
3
It is unnecessary to follow H o r n s c h u h in conjecturing that Epistula Apostolorum 5 p r e s u p p o s e s an i n d e p e n d e n t variant o f the story in M a t t . 17 ( M . H o r n s c h u h , Studien zur Epistula Apostolorum (Patristische Texte und Studien, B d . 5, Berlin, 1965), p . 11). H a r o l d Smith, Ante-Nicene Exegesis of the Gospels iii ( L o n d o n , 1927), 2 1 1 - 1 3 ( q u o t i n g St C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a , Paed. 11. i 14. 1, O r i g e n o n Ezekiel, Horn, xii 2, o n St M a t t h e w , Tom. xiii 10, o n R o m a n s , Lib. i x , 30). In an u n p u b l i s h e d typescript ' A n d to G o d the things that are G o d ' s , ' kindly m a d e available b y Prof. M . Black, T . W . M a n s o n also cites St Irenaeus, Haer. v. 24. T h e levy is u n d e r s t o o d as R o m a n tribute b y St J e r o m e ad l o c . ( C C L 77, p p . 154-6), St A m b r o s e , In Hexaemeron v . vi ( C S E L 32, p . 151) a n d In Luc. iv. 73-5, o n L u k e 5:4 ( C C L 14, p p . 1331), and St A u g u s t i n e , Enarr. In Psalmos cxviii. 31, cxxxvii. 16, o n Pss. 1 1 9 : 1 6 1 , 138:8 ( C C L 40, p p . 1770, 19881). T h i s interpretation b e c a m e standard in the west, as s h o w n b y the portrayal in M a s a c c i o ' s Tributo (1426). T h e passage was therefore q u o t e d to establish clerical tax-immunity o n the o n e hand ('liberi sunt filii', verse 26), and the liability to taxation o f c h u r c h m e n and all subjects, o n the other ( ' d a eis p r o m e et te', verse 27). See, for the former point, p . 286, n. 103, b e l o w , and Beryl Smalley, 'John B a c o n t h o r p e ' s Postill o n St. M a t t h e w ' , Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 4 (1958), 91-145 (126-32); for a mediating position w h e n d o m i n i o n is p a g a n , A q u i n a s , Summa Theologiae 11 a 11 ae x. 10; and for the latter point, H e r b e r t v o n E i n e m , Masaccios 'Zinsgroschen* ( C o l o g n e and O p l a d e n , 1967), p p . 14-17, to w h o s e m e d i a e v a l references ( A m a r c i u s , Y o r k A n o n y m o u s , A q u i n a s , A n t o n i n u s o f F l o r e n c e ) m a y b e a d d e d Marsilius o f Padua, Defensor Pads 11. iv. 9-11 ( e d . C . W . Previte-Orton ( C a m b r i d g e , 1928), p p . 134-9), the s e r m o n ' O f Servants and L o r d s ' in F. D . M a t t h e w , ed., The English Works of WyclifHitherto Unprinted ( L o n d o n , 1880), p . 230, a n d the H o m i l i e s ' o f O b e d i e n c e ' (1547), Part I I , a n d 'against Wilful R e b e l l i o n ' (1571), Parts I I and V , in [John Griffiths, e d . ] The Two Books of Homilies ( O x f o r d , 1859), p p . 115, 568, 585. M e l i t 6 , Pen Pdscha 86 ( e d . S . G . Hall, O x f o r d 1979, p p . 48Q; Hilary o f Poitiers, Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaei, X V I I . 10 (PL 9. 1017Q; A p o l l i n a r i u s ad l o c , in J. Reuss, Matthaus-Kommentdre aus dergriechischen Kirche, T U 61 (Berlin, 1957), p p . 27f; Cyril o f A l e x a n d r i a ad l o c . in R e u s s , Matthaus-Kommentdre, p . 222 and on J o h n 4: 22 in P. E. Pusey, Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis Evangelium i ( O x f o r d , 1872), p p . 281-3 (ii. v ) . C h r y s o s t o m , Horn, in Matth. L V I I I , identifies the d i d r a c h m a as the r e d e m p t i o n o f the first-born ( N u m . 3:46O, but sees (ibid. L X X ) its p a y m e n t b y Jesus as a relevant precedent in the question o f the tribute-money (PG 58 566f, 655). For later followers o f b o t h C h r y s o s t o m and J e r o m e see the clear analysis o f M a l d o n a t u s , Commentarii in Quatuor Evangelistas, ad l o c , ed. J. M a r t i n (2nd e d n . M a i n z , 1853), i, 2371).
265
266
W I L L I A M HORBURY 4
and government. It is examined here with this question in mind. W e consider the distinctive features o f the passage, the light thrown by criticism on its evidential value, and its setting in Jewish history and the life o f Jesus. O n this basis an attempt is made to understand its primary meaning and historical significance.
I Matthew 1 7 : 2 4 - 7 , a paragraph peculiar to this Gospel, stands out from the other taxation-narratives question from
in both content and form. It begins with a
tax-collectors rather than disputants,
on the T e m p l e
half-shekel rather than the tribute-money. St Peter, w h o replies, is then met and taught by the Lord indoors, and c o m m a n d e d to pay for himself and his master with a stater to be found in a fish's mouth. T h e dominical teaching payment is not obligatory, but advisable in practice to avoid offence
-
5
resembles apostolic injunctions on secular tax, and is more explicit than the reply on the tribute-money. Formally,
the
section
6
combines characteristics
of a
disputation
1
(Streitgesprach) with those o f a miracle-story; yet the Lord does not meet the questioners, and the miracle itself is not recounted. T h e language has Matthaean
characteristics,
'reasonably
stylish'
8
Greek.
and 9
is
suggested for some words and phrases. 4
5
6
striking
within
Semitic equivalents 10
this
Gospel
as
have however been
Verse 2 5 has been seen to resemble
H . Loewe,'Renderunto Caesar' ( C a m b r i d g e , 1940), p p . 66-71; S. G . F. B r a n d o n , y « « j and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p p . 49, 332n. O n these see p . 284 b e l o w . R o m . 13:5, 1 Pet. 2: 13-15, c o m p a r e d with the M a t t h a e a n passage in C . F . D . M o u l e , The Birth of the New Testament (3rd e d n . L o n d o n , 1981), p . 192. F o r the suggestion that i d xov 8eot) m e a n s the T e m p l e tax, see J. D . M i c h a e l i s , Commentaries on the Law of Moses ( E T b y A l e x a n d e r Smith, L o n d o n , 1814), iii. i8f ( B o o k iv. i, A r t . 173); E. StaufTer, (Christ and the Caesars ( E T L o n d o n , 1955), f
p p . i33 7
8
9
Especially typical o f this form is the antithetical question in verse 25: see M . A l b e r t z , Die synoptischen Streitgesprdche (Berlin, 1921), p . 68. F o r an interlocutor's c o n t r i b u t i o n to the a r g u m e n t here a n d in t w o S y n o p t i c dialogues, see C . H . D o d d , Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel ( C a m b r i d g e , 1963), p . 318. G . D . Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew ( O x f o r d , 1946), p . 41. M o u l e , Birth, p p . 278: idem, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (2nd e d .
C a m b r i d g e , 1963), p p . I72f. I0
x 6 v d v a p d v x a (intransitive for passive) a n d another e x a m p l e o f a personal p r o n o u n used reflexively (as in d v x l e\iov xai aov, c p . F. Blass, A . D e b r u n n e r a n d R . W . Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature ( C a m b r i d g e and C h i c a g o , 1961), §283(2)) are cited as A r a m a i s m s b y J. W e l l h a u s e n , Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1911), p p . i8f, 26; also auxiliary Xa|3u)V b y M . Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd e d n . O x f o r d , 1967), p . 125. Post-biblical H e b r e w equivalents for JiooecpOaoev, xi 001 6OXEI, ot Paodeig xfjg, xekr\, xfjvoov, £A.ev9eQOi and oxaxfjoot are given b y A .
The
T e m p l e tax
267
11
but this
Pap. Egerton 2 in speaking o f rulers and taxes only in general; resemblance is not more than formal. On
the age o f the passage three views are held: that in its entirety it
corresponds to an incident in the life o f j e s u s ;
12
that, on the contrary, it has 13
no basis in the life ofjesus, but was formed by the early church; and that it is composite, a dominical saying or dialogue having been glossed in the church.
14
It is here taken as probable that both teaching and payment
should be assigned to Jesus's ministry, since the two cohere with one another
(1.(5)
below) and are comprehensible within the settings o f
contemporary Judaism and the life ofjesus. First, however, it is necessary to review the chief arguments for dating. T h e y are arranged below under seven headings, according to the points on which they depend.
(1)
Style
That the passage contains 'features [especially participial constructions] which are linguistically the opposite o f Semitic' has been, thought to turn the balance o f probability against the evangelist's having taken it from a source.
15
A similar conclusion has been drawn from
impress.
16
its
Matthaean
If, then, this section o f the Gospel depends on oral transmission,
whereas other traditions o f the ministry were available to the evangelist in
Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthdus (Stuttgart, 1929), p p . 538-43, for x o v d v a p d v x a J I Q W T O V b y H . Strack a n d P. Billerbeck, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus erlautert aus Talmud und Midrasch ( M i i n c h e n , 1922), p . 773. T h a t £X.ev6eQOi c o r r e s p o n d s to Dm&s ' n o t liable to tax', as in Shek. i 6-7, is suggested b y A . W u n s c h e , Neue Beitrdge zur Erlauterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch ( G o t t i n g e n , 1878), p . 207. 'ZxaT/rJQ is o n e o f the earliest G r e e k w o r d s to penetrate the Semitic l a n g u a g e s ' (first d a t e d e x a m p l e 402 B . C . ) : S. P. B r o c k , ' 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 (418). l ,
C . H . D o d d , New Testament Studies ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1953), p p . 38f.
1 2
L o e w e , 'Render Unto Caesar', p p . 66-71: J. D . M . Derrett, 'Peter's Penny: Fresh Light o n M a t t h e w xvii 24-7', NovTest 6 (1963), 1-15, revised and enlarged as idem Law in the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 247-65.
1 3
Fully elaborated hypotheses in R . Eisler, Orpheus - The Fisher ( L o n d o n , 1921), p p . 91-106 (99, n. 2); E . H i r s c h , Fruhgeschichte des Evangeliums ii ( T u b i n g e n , 1941), 326T; D . Flusser, ' M a t t h e w X V I I , 24-7 and the D e a d Sea Sect', Tarbiz 31 (1961-2), 150-6. O n these see p p . 272f, 276 b e l o w ) . A . L o i s y , Les Evangiles Synoptiques ii (Ceffonds, 1908), p p . 63-6; C . G . M o n t e f i o r e , The Synoptic Gospels (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1927), ii, 243-5: Kilpatrick, Origins, p p . 4 i f ; H . W . M o n t e f i o r e , 'Jesus a n d the T e m p l e T a x , ' NTS 10 (1964-5), 60-71; H . v a n d e r L o o s , The Miracles of Jesus NovTestSup 8 ( L e i d e n , 1965), p p . 680-7; Banks, 'Jesus and C u s t o m ' , ExpT 84 (1973), 265-9 (266).
1 4
1 5
1 6
M o u l e , Birth, p p . 217f. G . Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit ( F R L A N T 82, G o t t i n g e n , 1962), p p . 20of; M . D . G o u l d e r , Midrash and Lection in Matthew ( L o n d o n , 1974), p p . 396f (arguing from c o n t e n t as well as style).
268
WILLIAM HORBURY
writing, it might be suggested - although to the writer's knowledge this has not been argued explicitly - that the oral source is the less likely to have preserved pre-Easter
tradition.
T h e possible fidelity o f Semitic oral
transmission might be adduced against such a suggestion; but in any case, earlier steps in the argument would be open to question. O n the most striking example o f un-Semitic subordination, verse 2 5 xai eX06vxa xtX, it may at least be asked if the elegant participle is not a secondary stylistic correction o f the crude and Semitic 6te eiofjX6ev found in the K o i n e text (evidence in E. Nestle, K . and B. Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece ( 2 6 t h ed. Stuttgart, 1 9 7 9 ) , p . 4 8 ) . Similarly, for verse 26 eiJiovxog 5e there is a 'strong v.l.' (Blass-Debrunner-Funk, § 4 2 3 ) Xiyti auxcp (Nestle-Aland, loc. cit.). T h e number o f words and phrases which can easily be rendered into a Semitic language
must
also be taken into account. Lastly, out o f 17
Kilpatrick's seven examples o f Matthaean diction in the passage, two only (jTQOofjXSov, xi 0 0 1 5 o x e i ) satisfy W . L. K n o x ' s criteria of significance: one (dvoi^ag) is a borderline case.
18
Their presence betrays the evangelist's
hand, but by no means excludes the possibility o f his having had a written source.
19
(2) Position in the Gospel T h e paragraph is linked with its context by the theme of precedence among the disciples. In 1 6 : 1 3 - 2 0 Peter receives the power o f the keys; in 1 7 : 1 - 8 Peter, James and J o h n are singled out to witness the transfiguration; in 1 7 : 1 4 - 2 0 none o f the disciples can heal the demoniac boy; in 1 7 : 2 4 - 7 Peter alone shares the Lord's stater; immediately afterwards in 1 8 : 1 the disciples ask w h o is greatest in the kingdom o f heaven; and in 18: i 8 f all the disciples receive the power entrusted to Peter in 1 6 : 1 9 .
2 0
There are indications in the Gospel that the evangelist stood at a certain 1 7
K i l p a t r i c k , Origins, p . 41. I n a critique o f K i l p a t r i c k ' s collection o f M a t t h a e a n expressions from M a t t . 1:18-25 d > 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.
T h e T e m p l e tax
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 =
T h e T e m p l e tax
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
61
(*]) Doctrine presupposed A pre-Easter setting for verses 2 4 - 6 has been urged on the ground that these verses, if taken as a church creation, would presuppose teaching which is atypical o f primitive Christianity. This teaching would comprise an estimate o f non-Christian Jews as foreigners and a claim that Christians are the true heirs o f the T e m p l e . It is not clear, however, that either this estimate or the associated claim would have been unthinkable in the primitive church. That the Jews may become aliens is suggested by the warnings o f Matt. 8: 1 i f = Luke 1 3 : 28f, Mark 1 2 : 9 and parallels. Outside the synoptic Gospels the theme recurs in a wide range o f sources: notably Acts 3: 22f, among Pauline texts (but contrast R o m . 1 1 : 281) Gal. 4 : 30, Phil. 3: 2f, 1 Thess. 2: I5f, in the Johannine writings John 8 : 4 4 ( c p . Rev. 2 : 9 , 3 : 9 ) . T h e repeated later query adversus Iudaeos 'whether this [Christian] people or the former people is the heir' (Barn. 1 3 : 1 ) expects an answer already given in primitive Christianity. Again, the T e m p l e is used constantly by Christians according to Luke-Acts (Luke 24: 5 3 , Acts 2 : 4 6 , etc.), but no exclusive Christian claim to it is recorded, although such a claim has been conjectured. T h e second-century accounts o f St James the 62
63
6 0
W e l l h a u s e n , Matthaei, p . 86. For the plural readings in verse 25 see N e s t l e - A l a n d , a d l o c . a n d (for their s e c o n d a r y character) A . M e r x , Das Evangelium Matthaeus (Berlin, 1902), p . 260. H i r s c h , Fruhgeschichte, ii, 326f. « H . W . M o n t e f i o r e , NTSt, 10 (1964/65), 67. A . A . T . Ehrhardt, The Acts of the Apostles ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1969), p p . 16-19. 6 1
6 3
T h e T e m p l e tax
277
Lord's brother entering the Holy Place, and St John the Apostle wearing the high-priestly nixdkov (a privilege also later ascribed to J a m e s )
64
show
that later thought could view the first Christians as presiding over the Jewish cult. It seems hazardous to exclude the possibility that defence o f Christian access to the T e m p l e might have taken the form o f a claim to be the only legitimate worshippers there. Verses 2 4 - 6 cannot therefore be dated with any confidence on these doctrinal grounds. This survey o f criticism has led largely but not entirely to negative conclusions. A date before or after 7 0 cannot be argued from the position o f the story, nor a date before Jesus's death from doctrine implied in verses 2 4 - 6 . O n the other hand, origin late in the pre-70 period, or after 70, cannot be deduced from the treatment o f the T e m p l e tax or the provenance o f the stater. Verse 2 7 coheres with what precedes it: the ancient ring o f the dominical logion does not mean that its context is only likely to have been provided after the resurrection: and the style o f the whole passage does not preclude the possibility o f its having been taken from a source. Lastly, the logion o f verses 2 5 f only retains consistent force if applied to tax levied in the name o f G o d , an application only possible before 7 0 . T h e central saying therefore suggests a pre-70 date, and nothing else in the story rules this out. T h e passage can reasonably be considered as a whole. With these points in mind we turn to its setting in Jewish history. W h a t was thought and practised as regards the half-shekel tax in the time o f Jesus?
II It has long been suspected that the annual half-shekel T e m p l e tax did not 65
arise until late in the post-exilic p e r i o d . Exodus 30: I3f was understood by the Pharisees as instituting an annual due, whereby all Israel shared responsibility for the cult (Shek. iv. 1 ) . Payment o f this due came to be ranked among the Positive Commandments o f the T o r a h .
66
T h e Pen-
tateuchal text, however, ordains only ransom-money on the occasions when 6 4
H e g e s i p p u s and Polycrates o f E p h e s u s ap. Eusebius, H.E. ii. 23, iii. 31, v . 24 ( G C S 9.1, p p . 166, 264, 490): St E p i p h a n i u s , Panarion xxix 4 ( G C S 25, p . 324).
6 5
M i c h a e l i s , Commentaries, iii, 1—19 ( B o o k iv i. Arts. 172-3); J. L . Saalschutz, Das Mosaische Recht (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1853), p p . 291-3; A . E d e r s h e i m , The Temple ( L o n d o n , n . d . ) , p p . 72-4. N o . 171 in the e n u m e r a t i o n o f M a i m o n i d e s , Sepher ha-Miswoth ii ( e d . W a r s a w , 1883), 34: E T in C . B . C h a v e l , The Book of Divine Commandments i ( L o n d o n , 1940), 295. O n the cult as the responsibility o f all Israel see I. A b r a h a m s , Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, First Series ( C a m b r i d g e , 1917), p p . 88f.
6 6
278
W I L L I A M HORBURY
the people are numbered. In the other relevant biblical passages
67
a yearly
offering is only specified at Neh. 1 0 : 3 2 (where the tax is new and amount is one-third o f a shekel)
68
the
and 2 Chron. 2 4 : 5 (where no amount is
named, and the account is composite). O n one occasion some Elephantine Jews offered two shekels a head 'to the godyhw', a regular c u s t o m .
69
but it is not clear if this was
Three inter-testamental sources which deal with
T e m p l e offerings fail to mention the half-shekel: T o b i t 1 : 6 - 8 , the Letter o f Aristeas, and Jubilees.
70
O n the other hand, whatever contributions may
have been levied earlier,
71
it appears that royal subsidies to the T e m p l e
sacrifices continued up to Maccabaean times.
72
This evidence has been
taken to suggest that an annual half-shekel due only became regular in the Hasmonaean p e r i o d , controversy
73
perhaps at the time o f the Pharisaic-Boethusian
over the provision o f the
Alexandra, or even later.
6 7
6 8
6 9
7 0
7 1
7 2
7 3
7 4
Tamid in the reign o f Salome
74
E x o d . 38: 25f, 2 K i n g s 12:4-16 ( H e b r e w 5 - 1 7 ) , 2 C h r o n . 24:4-14, N e h . 10:32f. C p . J. Liver, ' T h e R a n s o m o f H a l f Shekel' [sic], in M . H a r a n ( e d . ) , Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, i960), H e b r e w section p p . 54-67: idem, ' T h e Half-Shekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature', HThR 56 (1963), 173-98. F o r r a b b i n i c exegesis o f this verse, not uniformly referring it to the T e m p l e tax, see S t r a c k - B i l l e r b e c k , Matthaus, p . 761 and Liver, Kaufmann Volume, p . 62n. = HThR, 56 O963), i84n. M a n a s s e h b e n Israel, reconciling it with E x o d . 30:13, cites the o p i n i o n s that N e h e m i a h ' s tax was n e w and distinct from the Pentateuchal o n e ( I b n E z r a ) : o r , alternatively, that it w a s the same as the Pentateuchal tax, the shekel h a v i n g increased in value ( N a c h m a n i d e s ) . See E. H . L i n d o , The Conciliator of R. Manasseh ben Israel i ( L o n d o n , 1842), 198. F o r the p a p y r u s listing m a l e and female contributors (with t w o w h o m a d e an offering to o t h e r deities) see A . [ E . ] C o w l e y , Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. ( O x f o r d , 1923), p p . 65-76 ( N o . 22). F o r the dating in 419 B . C . ( C o w l e y , Papyri, p . 66) 400 is preferred b y E. G . K r a e l i n g , The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri ( N e w H a v e n , 1953), p . 62. N e h . i o : 3 2 f is c o m p a r e d at Kraeling, Papyri, p . 100. E . B i c k e r m a n , ' H e l i o d o r e au T e m p l e d e J e r u s a l e m ' , Annuaire de Vlnstitut de Philologie et dHistoire Orientales et Slaves 7 (1939-44), 13f, reprinted in E. B i c k e r m a n n , Studies in Jewish and Christian History ii ( L e i d e n , 1980), 159-91 (1671)- T h e significance o f this silence is questioned b y V . T c h e r i k o v e r , Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews ( E T Philadelphia, 1959), p p . 155,464f (notes 6 and 12), o n the g r o u n d that n o relevant s o u r c e deals with the T e m p l e i n c o m e . But T o b i t a n d Jubilees, at least, treat the Israelite's responsibility for offerings, and might therefore h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d to m e n t i o n the half-shekel. N e h e m i a h ' s levy is regarded as t e m p o r a r y , that o f 1 C h r o n . 24 as c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the offering o f E x o d . 25: i f rather than the half-shekel o f the r a n s o m ( s o also M i c h a e l i s a n d Saalschiitz (see n. 65, p . 277)) in Liver, Kaufmann Volume, p p . 58-62; HThR, 56, 178-85. Ezra 6:9, 7: 21-3; J o s e p h u s , AJ xii. 140 ( A n t i o c h u s I I I ) ; 2 M a c e . 3:3 (his son, Seleucus I V P h i l o p a t o r ) ; for the idea c p . 1 M a c e . 10:39 (offer o f Demetrius I S o t e r ) , 2 M a c e . 9: 16 ( A n t i o c h u s Epiphanes's d e a t h b e d v o w ) . B i c k e r m a n , ' H e l i o d o r e ' , p . 14. Liver, Kaufmann Volume, p p . 66f: HThR 56 (1963), i8gf. For a m o d e r n re-statement o f the tradition that 2 K i n g s 12:4 ( H e b r e w 5) implies an existing half-shekel levy see C . A l b e c k , Einfuhrung in die Mischna ( G T Berlin, 1971), p p . 7f.
T h e T e m p l e tax
279
If the annual tax was, as seems probable, o f comparatively recent origin, it might be expected still to be controversial in the first century A . D . ; 4 Q 1 5 9 (Ordinances)
75
points in this direction. A fragmentary halakic commentary
on verses from the Torah, it treats the half-shekel (col. ii, lines 6ff) with emphasis: 'as for the half-[shekel, the offering to the L o r d ] which they gave, each man as a ransom for his soul: only one [time] shall he give it all his days'.
76
This is best understood as polemical. With the Pharisees it assumes
that Exod. 3 0 : 1 3 institutes a regular offering. Against the Pharisees, however, this offering is seen as due only once in a man's lifetime,
77
not once
a year. This exegesis probably reflects one possible legal interpretation o f the period before the triumph o f the Pharisaic view; while its sectarian retention shows the continuance o f opposition to an annual half-shekel levy.
78
Rabbinic sources further illuminate this opposition. 7 5
79
Rabban Johanan
First edited and linked with M a t t . 17:24-7 b y J. M . A l l e g r o , ' A n U n p u b l i s h e d F r a g m e n t o f Essene H a l a k h a h (4Q O r d i n a n c e s ) \ J S S 6 (1961), 7 1 - 3 : republished in J. M . A l l e g r o and A . A . A n d e r s o n , Qumran Cave 4:1 (4Q158-4Q186), Discoveries in t h e j u d a e a n Desert o f J o r d a n , v ( O x f o r d , 1968), p p . 6-9 a n d Plate 11: corrections in J. Strugnell, ' N o t e s en m a r g e d u v o l u m e V des " D i s c o v e r i e s in the J u d a e a n
Desert o f J o r d a n " ', RdQ 7 (1970), 163-276 (165, nn. 3-5, and 175-9). 7 6
T h i s rendering follows the restoration and interpretation o f J. Liver, ' T h e Half-Shekel in the Scrolls o f the J u d a e a n Desert Sect,' Tarbiz 31 (1961-2), 18-22 and HThR 56 (1963) 190-5. F r o m his recognition o f a parallel to E x o d . 38: 25f in C o l . ii, lines 8-9 it follows that the lacunae at the end o f the lines m a y b e m o r e extensive than a l l o w e d for in A l l e g r o ' s edition, and h e n c e that the reference to valuation m o n e y at the b e g i n n i n g o f line 6 need not b e taken to identify it with the half-shekel, but m a y form the end o f a separate lost clause. T h e main point o f interest in the present c o n n e c t i o n - the half-shekel p a y m e n t o n l y o n c e in a l i f e t i m e is, h o w e v e r , equally clear if A l l e g r o ' s text is followed. T h i s remains true after the corrections o f C o l . 11, lines 6f in Strugnell, 177.
7 7
L i v e r , Tarbiz 31 (1961-2), 21 a n d HThR 56 (1963), 191. A n o n - Q u m r a n i c origin for the law o f the fragment, with the reservation that the influence o f the Q u m r a n sect's v i e w o f the T e m p l e m a y b e discernible in the particular instance o f the half-shekel, is suggested b y F. D . W e i n e r t , ' A N o t e o n 4Q159 a n d a N e w T h e o r y o f Essene O r i g i n s ' , RdQq (1977), 223-30. E v e n if the interpretation o f E x o d . 30: 13 in the fragment should turn o u t to b e distinctively Q u m r a n i c , Shek. i. 4 (cited in the following p a r a g r a p h ) s h o w s that the m e a n i n g o f the verse was disputed b e y o n d the b o u n d s o f the Q -
7 8
u
7 9
m
r
a
n
s e c t
T h e statement o f R . Samuel ( B a b y l o n , first half o f third century) cited in this c o n n e c t i o n from K e t . 106a, T . J. Shek. iv. 2 b y M . Beer, ' T h e Sects and the Half-SheqeP, Tarbiz 31 (1961/62), 2g8f, is o f doubtful historical relevance. It includes a m o n g those paid from the half-shekel the disciples o f the W i s e (Pharisaic sages) w h o taught the priests h o w to perform their duties. I f this was s o , another m o t i v e for non-Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n to the tax is clear. T h e statement m a y b e trustworthy: c p . J. J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu (3rd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1962), p p . i 3 o f ( E T Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1969), p . 115). O n the other hand, it m a y s i m p l y be an inference from the principle that all ancillary T e m p l e expenditure should b e p u b l i c (derived from the half-shekel) rather than private. A s time goes o n m o r e such expenses are specified: with Shek. iv 1, T . Shek. ii 6 c o m p a r e the longer list in K e t . 106a, T . J. Shek. iv. 2, 48a (10b in the edition in the R o m m / W i l n a
280
W I L L I A M HORBURY
b. Zaccai concerned himself with the tax. In a frequently cited passage (Shek. i 4) he fiercely denied the priests' claim to immunity. His haggadah expounded the moral significance o f the half-shekel, its ten component gerahs standing for the ten transgressed commandments. These sayings illustrate the Pharisaic advocacy of the tax. T h e attitude against which the Pharisees contended is illuminated by a third saying in his name, lamenting the outcome of the Jewish W a r with reference to Song of Solomon 1 : 8 : ' Y o u would not serve G o d , now you are made to serve the lowest of the Gentiles, the Arabs: you would not pay to G o d the beka a head, now you pay fifteen shekels under your enemies' rule: you would not repair the roads and open places for the pilgrims, now you repair the posts and stations for those w h o go to the kings' cities.' In this tripartite statement the second and third members substantiate the opening accusation ' Y o u would not serve G o d . ' The first supporting example is the non-payment of the T e m p l e tax, termed the 'beka a head' in accordance with Exod. 38: 2 6 . T h e second example is the non-fulfilment o f a duty closely associated with the payment o f the tax at Shek. i. 1; the language is identical with that o f the Mishnah. Thus in the speaker's eyes a chief offence of Israel has been unwillingness to pay the due which the Pharisees advocated. 80
81
82
8 3
The half-shekel also figures in a Mishnaic discussion o f the effect o f the wording o f vows upon their validity, Ned. ii. 4. Here R. Judah is said to rule: 'If the v o w was o f undefined heave-offering, in Judaea the v o w is binding, but in Galilee it is not binding.' An explanation is immediately a d d e d : ' - for the men o f Galilee d o not recognise (or, distinguish: "eynam makkirin) the heave-offering o f the chamber' (lifted up from the half-shekels, Shek. iii. 1-4). A second ruling follows: ' I f the v o w is of undefined devoted things, in Judaea it is not binding, but in Galilee it is binding.' T h e explanation is: ' for the men o f Galilee d o not recognise the devoted things o f the priests'.
8 0
8 1
8 2
8 3
T a l m u d B a b l i ) . T h a t Pharisaic sages settled T e m p l e p r o c e d u r e is itself d o u b t e d b y J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 ( L e i d e n , 1 9 7 1 ) iii, 228, 288. T . J. Shek. ii 3, 46d (6a in the edition in the R o m m / W i l n a T a l m u d B a b l i ) ; W . B a c h e r , Die Agada der Tannaiten i (2nd e d n . Strassburg, 1903), 3 2 . T h e h a g g a d i c interpretation o f E x o d . 3 0 : 1 3 , w h e r e b y G o d s h o w s M o s e s the fiery likeness o f a c o i n , has o b v i o u s d i d a c t i c value, and m a y be m e n t i o n e d as further suggesting the kind o f teaching w h i c h the Pharisees m a y have g i v e n . See T a r g u m Ps. J o n a t h a n a n d Rashi ad l o c , B . M a n d e l b a u m , Pesikta de Rav Kahana i ( N e w Y o r k 1 9 6 2 ) , 34, a n d L . G i n z b e r g , The Legends of the Jews iii (Philadelphia, 1 9 1 1 ) , I46f. M e k i l t a , Yithro, Bahodesh i, o n E x o d . 1 9 : 1; H . S. H o r o v i t z and I. A . R a b i n , Mechilta d'Rabbi Ismael (repr. J e r u s a l e m , i 9 6 0 ) , p p . 203f. F o r parallels see J. Neusner, A Life ofYohanan ben Zakkai (2nd e d n . L e i d e n , 1 9 7 0 ) , p p . 1 8 5 - 7 , and for an annotated text a n d translation S. K r a u s s , Griechen und Rbmer ( 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 , 1 9 7 2 ) , p p . i58f, n o . 3 7 2 . R e n d e r e d 'einen halben Schekel' in the translation o f J o h a n a n ' s saying b y B a c h e r , Tannaiten i, 4 2 .
T h e T e m p l e tax
281
The two rulings are both given in the parallel at T o s . Ned. i. 6, where the second is credited to Eleazar b . Z a d o k , but the explanatory comments only occur in the Mishnah. It has been conjectured that the first comment may reflect first-century Galilaean reluctance to pay the half-shekel annually. The
84
suggestion is made tentatively, because the debate reflected in the
Mishnah probably belongs to the end o f the second century.
This
consideration is underlined by the Tosefta, for it is not impossible that its version preserves an earlier form, to which the stylised explanations o f the Mishnah have been added. In any case, the object o f the first explanatory comment
is
to show that, in
a v o w made
in Galilee,
undefined
'heave-offering' is likely to mean the priest's portion ( N u m . 1 8 : 8 ) rather than the offering from the T e m p l e tax; and the v o w is therefore invalid, since it does not mention an offering intended directly for G o d . Devoted things can likewise be set apart either for the T e m p l e ('unto the L o r d ' , Lev. 2 7 : 2 8 ) or the priest ( N u m . 1 8 : 1 4 , c p . Lev. 2 7 : 2 1 ) ; but in this case, according to the second comment, the Galilaean is likely to mean things devoted to the Lord, and so his vow will be valid. T h e implication is not that Galilaeans are unwilling to pay the half-shekel, but that, unlike Judaeans, they d o not have 'the heave-offering o f the chamber' in mind as the heave-offering.
T h e outlook envisaged as Judaean may perhaps
be
illustrated from Shek. iii. 3, where the household o f Rabban Gamaliel are said to have cast their coins at the officer's feet in order to ensure that they were included in the heave-offering from the half-shekels, and not left over in the surplus. Ned. ii. 4 therefore hardly constitutes evidence that the Galilaeans formed a further group w h o were reluctant to pay an annual half-shekel in the first century; but it does show that the offering heaved up from the T e m p l e tax was thought to have attained such a degree o f significance for Judaeans, near the T e m p l e , that it was considered 'the heave-offering' par excellence. This Mishnaic comment coheres with evidence that the redemptive significance o f the half-shekel, given its identification with the ransommoney o f Exod. 3 0 : 1 3 , was recognised both in Palestine and the Diaspora; the finding o f a ransom may well have provided, as Philo suggests, a chief motive encouraging payment.
85
T h e sayings in Johanan b . Zaccai's name
show, however, that despite this motive, and despite Pharisaic advocacy, Palestinian Jews at least were not paying the tax in a manner beyond
8 4
S. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian ( W i l m i n g t o n a n d N o t r e D a m e ,
8 5
' R . Eleazar said: W h i l e the T e m p l e stood, a m a n paid his shekel a n d m a d e a t o n e m e n t for h i m s e l f , B a b . B. 9a: a i 6'eiocpoQai \VTQOL J i Q o a o v o ^ a ^ o v r a i , Philo, DeSpec. Leg. 1. 77 ( L . C o h n and P. W e n d l a n d , Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt v (Berlin 1906), 20).
1980), p p . 277-81.
282
WILLIAM HORBURY
reproach.
86
This testimony agrees with the fact that the Mishnah provides
for distraint and payment in arrear (Shek. i. 3, vi. 5 ) . It is consistent, also, with other Palestinian evidence for the non-payment o f sacred dues such as tithes, arid for the evasion o f civil taxes.
87
T h e tax, then, probably o f comparatively recent origin as a regular institution,
was strongly advocated by the
Pharisees.
Its
universal
incidence would entitle all Israel to the benefits o f the cult. Its redemptive significance was felt, but there was, at any rate in Palestine, less widespread 88
willingness to pay than is often suggested. T h e priests claimed exemption, the Q u m r a n sect did not agree that the tax should be annual, and there were many w h o , for whatever reason, in practice did not pay.
Ill It is this pre-70 background which the survey o f criticism suggested as relevant. T h e tax-collectors' questions and the Lord's response can n o w be viewed within this setting and with reference to Jesus's life and teaching. 'Does your master pay the half-shekel?' is an understandable question, if it was known that Jesus and the disciples were supported by charity. T h e collectors might simply wonder if Jesus's tax was paid by a patron (Shek. i. 7 ) . O n the other hand they might suspect that Jesus would refuse to pay on some such principle as that o f the Q u m r a n community. Objections on principle, as seen already, were attacked by the Pharisees. It is then also possible that the collectors' question was linked with the Pharisaic testing on Jesus. Perhaps, in view o f the searching character o f the response, this is the most likely explanation. T h e collectors may have known that Jesus had the reputation o f attacking T o r a h ,
89
or they may have been instructed to
discover his attitude on a halakic point which the Pharisees stressed. Jesus teaches that the levy is wrong in principle, and he only pays in a manner not admitting liability. T w o formal aspects o f the teaching give a measure o f confirmation to the view that it is dominical. T h e first is the primitive ring o f verses 25f, where the antithetical
question formally
corresponds to synoptic sayings widely accepted as authentic.
90
Secondly,
in Aramaic this question is likely to have had a degree o f alliteration, a 8 6
87
8 8
8 9
9 0
Philo (as cited in the previous note) says that the tax was paid JiQoOvjiOTaTa. A l l o w a n c e should b e m a d e , h o w e v e r , for idealisation (he is emphasising the perpetuity o f the T e m p l e i n c o m e ) a n d also, p e r h a p s , for particular d e v o t i o n to the T e m p l e in the D i a s p o r a .
J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem, p p . 120-4,
E T p p . 105-8, i25f.
E.g. L . Finkelstein, The Pharisees (3rd impression, Philadelphia, 1946), i. 281; Derrett, NovTest 6 (1923), 2 = Law, p . 248. S o St Cyril o f A l e x a n d r i a ( a b o v e , n. 3, p . 265). S e e p . 270 a b o v e , and n. 7, p . 266.
T h e T e m p l e tax
283
91
feature characteristic of Jesus's sayings. M o r e generally, as noted already, its location in the Jewish thought-world is suggested by its resemblance to the c o m m o n rabbinic comparison of G o d and king. A detail bearing this out is the fact noted by Schlatter that the phrase 'kings of the earth' was current in midrashic literature in a form differing from the biblical o n e .
92
Its usage
here is thus consonant not only with direct dependence on the Bible, but also with an indirect dependence through living tradition. In content the saying, as already noted, is most easily comprehensible if applied to this particular tax. Even earthly kings exempt their ' s o n s '
93
from
toll and tribute. It is best to take the 'sons' as Israel in general, rather than Jesus and his followers in particular, since the unadorned description o f other Jews as foreigners which the latter would imply does not occur elsewhere in Jesus's teaching. In other sayings it is Israel's election which is taken for granted
(notably Mark 7 : 2 7 : c p . Matt. 1 0 : 5 ^ 1 5 : 2 4 ) , while
rejection is threatened rather than assumed (Matt. 8: 1 i f = Luke 1 3 : 28f: Mark 1 2 : 9 and parallels). T h e Jews, then, are G o d ' s sons, and (it is argued) an interpretation which pictures their divine king as exacting something like a tribute from them does not rise to a true theology. Jesus's teaching is thus implicitly but radically critical o f the Pharisaic view. T h e overturning o f the money changers' tables in the cleansing o f the T e m p l e would be consistent with this saying, even though the principal motives o f the cleansing were probably different.
94
Retroversion o f the last words o f the instruction to pay (exeivov x . t A . ) gives notably succinct Aramaic with a striking assonance.
95
A s seen
already, payment from lost property does not contradict the teaching. T h e principle on which it is made is complementary to that assumed in Mark 9: 4 2 par. Matt. 1 8 : 6, Luke 1 7 : 2: there others are not to offend the 'little ones', here the disciples are not to cause outsiders to stumble. Jesus and his followers might d o so in this case either by appearing to controvert the T o r a h itself (the Pharisaic interpretation being assumed as correct) or by seeming to o p p o s e the T e m p l e . Jesus criticised Pharisaic interpretations, 9 1
9 2
9 3
9 4
9 5
A frequent initial Mem w o u l d b e p r o b a b l e , if s o m e t h i n g o n the following lines m a y be conjectured: K0»1 N03» pane ^ 3 0 3 p | » NSHK \mv "|nin >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
W I L L I A M HORBURY
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,
T h e T e m p l e tax
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
W I L L I A M HORBURY
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
Te^og
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.
T h e decision to put Jesus to death
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
W A L T E R GRUNDMANN
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 <
^
7: 15-24; 10:40-2 for 11: 1-45; c p . also 4: 1-6 for 4: 7-42, and 4:43-5 for 4:46-54. 3 2
3 3
T h e y are, therefore, characteristic o f J o h a n n i n e style. C p . B a m m e l , Trial, p p . 16-18; the healing o f the 38-year-old invalid at the p o o l o f Bethesda ( m e n t i o n e d b y B a m m e l ) also belongs to the signs m e n t i o n e d in 1 1 : 4 7 . O n ouvrJYCiYOV, A . Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthaus (Stuttgart, 1929), p . 32: ' T h a t is the established formula for the s u m m o n i n g o f the C o u n c i l o r the p o p u l a r a s s e m b l y , the parallel w o r d to o V o .' S o also J o s e p h u s BJ 1:457, AJ 5: 332. O n oruve&QiOV c p . also Schlatter, Matthaus, p . 170; E. L o h s e , ThWNT vii, 858-69 ( E T
TDNT
vii (1971), 860-71); o n J o h n 11:47-57
t
n
e
position o f Bultmann, as
expressed in his c o m m e n t a r y o n J o h n , has been taken over. B a m m e l , Trial, p . 20: ' T h e author is thinking o f an official meeting o f the Sanhedrin'.
T h e decision to put Jesus to death decision in this critical situation. If one were to answer 'nothing'
303 34
to the
question about what action o f the Sanhedrin is called for by the action o f Jesus, then even this policy of inactivity and laissez-faire must be rejected: ' I f we let him g o on in this way, everyone will believe in him ancf the Romans will c o m e and destroy both our temple and our nation.' T h e influence o f Jesus on the people is thus seen by the members o f the Sanhedrin as a danger. T h e activity ofjesus reinforces the gap between the people and the Sanhedrin. T h e Sanhedrin members are apprehensive lest the R o m a n power o f occupation and administration should be used to dismiss from office the existing Supreme Council on the grounds of its inability to control the situation, and along with this status to take away the place, that is the 35
T e m p l e , and the p e o p l e . This fear may originate, historically speaking, in a reminiscence o f Herod's
treatment o f the Council (Josephus, A J
1 4 . 1 6 3 - 8 4 ; 1 5 . 6 ) ; its formulation is probably determined, however, by the abolition o f the Supreme Council during the Jewish war.
36
For in spite o f
every uncertainty, especially with regard to the high priests, who frequently changed, one thing must be observed: Caiaphas and Pilate held office simultaneously, and simultaneously lost it, the dates of Caiaphas being A . D . 18-36
and
those o f Pilate being A . D . 2 6 - 3 6 .
Any intrusion on
the
Sanhedrin's right o f assembly or any threat to its continuation is completely unknown in the period between Herod and the Jewish war. Perplexity and fear move Caiaphas to his decisive intervention. H e is introduced as eig 5e (tig)
37
38
e§ aviary, a formulation which suggests either
that the name o f an originally anonymous speaker has been inserted by the evangelist into his traditional material, or that the editor o f the Gospel is the first to give this person a name. T h e explanatory reference to J o h n 1 1 : 4 9 at 1 8 : 1 4 might support this suggestion. T h e whole context speaks o f the high priest, though in a striking way; for the eig 5e Ti£ is not just anybody but the 3 4
'xt JiOiOXJjxev; is p r o b a b l y a rhetorical question aiming at the answer ' n o t h i n g ' and g r o u n d e d in the 6x1 clause. Bauer, Johannesevangelium, ad l o c .
3 5
O n xojiog c p . H . K o s t e r , ThWNTVxW, 20$ ( E T TDNT viii (1972), 204). C p . B a m m e l , Trial, p . 25: 'the political presentation o f the case o f j e s u s is typical o f the time after 70. . . . Further s u p p o r t is offered there. T h e reading o f p is o n l y eig 6e e£ avxoav. O n this c p . also B a m m e l , Trial, p p . 38f. O n the question o f the n a m e , B a m m e l c o n c l u d e s that it is likely that the office-holder w a s n a m e d a n d not j u s t i n t r o d u c e d by etg 6e xtg 8= atrnbv. H e refers to F. Blass, A . D e b r u n n e r a n d R . Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature ( C a m b r i d g e and C h i c a g o , 1961), §301, a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h eig de xig is an introduction w h i c h requires the n a m i n g o f the person c o n c e r n e d . B a m m e l draws the c o n c l u s i o n ( p . 39): ' T h e very fact that C a i a p h a s and not A n n a s is m e n t i o n e d here in a passage w h i c h has n o equivalent in the Synoptics points to the n a m e as b e i n g original in the c o n t e x t ' ( p . 39). H o w e v e r , w o u l d that not also a p p l y to a reference to the reigning high priest, without necessitating the mention o f his n a m e ? F o r the evangelist it is indeed C a i a p h a s , but whether the s a m e held for his source is q u e s t i o n a b l e .
3 6
3 7
3 8
6 6
304
W A L T E R GRUNDMANN
high priest himself. M a y we guess that the original Vorlage ran etc; 5e Tic, autd)v, aQXiegeiJc; d>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
T h e decision to put Jesus to death
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 Xoyi^eoSai 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
W A L T E R GRUNDMANN
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.
T h e decision to put Jesus to death
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
W A L T E R GRUNDMANN
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).
T h e decision to put Jesus to death
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
W A L T E R GRUNDMANN
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
T h e decision to put Jesus to death
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
W A L T E R GRUNDMANN
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 .
The decision to put Jesus to death
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
W A L T E R GRUNDMANN
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.
The decision to put Jesus to death
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
W A L T E R GRUNDMANN
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
D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E
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
(^eYaAx^eoajg).
(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
T h e 'triumphal' entry
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
D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E
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
D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E
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
T h e 'triumphal' entry
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
D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E
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.
T h e 'triumphal' entry
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°
D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E
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 .
T h e 'triumphal' entry
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.
T h e 'triumphal' entry
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
D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E
moves out of the spotlight, as it were, and is replaced by the antithesis 0 1 x 0 5 nQOoevx^OKr\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 (6ia^eQiO(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
( O^E?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 e^ioi 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 avo^ioi 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 ctvo^iia, 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 &
2 3
Possibly another i n d i c a t i o n that the H e b r e w form o f Isa. 53: 12 b e l o n g s to L u k e ' s s o u r c e rather than his o w n writing. L u k e 23:40, ' Y o u are u n d e r the s a m e sentence' has n o bearing o n this p o i n t .
2 4
T h e two swords
347
promptly repaired by a miracle; secondly, that the saying about buying a sword, with the interpretation applied to it from Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 , was one o f the series o f short-term predictions and warnings delivered by Jesus at the Supper and that it was fulfilled on the same evening in that assault. T h e prophecy did not lend itself easily to this interpretation; Luke was trying to combine and make sense o f material that lay before him in Mark and in his L source, and he was not composing freely. H o w could the disciples actually be expected to get hold o f purses and bags, sell cloaks and buy swords late in the evening o f the Passover? Were they really meant to stop in the city and try to d o these things on their way from the Supper to the garden? H o w was it that some o f them had already obtained swords, as Jesus's words implied that they had? Such questions were inevitably raised as a consequence o f Luke's interpretation o f verses 3 5 to 3 7 , but he is not concerned to deal with them. Mark had told him that a sword was used in the garden. Mark was not interested in w h o used it or where he had brought it from; all that mattered to him was that the high priest's servant's ear was removed. Luke thinks that the disciples were reponsible for the use o f the sword in the garden; therefore they must have had at least one sword with them. Further, since they asked, ' L o r d , shall we strike with the sword?', the man w h o struck the actual blow could not have been the only disciple with a sword; and Jesus's words, 6 [ii] e/CDV, seemed to confirm this, for they implied that some o f the disciples did have swords. Luke makes the point clear in verse 3 8 , probably his o w n composition: ' 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 . " ' T w o swords are enough, in Luke's view, to establish the guilt o f the disciples as a body, to identify them collectively, and not only one individual among them, with the dvo(jioi of Isa. 5 3 : 12 and bring about the fulfilment o f that prophecy, and possibly also to testify to their transgression as 'two witnesses' ( c p . Deut. 1 9 : 1 5 ) . This is probably what Luke intends Jesus to mean by the words ixavov eaxiv. Luke does not consider the question h o w the disciples had come into possession o f these two swords and, according to his reconstruction o f the events, actually to bring them to the Last Supper, any more than Mark troubled to ask why his 'bystander' should have happened to be carrying a sword. If Luke could be questioned about this, he might perhaps reply that the disciples had anticipated Jesus's warning and had brought to the Supper the instruments o f their coming 'lawlessness', just as they had brought their rivalries about worldly greatness and Judas had come with his intention to betray the Lord. T h e complex and subtle structure which Luke has built on the Markan incident raises problems from which the simpler interpretations offered by Matthew and John are free. In Matthew (26: 5 0 - 4 ) the assault was an
34**
G. W . H. LAMPE
attempt to rescue Jesus, w h o had already been seized; it was rebuked by him with the quasi-proverbial saying, 'all who take the sword die by the sword', and the question, ' D o you suppose that I cannot appeal to my Father, w h o would at once send to my aid more than twelve legions o f angels? But how then could the scriptures be fulfilled which say that this must be?' In John ( 1 8 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) Peter tries to prevent the arrest, and Jesus's answer is, 'This is the cup the Father has given me; shall I not drink it?' John, however, takes up Matthew's point in the dialogue be tween Jesus and Pilate ( 1 8 : 3 6 ) : ' M y kingdom does not belong to this world. I f it did, my followers would be fighting to save me from arrest by the Jews.' Luke's more intricate composition involves the strange supposition that Jesus believed his disciples to be predetermined to d o wrong, compelled to act lawlessly by a prophecy that referred to them and must needs be fulfilled. This, however, would present itself to Luke as only another aspect of the great mystery that was focussed in the paradox that he repeats ( 2 2 : 2 2 ) from Mark: ' T h e Son o f M a n is going his appointed way; but alas for that man by w h o m he is betrayed!' Moreover, although the disciples had to become transgressors, this did not mean that they were abandoned without hope to the power o f darkness (cp. 2 2 : 5 3 ) . T h e warnings that Jesus gave them o f their treachery
and weakness were relieved by promises: o f
c o m m u n i o n with the Lord in his kingdom, despite their strivings for greatness, o f repentance and restoration for Peter, despite the denial. Isaiah, too, showed that although the Servant was 'led to death from their lawlessnesses', they were still 'my (that is, G o d ' s ) people' (Isa. 5 3 : 8 ) . If Luke knew the H e b r e w text (as seems quite possible) o f the very prophecy that foretold their lawlessness, he would be aware also that the Servant 'interceded for the transgressors' ( 5 3 : 1 2 ) . If Luke has constructed his story in the light o f that prophecy, having to use some very intractable material for this purpose, the many attempts to explain verse 3 8 as a literal record o f an actual dialogue that took place between Jesus and
the disciples b e c o m e irrelevant.
Chrysostom, for
instance, supposed that the 'swords' were in fact carving knives taken from the table where they had been used for the Passover l a m b .
25
Western
26
thought they were fishermen's knives, intended for use when the disciples went back to their fishing in Galilee (John 2 1 : 3 ) , and had nothing to d o with weapons, though in a later article the same writer suggested that by i x a v o v eoxiv Jesus was either saying that these knives 'are large enough for all the fighting that you will have to d o ' , or asking, 'are they large enough
2 5
C r a m e r , Catena in Luc. 22:50.
26 w. W e s t e r n , ' T h e E n i g m a o f the S w o r d s ' , ExpT$o (1939), 377, a n d 52 (1941), 357.
T h e two swords for the fighting which you contemplate?' H e l m b o l d
27
349
mentions another
literalistic explanation: the disciples had found two old swords in Peter's house at Capernaum, left over from past wars, and brought them to defend the party against attack by Herod on their way up to Jerusalem. Speculations o f this kind create immense difficulties o f interpretation. Napier
28
imagined that Jesus had discovered that two disciples had
provided themselves with swords. H e reminded them o f his previous instructions to carry no purse or bag; then he said, in effect, Tf, now, you mean to trust to yourselves and think G o d is no longer sufficient, then if need be sell your cloak and buy a sword.' T h e disciples missed the point, replied, 'Here are two swords', and Jesus's 'It is enough' is an expression o f his sorrow. This explanation altogether fails to take the prophecy o f Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 into account; it is worth noticing, too, that the reading o f the 'Western' text, d o x e i for ixavov eoxiv, indicates that in antiquity the latter phrase was taken literally. A similar interpretation was proposed by 29
Finlayson: Jesus knew the disciples were arming, but felt it impossible to persuade them to desist; he alluded to the buying of a sword, their attention was distracted, and their unwary reply, 'Here are two swords', revealed the actual situation and prepared the way for Jesus's teaching that 'all w h o take the sword shall perish by the sword'. This, again, leaves the all-important prophecy out o f the explanation, and ignores the fact that Luke did not record the saying o f j e s u s to which Finlayson believes that the whole passage points. Eisler,
30
after referring to the discussion o f the passage by Schlatter,
takes up the question raised by Regnault,
32
31
how it could have seemed
necessary to send a cohort (John 1 8 : 3) to overcome twelve men armed with only two swords. His o w n answer is that the disciples were carrying two swords each, in the manner o f the sicarii. This is highly improbable. Had each disciple attended the Supper regularly equipped as an armed sicarius, Jesus could scarcely be ignorant o f the fact. His comment, 'It is enough', would then seem to express approval; hence his words at Luke 2 2 : 3 5 - 7 b e c o m e unintelligible, as does also the allusion to Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 ; and the outcome of it all in the garden would merely show that as sicarii the disciples were incredibly feeble and inefficient: twenty-two or perhaps twenty-four swords between them and only one ear to show for all that formidable weaponry!
2 7
H . H e l m b o l d , Vorsynoptische Evangelien (Stuttgart, 1953), p . 41. ™ExpTw (1938), 467-70. S . K . Finlayson, ' T h e E n i g m a o f the S w o r d s ' , ExpT 50 (1939), 563. 30 Eisler, I H 2 0 Y 2 B A 2 I A E Y 2 , p p . 66ff. A . Schlatter, Die beiden Schwerter, B F C h T h 20 (1916). H . R e g n a u l t , Le proces de Jesus (Paris, 1909), p . 92. 2 9
2
3 1
3 2
G. W . H. LAMPE
350
Eisler in fact recognises that if the pericope o f the two swords is to provide evidence for a theory that the disciples, and perhaps Jesus himself, were militant Zealot revolutionaries, it has to be re-written and transferred to a different context from the night o f the betrayal. He acknowledges that Luke's framework for the saying, if it is to be interpreted on these lines, is most implausible; he therefore argues that, as was mentioned above, TO Jiegi e\iov xeXog e/ei (22: 3 7 ) bore no reference to the end ofjesus's life, but indicated the fulfilment o f his destiny. T h e pericope belongs, according to Eisler, to a time when Jesus was sending out his followers, some time after their first mission, on a longer journey, equipped and armed. Jesus expected most o f them to possess swords already; any who did not must sell even those articles that would be most needed on the journey and buy one. Others have tried to find evidence in this passage for a Zealot Jesus but without re-working it on Eisler's lines. Brandon,
33
for instance, says that
the fact (sic) that some at least of the disciples ofjesus were accustomed to go about with concealed weapons, after the manner of the Sicarii, is attested by Luke 22: 38. The fact that Jesus had to make sure that the disciples were armed on this occasion (see verses 36, 38) indicates that their weapons were concealed in their garments in Sicarii-fashion. Brandon, having assumed that verses 3 5 to 38 mean that Jesus made sure that his disciples were armed before going to the garden, naturally finds Luke's story unconvincing. Luke . . . endeavours to reduce its (i.e. the arming's) significance by saying that Jesus did so in order to fulfil a prophecy, and that he considered two swords enough for this purpose. The ascription of such an artificial fulfilment of an obscure passage of Isaiah to Jesus on such an occasion does no credit to Jesus and lowers our estimation of the sensibility of Luke. With how many swords the disciples were armed is immaterial; it is scarcely likely that it was only two. 34
T h e plain fact seems to be that any attempt to interpret verse 38 literalistically as a source o f factual information renders it impossible to make sense o f Luke's narrative as a whole. As Brandon suggests, we have to choose between Luke's 'sensibility' on the one hand and a reconstruction along literalistic lines on the other; we cannot have both. O f all the attempts to make sense o f Luke 22: 3 5 - 8 as a factual record perhaps the best is that o f Cyril o f Alexandria (Luc. 2 2 : 34ft). H e understood Jesus to be foretelling the Jewish war. T h e warning to get a sword and other necessary equipment, though addressed to the apostles, was meant for every Jew. W a r would come because Christ was to suffer a punishment meant for lawless men and 3 3
Zealots, p . 203.
I b i d . p p . 340-1.
T h e two swords
351
be crucified with Xr\oxai; thus the prophecies o f scripture were fulfilled and the d o o m predicted by the prophets was bound to overtake his slayers. T h e disciples misunderstood Jesus and
thought
he was referring
to
the
imminent incursion o f Judas. Jesus's reply, 'It is enough', was sarcastic: ' Y e s , ' he says, 'two swords are sufficient to resist the war that is going to c o m e upon you, a war against which thousands o f swords will be o f no avail.'
E. B A M M E L
The titulus Death penalties in the provinces used to be registered in the records o f the R o m a n administrator and the execution was, when the
circumstances
demanded it, reported to R o m e either by special message or as an item in the reports on major events which were submitted at regular intervals. These were the acts o f official notification.
1
Different from this were the
means o f informing the general public. T h e oldest sources, sources not later 2
3
than the New Testament, mention a tabula which was to be carried by the condemned man (or by someone else walking in front of him) on his way to 4
the place o f execution, which indicated the a i t i a . T h e fixing o f a tablet
5
6
with an inscription on the cross is less well testified; possibly because one mention o f the tabula was considered sufficient by those who described a crucifixion. In any case, the showing of a tabula either on the last journey o f the delinquent or on the spot where he was publicly put to death was not indispensable, not a constitutive part o f the procedure, and therefore not
1
2
3
W . R i e p l , Das Nachricktenwesen des Altertums ( L e i p z i g , 1913), p p . 27 i f and especially G . R e i n c k e in PWxvi, I5i8ff. Suet. Calig. 32; Domit. 10.1; D i o 54.8. N o t , o f c o u r s e , identical with the tabella o n w h i c h the sentence was written d o w n and from w h i c h it used to b e read out b y the j u d g e ; c p . Acta Cypr. iv. p p . c x n f Hartel: 'sententiam vix et aegre dixit verbis huius m o d i : diu sacrilega mente vixisti . . . sanguine tuo sancietur disciplina. et his dictis d e c r e t u m ex tabella recitavit: T h a s c i u m C y p r i a n u m g l a d i o animadverti placet.' T h e notice in this tabula was c o p i e d a n d e m e n d e d in the r e c o r d o f the administrator.
4
Significantly it is merely a hint that is given in the formulation o f the titulus a c c o r d i n g to the o l d e s t authorities: ' q u i c a u s a m p o e n a e i n d i c a r e t / y Q a u ^ a x o y v xf|V a t x i a v . . . &T]Xot3vxa)v'. T h e report o n the L y o n n e s e martyrs i n c o r p o r a t e d in Eusebius's c h u r c h history m e n t i o n s that o n e o f them w a s led r o u n d the arena j t i v a x o g a t i x o v j i Q o a y o v x o g iv a> iyeygaKTO ' P w u m o x i ' o f a o g eaxiv " A x x c d o g 6 X f J i o x i a v o g ' (5.1.44), i m p l y i n g in this w a y that the p r o p e r j u r i d i c a l reason was not given o n the p l a c a r d a n d , s e c o n d l y , that the c u s t o m o f carrying a Jtiva^ w a s not the n o r m a l o n e in this p l a c e . T e r t . Apol. 2.20 presupposes that the tabella was the n o r m a l a c c e s s o r y , but he harps o n the fact that the inscription w a s n o t in precise terms.
5
N o t identical with the inscriptio, w h i c h means the j u r i d i c a l form o f the accusation. F o r the function o f the inscriptio see L . K . G . G e i b , Geschichte des romischen
Criminalprocesses (Leipzig, 1842), p p . 542ff. 6
C p . H . Fulda, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung. Eine antiquarische Untersuchung (Breslau, 1878), p p . I4if, 204 ( ' w e n n es konstanter G e b r a u c h . . . g e w e s e n ist . . . ' ) ; O . Z o c k l e r , Das Kreuz Christi (Giitersloh, 1875), p p . 429^ 441 ( E T ( L o n d o n , 1877), p p . 405^ 417). C h r y s o s t o m m a y p r e s u p p o s e this lack o f e v i d e n c e in that he c l a i m s that the r o b b e r s ' crosses d i d not have tituli and emphasises that the cross o f j e s u s c o u l d already b e recognised b y the title (84.(85) H o m i l y o n J o h n ; PG 59.461).
353
E. BAMMEL
354
laid d o w n in detail. If an execution was meant to serve as a dreadful warning and if, in fact, elements of mockery were not absent from what even 1
lawyers call Volksfesthinrichtungen, we cannot expect similar intentions to be foreign to the phrasing o f a titulus. Even examples o f a pedagogical nature are known. A n d the rhetorical element in the formulation is obvious.
8
9
It results from this that evidence o f the first or second type, if its authenticity is indisputable, is superior to that o f the third or fourth kind. T h e latter material cannot be taken as giving eo ipso the exact and juridically correct reason for the condemnation;
10
it raises additional problems, and
carries weight especially in cases where it is supported by other pieces o f evidence. T h e accounts o f the crucifixion ofjesus contain details which belong to all four categories. T h e most striking piece o f information is, however, the u
mention o f the titulus. T h e titulus term
12
is mentioned in all four Gospels. T h e
itself is used only by John, whereas Mark and Luke speak o f
emYQaqpf| xfjc; atxiag, and Matthew describes it more loosely. T h e wording o f it is basically the same: 6 PaoiAevg xcav Tou6aicDV. Matthew introduces it by
OVTOC;
13
eoxiv 6 Tnooug, whereas J o h n renders
Tnooxjg 6 Na^cogaiog. Ev. Petr. i o reads ovxog eoxiv 6 BaoiXevc; xov ToQarjX, combining the Matthaean form with the wording o f the mocking salutation o f Mark 1 5 : 3 2 . T h e preference for 'IoQarjX (already so in verse 7) may be conditioned by the negative meaning o f Toudcuoi in Gospel.
14
7
8
9
1 0
11
1 2
1 3
1 4
the
T h e rendering o f the titulus in the three languages is mentioned
T h e o d . M o m m s e n , Rbmisches Strafrecht ( L e i p z i g , 1899), p p . 925f. ' F u m o punitur, qui f u m u m v e n d i d i t ' ( L a m p r i d i u s 36). L a m p r i d i u s 51 narrates that A l e x a n d e r Severus o r d e r e d the c r y i n g out o f the ' Q u o d tibi n o n vis fieri, alteri n o n feceris' in several cases; c p . A . B . v o n W a l t h e r , Juristisch-historische Betrachtungen titer die Geschichte vom Leyden und Sterben Jesu Christi (Breslau and Leipzig, 1738; 2nd e d n . Breslau, 1777), p . 324. For the functioning o f the G o l d e n R u l e in the C h r i s t i a n - p a g a n c o n t r o v e r s y a n d especially in the Historia Augusta ( w h e r e the a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d passage is taken from: actually from A l e x . Severus 51) c p . J. Straub, Regeneratio Imperii ( D a r m s t a d t , 1972), p p . 314ff. Representations b y interested parties and equally stubbornness o n the side o f those w h o believed they h a d c o i n e d a s p l e n d i d formulation are n o t i m p o s s i b l e . R . Eisler, 'Ittoovg PaoiXeiJg ii ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1930), 532, goes t o o far in assuming that the a t x t a w a s 'ein amtlicher A u s z u g aus d e m gefallenen UrteiF. F o r an evaluation o f the different forms o f notification see M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p p . 517ff. J. Gretser, Decruce Christi ( I n g o l s t a d t , 1600), especially i, 72ff is still i n d i s p e n s a b l e . T h e w o r d i n v a d e d the G r e e k language via the Volkssprache ( c p . L . H a h n , Rom und Romanismus im griech.-rdm. Osten ( L e i p z i g , 1906), p p . 2651). Its usage is therefore not j u r i d i c a l l y exact, as is also s h o w n b y the fact that its meaning is different in j u r i d i c a l l a n g u a g e : titulus gives the h e a d i n g o f a section in the Corpus Juris Civilis. F o l l o w e d b y Act. Pil. x . 13 (rec. B ) but without 6 'iTjooxJg. For the s e c o n d a r y character o f the M a t t h a e a n w o r d i n g c p . A . D a u e r , Die Passionsgeschichte im Johannesevangelium ( M i i n c h e n , 1972), p p . 22if. C p . the r e p l a c e m e n t o f 'Iov6aioi b y 'Iov6aia in a n u m b e r o f instances in the o l d Syriac translation o f the G o s p e l .
T h e titulus
355
only by John, Act. Pil. xi and in part o f the manuscript tradition o f Luke. > T h e context is not the same. Mark, followed by Matthew, mentions it at the end o f the factual description o f the execution and before he goes on to describe the reaction o f the onlookers. Luke, who places the ejUYQCKprj notice in his account o f the remarks which in his representation mock the kingly claim o f j e s u s , reproduces one mocking interpretation o f the titulus itself, while leaving it open whether the inscription was meant to convey the same impression. A further clue may be found in the Jewish accusa tion at the beginning o f the trial before Pilate (23: 2 ) . T h e titulus is subordinate to the interest in different reactions. John, who places the notice between the description o f the crucifixion and the casting o f lots for the seamless garment, adds a judicial detail. T h e authority by which the titulus was formulated and put up is not mentioned in the synoptic Gospels. John attributes it to Pilate, whereas the Acts of Pilate (Act. Pil. x. 1; rec. A . ) produce the strange description exeXeuaev \izxa tfjv ajiocpaaiv eig xixXov e j t i y p a c p Y j v a i xf)v aixiav amov 15
16
17
1 8
19
. . . xaGcbg eircav °£ Tov6aioi 6x1 paodevg eoxiv xcbv Toudaioov, a formulation which emphasises at one and the same time the c o m m a n d by Pilate and a Jewish origin for the formula. Jewish responsibility is claimed by the Gospel o f Peter (Ev. Petr. 4 : 1 1 ) ; and the same is true for the Sinaitic Syriac. T h e passage on the titulus was evaluated by Bousset as 'erbauliche Betrachtung der glaubigen Jesusgemeinde', it could not be accepted as historical because its wording constituted a 'Verhohnung' o f the Jews. R. 20
21
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
P. F. R e g a r d , ' L e titre d e la croix d ' a p r e s les Evangiles', RArch 28 (1928), 96 c o n siders this text form as authentic. Regard, ibid. h o l d s that the differences o f w o r d i n g o f the titulus can b e under s t o o d this w a y : M a t t h e w renders the Semitic text, L u k e the G r e e k and J o h n the Latin text, whereas M a r k summarises. T h i s last m a y be true but the interpreta tion offered for the different texts is speculative. C p . 23:37 el cnj ei 6 paoiA.eiJg xa>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. Baoi^eiig 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 oixou^evryv 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
<*P. l b 1. 21. T h e p o l e m i c a l m o t i f is d e v e l o p e d even further in the H u l d r e i c h version o f the T o l e d o t h , a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h a d e f a m a t o r y inscription: 'the children o f adultery w e r e h a n g e d at this place a n d her m o t h e r was buried beneath; y o u r m o t h e r is c o v e r e d with s h a m e ' was set up o n the grave o f M a r y and her children (J.J. H u l d r e i c h , Sepher Toledoth Jeskua ha-Notz.ri ( L e i d e n , 1705), p . 122). 6 3
6 4
S a n h . 8gBar. - J e h u d a even speaks o f messengers to b e sent to all places ( S a n h .
11.4). 65
66
J u s t i n , Dial.c. Tryph. 108. |xdyog . . . xai XaoJtXavog (Dial. 69), jrldvog (Dial. 108). Especially with A c t s 28:21. 1 Apol. 35 a n d 38. Apologeticum 5.21. O u t s t a n d i n g a m o n g them is the letter c l a i m e d to have been written b y Pilate to C l a u d i u s . F o r the theory o f a longer span o f the life o f j e s u s and his execution u n d e r C l a u d i u s see H i p p o l y t u s I V , 23.3; c p . W . Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen ( T u b i n g e n , 1909), p p . 293f.
6 7
6 8
7 0
6 9
The titulus
363
Jewish account), are produced in the genre o f the Acts of Pilate. They describe Jesus as accused by the Jews 'Magum esse et contra legem eorum agere' and testify thereby to the fact that they are a derivation from and correction of non-Christian, most probably Jewish Acts. Their value consists in certain details rather than in the general flow of their account. T h e letter is merely an imaginative construction. A unique form o f the titulus is rendered in the Slavonic Josephus: Jesus the king did not reign but was crucified by the Jews because he prophesied the destruction o f the city and the devastation o f the T e m p l e . T h e inscription is said to have been placed on s o m e of the hewn stones with the warning inscription which marked the entrance o f the inner court o f the T e m p l e . T h e text itself is a combination of John 1 8 : igff and n : 48, 5 0 with the Jewish view expressed in Sanh. 4 3 a (see note 5 2 , p . 3 6 0 ) . Historically extremely unlikely, it derives from the Jewish-Christian controversy in late antiquity. It is the Christian counter-formulation to Jewish claims and tries to outmanoeuvre the latter by pretending that this was the official Jewish opinion in the time o f j e s u s . The following conclusion arises from this: the evidence about direct and official reports on the trial ofjesus is, although ample, rather to be taken as an attempt to illustrate the event to a later generation than as historically reliable information. Different in nature is the baraitha in Sanh. 4 3 a which, besides containing details about the execution ofjesus, gives the reason for the condemnation, the atxia in a form that agrees with Jewish law. T h e wording o f the titulus as it is reported in the Gospels is in all likelihood authentic. Its juridical relevance is, however, restricted by the influence o f considerations and, indeed, emotions o f a different nature about its
11
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
71
7 2
7 3
7 4
Letter to C l a u d i u s ( W a l t h e r , Betrachtungen, p p . 432ff; C . v o n T i s c h e n d o r f (Evangelia Apocrypha (Leipzig, 1876), p . 413). C p . T . M o m m s e n , ' D i e Pilatus-Acten', ZNW 3 (1902), 205. E. V o l t e r r a , ' D i una d e c i s i o n e del Senato R o m a n o ricordata d a T e r t u l l i a n o ' in Festschrift C. Ferrini i ( = Pubblicazioni dell' Universita Cattolica del S. Cuore, n.s. xvii ( M i l a n o , 1947), 47 iff), h o w e v e r , a d v o c a t e s the trustworthiness o f Tertullian. 'Irjoovv PaoiXea ov (3aoiXei3oavxa oxavQO)0Evxa vnb (xd>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<—xpoPog). Tiht] were indeed the o n l y p r o b l e m o f the citizens o f R o m e , w h o were exempt from cpoQOi. T h e incident mentioned by Tacitus is in keeping with this. T h e battle against xeXt] c o u l d , h o w e v e r , o n l y b e w o n b y collective pressure a n d not b y individual action, while the latter is the situation w h i c h Paul supposes his readers find themselves in. Besides, the R o m a n proletariat is not likely to have permitted n e w c o m e r s to p l a y a role in its fight. W . M a n g o l d , Der Rbmerbrief und seine geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen ( M a r b u r g , 1884), P-
233-
372
E.
BAMMEL
eulogy o f the ruler which we find, with certain differences in detail,
45
both in
the Hellenistic and in the R o m a n world in the forms o f the acclamation and o f the tractate.
46
47
It is tempting to link R o m a n s 13 with the prayer o f intercession which is 48
c o m m o n in the ancient w o r l d , which was adapted by the Jews already at an early stage, and reference to which plays a not insignificant role in the 49
self-explanation o f the Jews to the outside w o r l d . T h e text o f these prayers 50
for the superior powers is only known in outline. T h e advice to offer such a prayer and the meditation on it already contain elements o f reflection on the state, although only expressions o f practical w i s d o m getic v a l u e
52
51
and o f apolo
W h a t we find in Romans 1 3 is more, is a fuller description
o f the superior powers than usual, and it attempts a theory o f the state as such. T h e oldest Jewish formulae dealing with non-Jewish government just speak o f the king and his son or his family. This was sufficient. It was however not adequate in the city states o f the Mediterranean world with their oligarchic or quasi-democratic constitutions. T h e Jewish community
4 5
4 6
4 7
4 8
4 9
5 0
5 1
5 2
C p . I. O p e l t , ' Z u m Kaiserkult in d e r griech. D i c h t u n g ' , Rhein. Museum 103 (i960), 43*f. E.g. the e p i g r a m o f A c t i o n o r the A u g u s t u s h y m n o f Philo (Leg. § 143(f). E.g. A s c l e p i u s ' s aretalogy o n the king ( c p . A . F. G . Heinrici, Die Hermes-Mystik u.d.N.T. ( L e i p z i g , 1918), p p . 761). O p p i a n , Halieutika 2.41; A p u l e i u s , Metamorph. x i 17 (prayer in mystery c u l t s ) . C p . the a p o l o g e t i c narration in 1 M a c e . 7:33 a n d J o s . AJ 12 §406. Ezra 6: 10 (offerings are a c c o m p a n i e d b y p r a y e r s ) . Baruch 1: 11: JiEQi xfjg Ccofjg N. paoiAioog xai eig £a>f|v B . VIOV avxov iva a>oiv ai f|uirjai avxcbv xxA..; R o s . Sukkah 4. T h e r e is little to b e said for the theory o f H . St J. T h a c k e r a y , w h o thinks that the p r a y e r for the ruler in B a r u c h 1 c a m e in only after the collapse o f the first J e w i s h revolt, a n d is inclined to give the w h o l e b o o k a late date (Septuagint andJewish Worship ( L o n d o n , 1921), p p . 89(f). T h e formula 'king and his sons' is found again in O p p i a n , Halieutika 2.41. L . Biehl, Das liturgische Gebet fur Kaiser und Reich M i i n c h e n , 1937), d o e s not g o into these questions. Jer. 29: 7: it is g o o d for y o u if the city flourishes; Baruch 1:1 if: xai bibazi xvgiog IOXIJV r\\tiv; A b o t h 3.2: without the state o n e w o u l d d e v o u r the other. C p . M . Rivkes w h o d e m a n d s with reference to Sanh. 105a that prayer should b e m a d e for the welfare o f the k i n g d o m u n d e r w h o s e wings w e shelter (J. K a t z , Exclusiveness and Tolerance ( L o n d o n , 1961), p . 165). A m o r e cynical slant is given to this in the J e w i s h p r o v e r b : D o n ' t p r a y for the death o f a king, n o b o d y knows w h o will succeed h i m . Especially J o s . C. Apion 2 §196, w h e r e J o s e p h u s claims that the offerings in the T e m p l e w e r e a c c o m p a n i e d b y prayers for the xoivfj aomjQta ( = salus publico) w h i c h takes preference o v e r private offerings ( c p . 2 §77) because m a n is, it is p r e s u p p o s e d , a £cpov JioXixixov. T h i s must refer to the prayer for the ruler a n d is e m p h a s i s e d in a n s w e r to the accusation that the J e w s are not sacra colentes and despise the l a w s o f the state (Juvenal 14.96!!). C p . Philo, w h o claims that the J e w s are the o n e s w h o are cpiXoxaioaQES in their heart (Leg. §280), a n d the defence m a d e b y J o s e p h u s ('legislator n o n quasi p r o p h e t a n s R o m a n o r u m p o t e n t i a m n o n h o n o r a n d u m ' ; c. Apion 2 §75), a n d the accusations against the J e w s cited in M e g . 13b and j e r . Ter. 8. 10 (46b/c).
Romans 13
373
in Alexandria seems to have pledged its loyalty to the king without mentioning the municipal authorities.
53
W e d o not know which formula - if
any - was used by the long-standing Jewish communities o f the Diaspora.
54
T h e communities in the proud 'free' cities o f the Greek world are likely to have mentioned the municipal authorities and more or less disregarded the R o m a n ones. It was different outside the established Greek commonwealth. T h e problem became very acute in Rome, a place where the source o f authority had been shrouded in mist, where the princeps only exercised the 55
Samtherrschaft and his official position was that o f the tribunus plebis, where, on the other hand, every R o m a n citizen could claim to be a sovereign. It is in keeping with this situation that R o m . 1 3 : 1 and 3 speak o f different stages o f authority and it is the point o f the passage that divine authorisation is bestowed on each o f them, without exception: ov yag eoxiv e^ovoia xxX.
56
T h e claim made in Romans 13 is not new. T h e book o f Daniel emphasises that G o d will give (&(boei) the power to the king. states that G o d stands behind the king.
58
57
T h e Letter o f Aristeas
T h e consequence, however, that
the whole pyramidal system of governmental organs is divinely ordained is rarely drawn. Equally tdxteiv goes beyond 6i66vcu; it states a more far-reaching intervention o f G o d . T h e consideration that the a Q X
o v x e
S
cause fear only to the evil and not to the good is equally a stock phrase o f political ethics; it is used and paraphrased in Josephus's description o f Agrippa's speech to the inhabitants o f Jerusalem author o f the first Epistle o f Peter.
5 3
5 4
5 5
5 6
60
59
and likewise by the
T h e qualification as 5idxovog
QEOV
C p . Aristeas 15f. I f E. B i c k e r m a n n ' s theory that the civic prayer for Jerusalem s h o w s marks o f Greek influence (HThR 55 (1962), 185) is right, it is all the m o r e likely that the s y n a g o g u e o f the d i a s p o r a h a d started to formulate prayers for their respective cities and governments. T . M o m m s e n , Rom. Staatsrecht ii (4th e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1952), n67ff. ££01)01011 = potestates. O n l y consul a n d praetor are in possession o f the imperium while the rest o f the officials have merely a potestas. R o m a n s 13: 1-3 seems to emphasise that even the lower ranks o f the officials are to b e heeded as XeixovQYOi 9eov. T h e s a m e phrase (xov 66vxa 001 xr\v Paodetav xavxr\v &Qxr|v) is found in Acta Catharinae V ( c ) c h . 6. It is h a z a r d o u s to take this phrase as an a r g u m e n t against an early origin o f the text as has been d o n e b y E. K l o s t e r m a n n and E. Seeberg in Schriften der Kbnigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft i (Berlin, 1924), 8off. C p . the saying o f C h a n a n b . R a b b a a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h even the custodian in c h a r g e o f a well m a y b e taken as o r d a i n e d b y G o d (Ber. 58a).
5 7
D a n . 1: 2; 2: 37ff; 5: 18; c p . E. Stauffer, Gott und Kaiser im N .T. ( B o n n , 1935), p p . 7fT.
5 8
Aristeas 15. Befjajieveiv yaQ o v x eQE0i£eiv XQ*1 t o ? e^ovoiag; there is n o t h i n g that stops o n e b e i n g w h i p p e d s o o n e r than bearing it patiently (cpeoeiv); forbearance b y those w h o are maltreated (d&ixoi>u.evoi) leads to a c h a n g e o f m i n d o n the side o f those w h o inflict injustice (ddixovoiv) (BJ 2 §351). C p . 1 Pet. 2: 15. 3: 13; the very close parallelism between this passage and the o n e cited in n. 43 is w o r t h y o f note.
3 9
6 0
374
E- BAMMEL
which Paul stresses XeiTODQY
0161
so much, is u n c o m m o n . T h e same is true for
6 2
Q E O O - a formula which, although based on Isa. 6r. 6, seems
to have been coined ad hoc with this meaning - and the even more farreaching statement on the activity: J i Q o a x a o x e Q O u v x e s . Taken together this amounts to a fairly extended theology of o r d e r
63
which goes far beyond
the acclamation or prayer for the king. It is partly paralleled in the prayer for the aQXOVxec; and f|YOi3|xevoi which is incorporated in i Clem. 6 1 : the reference to different superior powers, the correlation between heavenly and earthly powers, the emphasis on subordination, the description o f any resistance as revolt against G o d are the same, while the rest o f the prayer proceeds along different lines. T h e coincidence is not to be explained by the assumption of direct dependence, as some o f the Pauline terms are lacking whereas others are used differently. It has been n o t e d reasonable
64
that chapters 6of display Jewish features. It seems
to suppose that a synagogue prayer
was adapted
and
augmented by the Christian community o f R o m e . Paul must have known such a text - not necessarily o f R o m a n , but probably o f Western origin. It is likely that his formulation in Romans 1 3 is a carefully designed texture consisting o f traditional elements and Pauline additions. T h e former are to be found in verses 3 a , 4 b , c (without 8 e o v 61CIXOVO5), 5; but other terms as well are likely to have their Jewish pre-history. Pauline, however, is not only the blunt linking o f the powers with G o d , but also the use o f the genitive, the emphasis on subordination and the stigmatisation o f resistance, and insistence on paying taxes. Paul does his utmost to combat all political inclinations among the Christians. H e not only exhorts his readers in passing to be loyal to the state (as he does later; Phil. 1 : 2 7 ) ,
D
U
t n
e
takes up and gives concrete reference to
formulae o f basic affirmation o f the state, which could be understood by both Jews and Gentiles. T h e fact too that the proverbial wisdom o f R o m . 1 2 : 1 6 is not taken up suggests political motivation. It is the particular situation o f his readers, whether or not the community still consisted primarily of Jewish Christians,
6 1
65
that explains the passage most readily.
F o r the m e a n i n g o f XetTOVQYOS
s
e
e
66
F• Oertel, Die Liturgie (Leipzig, 1917; 2nd e d n .
1965)6 2
6 3
6 4
6 5
C p . h o w e v e r the statement o f j a l q u t Shimoni o n Ps 132: 9, according to which rulers m a y act as priests o f G o d . C p . O . E c k , Urgemeinde und Imperium (Gutersloh, 1940). W . M a n g o l d , De ecclesia primaeva pro Caesaribus ac magistratibus Romanis preces fundente ( B o n n , 1881). F o r the J e w i s h character o f the Christian c o m m u n i t y at R o m e see M a n g o l d , Romerbrief, passim; for a later discussion o f the p r o b l e m c p . W . G . K u m m e l , Einleitung in das Neue Testament ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1973), p p . 27of ( E T L o n d o n , 1966, p p . 2i8ff). C p . W . Wiefel, 'Die j i i d i s c h e Gemeinschaft i m antiken R o m und die A n f a n g e des
Romans 1 3
375
R o m a n s 13 is written as a warning to the fellow members o f the community and even as an alibi, a proof o f innocence to the officials; it is the beginning o f Christian apologetic. Its comprehension is made possible not by emendation but by fitting it into its proper historical context. T h e passage does indeed contain a theology, and an even more heightened theology o f the state can be deduced from it, but it was not the typically Pauline approach that directed its formulation.
II ' W h e n they say, "Peace and security" '
6 7
(1 Thess. 5: 3 ) , a phrase which
68
received fame by its citation in mediaeval mystery plays and at the end o f Luther's 9 5 theses, is the other Pauline reference to the political world. T h e customary reference to Jer. 6: 1 4 amounts to only a partial parallel;
69
moreover such a reference is unlikely, in that 1 Thessalonians does not give evidence of any explicit O l d Testament citations. T h e half verse must be set in the context o f a different tradition. Ps. Sol. 8: 1 8 relates that Pompey entered Judaea like a father entering the house of his children |iexd eigr|vr]s. . . (xexd dacpaXeiag jroXlfjg.
70
The
psalmist adds that he then poured out the blood o f the citizens of Jerusalem like dirty water. T h e phrase quoted expresses the claim made by the conqueror, and indeed in his own words. For everywhere that R o m e makes an appearance, the provision of peace and security is made to justify the loss o f autonomy and more than compensate for all the initial terrors. Since the word pax, unlike
eiQTJVT),
71
has a no more than formally legal content,
referring to a transaction rather than a condition ( c p . pactum), the term demands a supplement to give it substance.
6 6
72
This is given by means o f an
r o m i s c h e n Chnstentums\Judaica 26 (1970), 65ft. E T in K . P. Donfried, The Romans Debate ( M i n n e a p o l i s , 1977), p p . iooff. T h i s v i e w was put forward in ThLZ 85 (i960), c o l . 8 3 7 ^ T h e line o f a p p r o a c h was taken u p b y J. K o s n e t t e r , ' R o m e r 13: 1-7 eine zeitbedingte V o r s i c h t s m a s s n a h m e o d e r grundsatzliche Einstellung?' (AnBibl 17 (1963), 347!!) and V . Zsifkovits, Der Staatsgedanke nach Paulus in Rbmer 13: i-y ( W i e n , 1964).
6 7
T h e V u l g a t e renders it in such a w a y that t w o citations are i m p l i e d . T h i s is parallel to the t e n d e n c y o f using these terms as formulae o f a c c l a m a t i o n . ^ C p . W . M e y e r , ' D e r L u d u s d e A n t i c h r i s t o ' in Gesammelte Aufsatze, i (Berlin, 1905),
169. 6 9
7 0
J. B. Lightfoot (Notes on the Epistles of St Paul ( L o n d o n , 1895), p . 72) even takes the verse as a 'direct q u o t a t i o n from o u r L o r d ' s w o r d s ' . F o r the Pax Romana c o n c e p t o f P o m p e y see M . Gelzer, Pompeius ( M i i n c h e n , 1959), P- 94-
7 1
7 2
It is therefore often - and m o r e adequately - rendered b y felicitas temporum. T h e a s s u m p t i o n o f a translation from H e b r e w , where indeed m"?tr is often used together with other terms ( R o m . 1: 7; G a l . 6: 16 e t c . ) , can b e disregarded in this case.
37^
E.
BAMMEL
adjective, complementary noun or significant symbol (caduceus or cornucopia or the like). It is in such a form that pax becomes the programme of the time o f the principate. This happens for the first time in the large aureus o f 28 B . C . , on which the contents o f the Pax are defined by the addition o f a caduceus (the same caduceus plays an especial role in the history o f Thessalonica). T h e programme is then given concrete expression in the Ara Pads Augustae, the construction o f which was begun in 1 3 B.C. Characterised in this way, Pax includes both urbs and orbis. Within the walls o f R o m e the term used is pax et concordia, since the inhabitants formed the sovereign body, and after the terror o f the Civil Wars it is the unanimity among them that is o f decisive importance. T h e corresponding formula for the empire outside R o m e is pax et securitas. If this is not always in express terms, the reason is that the Pax Romana was usually imposed on the peoples by means o f warfare. In such a case it was the R o m a n mercy which first o f all showed itself, sparing the stiff-necked instead o f wiping them out. O n these occasions therefore it is dementia that is the object o f praise. Where however the subjugation was brought about peacefully (as was initially the case in Judaea), or where the blessings given by R o m e had already been familiar for some time, it is not the single event but the mark o f complete peace, i.e. securitas, that is celebrated. Thus Velleius Paterculus, writing in A . D . 3 0 , makes his description o f the present state o f affairs culminate in praise of securitas. T h e same eulogy is still found in Aristides. With regard to this it is necessary to take into consideration that a correspondence exists 73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
7 3
H . M a t t i n g l y and E. A . S y d e n h a m , The Roman Imperial Coinage I ( L o n d o n , 1923), p . 60; c p . C . K o c h , ' P a x ' in: PW2nd ser. 18 (1949), c o l . 243off. F o r the R o m a n s ' o w n interpretation o f the Pax Augusta c p . H . E. Stier, ' A u g u s t u s - F r i e d e u n d r o m i s c h e K l a s s i k ' in Aufstieg undNiedergang der romischen Welt, e d s . H . T e m p o r i n i and W . H a a s e , ii, 2 (Berlin, 1975), 13fT.
7 4
Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, e d . H . M a t t i n g l y , i ( L o n d o n , 1923), p . 112; C . H . V . Sutherland, Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy ( L o n d o n , 1951), p . 31.
7 5
A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Macedonia, e d . R . S. P o o l e 1 1
7 6
7 7
7 8
7 9
8 0
( L o n d o n , 1879), P- 7 S . W e i n s t o c k , ' P a x and the A r a P a r i s ' , y / ? S 50 (i960), 44H"; K . H a n e l l , ' D a s O p f e r des A u g u s t u s an d e r A r a Paris', Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Roma, A c t a Instituti R o m a n i R e g n i Sueciae; q u a r t o series x x (i960), p p . 33ff. F o r a brilliant interpretation o f the c o n c e p t o f A u g u s t u s c p . E. Buchner, ' S o l a r i u m A u g u s t i u n d A r a P a r i s ' , Romische Mitteilungen 83 (1976), 3196°. 1 C l e m 37:5, the parable o f the b o d y with its praise o f auujtveiv is a R o m a n t h e m e par excellence. A p a r t from securitas w e find terms like tranquillitas, stabilitas temporum, quies, C p . Tertullian: rerum quies (Apol. 39). Hist. Rom. ii. 80. Orat. 26; for a searching interpretation o f Aristides' s p e e c h see J. P a l m , Rom, Rbmertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit ( L u n d , 1959), p p . 56ff. C p . Arist. Orat. 100 feig d o c p d X e i a v 8 = a Q x e l ) , Ps. Arist. Orat. eig (3ao. 37 and already I s o c r . , De pace 17. C p . W . G e r n e n t z , Laudes Romae ( R o s t o c k , 1918), p . 142.
Romans 1 3
377
m
between securitas and aeternitas. If the artistic attributes o f pax already provide a religious aura, with aeternitas a full religious claim, that of political realisation o f salvation (Heilsverwirklichung) is made. After the daring attempt o f Caligula, who had his three sisters portrayed on a coin as Concordia, Securitas and Fortuna, the inscription securitas was also put on coins from the time o f Nero onwards. From this point on the motto became a commonplace on coinage up to Constantius. This could not have happened earlier, because it was only under Nero that the doors o f the temple ofJanus were shut again for the first time since Augustus. It was possible for propaganda to anticipate something that was not yet permitted to the mintmasters, whose issue had to be a correct proclamation o f the present state o f affairs. It may be no chance coincidence that Ps. Sol. 8: 18 is the earliest piece o f evidence for this ideology. For Pompey the Great was the first and also the most imposing o f the homines imperiosi o f R o m a n history. In 1 Thess. 5 : 3 too it must be these Latin terms that are taken over, since in Greek, where the term eiQrjvr] is understood differently, the inclination to supplement eiQTJvt) with a complementary word does not become apparent. Nor is this done in the eulogy of Simon Maccabaeus in 1 M a c e . 1 4 which imitates the Greek. 82
83
84
85
86
87
8 8
8 1
8 2
C p . T h e references a d d u c e d b y Fr. Sauter, Der romische Kaiserkult bei Martial und Statius (Stuttgart, 1934), p p . 1241! M a t t i n g l y , Coins of the Roman Empire 1, p . 152. C l a u d i u s issued a p r o g r a m m a t i c c o i n w h i c h marked the third centenary o f the temple o f Janus, w h i c h bears the inscription Pad Augustae and s h o w s pax with the wings o f victoria, the attributes o f the caduceus (=felicitas; c p . securitas) a n d snake ( = salus) a n d the gestus ofpudor; Coins of the Roman Empire i, C l a u d i u s n. 6; c p . Sutherland, Coinage p . 127. C p . the statues o f three deities (Salus Publica, Concordia a n d Pax), o n the Ara Pads Augustae ( D i o 54.35.2).
8 3
T h e m o s t c o m p l e t e collection of securitas coins is given b y J. Bernhart, Die Miinzen der romischen Kaiserzeit ( M i i n c h e n , 1942), p p . 1240°. T h e theme c o u l d not b e a b a n d o n e d o n c e securitas had a p p e a r e d o n c o i n s . It is d u e to this that especially in the stormy time o f the year o f the four e m p e r o r s pax a n d securitas c o i n s are struck; n o w they represent a p r o g r a m m e rather than a factual statement.
8 4
Securitas a n d quies play a special role in the inscriptions o f Constantius; c p . L . Berlinger, ' B e i t r a g e z u r i n o f f i z i e l l e n T i t u l a t u r d e r r o m i s c h e r K a i s e r ' (Diss. Breslau,
8 5
i935)> P- 54A different interpretation
is suggested b y H . M a t t i n g l y , Roman Coins ( L o n d o n ,
i960), p. 161. 8 6
8 7
8 8
It is typical for b o t h the reality and the aspirations o f the time o f C l a u d i u s that the c o i n inscription Pad Augustae o c c u r s regularly ( c p . O . T . S c h u l z , Die Rechtstitel und Regierungsprogramme auf rbm. Kaizermiinzen ( P a d e r b o r n , 1925), p . 58): w h a t c o u l d not b e said o f the present time o f w a r against the Britons was projected into the future b y reference to the past. Similarly Velleius Paterculus hailed the revocata pax o f the time o f T i b e r i u s (Hist. Rom. ii. 89), although the reality w a s different. T h e instances to the contrary, a d d u c e d b y G . Delling, Romer 13, 1-7 innerhalb der Briefe des NT (Berlin, 1962), p p . 4of, d o not alter the picture. C p . especially verse 8 (\iex' eiorjvrig) and verse 11 (eJioiTjoe xf)v eiQTyvr)v EJU xr\q
378
E. BAMMEL
It is n o less significant that the phrase happened to be incorporated in the T a l m u d . W h e n Akiba and his fellow-rabbis pay their visit to the capital they find those w h o live there in a state o f security and peace. T h e welfare o f those w h o d o not perform the will o f G o d becomes a tantalising ques tion for those w h o obey his commandments even in the most trying circum stances. This theodicy problem, which is solved by a new perspective w h i c h Akiba becomes aware of, is given depth and illustration by the c o m p l a i n t that the Romans, w h o d o not obey G o d , live in peace and security. 89
90
It is, we remember, a phrase which was coined for the R o m a n realm outside the city but which is used here to characterise R o m e herself and her inhabitants. It should be noted that it is not a phrase that could have been picked up during the stay at R o m e that is employed here. Instead, a term is e m p l o y e d that was current in the rabbis' homeland, so much so that it was cited in a theological debate and given point by its incorporation in the description o f a visit to the metropolis which took place at the beginning o f the s e c o n d century. Paul takes up the phrase with polemical intent. Here one must note that he is commenting on an ideology that was in vogue at the time and taking off a generally prevalent self-awareness propagated by the panegyricists and encouraged by the state authorities, not however singling out for attack a formula already made sacrosanct by official proclamation (on a c o i n ) . Besides, a distinct confrontation or even hostility against Jewish-Christian eschatology is not noticeable on the other side - it is only imported by the addition o f y&Q or 5e at the beginning o f the sentence. Thirdly Paul expresses himself in personal terms ( o x a v Xiywow . . . a u x o i g ) . 91
T h u s in this direction the conflict lacks a final sharpness o f definition. M o r e o v e r Paul is directing himself towards the Thessalonians with these w o r d s . A m o n g them, or among some o f them, he sees the imminent danger, that the mirage of fulfilled eschatology may cause them to forget the future. N o n e the less he is indirectly making a revaluation o f a political ideology that was identical with the imperial government's view o f itself, and which the state could expect as a matter o f course to be treated with respect. This verse, it would seem, is the one in the Corpus Paulinum where this is done most unambiguously. It is questionable whether Phil. 3: 20 contains an
8 9
9 0
9 1
C p . Donum Gentilicium. Festschrift D . D a u b e ( O x f o r d , 1978), p p . 295ff. F o r general information c p . G . S t e m b e r g e r , ' D i e Beurteilung R o m s in d e r rabbinischen Literatur' in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, 11 19, 2 (1979), p p . 338ff. M a k k . 24a: op^m roa |*3tfv . T h e a d d i t i o n s are well attested - see T i s c h e n d o r f , Novum Testamentum Graece ( L e i p z i g , 1876), ad h o c . - and d e w a s even valued as original b y B. W e i s s . Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe ( L e i p z i g , 1896), p . 118.
Romans 1 3 allusion to emperor worship.
92
379
In any case it is only implicit in the verse.
Here however a critical position is taken expressly. T h e wording o f the warning - as is shown by verse 3 b and the word 6XE8QOC„ which is rare in Paul - is governed by apocalyptic motifs. There is, however, no example in apocalyptic literature o f so concrete and discriminating a form o f polemics.
93
Moreover most significant is the fact
that Paul does not remodel the m o o d he characterises into an apocalyptic sign - or rather into a stage in the evolution o f the last things. Thus the impression is reinforced that it is an actual Pauline opinion that is expressed here. This proviso is made by the same Paul w h o , three chapters earlier, had viewed a political measure o f the R o m a n government in a favourable light.
94
T o illuminate such a phenomenon in different ways, on
one occasion to set it in the flow o f eschatological events, and on another to interpret it purely personally, corresponds fully to the multiformity o f apocalyptic impression and thought. 2 Thessalonians 2: 6ff, a passage which is to be taken as Pauline, may serve as an additional piece o f evidence for this. T h e passage cannot be 95
96
referring to either the R o m a n state or the mission. For the use of the word 97
vvv (vvv . . . ol'5axe is to be rendered: you now come to k n o w ) indicates that it is a question o f an event that has manifested itself as xax&xov only after Paul's preaching in Thessalonica.
98
Thus it can only be a particular
measure taken by the xaxexcov, within the narrow limits o f a specified period o f time. In any case the xaxexcov is a person w h o had the power o f momentarily halting the wheel o f historical destiny. A closer identification is made possible by verses 3ff. T h e term djiooxaoia, as was recognised by Bernhard Weiss, refers to what he styles the 'definitive Entscheidung des judischen Volkes gegenuber der Heilsbotschaft'. expected 9 2
9 3
9
figure,
w h o brings
to its
99
T h e dvxixei^ievog is an
climax this apostasy,
pointedly
E. L o h m e y e r , Der Brief an die Philipper (Gottingen, 1953), p p . 27f. F o r the m o r e recent discussions o f this passage, c p . A l a n d , Entwurfe, p p . 5off. In p r i n c i p l e it is c o n c e i v a b l e that J u d a i s m c o u l d have argued along the s a m e lines. In fact, h o w e v e r , J u d a i s m d e v e l o p e d its position from the basis o f J e w i s h self-consciousness a n d w a s not eager to attack errors o r d e v e l o p m e n t s within p a g a n consciousness w h i c h , it must b e r e m e m b e r e d , d i d not exist as a challenging entity from the J e w i s h point o f v i e w .
* C p . ZThK 6 (1959), 2 f f . W . B o l d , Obrigkeit von Gott? ( H a m b u r g , 1962), p p . Sytt. O . C u l l m a n n , ' L e caractere e s c h a t o l o g i q u e d u d e v o i r missionaire . . .' in Recherches Theologiques a la memoire de W. Baldensperger (Paris, 1936), p p . 26ff; Der Staat im N.T. ( T u b i n g e n , 1956; E T L o n d o n , 1957); similarly J. M u n c k , Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte ( C o p e n h a g e n , 1954; E T L o n d o n , 1959). E. v o n D o b s c h i i t z , Die Thessalonicherbriefe ( G o t t i n g e n , 1909), p . 279, o n the other hand, links it with i l l in the s a m e verse. Rightly s o H . H a n s e , ThWNT ii, 830 ( E T ii, 830). Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des N.T. (Stuttgart, 1903), p p . 22 f. 5
94
9 5
9 6
9 7
9 8
99
4
3
8o
E. BAMMEL
designated as dvo^iia, and ends in theomachy. T h e xaxexoov inhibits this Jewish persecution o f the Christians. It is only indirectly that he delays the end; primarily it is the repulse o f the djicoXeia that is implied. So one should think o f Claudius and his repressive policies against the Jews. T h e same experience lies also behind i Thess. 2: 1 6 . Only here Paul adds that the persecution o f the persecutors does not yet proclaim the immediate proximity o f the day, but that djtooraoia must come first. I f this djiooxaoia culminates in an individual, one must assume that he too appears in political dress - not indeed preceded by the R o m a n fasces but perhaps in Jewish messianic g a r b . A further counterpoint o f c o m prehension! 100
1 Thessalonians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 2 d o not speak directly of the state per se but rather o f manifestations o f the political world. T h e y d o not contradict each other, but take different approaches in showing the ambivalence o f the political powers as revealed to apocalyptic thought, which comprehends world history and salvation history in continual movement - made possible by an extraordinary variability o f the apocalyptic scheme itself and o f its application to historical events. In each case man interprets the phenomena and signs by his active and passive participation in the events. This means that eschatological reflection lies at the beginning o f this perception. M a n stands over against the happen ings o f the political world and does not see himself as entirely subordinate to them. H e only criticises, however, so far as his fellow men are led into temptation. There is no time for anything else. T h e intensified eschatology makes it easy for Paul to regard practical problems as o f secondary im portance. The- difference from Romans 1 3 is obvious. O n the one side a dynamic-apocalyptic understanding o f state and history which embraces the events in continually new and different ways, on the other the static view o f the state o f a quod semper ubique, while, it is to be emphasised, there are no lines o f argumentation attributing special distinction and a role in salvation history to the R o m a n empire. It is impossible to insert the eschatological understanding o f 2 Thessalonians 2 - seen with a positive bias - into R o m a n s 1 3 (as has been done occasionally) and thus even to attribute an eschatological dignity to the state. T h e Thessalonians 101
102
Is it the e x p e c t e d ruling o f a high priest w h o claims to give his decision b y the authority o f G o d ? O r is the dvTixeinevog a J e w i s h revolutionary? Is the sitting in the T e m p l e a scene like the o n e , d e s c r i b e d b y H e g e s i p p u s ( E u s . H.E. 2.23.1 iff.), that led to the e x e c u t i o n o f J a m e s the R i g h t e o u s (similar in a p p e a r a n c e b u t the o p p o s i t e in c o n t e n t s ) ? F o r references to this a p p r e c i a t i o n see Palm, Rom. p p . ii4ff. E c k , Urgemeinde, p p . 6 6 f and B o l d , Obrigkeit, p . 82.
Romans 1 3
381
passages and Romans 1 3 represent two different types o f understanding o f the state, which have little in c o m m o n . Paul's theology as a whole and in particular his eschatology is largely dictated by apocalyptic. With regard to his view of the state, he undertook, as has been shown, characteristic changes within this framework. Thus the apocalyptic type may be regarded with some certainty as the type, in which the Pauline philosophy o f the state is moulded. T h e development o f Pauline theology has not yet been sufficiently investigated. Perhaps the theology o f martyrdom in the thought o f his middle period may partly explain his sharp attitude towards the political powers,
perhaps
in
the
other
direction
the
lessening
eschatology may have prepared the ground for R o m a n s .
103
influence o f
Perhaps such an
investigation might throw some more light on the chapter - it will scarcely be possible to uphold the theory o f a favourable impression made by the happy Quinquennium Neronis. Nor is the solution to wriggle out o f the stern meaning o f Romans 1 3 by stating that remarks on the divine ordination o f the ruler were quite natural in an environment where so much was linked with the heavenly sphere.
104
W e are bound to admit that the passage
appears just as much a foreign b o d y when seen from the general viewpoint o f Pauline theology as it is evidence for an exceptional case when viewed historically. Therefore, whatever its biblical theological significance may be and however great the momentum it gathered in church history has been, in an account o f the Pauline view o f the state Romans 1 3 must be given its place rather in a side aisle than in the n a v e .
105
Ill T h e passage is, however, o f greatest importance for the
characterisation
o f Paul, the leader o f his communities. T h e distaste for any form o f a t a x i a is noticeable from the beginning o f the time we can trace his steps (1 Thess. 5: 1 4 ) . Its combating became a dominant theme the more he encountered the effect o f disorder in his foundations. It is in this context that the term JlQOloxd^ievoi occurs for the first time. It is significant that the pyramidal structure is meant to be confined to the c o m m u n i t y .
106
T h e world is an
entity outside (1 Thess. 4 : 1 2 ) , its representatives are a 5 i x o i (1 C o r . 6: 1 ) , 1 0 3
1 0 4
1 0 5
1 0 6
T h u s C . H . D o d d , ' T h e M i n d o f Paul V, New Testament Studies ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1953), p . 118. A d . v . H a r n a c k , ThLZ 6 (1881), c o l . 499 (review o f M a n g o l d ) . T h e o b s e r v a t i o n itself is, o f course, true a n d has b e e n a m p l y substantiated b y subsequent research (e.g. Berlinger, Titulatur, especially p p . 891). C p . W i n d i s c h , Imperium, p . 30. H . v . C a m p e n h a u s e n , ' Z u r A u s l e g u n g v o n R o m e r 13 . . in Festschrift A. Bertholet ( T u b i n g e n , 1950), p p . i09f argues differently.
3
82
E. BAMMEL
the Christian task is not to give offence and therefore r\ovx&t,Eiv (i Thess. 4: 1 1 ) . It may be that Paul had been influenced by that rabbinic school o f thought that stopped short o f considering pagan authorities as divinely ordained reasons.
107
108
and confined itself to a qualified appreciation for practical But it is typical that, already at the beginning, he is more
concerned about the reputation o f the communities in the outside w o r l d
109
than Jewish missionary literature appears to have been. As soon as he realises that disorder may carry serious consequences for the communities he urges obedience to the government. H e enforces this c o m m a n d by giving it an ultimate direction. H e achieves this by moving the pyramidal system, which he had recommended as basic to his communities, into the public world. It is this interaction
between care for the well-being o f the
community and circumspection about dangers that may arise from outside that are constitutive factors for Paul's design in Romans 1 3 . Celsus accuses the Christians o f taking no interest in public affairs. W h a t was not entirely true for his time
111
110
was in all probability valid for the
lifetime o f Paul. Rendering honour and paying taxes were the only direct contributions for the general welfare which were made by those w h o lived in the conviction that they possessed a KoXiTEV\ia
in heaven. Social status,
foreign descent and, indeed, a tense eschatology militated against anything else. It was, however, no less than the government expected o f people o f this strand o f society. In a sense it was even more, if taken together with the apostle's insistence on regular work and his dislike o f disorderly, let alone revolutionary, activities. Seneca stresses that the service o f a g o o d citizen is never useless: by being heard and seen, by his expression, by his gesture, by his silent stubbornness and by his very walk, he helps.
112
It was in a similar
way that Christians were admonished to render their services.
1 0 7
113
Even the
T h a t the p o w e r is given to R o m e from heaven is emphasised b y J o s e p h u s (BJ 5 §307) a n d a d m i t t e d in a n u m b e r o f r a b b i n i c statements (Jose b . K o s m a in A b . z . 18a (whereas C h a n i n a o p p o s e s h i m ) a n d especially R e s h L a q u i s h in C h a g . 16a.
1 0 8
C h a n i n a in A b o t h 3.2 ( m e n w o u l d d e v o u r e a c h other without fear b u t for the g o v e r n m e n t ; interesting is Eisler's statement: ' d e r Stoss seufzer des R . C h a n i n a . . . ist kein vollwertiges Gegenstiick ( z u R o m e r i^)\Jesous Basileus, ii. 749) a n d , even m o r e reserved, Gen.r.82 (resistance is equal to s u i c i d e ) . W . C . v . U n n i k , ' D i e Rucksicht a u f die R e a k t i o n d e r Nicht-Christen als M o t i v in d e r altchristlichen Paranese' in BZNW 26 (i960), 22iff. 110 O r i g e n , C. Cels. viii. 73, 75. A . Bigelmair, Die Beteiligung der Christen am bfjentlichen Leben in vorconstantinischer Zeit ( M i i n c h e n , 1902). N u m q u a m inutilis est o p e r a civis b o n i ; auditus visusque, voltu, nutu, obstinatione tacita i n c e s s u q u e ipso prodest (De otio i v . 6). A l t h o u g h the pressure exercised o n m e m b e r s o f the higher strata o f society to take o v e r h o n o r a r y offices caused great difficulties ( c p . R . Freudenberger, ' R o m a n a s c a e r i m o n i a s r e c o g n o s c e r e ' in Donum Gentilicium. Festschrift D . D a u b e ) ( O x f o r d ,
1 0 9
1 1 1
1 1 2
1 1 3
1978), pp. 238ff).
Romans 1 3
383
eschatological view could, as has been shown, result in a positive valuation o f certain aspects o f governmental activity. T h e very mutability o f the eschatological interpretation o f time, for which the Pauline letters give such ample evidence, made it easier for the Christians to adapt themselves to a new
situation
and
to
take
up
new
challenges.
They
resulted
in
developments which had their o w n problems, problems the church tried to c o p e with by a reinterpretation o f Romans 1 3 , the essence of which is most lucidly expressed in the text o f Bach's cantata: Die Obrigkeit ist Gottes Gabe, Ja selber Gottes Ebenbild. Wer ihre Macht nicht will ermessen Der muss auch Gottes gar vergessen: Wie wiirde sonst sein Wort erfullt? 114
It needs, there is little doubt, a revaluation in our days. This can be attempted by giving the passage its proper focus, by placing it in a situation which is in some ways, although not entirely, beyond recall, while the apostle's concern and consideration sets an example that it would be unwise to disregard.
1 , 4
C a n t a t a 119 (Sdmtliche von Johann Sebastian Bach vertonte Texte, e d . W . N e u m a n n ( L e i p z i g , 1974), p . 170).
K.
SCHUBERT
Biblical criticism criticised: with reference to the Markan report of Jesus's examination before the Sanhedrin
i 1
In the introduction to the third edition of his Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre Heinrich Zimmermann writes that he has not mentioned religio-historical study among the methods o f scholarly New Testament interpretation, because he does not know 'which N e w Testament pericopae could be chosen as examples, from the point o f view o f the history o f religions', to demonstrate its use and applicability. His book is accordingly for the most part a full and highly instructive presentation o f literary-historical methods, particularly form-criticism and redaction-criticism. T h e tradi tions which are shaped in transmission and combined in redaction have nevertheless an historical background. In form- and redaction-criticism this is virtually excluded from examination. These methods are concerned primarily with the moulding o f the traditions by congregational Sitz im Leben and editorial outlook. Enquiry is directed at the process o f literary formation rather than the historical background from which the process begins. Heinz Schiirmann justly observes that enquiry into the Sitz im Leben o f the congregations which proclaimed the Gospel is too limited in scope for him to say that his acceptance o f the Gospel is vindicated by it. If, for instance, the Gospel statements on Jesus are to be interpreted only in the light o f Easter and Whitsuntide, and cannot be 'traced back to the historical Jesus and into the company o f the disciples before Easter', the Christian message would lose 'the factum historicum? which is its basis, and could accordingly 'no longer be distinguished from Gnosis'. 2
Kurt Luthi, in his review o f A d o l f Holl's Jesus in schlechter Gesellschaft, sums up by saying that New Testament study has foregone 'any direct apprehension ofjesus'. ' T h e phrase "historical Jesus" ', he says, could only
' H e i n r i c h Z i m m e r m a n n , Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre (3rd e d n . Stuttgart, 1970), p . 7. H e i n z S c h i i r m a n n , ' D i e vorosterlichen A n f a n g e der Logientradition. V e r s u c h eines formgeschichtlichen Z u g a n g s z u m L e b e n J e s u ' , in H e l m u t R i s t o w and K a r l M a t t h i a e ( e d s . ) , Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus (Berlin, i960),
2
p p . 342-70 (370). 385
386
K. SCHUBERT 3
signify something 'entirely beyond scientific history.' Liithi is formulating what could almost be called communis opinio of most contemporary exegetes. Here, however, this view is resisted for basic theological reasons as well as from the point o f view o f exegetical method. I cannot rid myself o f the impression that the widespread refusal to elucidate biblical traditions historically stems from the current prevalence o f literary-critical methods. By virtue o f their very starting-point these methods are more concerned with the factors that form tradition than with historical background. Thus, to begin with, exegetical methods rule out elucidation o f the historical fundamentum in re for the Christian message; and then this fundamentum in re is declared irrelevant, because the student working solely with literary criticism can only attain to the testimony o f the witnesses and so to the belief o f the church. Yet the committed faith o f the primitive and early Christian witnesses to Jesus left its literary deposit in the Gospels. Can we really be asked to take that faith seriously, and make it our own, without also being interested in its object, the historical Jesus himself? W o u l d not that mean that we should have faith in the faith o f the witnesses, although the content o f their faith had no longer any relevance for us? O f course the whole biblical message o f the O l d and New Testaments is determined by the faith o f those who have handed it on to us. O f course the biblical writers use various styles o f composition, including that o f legend, to bring out the meaning o f what they transmit for faith. Nevertheless, for anyone who wants to believe today, it is still a decisive question whether behind the different calls to faith there are or are not historical facts. This question may not be weakened or 3
K u r t Liithi, J e s u s in schlechter Gesellschaft', Wort und Wahrheit, 26 (1971), 463-6 (463). T h e o b j e c t i o n to a faith-motivated interest in the history b e h i n d the k e r y g m a is especially forcibly expressed b y G e o r g Strecker, ' D i e historische u n d t h e o l o g i s c h e P r o b l e m a t i k d e r Jesusfrage', EvTh 29 (1969), 453-76. Strecker, 468, rightly o p p o s e s the c l a i m that the historical Jesus must p r o v i d e the g r o u n d o f certainty for faith. F o r Strecker, i b i d . , faith's g r o u n d o f certainty is not attainable outside faith, even in the p r o c l a m a t i o n o f j e s u s himself. A t 469 he writes: ' T h e trans-subjective, to w h i c h faith refers itself, c a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d as an " o b j e c t i v e saving fact", as s o m e t h i n g attainable in general e x p e r i e n c e , w h i c h w o u l d also b e accessible to the secular historian. Rather, that w h i c h gives the believer certainty is not d e m o n s t r a b l e ; it is inextricably b o u n d u p with the event o f faith. Certitude o f belief o n l y o c c u r s with the a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f faith.' Strecker's position here seems to m e to need s o m e m o d i f i c a t i o n . I n d e e d history d o e s n o t offer the basis for certainty in faith, but it d o e s p r o v i d e the c o n d i t i o n s w i t h o u t w h i c h n o basis for certainty is possible. T h e b i b l e in b o t h O l d and N e w T e s t a m e n t s is interpreting historical events, w h i c h as events m u s t b e accessible to the historian also, so that c o m m i t t e d faith c a n ascribe to t h e m the m e a n i n g o f saving events. T h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n for certainty in faith is indeed not d e m o n s t r a b l e , but an historical p r o o f that Jesus o f Nazareth had never existed c o u l d never b e r e m o v e d b y any p o s s i b l e g r o u n d o f certainty for faith. It seems to m e that Strecker has m a d e a quantitative p r o b l e m ( h o w far must the historical fundamentum in re extend?) into a qualitative o n e .
Markan report of Jesus's examination
387
relativised by the observation that the nature of historical fact is a debatable subject. In the present context an historical fact is an historical factum, o f equal validity however it is transmitted or interpreted, and o f equal validity however we relate ourselves to it. In my opinion no historian should lose sight o f the question o f historical facts in this sense, even when he is aware that any historical fact becomes, the moment it is transmitted, more (or at least other) than historical fact alone. It is the historian's business to evolve methods which bring him as close as may be to historical fact. H e should not, however, imitate those many exegetes who rest content with literary criticism alone and declare the historical basis o f the biblical message to be unattainable in the first place and in the next place irrelevant. Here a virtue seems to be made out o f necessity. T h e question o f the historical basis o f the message is essentially that o f continuity between event and report. Only a demonstrable continuity here can be accepted, even from the standpoint o f faith, as legitimate development. Thus if, for example, no proto-Israelitic group - however it may be more exactly defined - had the experience o f emigrating successfully from Egypt, there would be no grounds for the basic avowal o f ancient Israelite faith, that G o d brought his people out o f Egypt. A further implication emerges, in my opinion: the Exodus can only be understood as a saving act o f G o d for Israel, because it was experienced by a definite group o f people and because it is open to interpretations other than that o f Israelite belief (and so can be seen, for example, as a flight or an expulsion). In other words, the understanding o f history as salvation-history presupposes historical events which took place independently o f their interpretation as salvation-history and can be understood in a different way. A joke from East-European Jewry may illustrate this. A pious Jew is in a place where it is impossible to eat kosher. Driven by the pangs o f hunger he goes into a butcher's and asks: ' H o w much is one portion of ham?' At this instant there is a loud and distinct clap o f thunder, for meanwhile a storm has arisen. At the thunder-clap the pious Jew leaves the shop at once and lifts his eyes to heaven with the words ' M a y n ' t a man so much as ask?!' For no-one else in the whole town does the thunder possess the meaning it has for the Jew in our story. Everyone hears it, but only this one Jew understands it as G o d ' s communication to him personally. If it had not thundered so that others too could recognise the thunder, our story would lack fundamentum in re, and the Jew's sudden flight from the butcher's would only be the result o f his own fancy. If it really did thunder, however, the thunder could be given a corresponding interpretation. If the thunder were 4
4
[ F o r a version o f this j o k e in V i c t o r i a n Britain see J. C . M a c D o n n e l l , The Life and Correspondence of William Connor Magee (2 vols., L o n d o n 1896), i, 256: ii, 280. Trans.]
388
K. SCHUBERT
only a manifestation o f the bad conscience o f the Jew, his aversion on this account in our story to eating unclean meat would be evinced as simply the product o f his fancy. These considerations compel us to inquire about historical events as they took place, if we wish to understand them as relevant to salvation-history. Yet historical events are virtually untouched in research which is solely directed towards literary criticism. Thus the question o f the Last Supper cannot be posed if we only enquire about the Sitz im Leben o f the community in which the accounts o f the meal were formed and handed down. Gerhard Schwarz in his book on Jesus rightly criticised the literary-critical methods which n o w govern exegesis, and rightly asked for the criteria guiding decisions in (for instance) the important area o f christology. ' D o the (christological) statements already presuppose the later christology, or was the later christology only possible because of Jesus' own statements?' Here it seems to me rightly recognised that the criteria for dating a tradition cannot always be found by literary-critical methods. It is indeed in the area o f christology that the influence of presuppositions is extraordinarily clear. Sharply expressed, the assumption runs: Jesus was lacking in knowledge about himself, his person and his function, in just the same degree as the church by its Easter faith was instructed concerning him. Everything that brings Jesus, even indirectly, into connection with messianic-christological language is to be understood as church-creation. It is this presuppositionand not any literary-critical necessity - that marks all these passages as church-creation. 5
6
Here the Markan account o f Jesus's examination before the council will serve to show that this presupposition requires criticism. At the same time it will demonstrate how investigation o f religio-historical milieu can contribute greatly towards recognition o f historical fundamentum in re. Indeed we shall be asking what can be, rather than what cannot be, historical.
II First some literary points must be established. In Mark and Matthew the tradition o f Jesus's examination before the council by night, Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 (with the mockery following, Mark 1 4 : 6 5 ) is inserted into the story o f Peter's denial. Immediately annexed to this story is the observation o f Mark 1 5 : 1 that 'at once, in the early morning' the members o f the Sanhedrin assembled and after deciding accordingly sent Jesus bound to
5
G e r h a r d S c h w a r z , Was Jesus wirklich sagte ( W i e n , 1971).
6
S c h w a r z , Jesus, p p . 67f.
Markan report o f j e s u s ' s examination
389
Pilate. It can therefore be contended that a single sentencing ofjesus by the council has been reported twice, first in the context o f the hearing by night and secondly in accordance with the note o f time 'at once, in the early morning'. This consideration alone already warrants scepticism from a literary-critical viewpoint as to the historicity o f the nocturnal before the Sanhedrin.
hearing
7
This suspicion is strengthened by three further observations. ( 1 ) Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 contains christological statements about Jesus. From the presumption that Jesus was first taken to be messiah by witnesses to Christian faith after the resurrection - a presumption that must be critically examined! - it follows necessarily that Jesus and the high priest could not have used christological formulae o f this kind. Hence they could only be expressions o f the faith o f the church, whose members understood Jesus in messianic terms.
8
(2) In Luke the Sanhedrin d o not examine Jesus by night, but only in the morning (Luke 2 2 : 6 6 - 7 1 ) . Some important elements placed by Mark, and Matthew after him, in the nocturnal session are referred by Luke to the morning in a shortened and somewhat altered form. A n example is Jesus's reply to the high priest, with its reference, following Ps. n o : 1, to the exaltation o f the Son of man to G o d ' s right hand. T h e allusion also made in this reply to Dan. 7: 1 3 (Mark 1 4 : 6 2 , Matt. 2 6 : 6 4 ) is not transmitted by Luke, in accord with his distinctive presuppositions, because it stresses the expectation o f the parousia. T h e formal agreement o f the notes o f time in Luke 2 2 : 6 6 and Mark 1 5 : 1 can then be taken as indicating that the earliest tradition of all knew nothing of a hearing by night, and only recorded one in the morning.
9
(3) Literary resemblances between Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 and Mark
15:2-5
can be taken to show that the first passage (nocturnal hearing before the Sanhedrin) depends on the second (pleading before Pilate). T h e high priest's two questions to Jesus correspond to Pilate's two questions. Both reports stress Jesus's silence before his judges. Like Pilate (Mark 1 5 : 4 ) , the high priest (Mark 1 4 : 6 0 ) asks Jesus: 'Answerest thou nothing?' N o w if Jesus was lawfully condemned to crucifixion by Pilate, and if the objections to the report o f the nocturnal hearing mentioned under ( 1 ) and (2) above are valid, it follows that the report o f the proceedings before Pilate was 7
8
9
T h i s scepticism w a s already formulated b y H a n s L i e t z m a n n , ' D e r P r o z e s s j e s u ' in Sitzungsberichte derpreussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil. -Hist. K l . xiv (Berlin, 1931), p p . 313-22. It laid the foundation for Paul W i n t e r , On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961). See for e x a m p l e F e r d i n a n d H a h n , Christologische Hoheitstitel, 2nd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1964 ( E T The Titles of Jesus in Christology, L o n d o n , 1969. S o for e x a m p l e W i n t e r , Trial, p . 25; H a n s W e r n e r Bartsch, ' T h e o l o g i e und G e s c h i c h t e in der Uberlieferung v o m L e b e n J e s u ' , EvTh 32 (1972), 128-43 (*39)-
K. SCHUBERT
390
already constructed and available when the report o f the proceedings before the Sanhedrin was drawn u p .
10
nocturnal
If we ask whether Jesus's
examination before the high priest by night belongs to history, considera tions o f this kind alone already seem to put us in the wrong and to attribute our question to an illegitimate 'historicizing interpretation'. Internal
analysis
o f Mark
14:55-64
also supplies
11
considerations
suggesting that Jesus may not have been examined before the Sanhedrin by night. Mark 1 4 : 6 2 contains a combined scriptural citation linking the concepts o f the returning Son o f man (Dan. 7: 1 3 ) and the exalted Son o f David (Ps. 1 1 0 : 1 ) .
It would be concluded almost universally that a
combined citation o f this kind cannot stem from Jesus himself, but only from the faith o f the early church. Likewise, the high priest's question on Jesus's messiahship would be held to imply belief in Jesus as Son o f G o d , that is, the belief o f the early church. It is twice reported ( M a r k 1 4 : 5 6 , 5 9 ) that the testimonies o f the witnesses against Jesus did not agree. T w i c e seems once too often, for such a claim needs no repetition.
12
T h e saying on
the destruction o f the T e m p l e (Mark 1 4 : 5 8 / M a t t . 2 6 : 6 1 ) recurs as the gibe of passers-by under the cross (Mark I 5 : 2 9 / M a t t . 2 7 : 3 9 1 ) . In Luke it is missing at both places, but the motif reappears, once again as false witness, in the case against Stephen (Acts 6: i%f). In contrast with Mark and Matthew, w h o ascribe the saying on the destruction o f the T e m p l e to false witnesses against Jesus, J o h n (2: 1 9 - 2 1 ) gives it as a genuine saying ofjesus at the cleansing o f the T e m p l e - a scene which in J o h n stands at the beginning o f j e s u s ' s public ministry, but in the other evangelists after the messianic entry into Jerusalem and before the passion. John, for w h o m the saying is authentic, interprets it allegorically o f the three days between the death o f j e s u s and his resurrection. It is therefore widely concluded that the saying originally circulated in isolation and was first placed in these different contexts as a result o f developments in tradition.
13
Nevertheless
one must surely also reckon with the possibility that it could have belonged originally to at least one o f these contexts! A further, more fundamental objection to the possible historicity of Mark 1 4 : 55—64 is raised by the view that no one w h o could be reckoned a witness of the nocturnal hearing will have belonged to the Christian church. Even references to Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus are not relevant here. 1 0
11
1 2
1 4
14
G . B r a u m a n n , ' M k 15, 2-5 und M k 14, 55-64', ZNW52 (1961), 273-8; J o a c h i m G n i l k a , ' D i e V e r h a n d l u n g v o r d e m S y n e d r i o n u n d v o r Pilatus n a c h M k 14, 53-15, 5', EKK Vorarbeiten, Heft 2 ( E i n s i e d e l n / N e u k i r c h e n , 1970), p p . 5-21 (7, 12); Eta L i n n e m a n n , Studien zur Passionsgeschichte ( G o t t i n g e n , 1970). Gnilka, ' V e r h a n d l u n g ' , p . 15. L i n n e m a n n , Passionsgeschichte, p p . 109-16. G n i l k a , ' V e r h a n d l u n g ' , p . 18. E d u a r d L o h s e , Die Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens Jesu Christi (Gutersloh, 1964), p . 83. 1 3
Markan report of Jesus's examination
391
O n the other hand it should be noticed that according to Acts 6: 7, 1 5 : 5 both priests and Pharisees found their way into the primitive church. A m o n g these could have been some with knowledge of what went on during the nocturnal hearing. Likewise we can assume that in the courtyard o f the high priest's palace Peter had the amplest opportunity to gain first-hand information on events in the hall o f judgement. In arguing now that the Markan account o f Jesus's examination before the council is basically historical I proceed from two assumptions: ( 1 ) the primitive Christian community had its sources o f information on the examination o f j e s u s by the Sanhedrin; ( 2 ) the report in Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 is no court record, but only recounts the incidents which were decisive for Christian belief. T e n verses o f course could not suffice for a record in due form. At this point, however, at least a brief debate must be attempted with those w h o maintain that the Lukan passion-narrative is older and more original than the Markan. So for example it is argued that in Luke the two titles 'messiah' and 'Son o f G o d ' are not yet combined in the manner o f Mark 1 4 : 6 1 / M a t t . 2 6 : 6 3 . In Luke these two titles are divided between the verses 2 2 : 6 7 and 2 2 : 7 0 . I f we can presume that here a stratum emerges older than that in which the two titles are j o i n e d , the Lukan account o f Jesus's examination before the Sanhedrin will be ascribed to an especially early stage in tradition. As I shall try to show, however, the presumption that Mark 1 4 : 6 1 presents us with a christological testimony from the early church seems to be false. It is far more likely that we have to d o with a true record o f what the high priest said! T h e separation o f the two expressions 'messiah' and 'Son of G o d ' accordingly indicates Lukan literary craft rather than especially ancient and original tradition. A number o f detailed observations show that Luke has remodelled the tradition that reached him. I mention only the most important. Luke 2 2 : 5 6 - 6 2 deals with Peter's denial. After this 2 2 : 6 3 notes: ' A n d the men that held him (Greek a u x o v ) mocked him, beating him.' Luke's text would lead one to believe that this verse concerns Peter, w h o is spoken o f immediately before, if one did not know from Mark 1 4 : 6 5 that it can only refer to Jesus. Luke here has obscured the meaning o f the passage by moving the verse into a different context. In contrast with Mark and Matthew, Luke does not break up the 15
16
1 5
1 6
S o for e x a m p l e D . R . 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 T r i a l ' , in E . B a m m e l ( e d . ) , The Trial ofjesus ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 47-65 (65). A m o n g a d v o c a t e s o f the priority o f the L u k a n passion-narrative are: G . Schneider, 'Jesus v o r d e m S y n e d r i o n ' , BibLeb 11 (1970), 1-15; Carsten C o l p e , ' D e r Begriff " M e n s c h e n s o h n " u n d die M e t h o d e d e r Erforschung messianischer P r o t o t y p e n ' , Kairos 13 (1971), 1-17 (13); J a c o b K r e m e r , 'Verurteilt als " K o n i g der J u d e n " verkiindigt als " H e r r und C h r i s t u s " ' , BLit 45 (1972), 23-32 (29). A b r a h a m Shalit, review o f W i n t e r , Trial, in Kirjath Sepher 37 (1962), 332-41 (339):
K. SCHUBERT
392
story o f Peter's denial by inserting an account ofjesus's examination before the Sanhedrin
by night.
Mark obviously intended
this insertion
to
emphasise that Jesus's confession o f faith happened at the same time as Peter's denial. For literary reasons Luke achieved this emphasis in another way. It is only in Luke 2 2 : 6 1 that the Lord turns and looks upon Peter as he denies. Mark and Matthew lack this notice because they take literary means to show that confession and denial occurred together, inserting the nocturnal hearing into the story o f the denial. Luke did not wish to interrupt this story. His literary scheme therefore compelled him on the one hand to place the mockery before the account o f the hearing before the Sanhedrin (not after it as in Mark and Matthew) and on the other hand to locate the whole examination in the early hours of the morning only. Again, the form ofjesus's reply to the high priest's messianic question is obviously secondary in Luke 2 2 : 6 9 as compared with Mark 1 4 : 6 2 , because here the typical Lukan softening o f the early Christian expectation o f the parousia is responsible for the Lukan wording. W e must then begin with Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 if we would investigate the historical fundamentum in re o f j e s u s ' s examination before the Sanhedrin.
Ill The most important unargued ground for the evaluation o f Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 as unhistorical is the assumption that the christological passages on Jesus are to be understood only as witnesses to the faith o f the primitive Christian church.
17
It must therefore first be asked if this assumption isjustified. T h e
charge that Jesus drives out devils by Beelzebub the prince o f the devils occurs in Mark 3: 2 2 - 3 0 / M a t t . 1 2 : 2 2 - 3 7 / L u k e 1 1 : 1 4 - 2 3 . According to Luke 1 1 : 20 Jesus answered this charge with the words: ' I f I by the finger o f G o d cast out devils, then indeed the kingdom o f G o d has already c o m e to you'. Since this verse is witnessed in Matthew but not Mark it may come from the so-called Sayings Source, which contains old material.
The
wording in Matt. 1 2 : 28 is o f course somewhat less anthropomorphic: ' I f I by the spirit o f G o d cast out devils . . .' Here the Lukan text, with its anthropomorphic 'finger o f G o d ' , appears closer to the original form o f the saying. T o expel demons and make them powerless is a sign o f the end in Jewish apocalyptic thought. T h e demons are the cause of all failure in man and
nature.
1 7
1 8
Their
power will therefore
be
broken
at
the
end.
18
' T h e r e is n o vestige o f truth in the critical position that L u k e h a d at his disposal a m o r e reliable tradition than M a r k . ' E d u a r d L o h s e , Leidens, p . 7 5 . O t t o Betz, Der Paraklet ( L e i d e n , 1963).
Markan report o f j e s u s ' s examination
393
Extraordinary healings were understood by Jesus's contemporaries as acts depriving the demons o f their power, and so as miracles. O n a critical view o f the tradition healings.
19
it can hardly be denied that Jesus performed such
M e m b e r s o f the primitive Christian church still performed
'healing miracles' o f this kind. (It would be absurd, and out of keeping with the task of evaluating historical sources, to enquire here whether healings o f this kind are medically possible.) T h e rabbinical literature provides one testimony, in my opinion indisputable, from the early second century. Here it is forbidden to allow oneself to be healed in the name o f j e s u s . T h e very ancient formulation runs ( T o s . Hullin ii. 2 2 f ) : The story of Rabbi Eleazar ben Dama, who was bitten by a snake. Jacob of Kephar Sama came to heal him in the name ofjesus ben Pantera [rabbinic mode of reference to Jesus]. But Rabbi Ishmael forbade him and said to him: 'You have no right to do this, ben Dama.' He contradicted him: 'I will give you proof that he may indeed heal me.' But he had no time to do so, for he died. Rabbi Ishmael then said: 'Well is it with you, ben Dama, that you have gone forth [from the world] in peace and have not broken the ordinances of the Wise.' 20
The attitude which Jesus's opponents adopted to his miracles was similar; they held that the power o f evil must be responsible for these healings and that they could only take place by the aid o f Beelzebub. Jesus himself, however, saw in them a sign of eschatological power. Thus Jesus's healings already e m b o d y the beginnings o f later christology. Even clearer than the reports o f the 'healing miracles' o f j e s u s is the report o f Peter's messianic confession in Mark 8: 2 7 - 3 3 / M a t t . 1 6 : 1 3 - 2 3 / Luke 9 : 1 8 - 2 2 . According to Mark Jesus asks his disciples w h o m people take him to be. H e receives the most various answers, all o f which, however, point to the view that Jesus is the prophet to come in the last days, w h o m many groups in Judaism
awaited.
21
Only Peter explicitly calls Jesus
messiah. Jesus's first declaration concerning his suffering follows. It ends with the statement that the Son o f man will be put to death, but will rise again after three days. T h e text immediately continues with the discussion 1 9
A n historical report o f this kind seems to m e to b e p r o v i d e d for instance in M a r k 3 : 1 - 6 ( M a t t . 12:9-14, L u k e 6 : 6 - 1 1 ) : see K . S c h u b e r t , Der Historische Jesus und der
2 0
T o s . H u l l i n ii. 22f (ed. Z u c k e r m a n d e l , 503): parallels in j . S h a b b . xiv. i4d foot, b . A Z 27b. See M o r d e c a i M a r g a l i o t h , Encyclopedia of Talmudic and Geonic Literature ( H e b r e w ) ( T e l A v i v , i960), i, 12if. D e u t . 18: 15, 18 ( n e w p r o p h e t like M o s e s ) ; M a i . 3: 23f. (return o f Elijah). F o r expectation o f an unidentified eschatological p r o p h e t see 1 M a c e . 4:46; 14:41; Q u m r a n M a n u a l o f Discipline ( i Q S a ) i x 1 1 . A t 2 Esdras 6:26 it is said, in c o n n e c t i o n with the last things: ' T h e n shall m e n g a z e o n those m e n w h o o n c e were taken a w a y and w h o never tasted death since their birth.'
Christus unseres Glaubens (Wien, 1962), p p . 15-101 (68f).
2 1
394
K. SCHUBERT
between Jesus and Peter. Peter reproaches Jesus because he has spoken o f suffering. Jesus reacts extremely sharply: ' A w a y from me, Satan! for y o u think not the thoughts o f G o d , but those o f men' (Mark 8: 3 3 ) . In view o f Peter's leading role in the primitive church from the very beginning it is absolutely impossible to regard
this verse as a church-formation. A
disagreement o f the kind described must have been so well known that it could not be blotted out. Further, the subject o f disagreement, the concept of messiahship, is historically probable. Jesus somewhat harshly repudi ated Peter's triumphalist concept. N o doubt is cast on the existence o f this disagreement if we assume that Jesus's sayings on his suffering were entirely formulated after the resurrection, because they close with the statement that the Son o f man will rise after three days. O n the contrary, this state o f affairs itself suggests that originally, in place o f the prophecy o f suffering formulated after the resurrection, a differently-worded disagree ment between Jesus and Peter over the concept o f messiahship must have occurred. This supposition is fortified by a circumstance which has hitherto been too little noticed. According to the very old formula o f belief in 1 C o r . 1 5 : 3, 'Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.' Here for the first time in Jewish religious history the passage on the suffering servant o f G o d in Isa. 5 2 : 1 3 to 5 3 : 1 2 is taken messianically.
22
Isa 5 3 : 5 is especially
alluded to. T h e christological reference o f the suffering servant o f G o d is so familiar to us as Christians that we d o not consider h o w absurd it must have been for a J e w o f the New Testament period to say o f the messiah, w h o should reign over G o d ' s kingdom in the last days, that his death was an atoning
death.
The
most obvious
explanation
is simply
that
this
interpretation goes back to Jesus himself and that Peter objected to it. T h e first declaration o f Jesus's suffering therefore reflects Jesus's reaction to Peter's messianic confession, in the language o f the proclamation o f the Gospel after the resurrection. Thus the disagreement o f j e s u s with Peter over the c o n c e p t o f the messiah also belongs to the historical foundations o f the Gospels. O n l y if we assume that Peter conceived o f the messiah in a triumphalist way can we understand why he went in to the court o f the high priest's palace. H e wanted to be at hand if Jesus was manifested over against his judges as L o r d and Christ. T h e story o f the denial reflects the crisis into which Peter entered because his triumphalist
interpretation o f Jesus's
messiahship was not fulfilled. A further indication that the earthly, historical Jesus was understood to
2 2
G e o r g F o h r e r , ' D a s Alte T e s t a m e n t u n d das T h e m a " C h r i s t o l o g i e " ' , EvTh 30 ( 97°)> PP- 281-98 (291); idem, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion (Berlin, 1969), p p . 3 5 J 353 ( E T History of Israelite Religion ( L o n d o n , 1973), p p . 3 4 3 0 I
1
Markan report o f j e s u s ' s examination
395
be messiah by his followers can be found in Mark 1 0 : 3 5 - 4 0 / M a t t . 20: 2 0 - 3 . Here James and John, the two sons o f Zebedee, ask Jesus if they may sit at his right and left in his kingdom. Pretensions to political power are unmistakably involved. Judas's betrayal might be similarly understood. If his motive was simply to gain money, his suicide after Jesus's death on the cross is incomprehensible; for he must have known the outcome to be expected when he handed Jesus over to enemies with political power. He cannot then have reckoned with the possibility that Jesus would fail before his j u d g e s . Judas may have been led to betray Jesus by a motive very like that which drove Peter into the court o f the high priest's palace. He wished to force a confrontation in which Jesus could only prove victorious. Judas, the sons o f Zebedee and Peter were altogether unprepared to see Jesus as the suffering servant o f G o d . Jesus, then, was taken by his followers to be messiah; and from this standpoint it is not surprising that the examination before the high priest dealt with the messianic question and that Jesus was crucified as ' K i n g o f the Jews'. Luke 1 2 : 8 can also be adduced as evidence for messianic interpretation o f the earthly Jesus. 'Everyone w h o shall confess me before men, him shall the Son o f man also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth me in the presence o f men shall be denied in the presence o f the angels o f G o d . ' The
fact that here Jesus is not explicitly identified with the Son o f man
suggests that we are very close to the original form o f the saying. Matthew, aware o f this deficiency in assertion, emphasises in his o w n wording (Matt. 1 0 : 321) that the Son o f man is identical with Jesus: 'Everyone w h o shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven. . . .' But is is clear even from the indefinite (and so probably earlier) formulation in Luke that the connection between Jesus and the Son o f man is so close, that men's relation to the Son o f man at the judgement will be decided by their relation to Jesus. Here there is at least a step towards the understanding ofjesus as the Son o f m a n .
23
T h e unargued assumption
that the Gospel statements about Jesus as Christ have no fundamentum in re from the time o f the earthly, historical Jesus therefore seems to me false. With this established, Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 will repay closer examination.
IV It is striking that Jesus's opponents in the passion narrative - identified as the high priests, the elders and the scribes - are not the same as his 2 3
O n the Son o f man see Carsten C o l p e , 6 vibq xov d v S o a m o v , ThWNTviii (1969), 403-81 ( E T TDNT viii (1972), 400-77) idem, ' D e r Begriff " M e n s c h e n s o h n " und die M e t h o d e der Erforshung messianischer P r o t o t y p e d , Kairos 11 (1969), 241-63;
12 (1970), 81-112; 13 ( 1 9 7 0 , 1—17-
39^
K. SCHUBERT
opponents elsewhere in the Gospels. In the passion, then, according to the Gospels, it is the Establishment o f the Jerusalem T e m p l e , that is the Sanhedrin, w h o lead the opposition to Jesus. Here he was confronted, not as hitherto in Galilee with the adherents o f another teaching, but with political power. For that reason this confrontation ended not in theological controversy, but with the cross on Golgotha. T h e passion-narrative thus depicts the historical situation with fundamental
accuracy. I f Jesus, as
before in Galilee, was to oppose his own self-understanding
to
the
established order, confrontation with political power was unavoidable. It may be that Jesus was wholly aware o f this situation and for that reason applied to himself the passage on the suffering servant of G o d in Isa. 5 2 : 1 3 to 5 3 : 12. A t any rate he was not prepared to play d o w n his message during his stay in Jerusalem. T h e so-called cleansing o f the T e m p l e (Mark 1 1 : 1 5 - 1 9 / M a t t . 2 1 : I2f/Luke 1 9 : 4 5 - 8 ) , which must always be understood with this point in m i n d ,
24
was a provocation o f the governing priestly
nobility. It was a prophetic sign against malpractices in the T e m p l e , comparable with such O l d Testament precedents as are described in A m o s 3: 1 3 - 1 5 ; 7: 1 0 - 1 7 and Jer. 7: 1 - 1 5 . T h e wandering preacher o f Galilee was, as is to be assumed from the start, no unknown quantity to the priestly aristocrats o f Jerusalem. T h e y therefore took his audacious appearance in the T e m p l e as a messianic challenge to their own claim to leadership, and reacted accordingly. This becomes more comprehensible when we recall the ideas typical o f that period in the history o f Jewish religion. Since the early second century B.C. groups o f apocalyptically-minded priests had considered that the Jerusalem T e m p l e was defiled, and governed by unworthy priests. It must be replaced, they believed, by a new heavenly Temple.
25
So we read, for example, in the great apocalyptic survey o f
history in 1 Enoch 9 0 (first half o f the second century B.C.): I stood up to see till [God] folded up that old house. They carried off all the pillars, and all the beams and ornaments of the house were folded up with it. They carried it off and laid it in a place in the south of the land. I saw, till the Lord of the sheep brought a new house, greater and loftier than the first, and set it up in the place of the first which had been folded up. All its
2 4
T h e cleansing o f the T e m p l e was certainly not an action o f the kind carried o u t b y Z e a l o t s , as is often c l a i m e d t o d a y . F o r a careful a d v o c a c y o f this v i e w see S. G . F. B r a n d o n , Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967); idem, The Trial ofJesus of Nazareth ( L o n d o n , 1968). F o r criticism see M a r t i n H e n g e l , WarJesus Revolutionary (Stuttgart, 1970); E T Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Philadelphia, 1971); Giinther B a u m b a c h , Jesus von Nazareth im Lichte derjudischen Gruppenbildung (Berlin, 1971); K u r t S c h u b e r t , review o f B r a n d o n , Trial, in Kairos 14 (1972), 7 1 - 6 .
2 5
D a v i d Flusser, ' T h e T e m p l e not M a d e with H a n d s in the Q u m r a n D o c t r i n e ' , IEJ9 (1959), 99-104; K u r t S c h u b e r t , Die judischen Religionsparteien in neutestamentlicher Zeit
(Stuttgart, 1970), p p . 18-21.
Markan report o f j e s u s ' s examination
397
pillars were new, and its ornaments too were new and larger than those o f the first, the old o n e which he had carried off; and the Lord o f the sheep was within it (1 E n o c h 90: 28f).
Jubilees, which belongs to the same milieu and comes from about the middle o f the second century B.C., knows the same idea. In J u b . 1: 2 7 the angel o f the presence is c o m m a n d e d by G o d : 'Write for Moses from the beginning o f creation till my sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity.' T h e angel o f the presence must write out the whole history o f the world from the beginning o f creation to the new creation in the last days. T h e Essenes o f Qumran also knew this expectation o f a new T e m p l e at the end.
26
Because o f their opposition to the state o f affairs in the Jerusalem
T e m p l e they withdrew to the wilderness of Judaea and regarded their life there as both a substitute for Temple-worship and a preparation for the service o f the new T e m p l e o f the last days. Nothing is therefore more probable than that the Jerusalem
priestly
nobility should have associated Jesus's audacious appearance in the T e m p l e with ideas o f this kind and so secured his arrest and handing-over to Pilate. Yet they felt themselves imperilled by Jesus's criticism o f the T e m p l e in the sphere which was above all their o w n . Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 is to be understood from this presumption. Like any investigation, Jesus's examination began with a general hearing o f witnesses. W e can gather from the Gospels the general drift o f the evidence for the prosecution. O n the Sabbath Jesus heals sicknesses where there is no danger o f death.
27
H e has therefore
made a bargain with the Devil (Mark 3: 2 2 , Matt. 1 2 : 24, Luke 1 1 : 1 5 ) . That these testimonies were too varied to agree could be conjectured even if it were not expressly emphasised in Mark 1 4 : 5 6 . A particular charge, noted outside the tradition as well, concerned the destruction o f the T e m p l e . This was certainly the decisive point for the Jerusalem priestly Estab lishment. In this connection we must ask whether or not Jesus spoke o f the destruction o f the T e m p l e . In Mark i 4 : 5 8 / M a t t . 2 6 : 6 1 it is the false witnesses w h o claim that he did so, but according to John 2: 1 9 Jesus did say something o f the kind at the cleansing o f the T e m p l e . Mark 1 3 : i f (Matt. 2 4 : if; Luke 2 1 : 5 1 ) must also be taken into consideration: ' A n d as Jesus went forth out o f the temple, one o f his disciples saith unto him, Master, behold, what manner o f stones and what manner o f buildings! A n d Jesus said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left here
2 6
2 7
D . B a r t h e l e m y a n d J. T . M i l i k ( e d s . ) , Qumran Cave 1 , D J D ( O x f o r d , 1955), i34f; J. M . A l l e g r o ( e d . ) , Qumran Cave 4, D J D v ( O x f o r d , 1968), p p . 53f. H e a l i n g o f mortal illnesses w a s permitted o n the S a b b a t h : S c h u b e r t , Religionsparteien, p p . 34f.
398
K. SCHUBERT
one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown d o w n . ' T h e English exegete and student o f comparative religion, S. G. F. Brandon, holds that this saying on the destruction o f the T e m p l e is in tension with Mark 1 4 : 5 7 ^ where it is described as false witness. H e tries to resolve this tension by ascribing Mark 1 4 : 5 7 f to Christian Jews with an affirmative attitude to the T e m p l e , w h o wanted to avoid Jesus's words o f wrath against it. According to Brandon the pre-Markan
version o f the passion-narrative
already
impugned the witnesses as false, entirely without historical justification. In Brandon's view, then, we must conclude that Jesus was in fact hostile to the T e m p l e . Brandon infers from Mark 1 3 : 2 that Jesus there intended to allude to actions o f his o w n against the T e m p l e . He sees Jesus accordingly as a sympathiser with the anti-Roman revolutionary movements which also directed themselves against the collaborators with R o m e among the Jewish priestly nobility.
28
T o foretell the destruction o f the T e m p l e does not,
however, imply either sympathy with such anti-Roman groups or an active personal share in the destruction. O n the contrary, the renowned Pharisaic teacher, Johanan ben Zaccai, w h o cooperated with the Romans against the rebels in the First Revolt ( A . D . 6 6 - 7 0 / 7 3 ) ,
2 9
is said to have prophesied to the
T e m p l e that it would be destroyed forty years before this came about. ' O T e m p l e , why are you anxious? I know that you will be destroyed' ( b . Y o m a 39°)- J
u s t
as Johannan ben Zaccai spoke against the T e m p l e without
entertaining any sympathy for the rebels, Jesus prophesied to the T e m p l e that it would be destroyed without wanting to ascribe an active part to himself in the destruction. O n the other hand it can easily be understood that the T e m p l e priesthood and their followers should have taken Jesus's words to imply action of his o w n . T h e eschatological claim ofjesus, and his criticism o f the T e m p l e , could only too easily be misunderstood in this sense. Why
did Jesus have no affinity o f any kind with the
anti-Roman
revolutionary groups? From the numerous arguments for this position
30
I
bring forward only one, which seems to me o f great weight. T h e Zealots, from w h o m the revolt against R o m e in A . D . 6 6 began, received their name because, like the priest Phinehas in N u m . 2 5 : 7 - 1 3 , they were zealous for the L a w . This also emerges clearly from Sanh. ix. 6, where the Zealots make away with anyone w h o has sexual intercourse with a pagan woman. This zeal for the Law is, however, incompatible with Jesus's own attitude to the Law! See for example Mark 7: 1 5 (Matt. 1 5 : 1 1 ) : 'There is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him: but the things which proceed out o f the man are those that defile the man.' 2 8
2 9
3 0
S e e n. 24 o n p . 396 u n d e r B r a n d o n . b . Gittin 56ab; A b h o t h d e R a b b i N a t h a n 4; Ekhah R a b b a t h i I, 244-90 ( e d . S. B u b e r , H i l d e s h e i m , 1967, p p . 65-9). S e e n. 24 o n p . 396, u n d e r H e n g e l , B a u m b a c h a n d Schubert.
Markan report o f j e s u s ' s examination
399
If then Jesus said nothing corresponding verbally to the witness cited in Mark 1 4 : 5 8 , it is clear from the formulation o f that verse that statements were
before
the
Temple
authorities
which
linked
the
widespread
expectation o f a heavenly T e m p l e at the end with Jesus's appearance in the T e m p l e . David Flusser, the Jerusalem student o f the history o f religions, is therefore fully justified in saying: It is in the highest degree probable that, when Jesus was examined by the High Priest, the first question was whether he had in fact uttered the saying against the Temple. . . . It seems to me to follow from the accounts in the Gospels that the proclamation of the Temple's destruction was for the High Priests the real ground for handing Jesus over to Pilate. 31
I heartily assent to this thesis of Flusser. It implies, however, that the saying on
the T e m p l e has its original Sitz im Leben in the account o f the
examination, although o f course it is given as the statement o f false witnesses. W e must therefore resist the view that 'it was first worked into the scene o f the examination before the high priest by the evangelists'.
32
Jesus's saying on the destruction o f the Temple may then be traced back to the interpretation o f his attitude to the T e m p l e by others. That an interpretation o f this kind should not have been everyone's opinion is more probable than that it should have been advanced unanimously. Thus Mark 1 4 : 5 9 is entirely right in indicating that 'not even so did their witness agree together'. W h e n even the high priest did not win from Jesus the expression o f any viewpoint on these evidences, he could d o no other than pose the messianic question in so many words: 'Art thou the Christ, the Son o f the Blessed?' T h e wording o f this question is generally attributed to church theology (or perhaps to the Markan redaction) wherein Jesus was already ranked as a Son o f G o d . expression
3 3
Such a view seems to me fundamentally false. T h e
'Blessed' is not a usual circumlocution for G o d among
Christians, but it is the current Jewish term: haqqadosh barukh hu\ 'the Holy One, Blessed be he'. With his own religious presuppositions the high priest could scarcely have posed the messianic question otherwise than as it is reproduced in Mark 1 4 : 6 1 . There is no trace here o f a Christian confession o f faith. It is in the highest degree probable that this decisive question of the high priest
is verbally reproduced here through
the mediacy o f an
ear-witness, and that we have, so to say, ipsissima vox of the high priest! T h e 3 1
3 2
D a v i d Flusser, ' T h e T r i a l and D e a t h o f j e s u s o f N a z a r e t h ' ( H e b r e w ) , Molad 2 (1968), 202ff (211), reviewing the b o o k o f this title ( E T L o n d o n , 1969) b y the Israeli judge Haim Cohn. G e r h a r d S c h n e i d e r , ' G a b es eine vorsynoptische Szene "Jesus v o r d e m 1
S y n e d r i u m " ? ' , NovTest 12 (1970), 22-39 (3 )3 3
F e r d i n a n d H a h n , Hoheitstitel, p p . 126-32, 181 ( E T p p . 129-35, ^ 2 ) ; B r a n d o n , Trial, p . 89; L o h s e , Leidens, p . 85.
400
K. SCHUBERT
messianic question put to Jesus could not have been worded more Jewishly than is the case in Mark 1 4 : 6 1 ! It therefore seems to me, with J. Blinzler,
34
that we should not doubt that this wording indeed goes back to the high priest.
It is not a formula o f the primitive Christian kerygma. Every
descendant o f David counted from his coronation onwards as an adopted Son o f G o d : see Pss. 2: 7, n o : 1; 2 Sam. 7: 1 2 b , 1 4 . This last verse is already developed in 1 Chron. 1 7 : 11 b , 13 with reference to a descendant of David at the end o f days. T h e reference is still clearer in a commentary on 2 Sam. 7: 1 1 - 1 4 a from Q u m r a n Cave 4 : 7 will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son. This is the " b r a n c h " (semah) o f David, which comes forth with the "teacher o f the L a w " , w h o shall be in Zion at the end o f d a y s . '
35
T h e term
branch according to the O l d Testament means the Davidic messiah, Jer. 2 3 : 5 ; 3 3 : 1 5 ; Z e c h . 3 : 8 ; 6: 1 2 . There can be no doubt that the messiah, the awaited 'Son o f David', must also be in the adoptive sense 'Son o f G o d ' . T h e Jewish character o f the high priest's question to Jesus is in no way altered by the fact that it could easily be taken by the church in its o w n Christian sense. In Mark 1 4 : 6 2 Jesus's affirmative reply is expanded by a combined citation o f Dan. 7: 1 3 and Ps. n o : 1. Here too we need only find a church-formation if we exclude the possibility that Jesus himself may have linked himself with the expectation o f a messianic Son o f man. As emerged above in the discussion o f Luke 1 2 : 8f, such an assumption would be unjustified. T h e earthly Jesus has already envisaged himself in such close relationship with the Son o f man that it is far more likely that he declared himself Son o f man before his judges than that the church created the saying. Thus at the most the reference in Mark 1 4 : 6 1 to Ps. n o : 1, which obviously assumes exaltation, can possibly be regarded as a product o f the church. W e are not, however, compelled, in my view, to take it so, for Son-of-man messianology is already combined with the concept o f a Davidic messiah in a clearly Jewish context in the pre-Christian period (probably the first century B.C.). In order to assess this state o f affairs correctly one must consider that the term messiah is not yet applied to the Davidic messiah in the O l d Testament, for which the messiah, the anointed one, is the reigning king o f David's line. T h e term messiah acquired its messianic character when the ideas connected with the Davidic kings were projected into eschatology. In texts from the first century B.C. there are three attestations o f the messianic application o f the word messiah: Ps. Sol. 3 4
3 5
J o s e f Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (4th e d n . R e g e n s b u r g , 1969), p p . igsf. ( C p . E T The Trial of Jesus ( C o r k , 1959), p . 102, representing the 2nd edn.; the 4th e d n . is substantially enlarged h e r e ) . [ S o , t o o , Burkitt, in his review o f L i e t z m a n n ' s Der Prozess Jesu mJThSt, 33 (1932), 64-6 (66).] E d u a r d L o h s e , Die Texte aus Qumran, hebrdisch unddeutsch ( M i i n c h e n , 1964), p p . 256f.
Markan report o f j e s u s ' s examination
401
17 and 1 8 , the Q u m r a n Manual o f Discipline ( i Q S a ) , and the Similitudes of E n o c h (1 Enoch 3 7 - 7 1 ) in the passages dealing with the Son o f man (1 Enoch 4 8 : 1 0 ; 5 2 : 4 ) . T h u s the very texts which speak o f the transcendent messianic figure o f the Son o f man apply this term borrowed from Davidic royal ideology to the messiah. T h e equation o f Davidic messiah and Son o f man is still clearer when the sayings on the Son of man in 1 Enoch 48: 4 are retroverted into Hebrew. In this process a terminology is brought into use such as is also witnessed in the contemporary messianic texts
from
Q u m r a n . 1 Enoch 48: 4 runs: ' H e shall be a staff to the righteous, whereon they may stay themselves and not fall; he shall be the light o f the nations and the hope o f the afflicted'. T h e term 'staff, Hebrew shebhet, comes from Gen.
4 9 : 10 and N u m . 2 4 : 1 7 . It is applied to the Davidic messiah in Test.
J u d a h 2 4 and the Q u m r a n texts.
36
T h e phrase 'light o f the nations' (Isa.
4 2 : 6 ; 4 9 : 6 ) is a combination o f Isa. 2 : 2 and 9: 1. In Isa. 2 : 2 'at the end o f the days' all nations will c o m e on pilgrimage to the T e m p l e on the hill o f Z i o n , and in Isa. 9: 1 a light comes out for men in the land 'of the shadow o f death'. If the Son o f man according to 1 Enoch 4 8 : 4 is the 'hope o f the afflicted', here there is an allusion to Gen. 49: 10, where the ruler from the tribe o f Judah is called 'hope of the nations'. Since the 'nations' were named immediately before, the phrase 'hope of the nations' will be reinterpreted in the sense o f Trito-Isaiah (Isa. 6 1 : 1; 66: 2) with its eschatological piety o f the ' P o o r ' . This piety o f the 'Poor' was also one o f the basic elements in the theology o f the Qumran Essenes.
37
Thus the 'hope o f the nations' became
the ' h o p e o f the afflicted'. A pre-Christian Jewish text therefore already combines Son-of-man concepts with Davidic royal ideology in a manner analogous to that o f Mark 1 4 : 6 2 . W e are then not compelled to ascribe a combination o f this kind to primitive Christian christology. Yet this verse also involves a linking o f two other concepts, the exaltation and the parousia. These are specifically Christian and d o readily suggest an ecclesiastical origin for this element in the combination.
V These considerations lead to a clear conclusion: there is g o o d ground for seeing in Mark preserved
the
14:55-64
ancient, pre-Markan
decisive elements
o f Jesus's
tradition, which has
examination
before
the
Sanhedrin in their correct order. Both the imprecisely defined charges in respect of the destruction of the T e m p l e and the assertion that the witnesses
3 6
K u r t S c h u b e r t , ' D i e Messiaslehre in d e n T e x t e n v o n C h i r b e t Q u m r a n ' , BZ 1
3 7
K u r t S c h u b e r t , Die Gemeinde vom Totem Meer ( M i i n c h e n , 1958), 76-9.
(1957), 177-97-
402
K. SCHUBERT
contradicted one another fit the context o f the examination well. T h e climax was the high priest's messianic question, which, as can be made probable, is transmitted in its original form, and the messianic confession o f Jesus which followed upon it. This view o f the circumstances fits the religio-historical predominantly
situation directed
o f Judaism
towards
in
literary 38
arguments from the history o f r e l i g i o n s . ' 3 8
3 9
the
time
o f Jesus.
criticism should
not
Study forgo
39
H a n s W e r n e r Bartsch, EvTh 32 (1972) tried to p r o c e e d to the historical J e s u s from literary criticism. A l t h o u g h he is not c o n c e r n e d 'to objectify certain events in the life o f j e s u s as facts, in s o m e w a y to authenticate them b y means o f source-analysis', he asks ' w h a t in Jesus's d e e d s and sufferings has p r o v e d to b e real?' ( p p . 1301). Y e t , since Bartsch t o o regards the form-critical m e t h o d w h i c h n o w g o v e r n s study as the s u p e r - m e t h o d , w i t h o u t setting it u n d e r the corrective o f religio-historical study, he r e n o u n c e s a n y attempt to s h o w that certain events in the life o f j e s u s are basically factual. T h e article w a s translated b y D r W . H o r b u r y .
GERHARD
SCHNEIDER
The political charge against Jesus (Luke 23: 2) 1. T h e narrative in Mark The Third Gospel - by contrast with the older Gospel of Mark which Luke used - specifically states the details o f the charge which was brought forward against Jesus before Pilate by the members of the Sanhedrin. Mark 1 5 : 2 indirectly carries the implication that the members o f the Great Council must have declared before the R o m a n j u d g e that Jesus voiced the claim to be 'king'. Only if this is the case can Pilate's question, 'Are y o u the K i n g o f the Jews?', which in the present context has no preparation, be intelligible. T h e n for the first time it is recorded in 1 5 : 3: ' A n d the chief priests accused him o f many things.' At that Pilate once again directs a question to the accused: 'Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against y o u ' (Mark 1 5 : 4 b ) . Jesus, w h o had responded to the question about his kingly claim with an unequivocal yes (verse 2 c ) , makes no comment on the specific charges o f the chief priests; this causes Pilate some perplexity (verse 5 ) . In the following Barabbas scene the procurator's question shows that in the face o f the Jewish crowd he would like to proceed on the basis o f the issue ofjesus being 'the king o f the Jews' (verse 9 ) . At the same time however it is remarked that the chief priests had handed Jesus over 'out o f envy' (verse 1 0 ) . W h e n the Jews demand the release of Barabbas (verse 1 1 ) , Pilate asks them: 'What then shall I d o with the man w h o m you call the king o f the Jews?' T h e Jews demand his crucifixion (verses 1 3 , 1 4 b ) whereas the R o m a n regards him as innocent (verse 1 4 a ) . T h e title 'king o f the Jews' reappears yet again in the scene in which the R o m a n soldiers scornfully acclaim Jesus ( 1 5 : 18) and then again in the superscription on the cross ( 1 5 : 2 6 ) . Further, in the scoffing words o f the chief priests there is another reference to the title, though admittedly in the form adopted by Jewish usage, 'king o f Israel' ( 1 5 : 3 2 ) . T h e last mentioned passage is, however, significant from another point o f view. It shows, first of all, that the priestly group did not believe in any kingly power o f j e s u s , understood in the sense o f power to step down from the cross. It shows, further, that 'king o f Israel' (or 'king o f the Jews') is an equivalent paraphrase o f ' t h e messiah'. Mark intends, by setting 'messiah' and 'king of Israel' in apposition, to show that these two titles are identical in content. It is, of course, true that 'king o f the Jews' expresses the this-worldly political 403
404
G E R H A R D SCHNEIDER 1
aspect o f the claim. But ifJesus affirmed before the Sanhedrin that he was the messiah ( 1 4 : 6 i f ) , then it is clearly on this confession that the charge before Pilate rests, and the latter is intended to place squarely in the foreground a kingly-political claim by the accused ( 1 5 : 2 ) . For Mark there is virtually no contradiction between the messianic claim and the kingly claim. Before the Sanhedrin some incriminating evidence against Jesus had been sought. T h e saying about an intended attack on the T e m p l e would have been one such piece o f evidence ( 1 4 : 5 8 ) . But the witnesses did not agree. So the high priest's question was intended to elicit the confession o f the accused. Jesus then admitted to being the messiah. This was assessed as blasphemy and a crime worthy of death ( 1 4 : 631). T h e messianic, or in other words, the kingly claim ofjesus is thus the only point o f the accusation which is brought into the open before Pilate. H o w this kingly claim was made into a capital crime it is not possible to deduce. N o criminal activities ofjesus are recounted, even though the evangelist knows that such must have been brought forward ( 1 5 : 31). But in that respect he assumes that they were not sufficient to convince the procurator that Jesus had done 'anything evil' ( 1 5 : 1 4 ) . Viewed as a consecutive factual record o f events the Markan report is inadequate, but in theological terms it appears to have a great deal o f content. By means o f several 'contrast-scenes' the actual kingship o f j e s u s is disclosed. Even though Jesus is accused as a revolutionary, regarded as a criminal, rejected by the people and scorned by the soldiers, nevertheless everyone is compelled to witness to his identity, even if they d o so in complete ignorance and blindness. T h e historically unimpeachable point o f departure in the Markan account is to be seen in the titulus on the cross ( 1 5 : 2 6 ) . From this the charge before Pilate can be inferred. 2
2. T h e concrete charges according to Luke It is necessary to have recognised the weakness o f the Markan account as a 'report' if one is to appreciate the way in which Luke does his best to present the course o f the Pilate trial in a more coherent manner. A t any rate Luke 2 3 : 2 presents concrete and precise 'political' charges brought against Jesus. T h e decisive question is whether these detailed charges have been created by the third evangelist - in line with his conviction about h o w the history should be reconstructed, or pursuing certain definite theological intentions - or whether he is here following a separate source which is perhaps older than the Markan account. 1
2
C p . F. H a h n , Christologische Hoheitstitel (3rd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1966), p . 196 ( E T The Titles ofJesus in Christology ( L o n d o n , 1969), p . 174). See H a h n , Hoheitstitel, p p . 1961*, E T p . 174.
T h e political charge against Jesus
405
Alongside the section Mark 1 5 : 1 - 5 stands the passage Luke 2 3 : 1 - 5 : T h e n the whole gathering o f them arose, and brought him before Pilate. A n d they began to accuse him, saying, ' W e have established that this man is leading our nation astray; he forbids the payment o f tax to Caesar and he is putting it around that he is the Messiah, a king.' But Pilate questioned him, asking: 'Are you the K i n g o f the Jews?' But he answered him: ' Y o u say it.' Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds: 'I find n o crime in this m a n . ' But they declared even more insistently: ' H e is rousing the people to revolt with his teaching in the whole o f Judaea, stretching from Galilee even to here.' If one wants to separate tradition and redaction in this Lukan section, there are, broadly speaking, two possibilities open. These are represented 3
by two commentaries on the Third gospel. J. Schmid thinks that in this section Luke 'the historian' has remoulded the passage Mark 1 5 : 1 - 5 , which is hardly satisfactory
as an historical report, and that he has
fashioned it into a narrative which is historically more convincing. In particular he places in the forefront the Jewish accusations which Mark mentions only incidentally and without being specific. Only then does Pilate's question about the claim to kingship follow. T h e charge brought by the Jews is made concrete, and at the same time unmasked as a slander ous accusation. Further, it is important to the evangelist that the R o m a n j u d g e should explicitly affirm the innocence o f j e s u s
(Luke 2 3 : 4 ; c p .
23: 1 4 , 2 2 ) . While Schmid does not accept any parallel Lukan source for the composition o f this scene, W . G r u n d m a n n
4
is o f the opinion that the
evangelist has used an extra source alongside the Markan Gospel; he thinks that this forms the thread o f the Lukan passion narrative from 2 2 : 1 4 onwards. O n l y Luke 2 3 : 3 is taken over from Mark 1 5 : 2 . Consequently the special Lukan tradition did not report any real hearing before Pilate but only assumed it from the evidence o f 2 3 : 4 b . In a similar way recent investigations o f the trial ofjesus part company 3
4
J. S c h m i d , Das Evangelium nach Lukas (3rd e d n . R e g e n s b u r g , 1955), p . 342. T h a t L u k e w a s here w o r k i n g o v e r material d r a w n o n l y from M a r k h a d earlier been a c c e p t e d b y R . B u l t m a n n , Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (5th e d n . Gottingen, 1961), p . 294 ( E T History of the Synoptic Tradition ( O x f o r d , 1963), p . 280); J . M . C r e e d , The Gospel according to St Luke ( L o n d o n , 1930), p . 279; J. Finegan, Die Uberlieferung der Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu (Giessen, 1934), p p . 27, 38f. W . G r u n d m a n n , Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Berlin, 1961), p . 421. Similarly, the v i e w that a special source w a s available to Luke w a s a c c e p t e d b y B. H . Streeter, The Four Gospels ( L o n d o n , 1924), p . 222, in the context o f his p r o t o - L u k e theory; A . Schlatter, Das Evangelium des Lukas (Stuttgart, 1931), p p . 439f: 'the n e w narrator'. See also E . H a e n c h e n , Der Wegjesu (Berlin, 1966), p . 518; V . T a y l o r , The Passion Narrative of St Luke ( C a m b r i d g e , 1972), p p . 8 4 - 9 ^ . Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Lukas
(Regensburg, 1977), p p . 62if.
406
G E R H A R D SCHNEIDER 5
from one another over the matter o f the Lukan source. J. Blinzler leaves open the question o f whether in 2 3 : 2 the evangelist is following a special source or only (on his own initiative) clarifying the Markan narrative. But certainly Luke is taken to reproduce faithfully the historical state o f affairs, particularly with respect to the political orientation o f the charge. T h e expression 'king o f the Jews' is, in his view, the secularised form o f 'messiah' and represents merely a shift on to a profane political level. 6
The Jewish scholar P. Winter arranges the passion narrative in the Gospel in three strata which are said to exhibit a
traditio-historical
development in the material. T o the oldest (primary) tradition he assigns Luke 2 3 : 2, 3 (alongside Mark 1 5 : 2 - 5 ) . In any case the exact description o f the items o f the charge in Luke are not classified as 'editorial accretion'. In 7
another place Winter has traced Luke 2 3 : i b - 3 back to a special tradition (L) available to Luke, but at the same time the attempt is made to show that 2 3 : 4 - 5 is a later interpolation. Winter's theory plainly coheres with his attempt to demonstrate that the political trial before Pilate is the only historical one. T h e trial scene before the Sanhedrin ( 2 2 : 6 6 - 7 1 ) is similarly understood as an intrusion from the hand o f the same interpolator.
8
V e r y similar to Winter in his evaluation o f the trial o f j e s u s is S. G . F. Brandon.
9
H e does not explicitly take up any position on the source
question at Luke 2 3 : 2 and in fact does not engage in any source-critical analysis. But nevertheless he comes to the conclusion that Mark was very probably acquainted with the specific (political) charge against Jesus from the tradition which had become available to him. H e has, however, suppressed it in his o w n account in the interests o f political apologetic. Luke, on the other hand, has taken up this point o f accusation from the tradition, because in his later situation a more objective record of the trial o f Jesus had b e c o m e possible. In this connection it is clear that Brandon does not want to attribute Luke 2 3 : 2 to the redactional activity of the evangelist. He regards the political points o f accusation as historically convincing and indeed justified. This is another case o f the evaluation o f sources being bound up with a fundamental concern o f the author. H e is anxious to show the penalty o f crucifixion as the consequence o f politically revolutionary activity on Jesus's part. The only study which explicitly concerns itself with the source question
5
J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (2nd e d n . R e g e n s b u r g , 1955), p . 138; similarly in the 3rd
6
P . W i n t e r , On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p p . 136f. P. W i n t e r , ' T h e T r e a t m e n t o f his Sources b y the T h i r d Evangelist in L u k e
edn. (i960), p . 201, and the 4th edn. (1969), p . 278. 7
X X I - X X I V ST 8 (1954/55), 138-72, esp. i 6 f . 5
8
9
I b i d ; c p . Trial, p . 136. S . G . F. B r a n d o n , The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth ( L o n d o n , 1968), p p . ii9f.
T h e political charge against Jesus
407
10
in the trial before Pilate has come from H . van der K w a a k . Certainly he does not state explicitly that the divergences between Luke 2 3 : 1 - 5 and Mark 1 5 : 1 - 5 g o back to the hand o f Luke. But he shows in a convincing manner that the differences which are a feature o f the third gospel can be explained in terms o f the evangelist's purpose and the editorial method. A t the end o f this survey we have arrived at the point where the question about possible sources for Luke 2 3 : 2 can be directly posed. In the matter o f method the procedure must be first o f all to examine whether the verse in question can be explained in terms of the interests and the editorial method o f Luke.
3. Luke 23:2. Lukan 'redaction'? 11
As far as Luke 2 3 : 2 is concerned, one can affirm with Conzelmann: ' I f the Lukan Tendenz is recognised, the "proto-Lukan" material disappears.' But the analysis which follows must be concerned not only with the question o f whether and to what extent Luke 2 3 : 2 expresses the Lukan purpose in writing ( d ) . Before that it is necessary to ask about Lukan style and vocabulary ( b ) . Further, the evangelist's technique o f composition in 2 3 : 1 - 5 must be scrutinised ( c ) . If it should turn out that 'non-Lukan' or 'anti-Lukan' elements are found, then it will be possible to deduce a source other than Mark. But as long as that is not the case, verse 2 should be held to be the work o f the evangelist. That is not, however, to assume that Luke has freely invented the content o f the material present in this verse. Schurmann has remarked, on the smaller narrative elements which, like Luke 2 3 : 2 , deviate from Mark, that it would be contrary to all our observations o f Lukan redactional work in general if we were to regard these minor details as the free artistic creation o f Luke. But even someone w h o , like Schurmann, prefers not to deduce free invention of this sort by the evangelist, will still be able to attribute the verse to Luke's own hand, provided he can demonstrate where the third evangelist has obtained the material setting out the points o f accusation ( a ) . 12
(a) The materials Contrary to the view o f most commentators on 2 3 : 2 the verse does not contain three charges, but only one; this is then particularised in two 1 0
11
H . v a n d e r K w a a k , Het Proces van Jezus (Assen, 1969), p p . 140-4. H . C o n z e l m a n n , Die Mitte der Zeit (4th edn. T u b i n g e n , 1962), p . 78, footnote 1, following o n from G . D . K i l p a t r i c k , ' A T h e m e o f the L u c a n Passion Story a n d L u k e X X I I I . 4 7 ' , 7 ^ 4 3 ( 1 9 4 2 ) , 34-6-
1 2
H . S c h u r m a n n , Jesu Abschiedsrede ( M u n s t e r , 1957), p . 140, footnote 476.
408
G E R H A R D SCHNEIDER 13
concrete points. This is shown by the grammatical structure o f the second part o f verse 2 . T h e twofold xai does not bind together three participles paratactically, but xai, xoaMovTa and also xai Xiyovxa are subordinate to the 5 i a o T Q e c p o v T a . In addition the two last mentioned participles are brought into a closer relationship with one another since in each case an infinitive follows (5i56vai and evai). Further, Luke 2 3 : 5 , 1 4 show that for the evangelist the charge before Pilate can be concentrated and summarised in the accusation o f leading the people astray: 14
23: 2b:
this man leads our people astray (6iaoTQ8(povTa)
2 3 : 5 : he stirs up the people ( d v a o e i e i ) 2 3 : 1 4 : he is one w h o perverts the people ( a J i o o T Q e c p o v x a ) The reproach o f leading the people astray, or o f inciting them, is interpreted by Pilate in exactly the way intended. T h e R o m a n procurator is intended to infer that Jesus was wanting to cause the Jewish people to rebel against R o m e ( 2 3 : 1 4 ) . As to substance the accusation rests on declarations like Luke 1 9 : 4 8 ( c p . Mark n : 1 8 b ) ; 2 0 : 6 ( c p . Mark 1 1 : 3 2 b ) ; 20: 1 9 ( c p . Mark 1 2 : 1 2 a ) ; 20: 2 6 and 2 2 : 2 ( c p . Mark 1 4 : 2 ) . Finally the third evan gelist had not only read in Mark that the people listened to Jesus but also that the members o f the Sanhedrin for this reason wanted to kill him. It is indeed 6id qpBovov that they have handed him over to Pilate (Mark 1 5 : 1 0 ) . As for their charge against Jesus, it is exposed as falsehood. That is the implication o f Mark 1 5 : 1 1 , a verse which Luke omits but which tells o f how during the Barabbas scene the chief priests had stirred up the crowd ( d v e a e i o a v ) so that they would demand the release o f the criminal. Even though the reader o f the Third Gospel does not have this Markan verse in front o f him, Luke's intention is quite clear: it is not in fact Jesus w h o is the one w h o leads the people astray, but rather the Jewish leaders w h o stir them u p . T h e allegation that Jesus hindered the payment of tribute to the emperor must, after Luke 20: 2 0 - 6 , appear a total slander. T h e way in which Luke has in that passage edited his Markan source (Mark 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 ) shows clearly that the evangelist traces this hypocritical question o f Jesus's opponents back to their purpose o f getting Jesus to incriminate himself with 15
1 3
1 4
So, as far as I k n o w , o n l y in G r u n d m a n n , Lukas, p . 422: ' T h e leading astray o f the p e o p l e consists o f this, that he d e m a n d e d the w i t h h o l d i n g o f tribute a n d p r o c l a i m e d himself the M e s s i a h , i.e. in Pilate's eyes: m a d e himself a king.' See also F. Blass a n d A . D e b r u n n e r , Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (9th edn. G o t t i n g e n , 1954), §444, 3 ( E T 4 Greek Grammar of the New Testament ( C h i c a g o , 9 6 i ) , §444, 3), with reference to L u k e 5:36; c p . also 5:37. C p . o n this slant in the a c c o u n t , L u k e 23: i8f, 25; A c t s 13:50; 14: 19; 1 7 : 5 - 8 , 13; J
, 5
18: 12-17; 21: 27f.
T h e political charge against Jesus
409
an anti-Roman remark 'in order to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction o f the governor' ( 2 0 : 2 0 ) .
Since, however, Jesus explicitly
permits the imperial tax (verse 2 5 ) the opposition are not able to 'catch' him and as a result are reduced to silence (verse 2 6 ) . T h e second specific charge is that Jesus had claimed to be 'the Messiah, a K i n g ' , i.e. he had assumed for himself a kingship which was political and therefore anti-Roman. This allegation takes up the subject matter o f Luke 2 2 : 6 7 - 7 0 ( c p . Mark 1 4 : 6 i f ) and anticipates Luke 2 3 : 3 (par. Mark 1 5 : 2 ) .
1 6
Jesus is 'the Messiah' and at the same time 'the King o f the Jews'. That Jesus certainly laid claim to kingship in an unpolitical sense is something which Luke knows and which Pilate also is able to establish ( 2 3 : 4 ) . So with this last element in the charge the evangelist makes the transition to the procurator's question (Mark 1 5 : 2 = Luke 2 3 : 3 ) . T h e question about Jesus's claim to kingship, which in Mark occurs without preparation, is m a d e plausible in the Lukan context. T h u s it is apparent that Luke can have deduced the concrete charges o f the Sanhedrin authorities from Mark. In this matter he had no need o f any new information from any other source. T h e same applies to 2 3 : 5 . O n c e the scheme o f the Third Gospel is known, as well as its dependence on Mark's Gospel, there is no need to postulate as the source o f 2 3 : 5 any pre-Lukan summary.
17
(b) Vocabulary and style T h e following analysis o f Luke 2 3 : 2 has not merely to enquire statistically about favourite Lukan words but has also to test the pattern o f speech for usages characteristic o f the evangelist. ( 1 ) fJQ^avxo with infinitive following occurs in Matt, once, Mark 8 times, Luke 8 times, Acts once but nowhere otherwise in the N e w Testament. In front o f the infinitive Luke has merely inserted 6e (cp. Luke 4 : 2 1 , 2 0 : 9 ) . T h e statistics already indicate a preference on Mark's part for this usage. Yet
it is probable that the third evangelist also writes it on his own
initiative each time: Luke 5 : 2 1 ; 7 : 4 9 ; 1 1 : 5 3 ; 1 4 : 1 8 ; 1 5 : 2 4 ; 1 9 : 3 7 ; 22: 2 3 ; 2 3 : 2 ; Acts 2 : 4 . Only Luke has in this connection the subject ctJiav T O JlXfjBoc; with the following genitive plural ( 1 9 : 3 7 ) as in our present passage. 1 6
1 7
See also M a r k 15:32: 'the M e s s i a h , the king o f Israel'. C o n t r a C o n z e l m a n n , Die Mitte der Zeit, p . 79 ( E T The Theology of St Luke ( L o n d o n , 1961), p . 86, n. 1). L u k e , like M a r k , stresses the teaching activity o f j e s u s in J e r u s a l e m ( L u k e 19:47; 20: 1, 21; 21:37; c p . M a r k 1 1 : 17; 12: 14, 35; 14:49). W i t h reference to Galilee, L u k e 23:5 makes the transition to the H e r o d scene (23:6-12). C p . G . S c h n e i d e r , Die Passion Jesu nach den drei dlteren Evangelien ( M i i n c h e n , 1973), p p . 90-3; idem, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, K a p i t e l 11-24 ( G i i t e r s l o h - W u r z b u r g ,
1977), PP- 471-3-
410
G E R H A R D SCHNEIDER
Only in Luke does the infinitive xatT^YOQeiv occur after T J Q ^ a ( v ) x o ( 2 3 : 2; Acts 2 4 : 2 ) . (2) keya)V
(-ovreg) follows
fjg^a(v)ro
with the infinitive
in the N e w
Testament in Matt. 1 6 : 22 and 5 times in Luke (Luke 5 : 2 1 ; 1 9 : 3 7 ^ 45f; 23:2;
Acts 2 4 : 2 ) .
In that context there stands twice the
infinitive
xaTnyopeiv (Luke 2 3 : 2; Acts 24: 2 ) . O f these instances it is certain that Luke 5 : 2 1 ; 1 9 : 37f, 4 5 f stem from Lukan redaction. (3) xarrjyogea)
is a favourite Lukan word. In the N e w Testament it
occurs in Matt, twice, Mark 3 times, Luke 4 times, J o h n twice, Acts 9 times, Romans once and Revelation once. T h e infinitive x c t x n y o Q e i v stands with the object avxov only in Luke 6: 7; 2 3 : 2 ; Acts 24: 2 . There is no doubt that Luke 6: 7 goes back to the hand o f the evangelist ( c p . Mark 3: 2 ) . Points 1 to 3 show that the statement introducing the details o f the accusation has been formulated by Luke. It draws its content from Mark (4) xovxov evgajuev takes up the Lukan formulation in Luke 6: 7: the scribes and the Pharisees had wanted for some time to 'find' a point o f accusation against Jesus. e v Q i o x c o is in itself a favourite Lukan word: 8 0 o f its 1 7 6 occurrences in the N e w Testament are to be found in Luke's work. EVQiaxo) + object + participle, the last expressing an action o f the object, occurs (sometimes in a different word-order) in Matthew 5 , Mark 6 , Luke 11 times, J o h n once, Acts 7 times and Revelation twice. O f the Lukan occurrences only 3 indicate a source (Mark: Luke 1 9 : 3 0 ; 2 2 : 4 5 ; and Q : Luke 1 2 : 4 3 ) , whereas in the Matthaean occurrences this applies 4 times (Mark: Matt. 2 1 : 2 ; 2 6 : 4 0 , 4 3 ; and Q : 2 4 : 4 6 ) . O n x o v x o v statistics show Matt. 4 times, Mark 3, Luke 1 1 , J o h n 1 3 and Acts 20 occurrences whereas in the rest o f the New Testament there are only 9 . (5) diaoTQecph).
Apart from Matt. 1 7 : 17 = Luke 9 : 4 1 and Phil. 2 : 1 5 (the
'perverse generation'), the only occurrences in the N e w Testament are Lukan: Luke 2 3 : 2; Acts 1 3 : 8, 10; 20: 30. According to Acts 1 3 : 8 the Jewish magician Elymas was causing the governor Sergius Paulus 'to turn away from the faith'. H e was thus 'making crooked the straight paths o f the L o r d ' ( 1 3 : 1 0 ) . O n the other hand, in the Pilate trial the Jews slanderously accuse Jesus o f leading the people astray (Luke 2 3 : 2 ) . (6) TO eOvog rjjudjv is encountered in the N e w Testament only at Luke 7: 5 and 2 3 : 2 . Comparable is x o e8vog jiou in the mouth o f Paul (Acts 24: 1 7 ; 2 6 : 4 ; 2 8 : 1 9 ) . In the Acts passages it is (the 'Lukan') Paul w h o is speaking, in Luke 7: 5 the Jewish elders say o f the Gentile centurion: 'He loves our nation and he built us our synagogue.' In all these passages it is extremely likely that we are dealing with Lukan patterns o f speech. F r o m points 4 to 6 it emerges that in terms o f style and word-count quite apart from actual Lukan interests ( c p . no. 6 ) - the main charge
The political charge against Jesus
411
against Jesus has been formulated by the evangelist, and therefore no pre-Lukan source apart from Mark should be proposed. ( 7 ) xai-xai is admittedly not a Lukan speciality, but nevertheless it can be used by the evangelist, even by contrast with his source, as Luke 5: 3 6 b and 2 2 : 33 show. T o be set alongside these are the occurrences in special Lukan source-material ( 1 : 1 5 ; 2 : 4 6 ) and in Acts (6 examples). (8) xwXvco can, on statistical grounds, be reckoned a favourite Lukan word: Matt. 1, Mark 3 , Luke 6, Acts 6 occurrences (rest of New Testament 7 ) . Matt. 1 9 : 1 4 is, like Luke 1 8 : 1 6 , dependent on Mark ( 1 0 : 1 4 ) , as is Luke 9: 4 9 , 5 0 . T h e passages Luke 6: 29; 1 1 : 5 2 ; 23: 2 are clearly worked up by the evangelist, which may also be, at least in part, the case at Acts 8: 3 6 ; 1 0 : 4 7 ; 1 1 : 1 7 ; 16:6; 24:23; 27:43. (9) cpogovg didovai recalls Luke 20: 22 (in the pericope about paying tribute). There Luke has substituted c p o Q o v 6 o w a i for 6oi)vcu xfjvaov (Mark 1 2 : 1 4 ) . So the formulation in 2 3 : 2 belongs to the evangelist. Elsewhere in the New Testament qpOQog occurs only at R o m . 1 3 : 6 f . T h e recipient is - in line with Mark 1 2 : 1 4 - in both Lukan passages the 'emperor'. In each case it is only Luke w h o places the verb at the end of the phrase. From points 7 to 9 it results once again that this section o f the verse is to be attributed to Luke's own hand. T h e Jewish leaders assert the exact opposite o f what Jesus himself had declared. ( 1 0 ) xai Xiyovxa eavrdv . . . eivai. T h e reflexive eauxov appears in the New Testament as follows: Matt. 5 , Mark 5 , Luke 1 2 , John 8, Acts 7 times (and 2 5 instances in the rest o f the New Testament). O f the examples in Luke, 3 come from Mark (Luke 9: 2 3 ; n : 18; 2 3 : 35) and 4 from the sayings source ( 1 4 : 11 twice and 1 8 : 1 4 twice); in the special material stand 10: 2 9 ; 1 5 : 1 7 ; 18: n ; 2 3 : 2 . O n l y 9 : 2 5 can be shown to be Lukan redaction o f Mark; however, the special material will also have been extensively remodelled by the evangelist (cp. 10: 2 9 ) . eauxov and eivai follow a verb o f speaking elsewhere only at Acts 5 : 36; 8: 9. In both these cases we find, as at Luke 2 3 : 2, the present participle o f \iyu>. This is to be compared with the redactional usage in Luke 1 0 : 2 9 (8eXa)V 5ixaid>aai eauxov), similarly Acts 1 6 : 27; 1 9 : 3 1 ; 2 5 : 4 . Statistics for the infinitive eivai indicate a Lukan preponderance (Matt. 6, Mark 8, Luke 23, John 3, Acts 20, other New Testament occurrences 6 5 ) . ( 1 1 ) XQioxbv fiaoikea. T h e direct linking o f the messianic title with fiaoikevc, is attested elsewhere in the New Testament only at Mark 1 5 : 3 2 . The combination appears in Luke not as a reminiscence o f this Markan text, but by virtue o f a combination o f the messianic confession o f Mark 18
1 8
S c h i i r m a n n , Abschiedsrede, p . 32. C p . B l a s s - D e b r u n n e r , Grammatik, §444, 3.
412
G E R H A R D SCHNEIDER
1 4 : 6 i f with Pilate's question about Jesus's kingship, Mark 1 5 : 2 . Equally, John 1 9 : 12 ('everyone w h o makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar') is no indication o f some special Luke-John tradition available at this point; for the fourth gospel also depends here on Pilate's question, 'Are you the king o f the Jews?' ( 1 8 : 3 3 , c p . 1 9 : 3 ) , drawn from the Mark tradition. What Luke wants to say by means o f the (3aoiXea placed in apposition to 'messiah' is plain from Acts 17: 7. In the synagogue at Thessalonica Paul preached Jesus as the messiah (verse 3 ) . Jews and god-fearing Hellenists responded in faith (verse 4 ) . At this the rest o f the Jews, moved with envy, stirred up a riot, in order to haul Paul and Silas up before the politarchs. T h e legal action concerned comprehensive incitement to disorder and rebellion against the imperial regulations. T h e offence against the imperial d o y ^ t a was regarded as an expression o f the confession, 'another is king, Jesus' (verse 7 ) . Here Trjaow is in apposition (just as (JaoiXea is at Luke 23:2). ( 1 2 ) keycov fiaoiXea eivai finds, both in terms o f form and content, its parallel in Acts 17: 7: (JaaiXea Xeyovxeg eivai. In both places the kingship o f j e s u s is regarded (by the Jews) as directed against the regulations o f Caesar, while Luke for his part understands the kingship in a non-political sense (Luke 1: 3 3 ; 2 2 : 29f; 2 3 : 4 2 ) . Furthermore we meet here once more the Lukan theme o f the Jews, w h o accuse Jesus o f stirring up a riot, being themselves in fact the ones w h o stir up a riot. Points 7 to 12 demonstrate once again that Luke is assembling material which he knows about from Mark. H e has given it his own linguistic and stylistic character. A corresponding conclusion can also be reached in respect o f 23: 1, 4 , 5 . But we must at this point d o without a detailed spelling out o f the case for this view. It does not turn out to be possible to demonstrate on stylistic grounds the existence, and availability to Luke, o f a non-Markan (literary) source.
(c) Method of composition in Luke 23: j - 5 T h e editorial composition o f Luke 23: 1 - 5 can be convincingly interpreted as a Lukan working over o f the Markan source in order to achieve the presentation o f a coherent and comprehensible account. From the procurator's question, M a r k 1 5 : 2 , Luke concludes that the Sanhedrin authorities must previously have accused Jesus o f being a messianic pretender and in that situation produced many allegations against him. By reconstructing such allegations out o f the Markan material, the evangelist is able at the same time to fashion the Pilate scene into a regular proceeding in which first o f all the delatores appear and then the accused is granted
T h e political charge against Jesus
413
19
opportunity for self-defence. Finally this setting o f the scene also gives the evangelist opportunity
to cause Pilate to attest before the Jews
the
innocence ofjesus. Although the Jews have listened to this from Pilate, they nevertheless persist with their claim that Jesus is an (anti-Roman) inciter o f the people (verse 5 ) . T h e mention o f Galilee then provides the catchword for the scene Jesus before H e r o d ' ( c p . 2^6f). If it is permissible to understand the scene 2 3 : 1 - 5 in this way as a Lukan construction, conversely it follows that a pre-Lukan context 2 3 : 1 - 2 , 4 - 5
2 0
is
unlikely. A unity o f this sort must certainly be disputed since verse 1, like verse 2 , clearly assumes the Markan source, which is all the more true, o f course, at verse 3 . T h e charge concerning tribute to Caesar stands formally in relation to Luke 2 0 : 2 0 - 6 , a pericope which is plainly dependent on Mark. But if 2 3 : 2 assumes at this point the Lukan redaction o f Markan material, then this verse cannot be pre-Lukan. T h e declaration o f Pilate in opposition to the accusers (verse 4 ) cannot follow unless and until Pilate has (by means o f the question to Jesus in verse 3) convinced himself o f Jesus's innocence.
21
(d) The purpose of the account A n important purpose o f Luke's two-volume work is to produce political apologetic vis-a-vis the R o m a n state.
22
This is plain also from the charges
against Paul and the demolition o f these in Acts ( 1 7 : 7 ; 2 4 : 2 - 5 ,
10-21;
2 5 : 7f; 2 6 : 2 - 2 3 ) . After the arrest ofjesus and the hearing before the Sanhedrin the Jewish leaders bring charges against Jesus before the R o m a n governor, the allegations which they produce being known to be false. T h e points o f accusation are so planned that they are bound to rouse the interest o f the R o m a n Pilate ( 2 3 : 2 ) : Jesus is said to have wished to stir up the Jewish people, in that he demanded the withholding o f tribute to Caesar and played the role o f a messianic claimant. This state o f affairs would necessarily be o f interest to Pilate in his official capacity. Yet the allegations 1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
See A . N . Sherwin W h i t e , Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament ( O x f o r d , 1963), p p . 24-6; c p . v a n der K w a a k , Het Proces, p p . i4of. Suggested b y Streeter, Schlatter a n d G r u n d m a n n (see a b o v e , footnote 4 o n P. 405)T h i s d o e s not m e a n that Pilate u n d e r s t o o d Jesus's reply as a negative (thus G r u n d m a n n , Lukas, p . 422). R a t h e r the evangelist assumes that Pilate realises the unpolitical ( L u k a n ) interpretation o f kingship ( c p . C o n z e l m a n n , Mitte, p p . 78f ( E T Luke, p p . 851). C p . o n this, C o n z e l m a n n , Mitte, p p . 128-35 ( E T p p . 138-44); G . Schneider, Verleugnung, Verspottung und Verhbr Jesu nach Lukas 22, 54-71 ( M i i n c h e n , 1969), p p . 193-6; c p . the m o r e differentiated statement o f the s a m e a u t h o r in his recent article ' D e r Z w e c k des lukanischen D o p p e l w e r k s ' , BZ 21 (1977), 45-66, esp. 59-61.
4H
G E R H A R D SCHNEIDER
are demonstrably wide o f the mark. Jesus had affirmed the payment o f the imperial tax (20: 2 0 - 6 ) ; his messiahship is not kingship in a political sense as the Jews understand it and as they want to make the governor believe (cp. 1 9 : 1 1 ; 2 2 : 2 4 - 3 0 ; 2 3 : 3 5 , 3 7 , 3 9 ) . In fact it consists o f serving ( 2 2 : 2 7 ) . Therefore it is a gross calumny when the Jews accuse Jesus o f political rebellion. In reality it is they themselves who not only approve o f uproar (23: i8f, 2 5 ) but even arouse it (Acts 1 3 : 5 0 ; 1 4 : 1 9 ; 1 7 : 5 - 8 , 1 3 ; 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 7 ; 2 1 : 2 7 ) . Pilate is able to convince himself that Jesus is guiltless (Luke 2 3 : 4 , I4f, 2 2 ) , and he is anxious to let him g o free ( 2 3 : 1 6 , 20, 2 2 ) .
4.
Conclusion
Luke 2 3 : 2 relies, according to the foregoing analysis, on the material in Mark which Luke has edited in order to reconstruct a specifically detailed charge from the Jewish side before Pilate. That the evangelist has thereby grasped in its essentials the historically true position can be indirectly confirmed from the Jewish tradition about Jesus, a tradition which sees in Jesus one w h o led the people astray. ' 23
2 3
2 4
24
C p . b. Sanh. 43a (baraita): Jesus practised m a g i c a n d 'enticed Israel to apostasy and r e b e l l i o n ' . Blinzler, Prozess, p . 42, wants to explain the claim that Jesus w a s a beguiler a n d instigator o f rebellion in terms o f the J e w i s h situation o f the s e c o n d c e n t u r y w h e n Christianity h a d c o m e to b e regarded as 'heretical'. T h i s article has been translated b y D . R . C a t c h p o l e .
E.
BAMMEL
The trial before Pilate ' T h e most interesting isolated problem which historical jurisprudence can present' - such is a characterisation given to the trial ofjesus. T h e R o m a n part o f it is no exception to this. T h e nature o f the trial before Pilate is indicated in the introductory terms used by Mark: br\oavxeg . . . jragedcoxav ( 1 5 : 1 ) . T h e binding ofjesus is not mentioned in the Second Evangelist's introduction to the Sanhedrin trial, as indeed the fettering of a person who is still only under accusation is unusual. T h e term implies that Jesus's judicial position was different from that after the arrest, in other words that the deliberation o f 1 5 : ia, which sums up the nocturnal events, did not refer to these as a preliminary interrogation but constituted an act that had its procedural consequences. T h e position is different in John, where Jesus is bound immediately after his arrest ( 1 8 : 12) and kept fettered during the night ( 1 8 : 2 4 ) . T h e difference is conditioned by the fact that here Jesus is, when taken captive, a ^T)TOt3[xevog, whose fate had already been decided upon - pending the emergence o f mitigating circumstances. Mark and John agree in describing Jesus's situation at the beginning o f the trial before Pilate as that o f a culprit. Matthew follows Mark, whereas Luke omits this detail. 1
2
3
4
5
6
IlaQa6i6cDju is a word that is used in a more general and even half-metaphorical way quite often in Christian language. This secondary 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A . T . I n n e s , The Trial ofJesus Christ. A legal Monograph ( E d i n b u r g h , 1899), p . 2. F o r the position a c c o r d i n g to R o m a n law, w h e r e the personal status o f the accused m a n is affected o n l y in so far as he is not permitted to apply for o n e o f the c i v i c offices a n d w h e r e only i m p r i s o n m e n t is m e n t i o n e d as a m e a n s o f coercitio see T . M o m m s e n , Rbmisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899), p p . 39iff. T h u s P. W i n t e r , On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p . 27. N o t noticed b y E . H i r s c h , Fruhgeschichte des Evangeliums (2nd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1951), p p . i64f. C p . Festschrift C.F.D. Moule (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1971), p p . 33-5. H i s formulation c o u l d b e taken to m e a n that n o c o n d e m n a t i o n h a d taken place ( W i n t e r , Trial, p p . 28ft). Rather, the o p p o s i t e is the case. N o a p p e a l for an a d m i s s i o n o f guilt is possible w i t h o u t a charge; equally n o statement like that o f 22: 71. Further, verse 71 p r e s u p p o s e s that enquiries had been m a d e before and that their result is c o n s i d e r e d t o b e confirmed b y J e s u s ' s o w n attitude vis-a-vis his j u d g e s . T h a t m e a n s , the L u k a n scene o n l y b e c o m e s c o m p r e h e n s i b l e if w e p r e s u p p o s e the existence o f an a c c o u n t w h i c h is not recorded in the actual text. L u k e 22: i f d o e s not meet this d e m a n d ; o n the contrary, the w o r d i n g is less formal than in M a r k , let alone in M a t t h e w . S o it must b e a scene like the o n e d e s c r i b e d in J o h n 11:45ff. E.g. Papyrus E g e r t o n A . 1. 29. T h e same m a y b e true for M a r k 1: 14; J o h n 3: 36 e yhmg (referring to the Baptist) a n d especially M a r k 9: 31 (jtaQCtdiooxai is passivum
S
415
416
E. BAMMEL
usage which is based on reflection on the passion story is, however, not likely at a place where both the traditor and those to whose keeping the culprit is handed over are juridical persons - whatever overtones may be 8
present. T h e same word is used in J o h n 1 8 : 3 1 , 3 5 , at the beginning o f the J e w s ' dealings with Pilate and o f the interrogation ofjesus. In both cases it is in a reference at the beginning of a dispute and not in a factual description 9
that the term o c c u r s . This is true to the Johannine style o f presentation which disregards an even flow o f narration. Substantially, however, the two traditions agree. T h e point is confirmed and even stressed by J o h n 18: 3 5 : TO eBvog . . . xai
10
6
ciQXiEQeijg
jictQedcoxav. T h e
two
nouns refer
to
representatives in Judaism. JHD and *ian - the latter is not a but
the
whole
community,
the
11
Volksgemeinde
— are
inscriptions on the coins o f the Hasmonaean period.
12
the
two
yegovoia
named in
the
T h e formula has an
Divinum; n o t h i n g can b e d e d u c e d from it for the details o f the trial o f J e s u s ) . T e c h n i c a l l y it means the transference from o n e authority to the other (John 18: 35) o r from o n e stage o f the p r o c e e d i n g s to the next ( 4 / 20 §200: A n a n u s w i t h his S a n h e d r i n JiaoEdcoxe J a m e s to b e s t o n e d ) . T h e w o r d receives the subsidiary m e a n i n g o f treachery if the h a n d i n g o v e r is performed to an outside p o w e r (the term Jiaod&ooig is d in BJ 7 §415 for the handing o v e r o f the Z e a l o t s b y the J e w i s h authorities o f A l e x a n d r i a to the R o m a n s : they had been fugitives - §413 - and were therefore n o t under the jurisdiction o f the J e w i s h yEQOUOia; the fact that they h a d already c o m m i t t e d m u r d e r s in A l e x a n d r i a is given as an additional r e a s o n ) . T h i s n o t i o n is expressed b y £x&id6vcu even m o r e strongly AJ 14 § 15; Eusebius H.E. 1.5.1. C p . D . D a u b e , Collaboration with Tyranny in-Rabbinic Law ( O x f o r d , 1965), p p . 7f; D . Schirmer, 'Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Johannes-Evangelium' ( D i s s . Erlangen, 1964), p p . 133^, 179fT. u s e
8
9
1 0
T h i s is especially the case in the references to J u d a s , 6 Jtaoadi&ovc; atitov (John 18:5; c p . 18:2; 6:64, 71; 12:4; 13:2, 11, 21). A . D a u e r , Die Passionsgeschichte imjohannesevangelium ( M i i n c h e n , 1972), p . 122 h o l d s that the first passage is the elaboration o f a source, in w h i c h the handing o v e r was m e n t i o n e d in the form o f a narration. T h i s is doubtful a n d even m o r e s o the attribution o f the d i a l o g u e to the t h e o l o g y o f the evangelist. X * ( C . v o n T i s c h e n d o r f , Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus ( L e i p z i g , 1863), p . 59*); L b ( w h i c h in the o p i n i o n o f A . Julicher, Itala iv (Berlin, 1963), 196 represents the text o f the Itala for this verse), ff (principis sacerdotum) m a y b e d e p e n d e n t o n a similar, a l t h o u g h less precise text (servusprincipis etc?), e, representing the afra, has the s a m e reading. G . D . Kilpatrick (Festschrift M. Black ( E d i n b u r g h , 1969), p p . 203ft) o b s e r v e d a t e n d e n c y to replace aQX Q iS b y -Qevg, b e c a u s e the w i d e r usage o f the w o r d h a d b e c o m e o b s o l e t e . It is, h o w e v e r , difficult to see that this t e n d e n c y s h o u l d h a v e i n v a d e d a chapter in w h i c h t w o high priests had already been m e n t i o n e d b y n a m e . A p a r t from this the passage in question is different b e c a u s e it is o f a p i e c e with the p r e c e d i n g . 1
l£
11
1 2
£
E . Schiirer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im ZeitalterJesu Christi i ( L e i p z i g , 1901), 269 ( E T - b a s e d o n the 1890 edition - i. 1.284). J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s a different t e r m i n o l o g y . W h e n referring to the Sanhedrin he describes it in its different c o m p o n e n t s and uses therefore with preference the plural formulation, w h i c h i n c l u d e s the m e m b e r s o f the high-priestly families. A . R e i f e n b e r g , Jewish Coins (Jerusalem, 1947), p p . 40-2.
T h e trial before Pilate
417
official ring and, used in this context, means that the recognised authority o f Judaea had taken a decision in consequence of which Jesus was standing before Pilate. Accordingly no accusation is raised in these strands o f the tradition and not even the reason for the condemnation is reproduced in a satisfactorily formulated form in the section on the trial before Pilate. Jesus is taken as a
xaxdv
JIOIWV
(John 1 8 : 3 0 ) , just as the two other persons w h o will be
crucified with him are briefly styled as xaxouQY
01
(Luke 2 3 : 3 3 ) . N o
witnesses are called nor even is the condemnation rendered in unmis takable words. T h e verdict is presupposed;
13
it is the basis o f the following
scenes. N o indication is given that Pilate deals with the question ab ovo. W h a t is asked and stated by him, is done with reference to what had been found before by the Sanhedrin. T r u e , the question: ov ei 6 (3aoiXei>c; xd)v Tou6ai(ov has been taken to mean that a new accusation is being dealt with, that a political trial is about to start after the religious trial
14
or as the only trial proper.
15
Such an
e c o n o m y seems probable and has therefore become the classical approach in Prozessforschung. A complete separation is, however, not possible: the scene before Pilate starts with the taking up o f the findings which had been made before. Even if the Gospel reports on the Sanhedrin trial were unreliable, some form o f investigation leading up to paoiXeiig xxX. must have initiated the proceedings and preceded the reports on the R o m a n part o f them. T h e knowledge Pilate has about the material (John
18:33b)
makes it likely that he had been instructed in a form not dissimilar to the direction o f his own examination. It is, o f course, possible to avoid this conclusion by assuming that it was the Sanhedrin itself that raised a new and different accusation in front o f Pilate.
16
Possible as it is, this theory presupposes an action on the side of the
Jewish authorities which is far less in accord with Jewish law than any other course attributed to them: it involves the denunciation o f someone w h o is not liable to punishment according to Jewish law and w h o is, at the same time, not charged by the Romans. It demands ex5ooig rather than JiaQd5ooig - without external pressure to d o so. Paul, following an iron
13
1 4
1 5
J . W e l l h a u s e n , Das Evangelium Johannis (Berlin, 1908), p . 83 sees t w o lines in the J o h a n n i n e a c c o u n t : o n e a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the J e w s act as accusers, another in w h i c h they j u s t d e m a n d execution a n d 'verbieten i h m (Pilate), in die merita causae einzugehenV E.g. J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu ( R e g e n s b u r g , 1969), p p . 278ff. W i n t e r , Trial, passim; H . H . C o h n , The Trial and Death ofJesus ( N e w Y o r k , 1971), p p .
I42ff. 1 6
E . g . E . Stauffer, Jesus war ganz anders ( H a m b u r g , 1967), p . 188. T h e v i e w that a different a c c u s a t i o n w a s put foward in front o f Pilate is taken already in Const. Apost. v . 14.
418
E. BAMMEL
rule of Jewish behaviour, admonishes the members of his community not to frequent heathen lawcourts in matters o f dispute (lites), although they were in the unhappy situation o f being unable to benefit any longer from the services o f the local Jewish court. cases and
indeed those Jews
17
T h e same is all the more true for capital
who were able to execute judgement
themselves. Such a procedure was not employed vis-a-vis the followers o f Jesus, the early Christians.
18
T h e case in Josephus, where ex5oi3vai is used,
indicates h o w Jewish authorities were likely to react: Florus c o m m a n d s (exeXevoev) the Jewish authorities to exdowcu those w h o had offended him, but his request is resisted. 100
is used in talmudic times
19
20
It shows that the horror with which lays open a feeling that is deeply rooted
and was present in the Jewish mentality at an earlier time. T h e theory is not absolutely impossible,
21
but very unlikely.
If, then, there was a connection between the Sanhedrin investigation and the one carried out by Pilate, the link must be found in the question with which the R o m a n prefect, according to the reports o f all the four Gospels, starts his interrogation, the question o f j e s u s ' s kingship. T h e part in the Jewish statement that caught his interest and fitted the framework o f his understanding is phrased by him in these words. It does not mean that the Jews had described Jesus as king-pretender nor that, in doing so, they made themselves guilty o f great deceit consciously committed.
22
The
political relevance was not necessarily stressed by the Jews - paoiXetjg has primarily a religious meaning in Jewish language. It may rather have been brought out by the Christian narrators w h o wanted to make Pilate reject an insinuation with these particular overtones. Neither the truth o f the accusation nor the nature o f the claim is investigated. This points to a religious charge which the prefect was unable
1 7
1 9
2 1
1 8
1 C o r . 6: iff. C p . the case o f J a m e s . T h e term is used in BJ 2 §3oa. D a u b e , Collaboration, p . 19. S y m p t o m a t i c a n d at the s a m e time e n i g m a t i c is the case o f j e s u s b . A n a n i a s , w h o after h a v i n g started to utter cries against J e r u s a l e m a n d the T e m p l e while standing in the latter, is arrested, chastised b y lives xd)V imoi\\UtiV by\\iox(bv a n d , b e c a u s e he c o n t i n u e d , w a s b r o u g h t (dvdyeiv) b y the doxovxeg before the R o m a n ejiaoxog. T h e g o v e r n o r flayed h i m to the b o n e s , but let h i m g o , w h e r e u p o n he c o n t i n u e d with his lament for several years (BJ 6 §300-9). It is to b e assumed that the J e w i s h authorities, w h o o b v i o u s l y h a d failed to get hold o f h i m while he w a s still in the p r e c i n c t o f the T e m p l e , tried and p u n i s h e d h i m first, then h a n d e d h i m o v e r to the R o m a n s in o r d e r to achieve a severer p u n i s h m e n t , i.e. execution. H a v i n g been set free b y the R o m a n j u d g e he can c o n t i n u e b e c a u s e the J e w i s h authorities, h a v i n g h a n d e d h i m o v e r to the R o m a n s , c a n n o t t o u c h h i m again. T h e story shows that capital p u n i s h m e n t w a s not any longer in J e w i s h hands at that time. F o r an interpretation o f this J e s u s ' s p r o p h e c y o f d o o m c p . A . Schalit, ' D i e E r h e b u n g Vespasians . . in Aufstieg und Niedergang der alten Welt ii. 2 (Berlin, 1975), 276, 2 0
322-7. 2 2
T h u s Blinzler, Prozess, p . 279.
T h e trial before Pilate
419
to re-examine rather than to a political accusation which would have called for further enquiry in order to find out more about accomplices etc. Instead, the culprit's confession is invoked and, subsequently, a series o f attempts is launched by Pilate to make Jesus give an innocent interpretation to this charge. That means Pilate looks for mitigating circumstances, whereas the matter itself is seen by him as a fait accompli according to the Mark/John report. This allows conclusions with regard to the judicial nature o f the proceedings. Mark, Luke and J o h n agree in claiming that the decision was not taken as a matter o f routine but only after several interludes. T h e num ber o f scenes varies and their description too, but the basic feature is the same. Additional elements occur in the course o f these proceedings on the side both o f the prefect and o f the Jews. This is elaborated especially in the Fourth Gospel, whereas Mark, w h o summarises the proceedings, gives only hints. First, Pilate tries to rid himself o f the matter, the nature o f which is not explained to him. T h e Jewish demand, that he should fall in line with their findings without any ado, is well in keeping with the tendency to turn the legal situation to one's maximal advantage, known from Josephus's interpretation o f Caesar's edicts and other sources. T h e suggestion made by Pilate in J o h n 1 8 : 3 1 a , Xdpexe auxov u|ieig, xai xaxa xov vofiov v\i(bv XQivaxe auxov, reason
24
2 3
2 4
23
is the obvious answer, which forces the Jews to give a
and to demand
execution explicitly.
25
T h e second additional
T h e Syriac text allows t w o different translations: j u d g e him a c c o r d i n g to y o u r law; a n d j u d g e h i m as it (is) l a w . It seems that elements b e l o n g i n g originally to i8:3of were transposed b y the evangelist to 19:6b, 7. T h e t w o elements o f J o h n 19:6 (oxavQWOOv/Xapexe x x L ) are taken at face v a l u e a n d given a very articulate interpretation b y A . Schlatter: the J e w s insist o n d e p r i v i n g Jesus o f his h o n o u r c o m p l e t e l y and they k n o w that this is o n l y a c h i e v e d if he is executed at the hands o f the R o m a n s (Der Evangelist Johannes (Stuttgart, 1930), p . 344). T h i s p o i n t is taken u p b y W . G r u n d m a n n : J e s u s was h a n d e d o v e r to the R o m a n s for execution in o r d e r to separate h i m c o m p l e t e l y from J u d a i s m ; stoning w o u l d have been an h o n o u r for h i m , for this m o d e o f execution w o u l d h a v e meant the recognition o f j e s u s as b e l o n g i n g to t h e m (Jesus der Galilaer ( W e i m a r , 1940), p . 162). T h e v i e w c o u l d find s u p p o r t in R . O t t o ' s interpretation o f M a r k 14: 22," a verse w h i c h points to Jesus's expectation o f being ' b r o k e n ' like b r e a d , i.e. stoned to death (Reich Gottes undMenschensohn ( M i i n c h e n , 1934), p p . 251, 253^ E T ( L o n d o n , 1938), p p . 296, 3001). T h e theory p r e s u p p o s e s not o n l y full J e w i s h j u r i s d i c t i o n even in capital cases ( c p . J o h n 19:6a) but the successful attempt to lure Pilate into carrying o u t an action w h i c h the J e w s themselves c o u l d have taken. T h e possibility o f c o m p l e x J e w i s h schemes has been ventilated o n c e and again ( c p . J. D . M . Derrett, Law in the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 389ft), but this o n e has little foothold in the sources, quite apart from the fact that - c p . note 199, p . 442 - the J e w s were not afraid o f i m p l e m e n t i n g 'separation', even b y carrying out executions b y w a y o f crucifixion. W . K o c h (Der Prozess Jesu ( K o l n , 1966), p . 169) appears to b e influenced b y the S c h l a t t e r - G r u n d m a n n theory. Act. Pil. 4.3f narrates that the J e w s w o u l d h a v e been able to stone Jesus, but they w a n t e d h i m to b e
420
E. BAMMEL
feature is the giving o f a choice between Barabbas
and Jesus. T h e
suggestion is only meaningful if the two persons were understood to represent different aims and standpoints and thereby gave a chance to confuse the ranks o f the Jews and to outmanoeuvre those w h o wanted to have their o w n way. Additional moves on the side o f the Jews are accusations (Mark 1 5 : 3 ) and attempts to exercise pressure on the prefect (John 1 9 : 1 2 ) . Both these features, interesting as they are for the literary development o f the narrative as well as the historical situation they attempt to mirror, are not relevant for the description o f the legal situation. There occurs, however, one element in the narrative which is to b e c o m e o f 'crucial' importance: the silence o f Jesus, a gesture which already puzzled the earliest opponents o f Christianity so m u c h . Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, reports the ambiguous ov Xiytiq in reply to Pilate's question about his kingship, and emphasises that after this Jesus said OuXETl ovbiv ( 1 5 : 5 ) . Luke gives the motif its setting in his account o f the Herodian trial ( 2 3 . 9 ) . John has both features ( 1 8 : 3 7 ; 1 9 : 9 ) , although they are flanked by lengthy pronouncements which definitely are stamped in the Johannine mould. 26
2 7
2 8
29
30
3 1
T h e matter is different with the verses which introduce the Johannine ov Xiyeig. A theological ingredient is present only in 1 8 : 3 6 a , c. Apart from this two topics are dealt with which are closely linked with the materia itself. Verse 3 6 b touches upon a problem that had played a certain role in the Johannine account o f the arrest and the Sanhedrin proceedings ( 1 8 : 20) : the involvement o f the disciples in the activities o f their master. While 32
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8
2 9
3 3
crucified a n d it is for this reason that they h a n d h i m o v e r to Pilate; this text seems to c o i n c i d e with the v i e w discussed a b o v e . F o r the latest attempt to trace a pre-Johannine tradition in the verses see D a u e r , Passionsgeschicte, p p . i45f. M a r k emphasises the political activity o f the counterpart o f j e s u s , carried o u t in the (!) ordoig a n d thereby makes clear the difference. J o h n , w h o o n l y touches u p o n the subject in passing, reduces the political significance o f B a r a b b a s . J. W e l l h a u s e n : ' S c h a d e , dass der Inhalt der A n k l a g e nicht a n g e g e b e n w i r d ' (Das Evangelium Marci (Berlin, 1909), p . 128).
For an interpretation see ThLZ 77 (1952), c o l . 205fT. C e l s u s ( O r i g e n , C. Cels. ii. 35); P o r p h y r y fr. 63 (Porphyrius 'Gegen die Christen'. 15 Bucher Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate, e d . A . v o n H a r n a c k , S B A 66 Phil. -hist. K . ,
3 0
3 1
32
3 3
PP- 4 0 E v e n m o r e so with the J o h a n n i n e addition: oti (5aoiXei)g eijii. It is for this reason that the silence m o t i f appears at a later stage o f the J o h a n n i n e tradition. F o r the historical evaluation see C . H . D o d d , Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel ( C a m b r i d g e , 1963), p . 104. 1 8 : 8 b ; it b e l o n g s to the basic layer o f the story b e c a u s e the urging question o f j e s u s is inconsistent with the p o w e r o f the divine n a m e displayed in the redactional material. It is there rather the p r o b l e m o f secret, possibly heretical teaching that is at stake than revolutionary activity (thus W i n t e r , Trial, p . 49). C p . the parallel in
T h e trial before Pilate Jesus's negative reply there had led to his first buffeting,
34
421
it is here again
that, by emphasising an otherworldliness for his kingdom o f such a kind as to prohibit his disciples from raising arms for it, he explicitly protects those disciples against recriminatory actions
35
which undoubtedly would have
followed any admission o f political ambitions.
36
T h e other statement o f
Jesus is an enquiry as to w h o caused Pilate to presume his kingship: ctcp' eauxoti . . . f\ aKkoi. T h e question seems to be irrelevant, because only the accusation matters in the circumstances. It even seems inappropriate, 37
evasive and out o f place: 'so spricht kein Angeklagter sondern der Herr'.
38
In fact, the matter is different. A n assumption and charge, conceived and formulated by Pilate independently, would not only have meant something amounting to a new trial but would have given Jesus the opportunity to speak his mind freely. A charge communicated through the Jews would, on the other hand, have forced him to raise a counter-accusation against those w h o are named by Pilate in his answer. Such a procedure might have brought Jesus into collision with the rule that required a Jew w h o was unfortunate enough to stand in the dock o f a Gentile court to say nothing that might imperil his fellow-countrymen. In asking this question and 39
complying with the Jewish code o f behaviour Jesus proves to be a loyal
3 4
3 5
3 6
3 7
A r i s t o b u l u s 481": M o s e s received the teaching in t w o forms, esoteric and exoteric instruction. It is the j u d i c i a l buffeting parallel to that o f M a r k 14:65 (and possibly Luke.23:6ff), different from the scene o f m o c k e r y in 19: 2ff (with its parallels in M a r k 15: i6ff and L u k e 22:63ft). A parallel m a y b e found in Asc. Is. 5.13, where Isaiah discharges his fellows and sends t h e m to T y r e a n d Sidon, saying ' T h e c u p was p r e p a r e d o n l y for m e . ' T h e verse is already a Christian addition, as the m e n t i o n o f the ' c u p ' and o f ' T y r e and S i d o n ' indicates, a n d it m a y b e influenced b y the a c c o u n t o f the trial o f j e s u s . For the historical p r o b l e m w h e t h e r the disciples b e c a m e involved in the p r o c e e d i n g s against Jesus, c p . M a r k 14: 70, a passage w h i c h m a y possibly i m p l y a hunt after the followers o f j e s u s , a n d E v . Petr. v . 26, w h i c h actually states that the disciples had to g o into hiding because they were accused o f having intended to burn d o w n the T e m p l e . T h e circumstantial e v i d e n c e speaks against the c l a i m o f the G o s p e l o f Peter. V e s p a s i a n o r d e r e d an ava^TlTTjoig o f all the scions o f the D a v i d i c family, causing a persecution thereby (Hegesippus a c c . to Eusebius H.E. iii 12; c p . E. M e y e r , Ursprung und Anfdnge des Christentums i (Stuttgart, 1921), 72, n. 2). J. K l a u s n e r , The Messianic Idea in Israel ( L o n d o n , 1955) rightly states that such an utterance as that o f J o h n 18: 36 w o u l d have been impossible for a J e w i s h messiah. R . v o n M a y r , ' D e r Prozess J e s u ' , ArchivfurKriminal-Anthropologie undKriminalistik 20
(1905), 276. 3 8
3 9
D a u e r , Passionsgeschichte, p . 253. In fact, bold utterances are k n o w n from b o t h the reports o n J e w i s h m a r t y r d o m s (2 and 4 M a c e . ) as well as those o n the p a g a n martyrs o f A l e x a n d r i a (Acta Alexandrinorum. De Mortibus Alexandriae nobilium fragmenta papyraica Graeca, e d . H . A . M u s u r i l l o ( L e i p z i g , 1961)). T w o points result from this. Firstly, not to frequent heathen courts at all in questions o f litigation ( c p . 1 C o r . 6: i f f ) ; secondly, not to give witness against a fellow-countryman, b r o t h e r etc. Both elements are present in the Messiah Sutra
422
E.
BAMMEL
40
J e w . H e does so in most trying circumstances: not even the accusers are exposed by him. True, the silence o f j e s u s is often explained by reference to Isa. 5 3 : 7: oux avofyei to orojia . . . acpcovog ouxcog oux dvoiyei TO ox6|xa amov* T h e parallel cannot, however, mean that the remark is unhistorical. T o o many features o f the story point in the same direction. Equally it should not be taken as an admission of guilt; neither the R o m a n legal system nor the reaction o f Pilate, as it is recorded in the Gospels, allows this interpretation. T h e silence is the conclusion drawn and posture adopted by the one w h o had already invoked divine justice against the Sanhedrin and who is now not any longer willing to defend himself. T h e petition for the enemies, which Luke records as having been uttered on the mount o f Calvary and to which is appended the legal phrase: 'they d o not know 41
2
43
44
45
46
47
w h i c h is b a s e d o n a Syriac d o c u m e n t : ' b r i n g not y o u r c o m p l a i n t before the magistrate . . . if y o u k n o w the details o f the matter y o u need not give any information t h e r e o f (verse i3of; c p . P. Y . Saeki, The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China (2nd e d n . T o k y o , 1951), p . 138). 4 0
O n e is t e m p t e d to think o f J o n a h , w h o , a c c o r d i n g to J e w i s h tradition was so eager to 'insist o n the h o n o u r o f the son ( = I s r a e l ) ' that he tried to flee a n d even to attempt suicide in o r d e r to e s c a p e carrying o u t an action w h i c h was detrimental to his nation, M e k i l t a Pis'cha 1 ( L a u t e r b a c h 1. 9). T h e 'sign o f J o n a h ' m a y b e interpreted against this b a c k g r o u n d rather than as a sign o f penitence.
4 1
T h e silence in front o f the c o u r t is n o t u n i q u e . Certain traditions, in contrast to the standard tradition represented b y X e n o p h o n , Plato etc., attribute silence o r an almost resilient gesture to Socrates (Philostrat. Vit. Apoll. 8.2; M a x i m u s o f T y r e , Diss. 3), a n d m a k e A p o l l o n i u s a d o p t the s a m e position in his trial while p o i n t i n g to the great e x a m p l e (Vit. Apoll. 8.2; c p . 8.7 - the statement is in fact the b e g i n n i n g o f a l o n g s p e e c h ) . T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , n o reason to s u p p o s e that this m o d e l , if it h a d b e e n established already b y Jesus's time, p l a y e d a role either in Jesus's o w n m i n d o r in the evangelist's report - the link b e t w e e n Socrates and Jesus w h i c h J. G . K l o p s t o c k establishes m his famous rendering o f Portia's d r e a m (Der Messias vii. 399ft) is entirely d u e to the great p o e t ' s i n g e n i o u s vision. C p . H . G o m p e r z , 'Sokrates H a l t u n g v o r seinen R i c h t e r n ' , Wiener Studien 54 (1936), 32. T h e silence o f j e s u s b . A n a n i a s ( J o s . BJ 6 §302) is different: he remains silent w h e n he is maltreated; it is not a silence in the c o u r t r o o m .
4 2
W . Z i m m e r l i and J. J e r e m i a s , The Servant of God ( L o n d o n , 1957), p . 99- F o r the correction o f an attempt at criticism o f J e r e m i a s ' s view c p . J. Jeremias,y7%5/ n.s. 11
(i960), i4off. 4 3
Z i m m e r l i a n d Jeremias, Servant, n o t e 458 remark that the fact that n o scriptural reference is given points in favour o f the historicity o f the silence. C p . D o d d , Tradition, \o${ and D a u e r , Passionsgeschichte, 128 (taken from a pre-Johannine report). ^ S a l l u s t , Catilina 5 2 : 'magistratus d e confesso sumat s u p p l i c i u m ' ; c p . Blinzler, Prozess, p . 282. It is an a l m o s t J o h a n n i n e phrase w h i c h is used in M a r k 15:5. T h i s is the m e a n i n g o f M a r k 14:62: G o d will give j u d g e m e n t different from that p r o n o u n c e d b y his earthly representative and he himself will have to see the S o n o f 4 5
4 6
m a n o n the clouds; c p . T U 88 (1964), 24. 4 7
23: 34. C p . Ignatius's p r a y e r for the persecutors (Phil. 12: 3). F o r the interpretation c p . J. J e r e m i a s , Neutestamentliche Theologie i (Giitersloh, 1971), 283 ( E T ( L o n d o n ,
T h e trial before Pilate what they d o ' , before.
4 8
only gives expression to what had been practised by Jesus
49
T h e Lukan report differs from this in many ways. T h e Jews are described as those w h o start with accusations (iiQ^avxo . . . x a x T i y o Q E i v ) about which details are given ( 2 3 : 2; c p . 2 3 : 5 ) . This could be taken as pointing to a new trial rather than to a supplement to the preceding one. T h e Herodian trial could function as a subsidiary piece o f evidence for this view: what 50
made it possible for Pilate to undertake a remissio was the circumstance o f an open or relatively open question not tied too closely by the strings o f previous transactions. T h e fact that Jesus was a Galilaean stimulated Pilate, it is said, to enter upon this course o f action ( 2 3 : 7 ) . raA.iA.aia is, however, a stock phrase in the Lukan formulae characterising Jesus's activity
51
and, owing to this,
inserted into the formula o f accusation. Its occurrence in 2 3 : 5 is therefore to be taken as Luke's way o f accounting for Herod's involvement in Jesus's trial and his way o f understanding the episode, whereas the scene itself has its climax and clue in 2 3 : 1 2 . T h e 'friendship' which must have been brought about by Pilate's giving away o f something - something that was noticeable to the outsider - cannot have been caused by his considering Herod Antipas as the forum domicilii. T h e jurisdiction o f the tetrarch in his realm was never in doubt. What the Herodians were aiming at was influence in Jerusalem, was a kind o f JiQOOtaaia xov eGvovg, EJUjAeXeia xov I E Q O I )
53
52
was the
- the former was claimed in a dramatic gesture
shortly after the trial o f j e s u s ;
54
the latter was formally acquired in A . D . 4 4 .
55
1971), p p . 2981), a n d K . Bornhauser, Das Wirken des Christus durch Taten und Worte
(Gutersloh, 1921), p p . 224h". 4 8
F o r the interpretation see D . D a u b e , ' F o r they k n o w not w h a t they d o ' , T U 79
4 9
W e h a v e to think especially o f the enemies o f j e s u s in M a r k 10:45. It is this address w h i c h is in keeping with the context. C p . E . B i c k e r m a n n , 'Utilitas C r u c i s ' , RHR 112 (1935), 206. A c t s 10: 37; 13:31; c p . L u k e 4: 31. Jesus's m o v e m e n t from there to J u d a e a as the centre o f his activity likewise ( L u k e 4 : 4 4 ( T o v & a i a seems to b e the original r e a d i n g ) ; 6:17; 7: 17; A c t s 10:37). C p . U . W i l c k e n s , Die Missionsreden der
(i 6i), 8ff. 9
5 0
5 1
5
Apostelgeschichte (Neukirchen, 1961). 5 2
AJ 20 §251; the term is here used in relation to the high priests, but the leadership fell into the hands o f the H e r o d i a n s w h e n they were given the right to a p p o i n t and d e p o s e high priests (AJ 20 § 15f).
53
AJ 20 §222; c p . 20 §15.
3 4
5 5
Philo, Legatio, 300. J o s e p h u s speaks o f H e r o d o f Chalkis in AJ 20 § 15. But the right w a s in all likelihood already exercised b y A g r i p p a I. O n e m a y w o n d e r whether the incident m e n t i o n e d in L u k e 13: 1, w h e r e Pilate m i x e d the b l o o d o f s o m e Galilaean pilgrims with that o f their sacrificial animals was the first o c c a s i o n for A n t i p a s to try to establish s o m e sort o f sovereignty in the T e m p l e area - unsuccessfully and therefore resulting in animosity. T h e G o s p e l o f Peter, w h e r e A n t i p a s presides over a consilium o f j u d g e s o f
424
E. BAMMEL
In sending Jesus (who was supposed to have offended against the T e m p l e ) to Herod Antipas Pilate asked for his judgement (or advice) in this matter and thereby meets one o f the demands o f the Herodians or gives at least the appearance o f doing so. Such an event could be taken as a demonstrative gesture and be given the characterisation found in Luke 2 3 : 1 2 ,
5 6
at the end
o f a passage which otherwise had undergone a certain deterioration. T h e scene gives rather the impression o f being another attempt to refer the case to the Jewish side - this time to an authority not necessarily in agreement with the Sanhedrin
57
- than a delegatio as part o f a new trial.
O f overriding importance is the point o f disagreement with Mark/John, the accusation o f the high priests. T h e form o f the Alexandrian
58
texts,
59
which consists o f three elements, starts with an accusation based on Deut. 13 - that is to say, it summarises (hence £x3QCl[iev) the accusation before the Jewish court and the findings o f the Sanhedrin, which were presupposed only and not spelled out in the preceding section o f Luke's narration.
60
It
adds two points which, one would think, had been sufficiently dealt with long before: Jesus had
admitted none o f these accusations.
61
What,
however, made their repetition necessary was to give evidence for what was the R o m a n representatives' opinion in this matter. T h e dvdxQioig - only the main point, (3aoiA.8tjg, is mentioned, under which the tax question seems to be subsumed - results in nothing that is incriminatory:
62
ovdev
w h i c h Pilate is only a m e m b e r , p r e s u p p o s e s a j u d i c i a l situation o f this kind. T h e e x e m p t i o n o f the T e m p l e courtyard from R o m a n jurisdiction - m o r e m a r k e d after A . D . 44 than before - is well k n o w n from c o n t e m p o r a r y sources. T h e representative o f the H e r o d i a n house acted as j u s t i c e o f the p e a c e within this area ( a n d as a g u a r a n t o r vis-a-vis the R o m a n s ) . T h e a c c o u n t o f the G o s p e l o f Peter retrojects this situation into the time o f the trial o f j e s u s . 5 6
T h e c u m b e r s o m e expression (piXoi ^ex' dXA.fiX.CDV, periphrastic construction JiQOg abxovz, a n d the w o r d i n g kv EX0Q suggest a Semitic b a c k g r o u n d . T h e p e r i c o p e itself, o n the other hand, is different in style. L u k a n are djiav TO JtXfjGog, Igcoxda), etJiev JIQ05; d^iog and x<*iQEW> listed b y F. R e h k o p f (Die lukanische Sonderquelle ( T u b i n g e n , 1 9 5 9 ) , p p . 92ft) as pre-Lukan, are in fact not un-Lukan, as the usage in A c t s shows. a
5 7
5 8
T h u s B i c k e r m a n n , RHR 1 1 2 ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 205fT. T h e W e s t e r n text, o n the other h a n d , turns it b y its additions and the o m i s s i o n o f KcuociQi ( w h i c h is likely for M a r c i o n a n d w h i c h makes it, a c c o r d i n g to W . Bauer, Das Leben Jesu ( T u b i n g e n , 1909), p . 197 refer to the T e m p l e tax) to a c o d e o f Christian b e h a v i o u r w h i c h is very m u c h in line with what w e k n o w o f the ethical standards in the M a r c i o n i t e c h u r c h .
5 9
Different G . Schneider, p . 407f in this v o l u m e . I f the x a i w e r e epexegetical, w e w o u l d e q u a l l y expect a x a i in front o f d i d d a x c o v in verse 5. 60Cp. p . 4 1 7 . It is i m p o r t a n t to note that Luke 20: 2off is - c o n t r a r y to M a r k - i n t r o d u c e d b y reference to the political and j u r i d i c a l d i m e n s i o n o f the question. T h e koiyr\aav a d d e d b y L u k e to the M a r k a n report makes it quite clear that Jesus w o n v i c t o r y in this d i s p u t e . at) AiyeiS ( 3 3) ^ 7 ° negative m e a n i n g for L u k e . 6 1
6 2
2
:
n
a
s
n
e
2
2
:
a
T h e trial before Pilate EUQiaxo) ai'xiov ( 2 3 : 4 ) . This statement forces the high priests to fall back to the first point o f accusation. After the Herod scene, which must be seen as being concerned with this point at issue, even the first accusation (and with it the others as well) is denied: 2 3 : I 4 f , 20, 2 2 . Pilate repeats his opinion 63
three times before all sections of Jewish society and Luke underlines the finality o f this ( 2 3 : 2 2 XQixov). H e even goes so far as to eliminate the ridiculing PaoiXeug xcav Tou&aicov o f Mark's Barabbas scene ( 1 5 : 9 ) in his own
report.
T h e innocence o f j e s u s could have been stated without the outlining o f the points o f accusation in detail. As they are mentioned prominently it must have been done with a particular purpose. Jesus's o w n fate, the fact that he was killed although innocent, cannot have been the reason. Can the situation o f Christianity at a time nearer to Luke's own have given rise to 64
the detailed mentioning o f these points? Romans 1 3 : 5f is phrased in such a way that it presupposes an inclination to make use o f the privilege o f the heirs o f the kingdom, a certain resistance against the paying of taxes
65
either
in the Christian community or in such circles as could be associated with it. T o defeat such suggestions and, even more, to convince the Romans that such ideas, which were likely to be put into their heads by the Jews, did not exist among them, was o f vital importance for nascent Christianity - not only in R o m e .
66
'Eauxov
XQIOTOV
(3aoiAia eivai is the only formulation o f
this kind in Luke, indicating in this way that something specific, the Davidic pretension, is implied. Such a notion, in normal circumstances not necessarily o f consequence, became dangerous in the years of the revolt and after it when the Romans chased those persons, w h o by virtue o f their descent might become focal points for subversive activities.
6 3
6 4
65
6 6
6 7
67
T h e A.ct6c; o f verse 13 is still present in verse 23. T h i s m a y b e a difference c o m p a r e d with the p r e c e d i n g scene w h e r e the JtA.fj0og o r 6%Ko<; are the followers o f the Sanhedrin. C p . M a t t . 17:25. T h e w o r d xfjvoog indicates that the p r o b l e m o f the T e m p l e tax is linked with that o f the tribute. It is o n l y for the latter that verse 25c is formulated from the believer = 1)165. C p . also W . H o r b u r y , a b o v e , p . 265.
(p6Q0g is used as in L u k e 23:2; not xfjvoog as in M a r k 12:14. F o r the R o m a n situation see p . 37of - L u k e ' s rephrasing o f the centurion's confession: 6vxo)g . . . &ixcuog (23:47) - at first g l a n c e surprising b e c a u s e it a v o i d s the christological confession w h i c h M a r k had p r o d u c e d - b e c o m e s meaningful in the a s s u m e d c o n t e x t . It w a s o f vital i m p o r t a n c e t o b r i n g o u t clearly the i n n o c e n c e o f Jesus at the end o f the a c c o u n t o f the passion. BJ 6 § 114f. T h e r e m o v a l o f J o h n , the y v w o x o g xcp dQX^Qei (John 18: 15), to P a t m o s m a y h a v e b e e n part o f the s a m e o p e r a t i o n . T h e relegatio w a s a c o m p a r a t i v e l y m i l d p u n i s h m e n t , m a i n l y a c c o r d e d to honestiores. It is L u k e t o o w h o rewrites the G e t h s e m a n e p e r i c o p e and p r o d u c e s a different version o f the arrest. Is it p o s s i b l e to g o s o far as to a s s u m e that inclination to resistance is in his o p i n i o n a form o f the JieiQaou.6g, the d a n g e r o f w h i c h is stressed so m u c h in his a c c o u n t
(22:40, 46)?
426
E. BAMMEL
It results from this that the accusation o f the jr,Qeo(3uT£Qiov xov Xaov is a Lukan heading, under which umbrella are put together the findings o f the Sanhedrin with other points which were sensitive spots in the evangelist's own time. From this it may be deduced that the impression that Luke follows a different scheme for the trial before Pilate is based only on editorial material and is not, even on this level, carried through systematically. T h e Barabbas episode agrees with the Markan/Johannine scheme and the Herodian 'trial', whether historical or unhistorical, is, taken by itself, capable o f being interpreted as a fact-finding mission with the possible intention o f counteracting the Sanhedrin's claims. T h e final decision o f Pilate is rendered in a way almost identical with that o f Mark. T h e source analysis o f the Roman part o f the Lukan trial leads to a result different from that o f the Sanhedrin trial: whereas the latter is based on a source independent from and, perhaps, superior to Mark, it is in the trial before Pilate that the main thread, interwoven with a few features o f different provenance, is Markan. 68
69
70
71
72
T h e 'strange episode concerning B a r a b b a s ' is only a subsidiary feature in the Fourth Gospel. It had invaded the pre-Lukan tradition at an early stage and it is, although firmly embedded in the Markan text as we possess 73
6 8
6 9
7 0
Pace B i c k e r m a n n . T h e charges are L u k a n , but the evangelist has c h o s e n to d e s c r i b e the w a y in w h i c h Pilate deals with them from the basis o f M a r k ( L u k e 23: 3). T h i s w o u l d p o i n t against the existence o f a c o n t i n u o u s pre-Lukan narrative o n the R o m a n trial. V e r s e s i f are to be v i e w e d together with verse 5 ( c p . the similar xai plus p a r t i c i p l e f o r m u l a t i o n ) . P r o b a b l y it w a s originally o n e entity. L u k e m o v e d w h a t is n o w verse 5 b / c in o r d e r to have a foothold for the A n t i p a s story and replaced it b y verse 2c. 23: 14 refers o n l y to the first ' a c c u s a t i o n ' . It has certainly not e v o l v e d from an interpretation o f Ps. 2: 1 (thus M . D i b e l i u s , ' H e r o d e s u n d Pilatus' in Botschaft und Geschichte i ( T u b i n g e n , 1953), 278fl). In this case w e w o u l d expect the PaoiXevg-trial to have been given a far greater p r o m i n e n c e , an i m p o r t a n c e not dissimilar to that given in E v . Petr.
7 1
D . C a t c h p o l e , The Trial of Jesus ( L e i d e n , 1971), p p . i53ff. T h e question arises as to w h a t w a s the e n d o f the pre-Lukan report cited b y the evangelist in c h . 22. S o m e m e n t i o n o f the R o m a n trial is to b e p r e s u p p o s e d . It cannot b e ruled out that the evangelist w h o cut o f f the b e g i n n i n g d i d the s a m e with the final section at the end o f the s o u r c e . But there is o n e point in his a c c o u n t w h i c h is to b e explained neither b y his o w n t e n d e n c y nor b y the influence o f M a r k : the role o f the c r o w d . W h e r e as the c r o w d d o e s not c o m e in in M a r k before 15:8 and has to b e agitated b y the high priests against Jesus, it is here the case - contrary to what is usual in the m a i n b o d y a n d again in the crucifixion story (verse 35) o f the G o s p e l - that the c r o w d s are present right from the beginning (verse 4) and take an active part. M i g h t it b e that this feature stems from pre-Lukan tradition? R e m e m b e r i n g the deviating traits in the B a r a b b a s scene o f that G o s p e l , it appears likely that the source w e n t o n with verse 18 and c o n c l u d e d with verse 24. A short mention o f the crucifixion itself m a y h a v e b e e n the c o n c l u d i n g remark o f the source.
7 2
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 . 258. L u k e 23:16 is identical with 23*.22d. T h e evangelist established a b r i d g e b y inserting Xaog in 23: 13, a passage w h e r e the c r o w d s have nothing to d o ; o n the
7 3
T h e trial before Pilate
427
it n o w , an insertion in the summarising £/r-account. This does not mean, however, that it is just a 'legendary embellishment'.
74
T h e state o f affairs
points to two streams o f tradition at an initial stage, comparable with the two traditions o f Stephen's death
75
one of which explained the action o f the
crowd by reference to the choice given to it (owing to this the OTOUQCoaov is moved into the scene), whereas the other replaced the crowd by a smaller segment o f the population.
76
T h e privilegium Paschale makes sense as a Jewish custom (thus J o h n 1 8 : 3 9 ) : one prisoner is released in remembrance o f Israel's salvation from Egypt. In a similar way the Jews felt compelled to buy out, and were busy buying out, fellow-countrymen w h o had fallen captive especially at this time.
77
T h e release is likely to have been a royal prerogative vis-a-vis the
Sanhedrin.
78
Hasmonaean
T h e R o m a n prefects whose office was in the succession o f the kings carried on with this. If such a custom existed in
Jerusalem at that time, it is most likely that the demand was normally put forward by the people (as is the case in Luke 2 3 : 1 8 ) . If, in answer to this, a 79
choice was given by the authorities - this is certainly a possibility - it had to be a choice between persons w h o were 'in the same condemnation'. That 8 0
means, Jesus was in all likelihood in the situation of a condemned p e r s o n -
7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
7 8
7 9
8 0
other h a n d , he m a y h a v e o m i t t e d the beginning o f the B a r a b b a s scene. T h e state o f affairs s h o w s that L u k e selected pieces o f different p r o v e n a n c e for his a c c o u n t . T h u s R . B u l t m a n n , Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition ( G o t t i n g e n , 1957), p . 293 ( E T ( O x f o r d , 1963) p . 272); M . Grant, Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1977), p . 165. E v e n F. H a h n ( ' D e r Prozess J e s u nach d e m J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m ' , Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar. Vorarbeiten, Heft 2 ( N e u k i r c h e n , 1970), p p . 13!!) considers the tradition as 'vorjohanneisch'. C p . A c t s 6: 1 iff with 7:57f and c p . F. Spitta, Die Apostelgeschichte (Halle, 1891), p p . g6ff a n d K . Bornhauser, Studien zur Apostelgeschichte ( G u t e r s l o h , 1934), p p . 7iff. J o h n 19:6. T h i s is a standing feature in the Fourth G o s p e l . T h e last statements o n the m u l t i t u d e are found in 10:41 a n d 12: 19. Pes. v m . 6 refers to this, not - pace Blinzler, Prozess, p p . 37iff - to the Passover amnesty. A n d therefore not listed b y J o s e p h u s as a privilege a c c o r d e d to the J e w s b y the R o m a n s (a different v i e w in B r a n d o n , Zealots, p . 259). T h e parallels a d d u c e d from the G r a e c o - R o m a n w o r l d (see Blinzler, Prozess, p p . 3 0 3 ^ are relevant o n l y s o far as they m a y h e l p to explain the R o m a n attitude o f carrying o n with the practice. T h e role o f g r a c e in J e w i s h penal l a w d e m a n d s a special investigation. It w o u l d point to a s o m e w h a t c i r c u m s c r i b i n g practice in the a p p r e h e n s i o n o f the privilegium - a d e v e l o p m e n t not difficult to understand. It w a s , nota bene, a verdict b y the Sanhedrin. B i c k e r m a n n , RHR 112 (1935), p . 239 tries to e s c a p e this c o n c l u s i o n b y assuming that an i n t r o d u c t o r y remark to the scene, reporting the c o n d e m n a t i o n to death o f j e s u s b y Pilate, w a s suppressed b y M a r k . T h e same w o u l d h a v e to b e s u p p o s e d to h a v e h a p p e n e d with the beginning o f the L u k a n a c c o u n t - a m o s t unlikely c o i n c i d e n c e . R . W . H u s b a n d , The Prosecution of Jesus (Princeton, 1916), p p . 268ff; idem, ' T h e P a r d o n i n g o f Prisoners b y Pilate', AJT 21 (1917), 11 off, o n the o t h e r h a n d , argues u n c o n v i n c i n g l y that B a r a b b a s w a s not yet c o n v i c t e d . T h e a r g u m e n t s a s s e m b l e d b y C o h n , Trial, p p . i63ff carry weight, if any, o n l y under the u n p r o v e n supposition that Jesus w a s not yet rite c o n d e m n e d .
428
E. BAMMEL
in the same way as Barabbas was awaiting execution. It is not less likely that the choice given to the people was a real one: Jesus had been tried for a 81
crime different from that o f the Xnoxrjs Barabbas. T h e outcome could not be seen as decided beforehand,
82
as the peoole had not been involved so far.
A n d indeed, men like Josephus take great pains to give a picture in which the attitude o f the main population is distinguished from the activities o f the fanatics. So far the story is not untrustworthy
83
and points strongly away
from any revolutionary behaviour on the part ofjesus himself. What is due to the evangelist's redaction is the direct link between the choice o f Barabbas and the orauQcaoov o f the people, whereas the latter is likely to have happened at a later stage o f the proceedings (cp. John 19:6). N o verdict pronounced by Pilate is cited in either the synoptic Gospels or the Gospel o f J o h n . What is mentioned, however, is his intention and, indeed, his c o m m a n d to scourge Jesus. Luke, w h o reports the intention ( 2 3 : 1 6 ) , fails to mention the execution o f the punishment. John speaks about it at some length ( 1 9 : 1 ) , whereas Mark and Matthew briefly mention the act in their summary o f the events. Luke's report suggests a scourging before the Barabbas
scene and John,
on the other hand,
places it
afterwards, whereas the first two evangelists give no clear indication as to when it h a p p e n e d .
84
It is not an ancillary punishment to the execution,
85
and must therefore be either an act o f cruelty to please the public or a punishment for some minor offence. John, w h o links it closely with the mocking, has moved in the first direction, whereas Luke, w h o ventilates the question o f guilt in the same sentence, points to the other alternative. It is more likely that a measure that was considered as an order o f punishment could look like an act o f brutality than that the opposite happened. If we have to take the punitive character o f the measure seriously, it is necessary to trace the reason. Jesus's silence must have been taken as contempt o f court b y Pilate and caused the reaction o f the enraged prefect.
86
T h e final verdict is supposed to be alluded to in John 1 9 : 1 3 : exdSioev EJtl PrjiiaTog. This phrase is valued as the only clear witness for a R o m a n 8 1
8 2
8 3
8 4
W i n t e r , Trial, p p . g6ff tries unsuccessfully to dispute the linking o f B a r a b b a s with insurrectionist activities. J e s u s m u s t h a v e been a m a n o f a type different from that o f B a r a b b a s ; the story m a k e s sense only u n d e r this supposition. T h i s points against O . C u l l m a n n ' s interpretation: the s a m e c r i m e a n d the s a m e verdict (Der Staat im N.T. (2nd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1961), p . 34; E T L o n d o n 1957, p p . 47Q. W a s the n o m i n a t i o n o f B a r a b b a s as eligible for amnesty a s c h e m e o f Pilate in o r d e r to test the loyalty o f the J e w s ? In any case, the extension o f the amnesty to a case w h i c h w a s o n l y p u n i s h a b l e a c c o r d i n g to R o m a n l a w m i g h t b e taken as a success o f the J e w s . M a r k seems to put the punitive measures together.
8 5
See p . 44of.
8 6
C p . J o h n 18: 22.
T h e trial before Pilate condemnation,
87
and it is seen as the beginning o f the proceedings e superiori 88
which are concluded by the verdict pronounced from the same Pfjuxx.
In
the Johannine scene it is, however, the mocking remark: I5e 6 PaoiXevg l)fxd)V that follows, a remark that is raised to another level by the evangelist as is indicated by the mentioning o f the hour. T h e situation is parallel to verse 5 where he says: ibov 6 avSocojtog. T h e progression to PaoiXeijg in verse 1 4 - and its emphasis in verse 1 5 - has meaning only if something had been done with the person concerned in the meantime. Scourging and mocking are actions that preceded verse 5 . A new act is, however, supplied if exd6ioev is taken as a transitive form;
89
it describes a final climax o f the
mocking scene, the culprit is placed on the judgement seat and, in keeping with this, spoken o f as paoiAevg. Interpreted this way the pericope whether its position in the sequence o f events is correct or n o t
90
- does not
provide the required information about the state o f the trial itself.
91
T h e word that comes nearest to a juridical description is used by Luke: EJlEXQivev ( 2 3 : 3 4 ) . It does not describe the giving of sentence, a decision, rightly or w r o n g l y
93
92
but rather
taken within a larger procedural context.
T h e other evangelists avoid even such a description and allude to the end o f the scene before Pilate in the shortest possible wording. W h i c h is the procedural form that satisfies these data? T h e evaluation o f the facts has retreated into the background almost completely, and the question whether dominates
a punishment,
and if so which one, is advisable,
the scene. This not only demands
that the
fact-finding,
summing-up and verdict o f another authority should have preceded, but equally that the decision o f the former should have been o f such a kind that it could not be overruled in substance. It appears that the case was not such as to be dealt with by the coercitio o f the prefect or even by ordinary R o m a n provincial trial. Neither the one trial 8 7
88
8 9
94
nor a new trial
95
seems to be the
J . Blinzler, ' D e r Entscheid des Pilatus - Exekutionsbefehl o d e r T o d e s u r t e i l ? ' , MThZ 5 (1954), 175; Prozess, p p . 346^. B l i n z l e r , Prozess, p p . 34if. A s the parallel in Ev. Petr. v. 7 suggests. C p . A . v. H a r n a c k , Bruchstucke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus (Leipzig, 1893), PP- ^3^ and P. C o r s s e n , " E x & 0 i o e v £JU |3r|uxxTog\ ZNW 15 (1914), 339f. S o t o o in Ev. B a r n a b a e ( e d . L . and L . R a g g ( O x f o r d , 1907), p . 479); the passage refers there to J u d a s in the guise o f Jesus. But c p . J. A . T . R o b i n s o n b e l o w , n. 52 o n p . 469.
9 0
9 1
9 2
9 3
9 4
9 5
C p . W i n t e r , Trial, p p . i o i f , 106. M o m m s e n already m a d e it likely that n o Vollverfahren took p l a c e . T h u s there w a s n o need for Pilate to m o u n t the (3fju.a (Romisches Strafrecht ( L e i p z i g , 1899), p p . 240Q. Differently Blinzler, Prozess, p . 356. T h u s A . P l u m m e r , St Luke ( E d i n b u r g h , 1913), p . 527. T h u s 2 M a c e . 4:47, w h e r e the w o r d is used. W i n t e r , Trial, passim. G . A i c h e r , Der Prozess Jesu ( B o n n , 1929); E. Stauffer, Jesus. Gestalt und Geschichte (Bern, 1957; E T L o n d o n , i960).
43°
E- BAMMEL
R o m a n trial but a procedure based and dependent on the Sanhedrin trial. T h e possibilities to be taken into consideration in this case are a handing over without any scrutiny and comment or a short examination
and
decision guided by the principles o f R o m a n administration. T h e former view may find support in the simple JiaQe5(DX£V by which the end o f the 96
R o m a n part of the narrative is described in all four G o s p e l s and the nearly complete absence o f details o f a strictly judicial procedure. O n the other hand it must be mentioned that whatever may be said about Christian enlargements o f the story,
97
certain dealings took place which would find
their natural conclusion in a formal decision taken by the prefect. T r u e , such a decision is nowhere reproduced in the passion accounts, but it is presupposed in Acts 1 3 : 2 g ,
9 8
and the later tradition which attributes to
Pilate a formal XQl[ia" could hardly have arisen without any trace in its nascent f o r m .
100
T h e eJUXQioi£, found in the description o f Luke, is
therefore to be taken as the term which comes nearest to the essence o f the judicial action in the Gospel account o f the R o m a n 'trial'. 'EJUXQIOIC; is a decision based on such investigation as was necessary for the consideration of imperial interests. O n the other hand, it was a scrutiny 'mit gebundener Marschroute'
101
that was carried out: the case itself was not re-examined,
only the political consequences o f whatever actions had been decided on. One element has been disregarded so far, the role played by the people. T h e evangelists
unanimously
emphasise
that their intervention
was
decisive. T h e Volksgericht had been in action in R o m e until the time o f Augustus and was valued as an expression of liberty. well known from the Jewish p a s t communities of the E m p i r e ,
9 6
9 7
9 8
9 9
104
103
102
Such an institution,
and still in force in the autonomous
could not be met with disapproval a limine by
C p . p. 4i6f. C p . B u l t m a n n , Synoptische Tradition, p p . 297ff ( E T p . 275ft). T h e h a n d i n g o v e r takes p l a c e a l t h o u g h n o causa w a s found; this implies that a causa was supplied b y Pilate. D , o n the o t h e r h a n d , supplies a reference to a xoiuxx given b y the S a n h e d r i n . E.g. Act. Pil. ix; c p . E. v o n D o b s c h i i t z , ' D e r Prozess Jesu nach d e n A c t a Pilati', ZNW
3 (1902), 89ff. 1 0 0
1 0 1
1 0 2
1 0 3
104
Certain details w h i c h g a v e s u p p o r t to the impression o f a R o m a n j u d g e m e n t c a m e in later: the three l a n g u a g e s ( c p . p . 3541), the centurion and the interpretation o f J o h n 19: 13 as referring to a formal action o f Pilate. R . v o n M a y r , Archiv fur Kriminal-Anthropologic und Kriminalistik 20 (1905), 305. L . W e n g e r (Die Quellen des romischen Rechts ( G r a z , 1953), p . 287) inserts this statement into his a c o u n t o f the events a l t h o u g h it is substantially at v a r i a n c e with his o w n v i e w o f the separate trials. M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p . 1 7 1 . L y n c h l a w , still c o m m o n l y practised in this period ( c p . A c t s 7: 58) w a s o n l y a c c e p t a b l e to the legal m i n d as a w a y o f executing the p e o p l e ' s justice. J . C o l i n , Les villes libres de VOrient greco-romain et Venvoi au supplice par acclamations populaires, C o l l . L a t o m u s 82 (Brussels, 1965). C o l i n ' s theory w a s endorsed - with a
T h e trial before Pilate
431
the R o m a n s . Indeed, the Barabbas scene shows that those assembled before the pfj^ia
105
were viewed as the representatives of the people qualified
to make a choice. T h e voices o f the people, although not regarded as sufficient to decide the o u t c o m e o f a trial, were valued not just as vanae voces populi but viewed with regard by the Romans when it came to the question o f the political feasibility o f a verdict, and in fact the importance o f the multitude in wider political issues became of decisive importance exactly at the time of Pilate. There is a straight line from Mark 15: 15 (PouA,6|ievosTtp ox^cp TO ixavov J i o i f j o a i ) to the report o f Eusebius on Attalus's execution: T(p 6%\(0 xaQi^oiievoq 6 ^ y e M ^ -
1 0 6
T h e impression the Gospel reports
107
convey, that it was this intervention that tipped the scales in Jesus's disfavour and made the prefect arrive at the decision he issued, is historically not at all unlikely. Examination o f this factor in the events confirms the view that political considerations had their part in the R o m a n side o f the proceedings. T h e care for the preservation of p e a c e
108
is certainly
no sufficient reason for the condemnation o f j e s u s (not even under the vinculum oicoercitio) but it is a satisfactory argument ifJesus was already rite condemned.
109
Does this hypothesis find support in the information we receive outside the trial proper about the execution ofjesus or does such evidence demand a different solution? T h e summarising accounts in Acts and in the synoptic Gospels, which g o back in substance to a period prior to the literary activity o f the Christians
110
have to be taken into consideration. T h e accounts o f the
events preceding and following the trial come in as subsidiary evidence. T h e third prediction o f the passion (Mark io:32ff) contains a more detailed description than the preceding ones (8: 3iff; 9: 3off) and mentions the 60vr] to w h o m Jesus is to be handed over. Mark constructs the following part o f the sentence in parataxis and thereby leaves it open whether the Gentiles or - more likely - the high priests perform the subsequent actions certain p r o v i s o - b y F. B o v o n , Les derniersjours de Jesus ( N e u e n b u r g , 1974), p . 68; c p . 1 0 5
1 0 6
1 0 7
P- 43C o l i n , Villes, p p . 13fF makes a g o o d case for the variant dva(5of|oag. Eusebius, H.E. v . 1.50; c p . C o l i n , Villes, p p . i26ff. M a t t h e w alone a d d s the o m i n o u s T O al\ia avxov xzk. (27:25). It is a form o f oath (Schwurformel), the m e a n i n g o f w h i c h is: his b l o o d b e o n us, if w e d o w r o n g with the m a n w h o m y o u are a b o u t to h a n d o v e r (tiu.elg oipeoBe). F o r a n e w interpretation, a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the phrase 'his b l o o d o n o u r h e a d s ' testified to the i n n o c e n c e o f the person c o n c e r n e d , c p . G . B a u m , Die Juden und das Evangelium (Einsiedeln, 1963),
p p . iosf. 1 0 8
1 0 9
, 1 0
T h u s , in defence o f Pilate, J. F. Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity ( L o n d o n 1873; n e w e d n . C a m b r i d g e , 1967), p . 87; c p . Innes, Trial, p p . i o i f f . T h e theory suggested here finds its closest ally in the reconstruction o f the events given b y S. Liberty, The Political Relations of Christ's Ministry ( O x f o r d , 1916). C . H . D o d d , The Apostolic preaching and its developments ( L o n d o n , 1936). E. Stauffer, Die Theologie des N.T. (Stuttgart, 1941), p p . 329ff; E T ( L o n d o n , 1955), p . 339.
432
E. BAMMEL
o f humiliation and the execution,
111
whereas both Matthew and Luke refer
to misdeeds o f these e9vT). T h e plural formulation is, however, not handed s
112
down unanimously: sy reads xri) tatco
in Matt. 20: 1 9 , Mark 10: 3 3 , and 1
omits the object altogether. Obviously different traditions together
114
successful.
and 115
113
have c o m e
the attempt to integrate them has not been wholly
It is surprising that no more definite reference to the R o m a n s
is given in this formula, that none o f the opprobrious terms for them is used, and no mention is made of the judicial activity o f Pilate. This state of affairs is explained more easily by an £0vr)-formulation into which other notions crept than from the opposite starting point. T h e corresponding formula in Luke 2 4 : 2 0 which lacks any reference to the R o m a n s passion entirely within a Jewish h o r i z o n ,
117
116
and treats the
confirms this view. e
T h e formulae in Acts d o not seem to coincide with this. T h e X ^ Q 5 &v6|X(DV (2: 2 3 ) must allude to non-Jewish involvement,
118
as the notion o f
the nefariousness o f the executioner is completely absent from the Jewish mind. Acts 1 3 : 2 8 too takes this line and even names Pilate as the one w h o m the Jews asked (f|xrjoavxo).
It is, however, striking that the activity
attributed to the R o m a n prefect does not g o beyond the granting o f a request - a remark that seems to refer to the popular demand at the Barabbas s c e n e
119
- and that in the probably superior
tradition, even the resulting event
121
, , 2
part o f the textual
is described in such a way that it
indicates a Jewish rather than a R o m a n action.
1 , 1
120
122
Pilate appears on the
E q u a l l y n in its rendering o f M a t t . 20: 19. B u r k i t t a d d s the plural in his translation.
1 . 3
1 . 4
1 . 5
1 1 6
1 1 7
I f not w e w o u l d expect the Syriac text form to b e the same in all three G o s p e l s . See M e r x , Matthaeus, p . 288; Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas (Berlin, 1905), p . 361. T h e L u k a n formulation is interesting: ^aoTiywoavTeg djioxtevoiioiv - at v a r i a n c e ( e v e n t e r m i n o l o g i c a l l y ) with the L u k a n trial report b u t (rather) in a g r e e m e n t with the R o m a n p r o c e d u r e o f crucifixion. Pace Blinzler, Munchener TheoL Zeitschrift 5 (1954), 173f. Prozess, p p . 341-428. JiaQe6a)xav has here the w i d e r m e a n i n g d r a w n attention to in n. 7, p . 415^ S o it agrees with the following v e r b : b o t h terms describe different sides o f the s a m e action.
1 , 8
n9
O t h e r w i s e H . C o n z e l m a n n , Die Mitte der Zeit ( T u b i n g e n , 1954), p . 84 ( E T L o n d o n 1961, p p . 901), a l t h o u g h s o only for the level o f L u k e ' s r e d a c t i o n . a i x e t o 6 a t is used in the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the c h o i c e ( M a r k 15:8; M a t t . 27:20; L u k e 23: 23) a n d equally as a stock phrase in the parallel formula o f A c t s 3:14, w h e r e it clearly refers to this incident. It is to b e kept in m i n d that the XdTOixovvreg ev TeQOvaaXTin are seen as the principal actors. C p . J . H . R o p e s in F . J . F . J a c k s o n a n d K . L a k e , Beginnings of Christianity iii
1 2 0
( L o n d o n , 1926), 262f. 1 2 1
1 2 2
Ut interficeretur. T h e E g y p t i a n reading dvaifje6fjvai w a s , together with A c t s 5: 30; 10: 39, taken as e v i d e n c e b y I. M . W i s e that Jesus w a s actually h a n g e d and not crucified (The Origin of Christianity ( C i n c i n n a t i , 1868), p . 29).
T h e trial before Pilate stage
123
just as a foil for the Jews whose deeds are qualified by terms
stronger than those used in the Gospels; they are called JtQo56xai ( 7 : 5 2 ) and almost stigmatised as e x 5 6 t a i .
124
T h e very fact that the Romans are
passed over in silence in the rest o f the formulae ( 3 : 1 5 ; 4 : 1 0 ; 5: 30; 1 0 : 3 9 ) underlines this concentration.
Their sketch o f events turns out to be
consistent with the passion prediction formulae, while the difference in terminology shows them to be independent sources.
125
T h e Testimonium Flavianum presents a different picture: an ev5ei^ig is performed by the JiQcbxoi av5geg, Jesus to the c r o s s .
127
126
a fact that causes Pilate to ejriTi|idv
It is a denunciation or, as Rufinus puts it,
128
accusatio
that had been discharged by the Jews. T h e phrase has been taken to exclude a Jewish trial.
129
But this is not necessarily the c a s e
130
as not even
the formal verdict pronounced by Pilate is reported. Still, the text as it 1 2 3
T h e E g y p t i a n text o n l y implies Pilate's c h o i c e b e t w e e n B a r a b b a s and Jesus, whereas the W e s t e r n text has Jesus h a n d e d o v e r to h i m and attributes a role to the prefect that stretches even b e y o n d Jesus's death, m o r e in keeping with the G o s p e l reports than the alternative text. E . J . E p p ' s evaluation o f the passage is hereby to b e c o r r e c t e d (The theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts
( C a m b r i d g e , 1966), p . 58). 124 2:23 is to b e constructed this w a y : delivered o v e r through the hands o f lawless m e n y o u nailed etc. In the W e s t e r n text AxxPovxeg has a very different m e a n i n g , for the illumination o f w h i c h see E p p , Theological Tendency, p p . 6of. T . Z a h n , Apostelgeschichte ( L e i p z i g , 1919), p . 112 c o m e s o u t in favour o f the W e s t e r n text, w h i c h he interprets differently. D i b e l i u s put forward the hypothesis that the first literary p r o d u c t s o f the Christian c o m m u n i t i e s were c o n c e r n e d with the description o f J e s u s ' s passion, that the G o s p e l s as w e h a v e t h e m are passion narratives extended b a c k w a r d s . T h i s is correct a n d yet not c o r r e c t . Certainly the description o f the L o r d ' s suffering was a subject o f meditation and s o u r c e o f influence for every o n e o f his followers, the m o r e so as s o o n as o p p r e s s i o n and persecution b e g a n and Jesus's e x a m p l e g a v e strength to his disciples. T h a t m e a n s that G e t h s e m a n e , m o c k i n g , crucifixion and death will have b e e n narrated early o n . Is this the case, h o w e v e r , also for the legal p r o c e d u r e s ? T h e piety o f the individual w o u l d have been less affected b y this subject. A s far as Christian a p o l o g e t i c s are c o n c e r n e d , they can o n l y have had a c h a n c e o f success in the Palestinian area i f (a) they asserted the ascension and c o m i n g again o f the o n e c o n d e m n e d , and ( b ) they w e r e in the position to make s o m e answer to the accusations o f witchcraft, s e d u c t i o n o f the p e o p l e and b l a s p h e m y against the T e m p l e , i.e. it was necessary for the description o f Jesus's life to play a certain role from the b e g i n n i n g . T h e R o m a n part o f the trial, h o w e v e r , apart from the B a r a b b a s scene, w a s left out as irrelevant. T h e result o f this is that the a c c o u n t o f the t w o trials derives from a later stage in Christian d e v e l o p m e n t , a stage w h e n enlightenment c o n c e r n i n g the R o m a n side was o f vital i m p o r t a n c e for the Christians. T h e a c c o u n t o f the trial in the G o s p e l o f M a r k is therefore already a formation w h i c h goes b a c k to the c o m m u n i t y outside Palestine. Eusebius, Theophany renders & Q X S instead. AJ 18 §64. 1 2 5
1 2 6
O V T £
1 2 1
1 2 8
J e r o m e a d d s the paraphrase: 'invidia n o s t r o r u m p r i n c i p u m ' (ex libr. vir. de Jos. c . IS)-
1 2 9
T h . R e i n a c h , 'Josephe sur J e s u s ' , REJ 35 (1897), i6f.
1 3 0
C p . the a r g u m e n t o f Blinzler, Prozess, p p . 46f.
E
434
- BAMMEL
stands attributes a greater measure o f activity to the Romans. It coincides in this respect with Tacitus's reference to Jesus.
131
Both statements seem to
reflect the state o f jurisdiction which had evolved at the turn o f the century.
132
T h e examination o f the material from the different sources reveals a surprising
degree
o f consonance
about
the
nature
o f the
Roman
proceedings. T o transfer this to the juridical level is not easy, as our knowledge o f the provincial trial is very scanty i n d e e d .
133
Still, certain
points can be fixed. As the Jewish code o f law had been applied in the examination and condemnation o f j e s u s and no independent enquiry had been carried out by Pilate, it is likely that the delict (Tatbestand), as it had been expressed by the Jewish court, was accepted by the R o m a n j u d g e . This could be linked with the idea o f a R o m a n trial in such a way as to assume that Pilate went into the matter so far as to find out whether the case was a punishable delict according to R o m a n law as well or n o t . 135
Delibationsverfahren
(interrogatory
134
A
proceedings) o f this description is,
however, not noticeable in the sources. T h e elements o f an investigation carried out in accordance with principles which differed from those o f the Sanhedrin are absent.
136
T h e PaouXeug-theme is not given a new, a political
interpretation. If it had been, an investigation into the activities o f the disciples would have been unavoidable. It therefore seems likely that not only the case itself but the punishment according to Jewish law was accepted as a presupposition by the R o m a n prefect, that what is called the Sub sumptionsjrage was taken as having been settled by the Sanhedrin.
137
W h a t was left to Pilate was to decide whether the punishment applicable 131
1 3 2
1 3 3
1 3 4
1 3 5
1 3 6
1 3 7
Ann. x v . 44. I n a similar vein T a c i t u s gives Pilate the title procurator w h i c h h a d b e c o m e c o m m o n in the historiographer's o w n time; for the question see H . V o l k m a n n , ' D i e Pilatusinschrift v o n Caesarea M a r i t i m a ' , Gymnasium 75 (1968), 130-2; D . M . P i p p i d i , 'Discutii in J u r u l lui Pontiu Pilat', Studii Clasice 12 (1970), i82ff; R . S z r a m k i e w i c z , Les Gouverneurs de province a Vepoque augusteenne (Paris, 1971); E. Stauffer, Die Pilatusinschrift von- Caesarea (Erlangen, 1966). It w a s already in 1905 that O . Hirschfeld h a d a s s u m e d that the title o f Pilate had b e e n VJiaQXWv/praefectus rather than £jt£TQOJCog/procurator o r f\ye\L
T h e trial before Pilate according to Jewish law was politically expedient from the point of view o f R o m a n administration. Distributing the weight in this way allows for the reconciliation o f what is otherwise irreconcilable:
138
Pilate's decision and
his repeated doubts about Jesus's guilt. It allows for the statement o f his o w n - judicial - i n n o c e n c e ,
139
emphatic
while he was morally ail the
more guilty. Such a reconstruction is in keeping with the general evidence for the period. T h e judicial system was left intact by the Romans as far as possible,
140
at least in the time o f the early principate. Moreover, it was
certainly the local law that was applied ordinarily, apart from conditions in which extraordinary measures had to be taken per coercitionem. Thus it is concluded by no less an authority than T h e o d o r M o m m s e n that Jesus was apprehended according to the old criminal code of the time o f the kings.
141
A
convenient way to check the activity o f the local courts and to reverse the worst decisions taken by them was the introduction o f a regulation that required R o m a n permission for the execution o f death penalties.
142
It seems
that Judaea had just arrived at this stage o f development in the time o f Pilate.
143
It is this impression o f the practice o f the R o m a n
provincial
administration that favours the view that, if there was a verdict by the Sanhedrin, it was only supplemented and put into force by a R o m a n 144
exsequatur.
1 3 8
A c o n d e m n a t i o n for an offence c o m m i t t e d against the lex Julia is irreconcilable with the e m p h a s i s in Pilate's impression o f Jesus's i n n o c e n c e . H o w e v e r m u c h the R o m a n representative was o b l i g e d to e x a m i n e possible sources o f unrest, he was n o t at all c o m p e l l e d to c o n d e m n s o m e o n e w h o m he c o n s i d e r e d not guilty.
1 3 9
M o m m s e n stated that the confirmation o f a verdict b y a R o m a n representative c o u l d not easily have b e e n given without a re-examination o f the p r e c e d i n g trial (Strafrecht, p . 241; similarly v o n M a y r , ' U r s p r u n g ' 285). It is the almost c o m p l e t e a b s e n c e o f revisionary features that makes h i m c u l p a b l e from a historian's point o f v i e w . M o m m s e n o n c e a d d e d the qualification to his description o f the j u d i c i a l situation: 'dass er (the R o m a n representative) dieses R e c h t (confirmation) nicht ausubte, o h n e sich iiber die Schuldfrage selbstandig orientiert zu haben, versteht sich v o n selbst' ( ' D i e Pilatusakten', ZNW 3 (1902), 199; c p . Strafrecht, p . 241; similarly v o n M a y r , ' U r s p r u n g ' , p . 285) and expressed hereby w h a t was desirable from the R o m a n p o i n t o f v i e w and b e c a m e the practice in the c o u r s e o f time. T h e almost c o m p l e t e a b s e n c e o f this element is the characteristic feature o f the R o m a n part o f the trial o f j e s u s . Pilate 'beschloss u n r o m i s c h ' - this statement o f K l o p s t o c k (Der Messias, vii, 765) receives m e a n i n g in this context.
1 4 0
For the R o m a n intention to grant Ji&TQict tQr\, w h i c h i n c l u d e d the j u d i c i a l system, c p . J o s . AJ 14 §194; 16 §35. 'das alte konigliche ( = j i i d i s c h e ) Strafrecht, nach w e l c h e m J e s u s gerichtet w o r d e n ist' (Strafrecht, p . 120 n. 1).
1 4 1
1 4 2
1 4 3
T h i s inaugurated a d e v e l o p m e n t that resulted in the reservation o f capital cases for the R o m a n courts. See Studies in Jewish Legal History ( L o n d o n , 1974), p p . 35ff. C p . also C . H . D o d d , ' T h e Historical P r o b l e m o f the Trial o f J e s u s ' in More N.T. Studies ( M a n c h e s t e r ,
1968), p . 92. 1 4 4
Similarly F. D o r r , Der Prozess Jesu in rechtsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (Berlin, 1920).
E. BAMMEL
436
The word used for Pilate's action is the same that had been used before for the transition from the Sanhedrin to the R o m a n proceedings: JiaQe5(DX£V. W e would therefore expect an act similar in nature and Indeed, that is emphasised by the addition o f avxolq,
appearance.
which we find in the
whole manuscript tradition o f J o h n 1 9 : 1 6 , in a considerable part o f the manuscripts o f Matt. 2 7 : 2 6 Mark 1 5 : 1 5 . intrusion
1 4 6
1 4 5
and in a substantial minority o f witnesses to
T h e state in the Markan tradition can be explained as an
from
Matthew,
whereas
the
evidence o f the
Matthaean
manuscripts points rather in favour o f the authenticity o f auxoig than otherwise.
147
In any case, the meaning o f the sentence in both Mark and
Matthew demands that those to w h o m Jesus is delivered are the same as those o n whose behalf Barabbas is released. T h e same is true for Luke w h o paraphrases: xcp 8eXfj(xaxi avxcbv. T h e following verses in Luke and J o h n d o not disagree with this,
148
whereas in Mark and Matthew the mocking
follows, which is performed by OTQaxicoTai in the
JtQaiT(OQiov
and
therefore supposed to point to R o m a n custody. Attempts have been made to smooth out the divergency by giving JiaQe5(oxev a metaphorical interpretation
149
or by devaluing the Johannine
statement as due to a 'jiingerer Interpolator'.
150
T h e matter is, however,
more difficult, as this tradition occurs already in the first reference to the trial in early Christian literature, in 1 Thess. 2 : 1 4 f t TO)V Tov6cuo)V T(bv . . .
xov
XVQIOV djioxxeivdvTCOV
Ascension o f Isaiah, in
the
Kerygma
Constitutions,
1 4 5
8
1
158
152
Tnooxrv.
151
T h e same is maintained in the
the Gospel o f Peter,
Petrou,
156
the
153
by Justin
154
Syriac Didaskalia,
in the Epistle o f Barnabas,
159
s
D L N 0 fi 892.1010 al lat s y a r m (erased in
157
and Aristides, the
155
Apostolic
in Melito o f Sardis,
160
in
K*AB).
146 p w ysphh g e o r g 54.282.c. M e r x , Matthaeus, p p . 407f. 148 ' W i e j e t z t d e r V e r s 16. . . steht u n d lautet, w i r d Jesus d e n J u d e n zur H i n r i c h t u n g u b e r g e b e n ' ( W e l l h a u s e n , Johannes, p . 86). Blinzler, Prozess, p . 340. E . S c h w a r t z , ' A p o r i e n i m vierten E v a n g e l i u m ' , Nachr. v.d. Kgl. Ges. d. Wiss. Gottingen ( 9°7), P- 356. F. Spitta e m e n d s aiJTOig in the s a m e verse o u t o f existence (Das Johannes-Evangelium ( G o t t i n g e n , 1910), p . 378). S
1 4 7
1 4 9
1 5 0
l
1 5 1
F o r a n interpretation c p . ZThK 56 (1959), 259ff.
1 5 2
T h e y d e l i v e r e d h i m to the king a n d crucified h i m ( x i . 19). v . 5: x a i Jiaoe&toxev avxov xcp taxcp. T h e first editor h a d o m i t t e d these w o r d s . W i t h o u t k n o w i n g this H a r n a c k already expressed his d o u b t s w h e t h e r verses 5f refer to soldiers o r n o t (Bruchstucke, p . v i ) . Apol. 1. 35.38; Dial. 97, 104; c p . i6f, 32, 72, 85, 133. i>ji6 xtov ' I o v & a i c o v JiQOcrr]Xa)9T) (Apology, A r m e n i a n a n d Syriac version, c h . 2). C p . E . P r e u s c h e n , Antilegomena (Giessen, 1905), p . 91.
1 5 3
1 5 4
155
1 5 6
157
C h . 13.21.
1 5 8
T h e G r e e k text c l a i m s that the J e w s acted likewise as xoriVyoQOi x a i uxxoxugeg x a i XQixai x a i xfjg djioqxtoetoc; l^ovotaoxai (5.14.12) a n d a d d s that the execution w a s
T h e trial before Pilate Tertullian, Josephus,
161
163
in part o f the Acta Pilati literature,
and in many other p l a c e s .
is, at least in a number o f cases,
166
164
'
165
162
in the
Slavonic
A generalising interpretation
impossible. T h e relevance o f these
statements is strengthened by their conformity with the claims made in Jewish sources.
167
T h e alternative view is o f course widely h e l d ,
usually expressed with certain qualifications.
168
but
169
T h e apparent divergency raises a difficult problem. T h e remission of the culprit to the local court after the confirmation o f the sentence by the R o m a n governor seems to be the obvious thing to d o . 'L'execution du cond a m n e devrait revenir, logiquement, aux Juifs' - as E. Bickermann puts it.
170
Examples from the same period support this view. T h e jurisdiction o f
H e r o d the Great over his sons was checked by Augustus. T h e execution, however, was left to him after a court in the R o m a n colony of Berytus
171
had
investigated the case on the emperor's instruction. Attention has been drawn to this fact in recent discussion.
172
T w o somewhat dissimilar cases
are not less telling. W h e n a R o m a n soldier had performed an action that could be taken as an offence against the T e m p l e privilege, his tribune, Celer
carried o u t b y 6rjinoi (5.14.14). T h e part p l a y e d b y Pilate in his a v a v d g i a is linked with this in a w a y w h i c h is not absolutely clear. 159
Barn. 5:2.12; 6:6f; 7:5.9.
m
Homily §92 ( T h e Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri VIII ( L o n d o n , 1941) fol. 20 v . ) . Apol. 21; Adv. Judaeos 10. Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 202. W . Bienert, Die alteste nichtchristliche Jesusbericht. Josephus uber Jesus ( H a l l e , 1936), p . 129. C p . the c l a i m m a d e b y the J e w o f Celsus (ii.4): £xoX.a£o[iev. C p . B a u e r , Leben Jesu, p p . i99ff. A n o t h e r piece o f e v i d e n c e m a y b e found in the parable o f the vineyard. T h e story, w h i c h s o o n was taken as s y m b o l i s i n g the fate o f j e s u s , runs in M a r k djiexxeivav avx6v x a i £|£(5aXov (12:8), whereas b o t h M a t t h e w and L u k e transpose ££e|5aXov/£xPaX.6vxeg . . . &Ji6xxeivav (the W e s t e r n M S S . in M a t t h e w follow M a r k ) . T h e former reading m a y p o i n t to a J e w i s h execution. T h e latter m a y b e taken to refer to an Ix&ooig and a subsequent execution, the organs o f w h i c h are not clearly i n d i c a t e d . It is, h o w e v e r , q u e s t i o n a b l e whether such a far-reaching interpretation o f the minutiae is admissible. Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 202. C p . p . 36off.
161
1 6 2
1 6 3
1 6 4
1 6 5
1 6 6
1 6 8
1 6 9
170
1 6 7
T h e M e s s i a h Sutra describes the T r i a l as c o n d u c t e d entirely in a R o m a n court; but, it is true, o n the instigation o f the J e w i s h scribes and after unsuccessful attempts o n their side to get rid o f j e s u s in other w a y s ( v . i82ff; Saeki, Nestorian Documents, p p . i43ff). T h e Samaritan c h r o n i c l e , w h i c h makes detailed m e n t i o n o f j e s u s , d o e s not p r o d u c e a formal Sanhedrin trial (eds. J. M a c d o n a l d and A . J . B . H i g g i n s , NTSt 18 (1971/72), 62, verses 630°, although the aVs' ( i e t h i m b e crucified') suggests a J e w i s h execution. E x c e p t i o n s : Const. Apost. 7.23.2 and Syriac Didaskalia 5.19.5 (here together with Herod). ' U t i l i t a s crucis', RHR 112 (1935), 222.
" ' C p . ZDPV84 1 7 2
(1968), 73ff.
B i c k e r m a n n , 'Utilitas', 222; P.J. V e r d a m , 'Sanhedrin and G a b a t h a ' , Free University
Quarterly 7 (1961), i3ff.
43^
E . BAMMEL
by name, was handed over to the Jews for execution by special order o f the emperor: JiaQa5o8fjvai 'Iov5aioig Jigog aixiav exeXeuoev xai 173
jreQiauQevxa xf|v Ji6X.1v oiha) xfiv xecpahf)v arcoxojifjvai. A Roman soldier who had torn a holy scroll was led - obviously a compromise solution - to execution 5 i a [xeacov o f his Jewish accusers. T h e cases show that in certain circumstances the Romans were not unwilling to expose a R o m a n soldier to the hostility o f the Jewish crowd or even to hand over a R o m a n officer to Jewish punishment and execution. T h e execution was not considered a sovereign act (Hoheitsakt) which had to be reserved to the Romans at all costs. M o m m s e n was aware o f the general situation and felt compelled to give special reasons for a Roman execution o f j e s u s : the cruelty and untrustworthiness o f the local personnel and the Jewish inclination to lynch law. H e thought that Roman intervention could not be considered as strange especially in the situation o f the Jewish commonwealth. His arguments show a certain degree o f uneasiness about giving the execution o f j e s u s its proper place within the larger horizon o f what appears to have been the case in the R o m a n provinces. This may be sufficient reason for a re-examination of the data in the case o f Jesus. It is here that the first impression seems to point in quite a different direction. A centurion is mentioned as having taken up his position near to the cross; soldiers are present. These features and, most importantly, the cross as a means o f execution seem to point to a R o m a n participa tion, an involvement o f the overlord to a degree which it is difficult to reconcile with the results reached from the scrutiny of the trial. It is in all probability due to these telling details that scholars felt stimulated to engage in, so to speak, a revision o f the trial working backwards from its sequel, and to look for features in the accounts o f the trial which could be brought into line with this. T h e results o f these attempts to prove a greater 174
175
176
1 7 3
BJ 2 §246; AJ 20 § 136. ZtJQeiv/jieQtauQeiv is used in these passages. T h e s a m e term is used in BJ 7 § 1 5 4 : S i m o n b . G i o r a was in R o m e and executed subsequently. T h e w o r d seems to indicate the R o m a n m o d e o f execution, where the display o f the culprit before the e x e c u t i o n is the p u b l i c event in the majority o f cases, whereas the e x e c u t i o n itself is the p u b l i c o c c a s i o n in the realm o f Jewish law. T h e term is used in E v . Petr. v . 6 a n d J u s t i n , Apol. 1. 35 for the description o f the execution o f j e s u s p e r f o r m e d b y J e w s (the story m e n t i o n e d b y E p h r a e m (eds. A u c h e r and M o s i n g e r ( V e n i c e , 1 8 2 8 ) , p . 1 6 5 ) seems to b e a distant reflex o f this c a s e ) . Z V Q E I V o c c u r s in A c t s 14: 1 9 , in the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the applications o f lynch law against Paul. Similar w o r d s are used in the T o l e d o t h - J e s h u tradition. Another parallel m a y possibly b e found in the a c c o u n t o f the passion o f j e s u s w h i c h is given in the M a r t y r d o m o f Eustathius; c p . J . N . Birdsall, ' T h e M a r t y r d o m o f St Eustathius o f M z k e t h a ' and the Diatesseron: A n Investigation', NTSt 18 ( 1 9 7 1 / 7 2 ) , 454.
1 7 4
BJ 2 § 2 3 1 : d i d u i o c o v xd)v c u x i w u i v c o v & J i a x 6 f j v a i . ™ZNW$ (1902), i f . C p . p. 356. 9 9
1 7 6
T h e trial before Pilate measure o f R o m a n participation were unsatisfactory. Another way to link the picture o f the execution directly with the findings about the trial would be to assume that the Sanhedrin, responsible for the execution, borrowed Pilate's officers and soldiers to perform the execution, since the Romans had in any case two others to execute.
177
This theory could be given support
by certain statements in apocryphal literature.
178
Before adopting this view
it might, however, be advisable to scrutinise the given data about the execution more closely while keeping in mind that these details, vivid as they are, d o not necessarily represent the oldest stratum o f tradition in integrity but are particularly likely to have been exposed to embellishment, and that therefore the evidence drawn from individual features has to be supplemented as far as possible. T h e event that sets the pace is the arrest. It cannot therefore be ignored. T h e only verse from which R o m a n participation can be deduced is J o h n 1 8 : 3 . It mentions a OJteiQa that is said to have been 'taken' by J u d a s o
a xiMoiqx S;
l t
s
e
e
m
s
t
o
and
point to a R o m a n unit consisting o f at least 600
xikiagxo^,
servicemen and commanded by a followed
179
by some Jewish
auxiliaries.
180
which was preceded and
Z j t e i o a and
xikiaQ%o^
however, terms which are used for Jewish as well as R o m a n units or ranks.
181
In the latter case OJteiQa may even be used for a detachment
consisting o f more (2 M a c e . 8: 2 3 ) or less (Judith 1 4 : 1 1 ) than 1,000 men, l s
while the term xiM<*QX°£
employed with the precise meaning indicated
by the w o r d , or it may point in a more loose sense to leaders in Israel. A detachment o f the magnitude o f a R o m a n OJieiQa was hardly appropriate for the task to be performed at Gethsemane. T h e taking o f a prisoner into n o n - R o m a n custody would be unlikely if the arrest was carried out by a R o m a n officer.
182
T h e terms o f the R o m a n a r m y were, however, taken up by
their satellites. At the s a m e t i m e t h e y were u s e d m o r e vaguely, g i v i n g expression to the v a i n pretension o f their bearers. So, the v i e w may be taken (although w i t h a certain caveat) that the OJieiQa was the Temple-guard o f Jerusalem, while the %ikiaQXO^ (John OTQaXTiYog xov IEQOV
i c
Q )
Likewise the 5ovX,oc; & q x q £ S
1 7 7
1 7 8
1 7 9
1 8 0
1 8 1
1 8 2
1 8 : 1 2 ) was the deputy o f the
(or even identical w i t h that person; Luke 2 2 : 5 2 ) . 1 S
t
o
D
e
s
e
e
n
a
s
a
person o f s u c h calibre
T h i s idea w a s suggested b y an a n o n y m o u s specialist w h o read the m a n u s c r i p t for C a m b r i d g e University Press. T h e J e w s had requested (f|Trjoavxo) a custodia from Pilate a c c o r d i n g to Act. Pit. x m . 1 (rec. A ) . A . M e r x (Das Evangelium des Johannes (Berlin, 1911), p . 427) rightly asks: ' w i e kann J u d a s eine K o h o r t e n e h m e n ? ' . F o r the latter c p . J. Pickl, Messiaskonig Jesus in der Auffassung seiner Zeitgenossen (2nd e d n . M i i n c h e n , 1935), p p . 88f. C a t c h p o l e , Trial, p . 149 with reference especially to AJ 17 §215. H . H . C o h n ' s a r g u m e n t to the contrary (Trial, p p . 71 £T) is very forced.
are,
440
E- BAMMEL
that offending him could be taken as dishonouring the high priest him self.
183
The
use o f such a detachment would be in keeping with the T e m p l e
charge which had been raised against Jesus. T h e carrying out o f the arrest in daylight was impossible because o f the support Jesus and his followers drew from the crowds. Jesus himself gives vigorous expression to this theme o f the night arrest (Luke 2 2 : 5 3 ) , and his answer is only meaningful if addressed to Jewish persons. Apart from this, the interpretation the scene receives in J o h n 1 8 : 3 6 points against R o m a n participation in the arrest. Jesus is mocked by the axQaticaxai r)y£\iovo<;. him.
184
Matthew rightly adds
xov
There is little doubt that it was the R o m a n force that made fun o f
Is its mention, however, original in the context? T h e text runs
smoothly from verse 1 5 to verse 2 0 b . T h e suggestion may be ventured that originally there was only the remark xai ote evejtai^av atJTtp e ^ d y o D O i v XTA. and that this was supplemented later in order to assimilate it to J o h n 1 9 : 2f. There, it had its proper location, in the context o f a disciplinary procedure (\iaoxiyoa)).
In Luke we find it in 2 3 : 36: Jesus is hanging on the
cross and the soldiers are described as JtQO0£QX°M'
evO1
(from the two other
crosses?) - might this be the original location for the scene? Scourging is part o f the crucifixion in R o m a n Law. It is the secondary punishment (Nebenstrafe), administered concurrently with crucifixion. This is the reason why exegetes tend to link Mark 1 5 : 1 5 ((pQaveM.O)oag) the main punishment (Hauptstrafe), the crucifixion,
186
185
with
and use this in turn
as a pointer for a R o m a n execution. This interpretation contradicts the meaning o f the sentence and does not lead to the envisaged result, as the scourging ought to take place when the delinquent is already fixed to the
* F o r an interpretation o f the action see D . D a u b e , ' T h r e e Notes H a v i n g T o D o with J o h a n a n b e n ZakkaV, JThSt n.s. 11 (i960), 594. B y the violation o f his i m m a c u l a t e p h y s i c a l a p p e a r a n c e a person c o u l d b e i m p e d e d from executing his priestly functions: 4 / 1 4 §366: djiOTe^ivei aiixov ( H y r c a n u s 11) T & drax . . . eig . . . XeXo)Pfjo6ai; P r o l o g u s M o n a r c h i a n o r u m : amputasse sibi . . . p o l l i c e m dicitur, ut s a c e r d o t i o r e p r o b u s haberetur ( M a r k ) . S o the 6oOA.og was in all likelihood a priest w h o h a d special duties with regard to serving the high priest. T h e parallel from L i v y 29-9 ( P l e m i n i u s has his n o s e and ears cut off b y soldiers) a d d u c e d b y J. L e n g l e , (Rbmisches Strafrecht bet Cicero und den Historikern (Leipzig, 1935), p p . 8f) is less stringent. A different v i e w o n the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the arrest party is taken b y J. A . T R o b i n s o n in this v o l u m e , p . 47of. See also G . W . H . Lampe, a b o v e p p . 344-5. A different v i e w is taken b y A . M e r x , Das Evangelium Matthaeus (Berlin, 1902), p p . 1
4o6ff. > O m i t t e d b y B , the scribe o f w h i c h very often tries to avoid difficulties. G . Strecker, ' T h e Passion - a n d Resurrection Predictions in M a r k ' s G o s p e l ' , Interpretation 22 (1968), 434f v i e w s the m o c k i n g as a M a r k a n c o m p o s i t i o n ; there is little to b e said for this t h e o r y . e
O . Z o c k l e r , Das Kreuz Christi (Gutersloh, 1875, PP- 433^ E T L o n d o n , 1877, p . 410); Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 207.
T h e trial before Pilate
441
187
cross, whereas Mark, after 1 5 : 1 5 , goes on to narrate Jesus's way to Calvary. T h e scourging therefore has to be taken separately. A n d , indeed, scourging can take place independently, as a special form of punishment. T h a t such a punitive measure was the intention o f Pilate is evidenced by Luke 2 3 : 1 6 . Luke does not mention a scourging in verse 2 , the passage parallel to Mark 1 5 : 1 5 . Mark, whose report on the scene before Pilate is very short, seems to have summarised the incident in verse 1 5 . Putting to death by way o f crucifixion is, o f course, taken as the main pointer to an execution performed under R o m a n supervision. Crucifixion is considered as a way o f execution that is characteristic o f the empire. It is this presupposition that directed the minds o f scholars: 'daraus ist mit Sicherheit zu schliessen, dass er nicht von der judischen Obrigkeit, sondern von den Romern zu T o d e gebracht worden ist'. From a Jewish point o f view, however, the matter was different: it was the beheading that appeared as the execution more Romanorum ( SWW JVD^tfW *]T7D). Sur prisingly, even this m o d e o f execution was adopted by the Jewish courts as one o f the possible ways o f implementing the death penalty. Crucifixion, on the other hand, was a mode o f execution that was not at all unknown in Hasmonaean J u d a e a . A new piece o f evidence has recently emerged from Q u m r a n . T h e T e m p l e scroll gives the ruling that a man w h o informed against his people ( V o l ) and delivered up (D^tPB) his people to a foreign nation and did evil to his people, is to be hung on a tree 'and he shall d i e ' ; likewise the man who committed a crime punishable by 188
189
1 9 0
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
1 8 7
1 8 8
1 8 9
1 9 0
1 9 1
l 9 2
, 9 4
1 9 5
M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p . 920; c p . L i v y 1. 26. Act. Pil. i x . 5 describes the action in such a fashion that it is m o r e in agreement with the R o m a n practice o f execution. Is the same also true for Pet. 2:24 w h e r e the text c o u l d b e taken to i m p l y a s c o u r g i n g to death o n the cross? S u c h a p u n i s h m e n t is envisaged in Dig. 48.2.6: 'levia crimina audire et discutere d e p i a n o p r o c o n s u l e m o p o r t e t et vel liberare e o s , q u i b u s o b i c i u n t u r , vel fustibus castigare vel flagellis servos verberare' ( U l p i a n ) . Equally L e g . 13.6: ' . . . c a s t i g a n d u m dimittere'. C p . the case o f A n a n o s - in s o m e w a y s not dissimilar to that o f Jesus - w h o is s c o u r g e d b y the prefect (BJ 6 §304) but dismissed subsequently. Is BJ 2 §306 (uxi<ml=iv jirjoaixiodjiEvog dveoxaiJQCDoev) an indication for t w o separate acts? D o b s c h i i t z , ZNW 3 (1902), 104 equals this with the ' v e r b e r a t u m crucifigi' o f L i v y 33.36, 'das iiber d i e zeitliche F o l g e beider A k t e nichts aussagt'. W . Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte (Leipzig, 1893), p . 147. S a n h . vii. 3; c p . K e t h . 30a. S a n h . vii. 1. C p . Festschrift C.F.D. Moule (2nd e d n . 1971), p . i62ff. T h e text is r e p r o d u c e d and c o m m e n t e d u p o n b y Y . Y a d i n , 'Pesher N a h u m (4QpNahum) R e c o n s i d e r e d ' , IEJ 21 (1971), iff. C p . M . W i l c o x ' " U p o n the T r e e " , 9 3
Dt 2i:22f. in the N e w T e s t a m e n t ' , JBL 96 (1977), 850°. 1 9 6
1 9 7
T h e m e a n i n g is identical with that o f -ioi» ; c p . note 20. A parallel to this p r o c e d u r e (as o p p o s e d to w h a t b e c a m e the M i s h n a i c rule) is to b e found in T a r g . Jer. 1 to N u m . 25:4; c p . M . H e n g e l , Nachfolge und Charisma (Berlin,
442
E. BAMMEL
death and w h o has run away into the midst o f the gentiles and has cursed his p e o p l e .
198
sectarian rule document
T h e specifications show that the regulation is not just a 199
but a code that enjoyed wider recognition.
200
T h e related
o f 4 Q N a h 6ff indicates a tendency to apply this m o d e o f
execution, which, according to the most likely restoration o f the text, is a time-honoured procedure,
201
especially to those who are 'seekers after
smooth things', that means to those who favour an objectionable T o r a h interpretation or have contact with outlandish ideas
202
or institutions.
Conversely, the administration o f this death penalty does not seem to be impossible in the case o f j e s u s ;
203
its actual choice could even give an
indication o f the kind o f accusation raised against h i m .
204
Mark does not give details about those w h o crucified Jesus.
205
Mark
1 5 : 2 3 mentions that Jesus is offered myrrh - it is a Jewish custom to give a person w h o is about to be executed an intoxicating drink.
206
This detail,
therefore, rather points to a Jewish execution than to a R o m a n one.
1968), p p . 64c It is p r o b a b l y the s a m e practice that is alluded to in the p a r a b l e o f M e i r cited in Sanh. 46b. ^ f l m
1 9 9
9
Pace Y a d i n . T h i s is all the m o r e true if Y a d i n should b e right with his interpretation that the pesher a i m e d at defending A l e x a n d e r J a n n a e u s ' s crucifixion o f 800 J e w s . 'Sectarians' had n o reason for establishing such a rule for their particular g r o u p . R u n n i n g a w a y from them w a s likely to take p l a c e in the direction o f the m a i n b o d y o f J u d a i s m . T h e rule, if n o t taken o v e r from p r e - Q u m r a n J u d a i s m , must h a v e b e e n formulated with the intention o f b e i n g i m p l e m e n t e d in the w h o l e land o f Israel.
200 W i n t e r ' s c l a i m s (Trial, p p . 90ft) a p p e a r to be outdated. 201 F o r a discussion o f the p r o p o s a l o f Y a d i n and the reasons for his o w n agreement with it, c p . J . A . Fitzmyer, ' C r u c i f i x i o n in A n c i e n t Palestine, Q u m r a n Literature a n d the N . T . ' , CBQ 40 (1978), 499!! F o r further discussion, c p . J . M . F o r d , ' " C r u c i f y h i m , crucify h i m " a n d the T e m p l e Scroll', ExpTSy (1975/76), 2756°. 2 0 2
2 0 3
T h e 80 witches w h o w e r e h a n g e d / c r u c i f i e d b y S i m o n b . Shetach (Sanh. v i . 4) c o u l d b e e n u m e r a t e d under this h e a d i n g . It may even give a hint o f the reason w h y Jesus w a s crucified. T h e first c r i m e listed in the T e m p l e scroll ( ' i n f o r m e d against his p e o p l e ' etc.) c a n n o t h a v e b e e n relevant. It m a y h o w e v e r b e different with the s e c o n d ( ' c o m m i t t e d a c r i m e punishable b y death, fled into the midst o f the G e n t i l e s ' e t c . ) . J o h n 11:47ff describes the o c c a s i o n o f such a v e r d i c t (albeit f r o m a Christian point o f v i e w ) and carries o n with a c r y p t i c reference to the w i t h d r a w a l o f j e s u s to a territory that was not u n d e r the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the Sanhedrin, and that his status w a s therefore that o f a £r|TOi>u£Vog (11: 56). T h i s w o u l d d o j u s t i c e to the first t w o qualifications in this paragraph, whereas the third ('cursed his p e o p l e ' ) m a y b e taken to b e i m p l i e d b y the c o n t e m p t o f court, w h i c h is expressed b y the w i t h d r a w a l .
2 0 4
I f it w a s n o t the general f o r m u l a t i o n (;isn nansn.) that was a d d u c e d against Jesus, it is likely that his w i t h d r a w a l w a s taken as an offence against the Sanhedrin. A n indication might p o s s i b l y b e given b y verse 28 ( a v o u x n ) , verse w h i c h , h o w e v e r , is o m i t t e d in the best m s s . In L u k e 23:36 OTQaxiwxai are m e n t i o n e d , w h o present 6^05. But they are d e s c r i b e d as J i Q O o e Q X O M ' T h i s d o e s not really point to their acting as e x e c u t i o n e r s o f j e s u s . C o h n , Trial, p . 204, raises the question w h e t h e r the m e n o f the escort o n the w a y to C a l v a r y were identical with the executioners in a t t e n d a n c e at the p l a c e o f crucifixion. < * C p . S - B i, 1037.
2 0 5
a
evOL
2
T h e trial before Pilate
443
Another indication might be found in the presence o f the two other persons w h o are crucified. They are only mentioned subsequently in Mark - not in the description o f the road to Calvary, whereas Luke adds them in this earlier section. Already the Markan report is stylised; the intention is to bring out the innocence o f the one, to whose right and left very different persons were crucified. It is therefore not a foregone conclusion that they were the only ones to suffer crucifixion that d a y .
207
They are described as
Xflorai, as political insurgents, like Barabbas (Mark 1 5 : 7 ) , probably taken captive together with him after the oxdoig. Barabbas had been held in R o m a n custody, in all probability the Xflorai too. Their execution was entirely a R o m a n matter.
208
A R o m a n officer must have been in c o m m a n d
o f the procedure. T h e Jews had no title to the persons while still alive, or to the bodies. O n the other hand it is only natural that the Jews were concerned about their fate and interested in carrying out the prescriptions o f the Torah about the burial o f the bodies, and in doing so before the beginning o f Sabbath. T h e remark in J o h n 1 9 : 3 1 6 ° may therefore
be
historical. It may be that it is this feature that caused the confusion we find in J o h n , where we get the impression that the dQaxitiYcai who cast lots for Jesus's garment are under Pilate's orders. T h e Jews' concern for Jesus's b o d y had to g o so far as to demand a burial and to ensure that it would take place before Sabbath. T h e Gospel accounts, whatever they say in detail, emphasise that it was a disgraceful burial Jesus was in danger o f encountering. 2 0 7
209
T h e story o f Joseph o f
R a t h e r the o p p o s i t e is likely. Executions tended to b e p o s t p o n e d for the rare o c c a s i o n s w h e n the prefect was present in J e r u s a l e m , o c c a s i o n s w h i c h c o i n c i d e d with the J e w i s h feasts. A c o n s i d e r a b l e n u m b e r o f delinquents must have awaited death. T h e term p o p u l a r execution (Volksfesthinrichtung) receives a special m e a n i n g in this c o n t e x t .
2 0 8
Schurer, Geschichte, i, p p . 47of ( E T i.2, p . 61) mentions that the civic executioners were replaced b y military o n e s in the time o f the principate; this m a y a c c o u n t for changes in the tradition underlying the G o s p e l reports. P. W i n t e r (in W . K o c h , Zum Prozess Jesu ( K o l n , 1967), p . 44) assumes that p a g a n soldiers o f the auxilia from Sebaste o r C a e s a r e a w e r e in c h a r g e o f the execution and rules out definitely the possibility that other persons w e r e i n v o l v e d . F o r the auxilia a n d their role c p . G . L . C h e e s m a n , The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army ( O x f o r d , 1914). Later forms o f the tradition deviate from this. W h i l e a stray J e w i s h source - c p . p . 204f- takes the malefactors as followers o f j e s u s a n d lets them b e executed b y the R o m a n s together with Jesus, it is the a p p e n d i x o f the Marienklage w h i c h indicates that the t w o persons had b e e n killed b y the J e w s (xi. 38; c p . ii. 55; vii. 36, e d . M . A . v . d . O u d e n r i j n (Freiburg, 1959)); equally Const. Apost. 15.14.
2 0 9
Several devices w e r e w o r k e d o u t in o r d e r to c o u n t e r such an impression. T h e story o f the anointing at Bethany implies that, whatever h a p p e n e d to the c o r p s e o f j e s u s , d u e h o n o u r had already been given to the b o d y in a d v a n c e (for an interpretation o f the story see D . D a u b e , NT and Rabbinic Judaism ( L o n d o n , 1956), p . 301). T h e scene w o u l d receive additional i m p o r t a n c e , if the B . W e i s s theory c o u l d b e maintained, a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the Q d o c u m e n t c o n c l u d e d its report o n Jesus with a version o f the anointing story; for criticism see Festschrift G. Stahlin, eds. O . B o c h e r and K .
444
E
-
BAMMEL
Arimathaea asking for Jesus's b o d y presupposes that special measures had to be taken to spare his b o d y such maltreatment. Thus his case was different from that o f the two \r\oxai who, from a Jewish point o f view, were not criminals tried by an indigenous c o u r t .
210
Special burial places for
criminals found guilty by Jewish courts are known from Sanh. vi. 7. T h e Christian antipolemics are therefore
more in keeping with a Jewish
execution and a subsequent burial o f disgrace either attempted or carried out than with a different m o d e o f execution. T h e petitioning for the b o d y to the R o m a n authority after the carrying out o f the execution
211
is to be
considered slightly irregular. M o r e in accordance with the supposed state o f affairs would be the narrative o f the Gospel o f Peter according to which Joseph o f Arimathaea's request to Pilate was made before the execution was enacted.
212
T h e Gospel reports about a subsequent petition either
reflect the influence o f a different view about the legal situation or are due to a certain degree o f confusion. T h e centurion, whose statement is cited in Mark 1 5 : 3 9 , was in all probability the person w h o had been in c o m m a n d o f the execution o f the Xfloxai. Whether he had been in direct control o f the crucifixion o f j e s u s ,
213
or had just been asked to keep an eye on Jesus as well, or even had no function with regard to Jesus, is not stated in the sources. T h e passage, although in some ways the climax o f the Markan passion account, does not contain information o f such precision that it could be used as a basis for the reconstruction o f the events.
H a a c k e r ( W u p p e r t a l , 1970), p p . 4of. M a r k 15:420°, o n the o t h e r h a n d , c l a i m s that J e s u s d i d receive an h o n o u r a b l e burial a n d J o h n 19:40 a d d s that e v e n the a n o i n t i n g o f the b o d y c o u l d b e carried out before the b e g i n n i n g o f S a b b a t h . W h i l e it is i m p l i e d in these passages that the followers o f j e s u s s u c c e e d e d in d o i n g w h a t they d i d against the wishes o f the J e w s , w e hear in the G o s p e l o f Peter that H e r o d h i m s e l f h a d intended to give Jesus an h o n o u r a b l e burial. T h i s latter c l a i m is o b v i o u s l y a c o m p r o m i s e solution w h i c h aims at o u t - m a n o e u v r i n g c o m p l e t e l y s u c h traditions w h i c h c l a i m e d that the enemies o f j e s u s actually s u c c e e d e d in g i v i n g J e s u s a burial o f disgrace. 2 , 0
2 1 1
2 1 2
2 1 3
I n E b e l R a b b a t i 11. 8 it is stated that nothing is to b e d e n i e d to those w h o w e r e c o n d e m n e d b y the g o v e r n m e n t . In the case o f j e s u s o n the o t h e r h a n d s o m e J e w s , it is said ( L u k e 23: 35), felt at liberty to deride h i m . T o take the exexe o f M a t t . 27:65 as indicative formulation a n d t o interpret it as a refusal (similar to J o h n 19: 22), w o u l d b e in c o n s e q u e n c e o f this. A J e w i s h custodia at the grave is a s s u m e d in the version o f the T o l e d o t h r e p r o d u c e d b y A g o b a r d ( c p . H . L . Strack, Jesus, die Hdretiker und die Christen nach den altesten judischen Angaben ( L e i p z i g , 1910) p . 15*). E v . Petr. 2: 3ff. T h e verse is also preserved in the s e c o n d text o f the G o s p e l w h i c h w a s p u b l i s h e d recently b y R . A . C o l e s (The OxyrhynchusPapyriXLI ( L o n d o n , 1972), p . 15 (fr. line I2f)). T h a t is the M a t t h a e a n interpretation o f the M a r k a n r e p o r t . W . S c h e n k , Der Passionsbericht nach Markus (Giitersloh, 1974), p p . 22f, assumes that the c e n t u r i o n h a d b e e n i n t r o d u c e d in the underlying tradition as standing vis-a-vis the T e m p l e .
T h e trial before Pilate A scrutiny yields the result that the main traits o f the pieces o f evidence point rather to a Jewish execution than to a R o m a n one. T h e view advanced here was taken as obvious in the Jewish world and held by Jewish scholars up to the middle o f the nineteenth century and even later. Christian scholars it was established by G. M o b i u s , there and renewed with great vigour by A . M e r x .
215
214
Among
taken up here and
216
It must, however, be added that the sources are by no means uniform and they are heavily overlaid with legendary colouring. It is not at all certain that critical investigation has succeeded in removing those tinges o f colour which were added later and in uncovering the oldest stratum o f the tradition, let alone in tracing the facts themselves. What is said is said with a caveat. It is possible to arrive at a different solution, while it is, however, hardly
admissible
to
make
such
a
view
the
starting-point
for
a
reinterpretation o f the examination before Pilate. O n the other hand, the course of events suggested here agrees with and ren ders support, albeit slight, to the interpretation of the trial before Pilate given above. This view too had been taken for granted by Jewish scholars for a long time. J. Salvador held that the Sanhedrin only needed the countersignature o f the R o m a n authority.
217
H . Gratz described Pilate's action as 'die Bestati-
gung des Todesurteils oder vielmehr die Erlaubnis zur
Hinrichtung'.
218
T h e characterisation of the R o m a n side as endorsement of the verdict of the Sanhedrin or, even less, as the permission for execution, is an approach that has been favoured among legal historians since the days of J. Steller.
219
Significant is the almost complete absence o f political motifs in the trial before Pilate. Neither is there any investigation into a laesa majestas accusation, nor is Jesus styled a revolutionary.
220
True, such motifs come in
in the Lukan account, but only in order to be refuted, to be rejected, in a passion story which otherwise does not disagree with the report o f the 2 1 4
2 , 5
S. K r a u s s , Das Leben Jesu nach jud. Quellen (Berlin, 1902); C a t c h p o l e , Trial, W . H o r b u r y in Festschrift C.F.D Moule, p p . I03ff. Dissertatio de crucis supplicio (in Thesaurus theologico-philologicus sive sylloge dissertationum adN.T. loca ( A m s t e r d a m , 1702), p p . 234ft). Matthaeus, p . 4020°. Histoire des Institutions de Moise et dupeuple Hebreu ii (Paris, 1828), 28flf; c p . C a t c h p o l e , 2,6
2 , 7
Trial, p p . i6ff. 2 1 8
Geschichte der Juden iii (4th e d n . Leipzig, 1888), 306. T h e statement ( p . 307), that Pilate dealt with h i m a c c o r d i n g to R o m a n l a w 'as the s c o u r g i n g s n o w s ' , is not entirely in a g r e e m e n t with this. H i s treatment evinces the t e n d e n c y to m o v e away from a position firmly held in the earlier editions o f his w o r k (he h a d maintained in the 2nd e d n . that Jesus w a s stoned in a c c o r d a n c e with the D e u t e r o n o m i c law (iii (2nd e d n . Leipzig, 1863), p . 245).
2l9
Defensum Pilatum exponit J. Steller ( D r e s d e n , 1674). T h e G o s p e l s w o u l d hardly have called those w h o were crucified o n the s a m e d a y Xflcrcai, if there h a d been any inclination in the tradition to give Jesus a similar appellation. A n y c o n n e c t i o n with the insurrectionists is denied with irony in M a r k
2 2 0
i4:43/Matt. 26:55.
446
E. BAMMEL
Second Gospel and which thereby indicates that, in the opinion of Luke, the Markan narration was o f an unpolitical nature. W h a t may be taken to be political elements come in in part o f the apocryphal tradition. It so happens that the fragment of the Gospel o f Peter which was found in Egypt starts with the climax o f the proceedings against Jesus. T h e point at issue, which must have been mentioned in an earlier part, can still be traced. A s the disciples have to g o into hiding because they are under suspicion o f having attempted to burn the T e m p l e ,
221
it is to be
assumed that a similar accusation had been raised against Jesus as well. This cannot have been in a preceding Sanhedrin trial - the trial, the end o f which is preserved in the fragment, is the one and only trial.
222
T h e first
j u d g e is H e r o d w h o stands for his family, for the ambition to gain, and indeed the achievement o f gaining, control over the T e m p l e .
223
In this
capacity he is the foremost j u d g e o f j e s u s w h o must have been accused o f having offended against the T e m p l e - a point o f accusation from which Pilate dissociates himself. T h e accusation referring to the T e m p l e saying is mentioned briefly in the Acts o f Pilate.
224
T h e reason is the same as in the Gospel o f Peter: the
proceedings before the R o m a n j u d g e are the only action mounted against Jesus.
225
T h e T e m p l e logion used as a point o f accusation before Herod's or
Pilate's court was bound to receive an additional political flavour. But it is significant that the motif is to be found only in these sources and that even here it does not g o so far as to change the narrative completely.
226
O n e last question has to be tackled: the position o f Pilate in Christian tradition. T h e evidence - it is c l a i m e d
227
- seems to point in favour o f a
gradual exculpation o f Pilate and a corresponding incrimination o f the Jews. T h e o n e tendency seems to call for the other. This again could be taken as an indication that the original tradition was completely different from what is n o w found in the New Testament reports. It is this considera2 2 1
E v . Petr. v . 26.
2 2 2
H e r o d gives o r d e r that Jesus should b e a p p r e h e n d e d . T h a t m e a n s he had b e e n left unfettered s o far. T h i s leaves n o r o o m for a Sanhedrin trial a n d verdict.
2 2 3
Cp. 2 f. 4
2 2 4
2 2 5
2 2 6
2 2 7
3
Act. Pit. i v (in the w o r d i n g o f M a t t h e w ) . T h e c o m p i l e r o f the A p o s t o l i c Constitutions w h o p r o d u c e s t w o court scenes b l u n d e r s in giving the accusation ' e n e m y to the R o m a n s , adversary o f C a e s a r ' its setting in the J e w i s h o n e ( v . 14). It w a s R o m a n p o l i c y to give protection to indigenous cults w h e r e v e r possible. A n a c c u s a t i o n o f sacrilege c o m m i t t e d against the T e m p l e w o u l d , if established, h a v e h a d the m o s t serious c o n s e q u e n c e s for the a c c u s e d . It w o u l d h a v e settled the matter w i t h o u t m o r e a d o . It must b e c o n c l u d e d therefore that the point w a s not raised in the trial before Pilate; p r o b a b l y because it had been impossible beforehand to find c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t such an accusation. W i n t e r , Trial, p p . 5iff; B r a n d o n , 'Pontius Pilate in History a n d L e g e n d ' , History
Today 18 (1968), 523ff.
T h e trial before Pilate
447
tion that is taken to invalidate the relevance o f features discussed above. T h e oldest datable reference to the trial, 1 Thess. 2 : 1 5 , does not mention Pilate. Only one o f the summaries o f Acts gives his name, as that o f a man who
performs
a subsidiary activity
(Acts 1 3 : 2 8 ) .
But
Pilate
figures
prominently already in Acts 4 : 2 7 , in 1 T i m . 6: 1 3 to the exclusion o f anyone else. T h e Apostles' Creed follows the same pattern. T h e Gospel reports highlight the part played by Pilate up to the disposal o f the b o d y . corresponding account.
229
figure
o f the
centurion forms
the
climax
228
The
o f Mark's
T h e trial before Pilate is, at least in post-Markan tradition,
fuller and certainly more colourfully presented than the Sanhedrin trial. T h e development is not, however, exclusively in the direction o f the supposed tendency. True, there are indications - for example, the wife o f Pilate (Matt. 2 7 : 1 9 )
2 3 0
and the washing o f h a n d s
231
- which could be taken
as pointing this way. But are they meant to exonerate Pilate? D o they not, in fact, involve him in a greater measure o f guilt? T h e verse is part o f the Barabbas scene, which comes nearer than anything else in the passion story to the presumed tendency - but this is part o f the early stratum o f tradition and, as is evidenced by J o h n ,
232
is abbreviated in its later development. If
exculpation can be found, it is rather the tendency to exculpate Antipas than
Pilate.
233
dominant. T h e
The
presumed
Syriac
literature composed in L a t i n 2 2 8
2 2 9
2 3 0
tendency
Didaskalia 234
did
(5.14.3)
not and
even the
later become
early
are not at all well-disposed
Christian towards
T h e detail M a r k 15:44 seems to b e stray tradition like that found in M a t t . 27:19. T h e centurion's statement c o u l d b e taken as the final admission o f those w h o were responsible for the death o f j e s u s . For an interpretation o f the tradition c p . E. Fascher, Das Weib des Pilatus ( H a l l e , 1951). F o r the stressing o f the responsibility o f the J e w s in M a t t h e w ' s a c c o u n t , c p . D . P. Senior, The Passion Narrative according to St. Matthew ( L e u w e n , 1975), p . 338. For an e x a m i n a t i o n o f the formula r e p r o d u c e d in M a t t . 27:25, c p . H . v. R e v e n t l o w , 'Sein Blut k o m m e u b e r sein H a u p t ' , Vetus Testamentum (i960), 31 iff.
2 3 1
T h e e m e r g e n c e o f such a tradition is o n l y intelligible o n the supposition o f an interacting o f t w o j u d i c i a l systems. M a t t h e w , w h o r e p r o d u c e s it (27: 24), takes it o n l y as a pointer to J e s u s ' s o w n i n n o c e n c e . T h e gesture is turned against the J e w s in Ev. Petr., the g o s p e l w h i c h makes Pilate leave the j u d i c i a l c o u n c i l .
2 3 2
' T h e statement, w h i c h is often m a d e , that the J o h a n n i n e a c c o u n t is influenced b y the m o t i v e o f incriminating the J e w s c a n n o t b e substantiated, w h e n it is c o m p a r e d with the other g o s p e l s ' ( D o d d , Tradition, p . 107). T h e m e d i a e v a l excerpt said to derive from the g o s p e l o f the Nazarenes w h i c h was d i s c o v e r e d b y B . Bischoff ( c p . H e n n e c k e - S c h n e e m e l c h e r i. 100 N r . 34), attributes the death o f j e s u s solely to the machinations o f s o m e J e w s w h o bribe ( R o m a n ) soldiers to s c o u r g e and crucify Jesus.
2 3 3
2 3 4
C p . A . Ehrhardt, 'Pontius Pilatus in der fruhchristlichen M y t h o l o g i e ' , EvTh 9 (1949/50), 443. T h a t m e a n s , w e e n c o u n t e r this unfavourable portrait o f Pilate in an e n v i r o n m e n t w h e r e such an e x c u l p a t i o n should have been m o s t necessary, whereas in fact w e meet the tradition a b o u t the d o m i n a n c e o f the J e w i s h p r o c e e d i n g s in the East, in a climate, w h e r e political considerations and attempts to influence the R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t are less likely to have played a role.
448
E. BAMMEL
Pilate.
235
It was not until the post-Constantinian era, a period when the
principle o f heredity in rulership was stressed, strict observance o f the rules on the part o f civil servants was enforced to the exclusion o f any independent action, and the idea of Roma aeterna was given official sanction, that the Emperors felt responsible for the reputation o f their forebear Tiberius and his servant Pilate,
236
and it was left to the Germanic king
Chlodwig to wonder what he himself would have done if he had lived at the time o f the Gospel events. In the times o f the early principate it was easier to cope with undesirable measures taken by R o m a n provincial governors. Everyone knew o f g o o d and bad administrators, and the political bell-wethers knew o f those w h o had
fallen
into disgrace. It
was therefore
the
task o f the
shrewd
propagandist to associate certain measures with such a person, if he wanted to bring about a reaction or even to stir up the public conscience. Masterminds in this respect were the Jewish historiographers. Thus Philo, after having dealt in a book now lost with the anti-Jewish activities o f Sejanus, that example o f a disobedient servant and would-be impostor, heaps all the blame for the Alexandrian disturbances on Flaccus, w h o came to a cruel e n d .
237
Josephus selects three incidents in the time o f Pilate in
order to show the R o m a n superbia in the first half o f the R o m a n rule.
238
He
was able to d o so because Pilate was deposed and probably forced to commit s u i c i d e .
239
Such a procedure, which, for domestic consumption,
could easily be linked with the topic o f the mors persecutorum, was readily at hand for a Christian apologist. T h e Christian community was not unaware o f the delicate position o f Pilate as a protege o f Sejanus, as the reference John 1 9 : 1 5 indicates.
240
That such an association proved to be a mark o f
Cain was experienced by n o less a figure than Herod Antipas, w h o in A.D. 3 7 was deposed under the pretext that he had plotted with Sejanus - a reason which was still found adequate by Josephus two generations later.
241
This is an approach that was not far from the mind o f Christian apologists
2 3 5
2 3 6
2 3 7
2 3 8
2 3 9
2 4 0
A . Ehrhardt, 'Pontius Pilate', 442f. C p . G . A . M u l l e r , Pontius Pilatus (Stuttgart, 1888), p p . 52f. T h e fundamental w o r k o n the tradition is still W . C r e i z e n a c h , Pilatus-Legenden (Halle, 1874). T h e Acts of Pilate ( c p . c h . XII: JtEQiTEUVOfievoc; xjj xctQ&ir/) a n d especially the a p p e n d i x r e p r o d u c e d b y C . v o n T i s c h e n d o r f (Evangelia Apocrypha (Leipzig, 1876), p p . 449ft) received the i m p a c t o f this situation. It is similar with A u g u s t i n e , w h o claims that Pilate b e c a m e only guilty in a small measure (Sermo, 44.3.7; c p . B . B l u m e n k r a n z , Die Judenpredigt Augustins (Basel, 1945), p p . 1921). F o r an analysis o f Philo's design c p . Schurer, Geschichte, iii, 677 ( E T iii 2, 4391). AJ 18 §55ff, 85ff. T h e s a m e t e c h n i q u e is e m p l o y e d b y J o s e p h u s w h e n he deals with the J e w s in E g y p t d u r i n g the P t o l e m a i c p e r i o d : all the b l a m e is h e a p e d o n C l e o patra, the p e r s o n w h o s e m e m o r y w a s stigmatised b y A u g u s t u s (c. Ap. 2.60). E u s e b i u s , H.E. ii. 7.
For an interpretation c p . ThLZ 77 (1952), 205ff.
2 4 1
4/
2
§ 5°-
T h e trial before Pilate
449
w h o claimed that only certain emperors acted against Christianity.
242
In
this case it was expedient to call them ill-advised, whereas a criticism o f a governor could be expressed more openly. T r u e , it is an unsympathetic picture o f Pilate the Gospels give. This is especially true for the Fourth Gospel, which characterises him as yielding to pressure to such a degree that he acts contrary to what he knows is his duty. But surprisingly n o attempt is made to explain the trial before Pilate in this way. T h e guilt o f association - association with Sejanus — could easily have opened the way for a picture of the trial ofjesus that would have appealed to the enlightened elements o f R o m a n society and might even have resulted in a re-opening o f the trial. In fact this was not even done in Christian times.
243
Pilate is made witness o f the resurrection in certain
apocryphal sources,
244
but he is never said to have pointed to the sacrificial
meaning o f Christ's stripes. A n anti-Jewish bias certainly existed in the early church. But was this already the case in N e w Testament times? T h e very fact that Nicodemus and Joseph o f Arimathaea
and indeed Gamaliel are singled out as
respectable persons; that Mark boasts o f the following Jesus had among the scribes o f the Pharisees
245
and points to the scribe w h o is not far from the
kingdom at the end of the description ofjesus's ministry;
246
that John knows
o f certain Pharisees w h o were favourably disposed towards Jesus,
247
while
Toi)5alog as an opprobrious term seems to be used only for the leading men in J e w r y ;
248
that the oldest Christian chronicle refers to a multitude o f
priests who turned to the faith,
249
d o not support the thesis. Even Caiaphas
is described as a man with prophetic gifts (John 1 1 : 5 1 ) - h o w easy it would have been to blacken his portrait, to picture the high priest as an antitype to a whitewashed prefect. 2 4 2
2 4 3
2 4 4
2 4 5
2 4 6
2 4 7
2 4 8
F o r the frank Christian criticism o f N e r o and D o m i t i a n c p . R . K l e i n , Tertullian und das romische Reich ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1968), p p . 58ff. Tertullian b o l d l y c l a i m e d that to b e c o n d e m n e d b y N e r o w a s to b e c o n d e m n e d in g o o d c o m p a n y . Instead he is m a d e to repent his decision (especially in the letter to C l a u d i u s ) ; that m e a n s , a theological m o t i f directs the i m a g i n a t i o n . Pilate's letter to C l a u d i u s (Tischendorf, Apocrypha, p p . 4 i 3 f f ) ; the s a m e m o t i f is inserted b y A g o b a r d into his s u m m a r y o f the J e w i s h T o l e d o t h Jeshu ( c p . Strack, Jesus, p . 15*). M a r k 2: I5f. T h e K B reading seems to represent the original text. H e stands for a w h o l e b r a n c h in J u d a i s m . T h e N i c o d e m u s scene in the fourth gospel is p r o b a b l y a d e v e l o p e d form o f the s a m e story. F o r the t e n d e n c y to give n a m e s to the nameless c p . B . M e t z g e r , Festschrift J. Quasten ( M u n s t e r , 1970), p p . 7gff. E.g. 9:16. C p . Miracles ( e d . C . F. D . M o u l e ) , p . 197 and J. B o w k e r , ' T h e O r i g i n and P u r p o s e o f St J o h n ' s G o s p e l ' , NTSt (1964/65), 4oof. W . Liitgert, ' D i e J u d e n i m J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m ' , Festschrift G. Heinrici ( L e i p z i g ,
1914), p p . i47ff. 2 4 9
A c t s 6: 7; for an analysis o f the source r e p r o d u c e d at this p l a c e c p . J. J e r e m i a s , ' U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u m Q u e l l e n p r o b l e m der A p o s t e l g e s c h i c h t e ' , ZNW 36 (1937),
205ff.
E.
450
BAMMEL
Caiaphas is a prophet because he is endowed with the O l d Testament gifts. A n d it is this heritage that causes the bitterness on the side o f the Christians. T h e Jews are seen as those w h o , in pestering Pilate, a sceptic, a man o f this world, have forfeited the promise given to them. T h e passion predictions, which are dotted with references to Isa. 5 3 , are meant to drive home this point. This type o f presentation was familiar in the world o f the Bible. It results from this that these references are made in the context o f a struggle 'within', and not in order to denounce the Jews to the R o m a n authorities. In fact, the tendency o f the Gospels is very different in kind. This tendency
is
indicated
by
the
change
from
Mark
8 : 3 1 (l)Jtd xd)V
JlQeoPvTEQCDV XOU TCOV &QXl£QE(DV X(XL TCOV YQCWOT&W) to 9 : 3 1 (elg XEiQOtS dvOQCOJiov). It is the w o r l d that becomes involved in the 250
proceedings. T h e same is intended, although less clearly achieved, by the phrase xoig e6veoiv, a phrase which is probably based on D^ttV or D^a^ and is therefore a circumscribing interpretation.
251
It is in keeping
with this that Acts 4: 2 5 - 7 places E6VT) and taxoi 'IooarjA. side by side, as those w h o brought about the death ofjesus. Later tradition seizes upon the executioners at the cross, gives them names and makes them representa tives o f the principal nations. So it happened with Pilate w h o in this context, with an emphasis differing from that o f the C r e e d ,
252
is directly
253
charged with the crucifixion:
T h e s a m e t e n d e n c y to include the heathen w o r l d as equally c u l p a b l e is to b e found in the D fF form o f M a r k 13:9/. L u k e 24: 7 describes Jesus as having b e e n delivered etc; X£iQ«S &V9QU)JICDV in the D it form. T h i s text form is not likely to b e original, as w a s o b s e r v e d b y A . M e r x (Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas (Berlin, 1905), p p . 5 i8f). It is, h o w e v e r , indicative o f the generalising tendency. O n e o f the reasons for the p r o m i n e n c e given to the Gentiles is found in Ps. 22, w h i c h served as a proof-text for the passion o f j e s u s . T h e list o f the enemies o f the p s a l m ist is i n t r o d u c e d b y d o g s ' (verse 17). A s the equation o f d o g s with Gentiles w a s standard a l r e a d y in the time o f Early C h r i s t e n d o m ( M a t t . 7:6; M a r k 7:28; R e v . 22: 15; c p . Phil. 3: 2), it w a s inviting to elaborate o n the part heathen p o w e r s h a d p l a y e d in the p r o c e e d i n g s against J e s u s . 1
T h e early Christian confessions d o not g o further than claiming that Jesus w a s crucified s u b / e m Pontius Pilate (the e x c e p t i o n being Const. Apost. 7.23.2: IJJIO is a p a r a p h r a s t i c f o r m u l a t i o n ) . F o r the m e a n i n g o f the mentioning o f Pilate - the n a m e is o c c a s i o n a l l y omitted - c p . T . H . Bindley, 'Pontius Pilate in the C r e e d ' , JThSt 6 (1905), 1 i2f: it was b r o u g h t a b o u t b y c h r o n o l o g i c a l , not primarily b y theological interests (therefore the addition x a i 'HQW&OU in Const. Apost. 6.30.8). T h e p r e s u m e d c h r o n o l o g y w a s c h a l l e n g e d recently b y E. Powell, Wrestling with the Angel
( L o n d o n , 1977), p p . n8ff. * It is at this p o i n t that the traditions o n J u d a s and Pilate b e c o m e assimilated; c p . F. O h l y , Der Verfluchte und der Erwdhlte. Vom Leben mit der Schuld ( O p l a d e n , 1976), p p .
22f.
T h e trial before Pilate . . . Pontius ille Pilatus Teutonicae gentis, Crucifixor cunctipotentis.
451
254
E v e r y o n e b e c a m e g u i l t y - t h e r e f o r e av8Q0)Jioi d|xaQTO)Xoi ( L u k e 24: 7) so t h a t e v e r y o n e m i g h t h a v e a s h a r e in the fruits o f C h r i s t ' s d e a t h . H i s t o r i c a l , g e n e a l o g i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n is o n e w a y o f e x p r e s s i n g t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e c r o s s . T h e d i r e c t e q u a t i o n a n d b l u n t c o n f e s s i o n is a n o t h e r f o r m . I t is found in P a u l G e r h a r d ' s lines: ich, ich und meine Siinden. . . die haben dir erreget das Elend, das dich schlaget. 2 5 4
255
Chytraeus (cited b y W a l t h e r , Bericht, p . 112); for the tradition o n a G e r m a n p l a c e o f origin o f Pilate c p . M u l l e r , Pontius Pilatus, p p . 5of and especially K . H a u c k , 'Pontius Pilatus in F o r c h h e i m ' in Medium Aevum Vivum. Festschrift W. Bulst (Frankfurt, i960,
p p . I04ff). 2 5 5
In the h y m n : ' O W e l t , sieh hier dein L e b e n ' . For the latest examination o f the literature o n the trial c p . W . G . K i i m m e l , 'Jesusforschung seit 1965. D e r Prozess und d e r K r e u z e s t o d J e s u ' , ThR n.s. 45 (1980), 295ff and A . Strobel, Die Stunde der Wahrheit ( T u b i n g e n , 1980).
JOHN
A. T.
ROBINSON
'His witness is true': A test of the Johannine claim
In any study o f the Jesus o f history the place o f the Fourth Gospel and the use to be made o f its evidence is problematic. A n d nowhere is this issue more acute than in the events leading up to his conviction and death. For J o h n has an extensive and detailed narrative o f these events which differs at a number o f vital points - not least in its chronology - and yet where the degree o f overlap with the other accounts is greater than anywhere else. 1
C . H . D o d d has observed how extensive and detailed this parallelism is so much so that one o f two conclusions is inevitable. Either John's account evinces literary dependence on that o f the synoptists or it embodies an independent tradition with serious claims to take us back to the facts and interpretation
that
created
and
controlled
the
common
Christian
preaching. With now the growing weight o f contemporary scholarship, I cannot
find
the
former
a
credible
explanation,
and
Dodd's
own
examination o f the passion narrative, from which he begins his massive exposition,
2
is a sufficient statement o f the case.
3
But if John's is an
independent voice, how are we to assess how he stands to the truth o f the
1
2
3
Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel ( C a m b r i d g e , 1963), p p . 291*.
I b i d , p p . 21-136. C p . the c o n c l u s i o n o f R . E . B r o w n , The Gospel according to John ( N e w Y o r k , 1966-70), ii, 791: ' T h e J o h a n n i n e Passion Narrative is b a s e d o n an i n d e p e n d e n t tradition that has similarities to the S y n o p t i c sources. W h e r e the various p r e - G o s p e l sources agree, w e are in the p r e s e n c e o f a tradition that had w i d e a c c e p t a n c e at a v e r y early stage in the history o f the Christian C h u r c h a n d , therefore, a tradition that is very i m p o r t a n t in questions o f historicity.' H e goes o n : ' T h e a c c e p t a n c e o f the thesis o f an i n d e p e n d e n t , early tradition underlying J o h n should m a k e us cautious a b o u t a s s u m i n g t o o q u i c k l y that the d o c t r i n e , apologetics, and d r a m a created the raw material b a s i c to the scenes i n v o l v e d . In o u r o p i n i o n , J o h n ' s genius here as elsewhere consisted in re-interpreting rather than in inventing.' F. H a h n , ' D e r Prozess J e s u nach d e m J o h a n n e s v a n g e l i u m - E i n e redaktionsgeschichtliche Unters u c h u n g ' , EKK, ii ( Z u r i c h , 1970), 23-96, a n d A . D a u e r , Die Passionsgeschichte im Johannesevangelium ( M i i n c h e n , 1972), b o t h s u p p o r t the fundamental i n d e p e n d e n c e o f the J o h a n n i n e tradition but give m o r e weight to redactional motifs. I d o not m y s e l f share the p r e s u p p o s i t i o n , c o m m o n to D o d d and the form- and redactioncritics, that this evangelist stood in an external relationship to his tradition a n d that o n e c a n separate o u t pre-Johannine material; c p . m y Redating the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1976), c h a p t e r 9. But that d o e s not affect the value o f their contributions, as D o d d himself, Historical Tradition, p . 17, recognised that it w o u l d not u n d e r m i n e his case if the o p p o s i t e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n were m a d e .
453
J.
454
A. T.
ROBINSON
matter? For the claim o f the Johannine community is that 'his witness is true' (John 2 1 : 2 4 ) , which in turn is based on the personal testimony o f 1 9 : 3 5 : 'This is vouched for by an eyewitness, whose evidence is to be trusted. H e knows that he speaks the truth, so that you too may believe.' While it is the truth o f faith that he is primarily concerned with, this is not to be dissociated from the truth of fact. For to him the faith is the truth of the history, what really happened, from the inside. How
may we test his claim? It can only be a posteriori, by asking whether,
in the light o f all the evidence, his account yields a credible picture o f the total situation, explaining not only what he gives us but what others independently tell us. This does not involve saying that J o h n states the whole truth or nothing but the truth. But he does claim that in the essential relation o f the W o r d to the flesh he is giving us the truth. T h e purpose of this chapter is to test that claim with specific reference to the theme of this book, the relationship o f the spiritual to the political in the life, teaching and death o f j e s u s . W e may begin by noting two tributes in recent writing on this subject to the testimony o f J o h n . In the course o f his balanced discussion o f the political question in Jesus and the Revolutionaries, Oscar Cullmann writes: A c c o r d i n g to J o h n 18: 36 Jesus replies to the political question o f Pilate (the only one which interested him), 'Are you the King o f the Jews?' with the decisive answer, which I could have used as the mottofor this presentation: ' M y kingdom is not o f this w o r l d . ' 4
In other words, Cullmann believes that John has got it right - that his interpretation provides the correct clue to the essential understanding o f the matter. Equally, Alan Richardson punctuates
his treatment o f the Gospel
evidence in his b o o k The Political Christ with reluctant tributes to the testimony o f J o h n . For he is one o f those w h o start with a very low expectation at this point. Indeed, in his own earlier commentary committed himself to the position that not only is J o h n
5
he
historically
worthless as an independent source but that he had no concern for historical or chronological accuracy. Yet time and again in Richardson's later book we have such concessions as: Here again J o h n (19: 13) brings out the truth o f history, even if he c o m p o s e d the trial speeches himself. Does J o h n in 6: 15 in his characteristically allusive way hint that this [viz., 6
4
Jesus und die Revolutiondren seiner Zeit (Tubingen, 1970), p. 61 ( E T L o n d o n , 1973), p. 42. Italics m i n e .
5 6
The Gospel according to St John ( L o n d o n , 1959). The Political Christ ( L o n d o n , 1973), p. 28.
'His witness is true'
455
being taken for the leader o f a nationalist m o v e m e n t ] was a serious danger to Jesus during his ministry? 7
J o h n with his usual penetrating eye for the real issue brings out the truth o f the matter when he makes the J e w s (the Jews!) protest to Pilate, 'Everyone w h o makes himself a king is an enemy o f Caesar' (19: 1 2 ) . J o h n repeatedly shows that he is very well informed about Jewish affairs in the period before the Jewish W a r . 8
9
At this stage we merely note these as impressions that, whether for reasons of theological insight or historical information (or both), the Johannine picture is not as far removed from reality as it has been customary to assume. But we can only convert impressions into something more substantial by working through the evidence in greater detail. This we may do by fastening upon the incidents, in the order John records them, that bring into focus the relationship between the spiritual and the political, between the kingship o f Christ and the kingdoms o f this world. The
first, that o f the cleansing o f the T e m p l e as recorded in John
2: 1 3 - 2 2 , is chiefly significant for what is does not say. It constitutes the first and most dramatic challenge to the synoptic picture. Not only in its placing, at the very beginning rather than at the very end o f j e s u s ' s ministry, but in its significance, it stands in striking contrast to the Markan tradition. Few have thought that J o h n is nearer to the truth in this regard. D o d d himself believed that the synoptists were here to be preferred.
10
In J o h n the cleansing o f the T e m p l e has nothing to d o with the challenge that culminated in the arrest ofjesus. According to Mark ( 1 1 : 18) it served as the trigger for the final determination of the chief priests and scribes to d o away with Jesus. It is interesting that there is no sign o f this link in Matthew, and in Luke ( 1 9 : 4 7 ) it is the teaching ofjesus in the T e m p l e that decides them to act. Indeed, in all four Gospels it is his teaching that is given as the real ground o f their fear and opposition (Mark 1 1 : 1 8 ; 1 2 : 1 2 and pars.; 1 4 : 6 4 and pars.; Luke 1 9 : 4 7 ; 20: 1; John 1 8 : 1 9 - 2 1 ; 1 9 : 7 ) . It looks as though we have here a purely Markan
piece o f editorial
interpretation. For if the cleansing o f the T e m p l e had really provided the occasion o f the arrest, it is remarkable that it should receive no mention at all in the subsequent proceedings. It was the threat to destroy the T e m p l e that was brought up against Jesus (Mark 1 4 : 5 7 f = Matt. 2 6 : 6 o f ; c p . Mark 1 5 : 2 9 = Matt. 2 7 : 39f; Luke refers to it only, indirectly, in Acts 6: 1 4 ) , and this in the synoptists is not associated with the cleansing o f the T e m p l e . If the cleansing had occurred in the highly-charged context in which the synoptists place it, it could not but have assumed, whatever its motivation,
7
10
8
I b i d , p . 28. I b i d , p . 38. Historical Tradition, p p . 162, 2 1 1 .
9
I b i d , p . 41.
45^
J.
A. T.
ROBINSON
a political significance. Indeed the dilemma is, W h y was Jesus not apprehended on the spot? S. G. F. Brandon, who sees it as a political c o u p not merely in consequence but in intention, is acutely aware o f this, and he can explain it only by the totally unsupported hypothesis that Jesus must have been accompanied by an armed force powerful enough to have prevented his arrest. It is at least worth asking whether the Johannine version may not be correct in saying that it was political neither in intention nor in consequence, and was not followed by arrest or prosecution because it occurred in a totally different context. 11
For J o h n the cleansing o f the T e m p l e has nothing to d o with the political scene. It is an act o f religious zeal for the purity o f the holy place, a prophetic protest by Jesus against turning his Father's house into a market (cp. Z e c h . 1 4 : 2 1 ; 1 M a c e . 2: 2 4 - 6 ; 2 M a c e . 10: 1 - 8 ; Mark 1 1 : 1 6 ) , that is, against trying to serve G o d and money ( c p . Matt. 6: 2 4 = Luke 1 6 : 1 3 ) . It is explained by a different scripture (Ps. 6 9 : 9 ) from those adduced in the synoptists (Isa. 5 6 : 7; Jer. 7: 1 1 ) , and this scripture is introduced not as Jesus's motive at the time (as in Mark 1 1 : 1 7 and pars.) but as the disciples' subsequent reflection that such zeal for G o d would be the death o f him (John 2: i 7 ; c p . 1 2 : 1 6 ) . T o the evangelist himself the incident would appear to be a sign o f the spiritual truth that in order to give life the temple o f Jesus's o w n body must be consumed (xaxcupaYexai) and die ( c p . 2: 1 7 , 2 1 ; 6 : 5 1 - 8 ; 1 2 : 2 4 ; and 2 : 1 8 - 2 1 with 6 : 3 0 - 5 ) . Despite assertions to the contrary, it is not presented as an act offorce majeure. T h e 'whip o f cords' (2: 1 5 ) was, it seems, 'something like (cbg - supported now by p66and75) whip' made up on the spot (jioirjoag) from the rushes (axoivicov) used for the animals' b e d d i n g and (if the phrase x d xe JiQo(3axa xai xovg poag is taken in apposition to J l d v x a g ) confined in its application to the sheep and oxen. But, whatever precisely happened, the act is presented as one o f religious enthusiasm, not to say spiritual fanaticism, with no perceptible politcal overtones. In this it differs from the purging o f the T e m p l e de scribed in Josephus (AJ xvii. 1 4 9 - 6 3 ) by two men with good Maccabaean names, Judas and Matthias, o f the image o f the golden eagle set over the great gate by Herod, which was clearly political in motivation and immediately provoked military reprisals. Jesus's words in J o h n , 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise a
12
1 3
11
The Fall ofJerusalem and the Christian Church ( L o n d o n , 1951, 2nd e d n . 1957), p p . i03f; Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p p . 332-4; The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth ( L o n d o n , 1968), p p . 83 . S o B r o w n , John, i, 115. r
1 2
1 3
S o R V ; E. H o s k y n s and F. N . D a v e y , The Fourth Gospel i ( L o n d o n , 1940), 203; a n d D o d d , Historical Tradition, p . 157, w h o c o m p a r e s M a t t . 22: 10 and defends the use o f the m a s c u l i n e Jt&vxag w h e r e n o u n s o f different genders are c o m p r e h e n d e d u n d e r a collective term.
'His witness is true'
457
it again' are not, as in the 'false witness' reported by the synoptists, a threat that he would destroy the T e m p l e (those who will d o this are the Romans, 14
1 1 : 4 8 ) , but a statement that t/this T e m p l e is demolished, Jesus will raise up another, 'in a trice'. T h e nearest parallel is the saying connected with the cursing o f the fig-tree, which is closely associated in the synoptists with the cleansing o f the Temple: ' I f you say to this mountain, " B e removed and thrown into the sea", it will happen' (Matt. 2 1 : 2 1 ) , where 'this mountain' (cp. 'this temple' in John 2 : 19) probably has the overtones o f the holy mount o f Zion, as in Isa. 2 5 : 6 f , etc. In other words, the debate in J o h n 2: 1 3 - 2 2 , as in 4 : 2 o f (where 'this mountain' for the Samaritan w o m a n means Gerizim), concerns the offering o f worship in spirit and in truth in contrast with its materialistic corruption. T h e saying 2 : 1 9 is not throwing d o w n a political gauntlet but challenging to purity of faith ( c p . again Mark 1 1 : 2 2 1 ) . There follows (John 2 : 2 0 ) the same crude between Jesus and
misunderstanding
'the Jews' as there is later between Jesus
and
Nicodemus. For Jesus is not talking o f rebuilding Herod's T e m p l e , any more than spiritual rebirth has to d o with entering the w o m b a second time ( 3 : 4 ) : 'the temple he was speaking o f was his b o d y ' (2: 2 1 ) . T h e political dimension is at this point far removed. Later it will be very relevant, but not now. R. E. Brown, while siding with the majority o f commentators in preferring the synoptic dating o f the cleansing,
15
agrees that the saying
about the T e m p l e ' s destruction could scarcely have left such a dim and divisive memory at the trial ( c p . Mark 1 4 : 5 9 ) had it only been uttered shortly beforehand. H e therefore allows that this points to an earlier context for the saying. But I have long been convinced
16
that John's setting
of the entire complex makes much better sense - quite apart from removing the very real difficulty to which Brandon's hypothesis o f a force majeure represents such a desperate solution. It has often been observed that the synoptists' placing o f the cleansing was forced upon them. It is one o f the few incidents outside the passion narrative which they had no option but to locate in Jerusalem, and their outline included only one visit to Jerusalem. John, on the other hand, could have put it at the beginning, middle or end of the ministry. That he puts it at the beginning is, I believe, due to the fact that it belongs, as J. Armitage 1 4
1 5
1 6
F o r the imperative for the c o n d i t i o n a l , c p . D o d d , The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel ( C a m b r i d g e , 1953), p . 302, w h o argues that the J o h a n n i n e form o f the saying is m o r e primitive than the M a r k a n . O n e o f the exceptions, ironically, is V . T a y l o r , The Gospel according to St Mark ( L o n d o n , 1952, 2nd e d n . 1966), p p . 46if, w h o prefers J o h n t o M a r k . Similarly J. Blinzler, Johannes und die Synoptiker (Stuttgart, 1965), p . 84f. C p . m y 'Elijah, J o h n a n d J e s u s ' , in Twelve New Testament Studies ( L o n d o n , 1962), especially p p . 4of. I r e p r o d u c e s o m e sentences from that article here.
J.
458
A. T.
ROBINSON
Robinson observed a long time ago in his book, The Historical Character of St John's Gospel, to that period in Jesus's ministry when the understanding o f his role was dominated by the figure of'the coming one' designated for him by John the Baptist. As M . Goguel put it, ' W h e n Jesus preached and baptized in Peraea, it was as a disciple o f John the Baptist that he did it.' W h e n therefore he first went up to Jerusalem it was deliberately to set in motion the opening act o f the programme o f Malachi that had inspired John's preaching, the promise o f the messenger o f the Lord coming suddenly to his T e m p l e like a refiner's fire to 'purify the sons o f Levi and refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the L o r d ' (Mai. 3: 1 - 3 , 8 f ) . That there was a connection between this action ofjesus and the mission of John is borne out by the association o f the two in the Synoptic account. Jesus, challenged for the authority by which he purges the Temple, refers his questioners to the baptism of John (Mark 1 1 : 2 7 - 3 3 * pars.). In the position which it occupies in the synoptists it appears to be a trick question parried by a clever riposte. T h e Baptist has been off the stage for a long time and the source o f his activity seems to have nothing to d o with the case. A s H. E. Edwards put it, 'Is it likely that if John the Baptist had disappeared from public view two years before this incident it would still have been dangerous for any member of the Jerusalem aristocracy to disavow belief in h i m ? ' But if the Johannine placing is correct, the connection is at once apparent. Jesus's right to act can be accepted only if the source o f the Baptist's mission is acknowledged. For the authority behind the one is the authority behind the other: if John's activity was 'from G o d ' , then so was Jesus's. It was a complete answer. W e r e the Markan question in John or the Johannine placing in Mark, I suggest that no one would doubt that the cleansing o f the T e m p l e occurred during the period when the people were still, 'all wondering about John, whether perhaps he was the Messiah' (Luke 3: 1 5 ) . 17
18
19
a n c
20
Moreover the dating o f the incident in the Fourth Gospel fits with the external evidence in so far as we can reconstruct it. In John 2: 20 the Jews say, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple.' Now Josephus tells us in AJ xv. 380 that the reconstruction o f the Temple by Herod began in the 1 7
L o n d o n , 1908, 2nd edn. 1929, p p . 27-31. Jean-Baptiste (Paris, 1928), p p . 25of. F o r the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the cleansing o f the T e m p l e and the religious ideal o f zeal for the purity o f Israel that inspired both the Baptist and Q u m r a n , c p . E. Stauffer, 'Historische Elemente i m vierten E v a n g e l i u m ' , in E. H . A m b e r g a n d U . K i i h n ( e d s . ) , Bekenntnis zur Kirche: Festgabe fur E. Sommerlath (Berlin, i960), p p . 31-51 (especially p . 48). H e accepts the J o h a n n i n e placing o f the story in the 'Baptist' p e r i o d o f Jesus's ministry ( p p . 38, 41, 49O. The Disciple who Wrote these Things ( L o n d o n , 1953), p . 191.
l6
1 9
2 0
'His witness is true' eighteenth year o f his reign - that is, in the year 2 0 - 1 9 B.C.
21
459
T h e forty-
sixth year would then be A.D. 2 7 - 2 8 on inclusive counting. It is impossible to arrive at certainty for the absolute dating o f j e s u s ' s ministry but on balance it seems most probable that Jesus was baptised towards the end o f 27 and crucified in 3 0 .
22
T h e Passover referred to in J o h n 2 would then be
that o f 2 8 , with the final Passover, at which the synoptists place the cleansing, in 3 0 . T h e forty-six years would therefore fit the earlier occasion with remarkable precision, but not the latter. N o w , according to the Mishnah (Shekalim 1 . 3 ) , the tables o f the money-changers for converting into the T e m p l e currency the annual half-shekel tax enjoined by Exod. 30: 1 3 were set up in the T e m p l e from the 2 5 t h day o f Adar, that is, three weeks before Passover.
23
This comports with the statement in J o h n 2: 1 3
that Passover was 'near' when Jesus went up to Jerusalem, which is then followed in 2: 2 3 , after the cleansing, by the time-reference 'at the Passover, during the feast'. R. Schnackenburg, w h o rejects the Johannine placing, nevertheless concedes that this looks like 'a precise detail which seems to support the date given by the evangelist for the cleansing o f the temple, the beginning o f the public ministry of Jesus'.
24
T h e only way to set aside the
otherwise irrelevant and apparently motiveless reference to forty-six years 25
(a number for which no convincing symbolic reason has been f o u n d ) is to insist, with C . K . Barrett,
26
that the aorist must mean that J o h n was
2 1
C p . J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton, 1964), p p . 276-80. J o s e p h u s has another statement in BJ i. 401, putting it in H e r o d ' s fifteenth year, but it is generally agreed that this is less reliable. In any case this w o u l d m a k e the date earlier still a n d even less c o m p a t i b l e with the s y n o p t i c p l a c i n g o f the cleans ing. C p . the j u d i c i o u s article b y G . B. C a i r d , ' T h e C h r o n o l o g y o f the N T ' , Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible i ( N e w Y o r k , 1962), 601-3. T h a t the cleansing o f the T e m p l e o c c u r r e d at Passover-time is the o n e c o m m o n factor in the divergent datings, and the b u r d e n o f p r o o f must lie heavily o n those w h o w o u l d wish to put it at any other season. F. C . Burkitt, ' W and 0 : Studies in the W e s t e r n T e x t o f M a r k ' , JThSt 17 (1916), 139-50, argued for the feast o f the D e d i c a t i o n , and T . W . M a n s o n , ' T h e Cleansing o f the T e m p l e ' , BJRL 33 (1951), 276-80, for T a b e r n a c l e s . But the specific provision for the m o n e y - c h a n g e r s ' tables to b e set u p prior to Passover makes this very arbitrary. M a n s o n ' s attempt to get r o u n d this b y saying 'there w o u l d p r o b a b l y always b e s o m e tables in the T e m p l e p r e c i n c t s ' is u n c o n v i n c i n g . A n d unless, with h i m , w e gratuitously excise M a r k 11: 13b ('for it w a s not the season o f figs') in the interests o f a naturalistic easing o f the offence o f the story, the closely-attached cursing o f the fig-tree precisely fits the Passover season - o n e o f leaves without fruit - in a w a y that T a b e r n a c l e s ( a u t u m n ) o r the D e d i c a t i o n (winter) does not. *Das Johannesevangelium i (Freiburg, 1965), p . 366 ( E T The Gospel according to St John i
2 2
2 3
2
( L o n d o n , 1968), p . 352). 2 5
2 6
A u g u s t i n e , for instance, In Joh. 10, noting that in Greek letters ' A d a m ' h a d the n u m e r i c a l value o f 46, a p p l i e d it to Jesus's o w n age ( c p . J o h n 8: 57, 'not yet fifty years o l d ' ) . But this bears n o relation to the quite explicit statements o f the text. The Gospel according to St John ( L o n d o n , 1955), p . 167.
460
J. A . T.
ROBINSON
mistaken, supposing that the construction o f the T e m p l e had by then stopped, whereas we know that it went on till 6 3 (Josephus, AJxx. 2 1 9 ) . But Brown
27
cites what he calls the 'perfect parallel' from Ezra 5 : 1 6 ( L X X ) :
'From that time until now [the T e m p l e ] has been in building ((bxo6o|Ar|8r]) and is not yet finished'. It is surely easier to believe that the evangelist knew what he was talking about and got the date right. T h o u g h it is peripheral
to our purpose here, I would venture
the
suggestion that other material associated with the Jerusalem ministry and placed, unavoidably, by the synoptists in the final visit, may also properly belong to the period when Jesus is still acting out the Baptist's programme. W e have seen h o w the cursing o f the fig-tree, symbolising the d o o m of Israel (cp. H o s . 9 : 10, i 6 f ) , which is intertwined by Mark with the cleansing o f the T e m p l e , supplies the closest parallel to the saying in John, 'Destroy this temple. . . .' T h e cursing might almost be designed as an act o f prophetic symbolism to spell out the Baptist's warning: 'Bring forth fruit worthy o f repentance. . . . Every tree that fails to produce g o o d fruit is cut d o w n and thrown o n the fire' (Matt. 3 : 8 - 1 0 = Luke 3 : 8 f ) . T h e parable o f the fig-tree in Luke 1 3 : 6 - 9 , instead o f being, as is often supposed, a variant tradition o f the same incident, could then be Jesus's reflection upon his o w n action two years previously (counting inclusively in the Jewish manner) and thus bear out its early dating. A man had a fig-tree growing in his vineyard; and he c a m e looking for fruit o n it, but found none. So he said to the vine-dresser, ' L o o k here! For the last three years (or, this is n o w the third year) I have c o m e looking for fruit o n this fig-tree without finding any. Cut it d o w n . W h y should it g o o n using u p the soil?' But he replied, 'Leave it, sir, this one year while I dig round it and manure it. A n d if it bears next season, well and g o o d ; if not, y o u shall have it d o w n . '
I f then the cursing, like the cleansing, belongs to Jesus's early Judaean ministry, this could explain why the withering attack on the Jewish leaders which follows in Matthew contains two further echoes o f the Baptist - the accusation o f not believing him when even tax-gatherers and prostitutes did ( 2 1 : 3 2 ) and the adoption by Jesus o f his description o f them as a 'viper's b r o o d ' ( 2 3 : 3 3 ; c p . 3: 7 ) . Perhaps therefore what seems to us so harsh was a deliberate part o f that ministry o f the mightier one to winnow and to burn 2 1
John, i, 116. It had already been cited b y J . H . Bernard, St. John ( E d i n b u r g h , 1928), ad l o c ; C . H . T u r n e r , ' C h r o n o l o g y o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t ' , in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible i ( E d i n b u r g h , 1898), 405; and earlier b y J. B . Lightfoot, w h o m little escaped, in an unpublished section o f his lectures at C a m b r i d g e in 1873 (see the reference in m y Redating the NT, p . 277). J o h n 2: 20, he said, 'speaks v o l u m e s for the authenticity o f the g o s p e l ' . C p . also his Biblical Essays ( L o n d o n ,
1893), PP- 3of-
'His witness is true'
461
(Matt. 3 : 1 i f = Luke 3: i 6 f ) which at that time Jesus was content to accept from J o h n .
28
After John's arrest (Mark 1: 14) Jesus is presented as coming into Galilee with an understanding o f his mission very different from that o f this Elijah figure drawn from M a i . 3 and 4 . Luke (4: 1 6 - 1 9 ) makes Jesus introduce it in terms o f Isa. 6 1 , and according to the Q tradition Jesus justifies his activity to J o h n ' s emissaries by referring them to Isa. 3 5 and 6 1 (Matt, n : 2 - 6 = Luke 7: 1 8 - 2 3 ) . T h e role is no longer that o f the mighty one sent to purge and to j u d g e but o f the gracious one anointed to seek and to save and to heal. Between the J o r d a n and Galilee the synoptists set the story o f a spiritual crisis which is depicted in Q as three successive temptations that Jesus faces and rejects. Doubtless this is a schematised account o f temptations born o f real-life situations over a longer period ( c p . Luke 2 2 : 2 8 ) , though the news o f J o h n ' s arrest (Matt. 4 : 1 2 ) could well have forced reappraisal o f the role that his preaching had sanctioned. For was the confrontation and violence to which it led really the way o f the kingdom? T h e path o f precipitate action in the T e m p l e (Matt. 4 : 5 - 7 ; Luke 4 : 9 - 1 2 ) began to look less compelling. Rejection o f it could perhaps have stemmed from the incident described in John 2: 1 3 - 2 2 .
2 9
For on reflection the evangelist sees it as suicidal, the action
o f a religious enthusiast whose zeal is self-consuming. In itself it was a spiritual rather than a political act, motivated by purity o f passion for his Father's house rather than the quest for popular support or temporal power. But the Q narrative sees it as linked with two other highly political temptations, whose origin in life could well be associated with the next incident in J o h n to be considered. It is interesting that Matthew relates the incident to the news, this time, o f the Baptist's death and to another withdrawal
to the wilderness
(8QT)UX)V
TOJtov) which that provoked
(14: 13). If it is John w h o enables us to understand the religious rather than the 2 8
F o r further such c o n n e c t i o n s , lying b e h i n d J o h n 3:5 and L u k e 9:52-56, c p . again m y Twelve New Testament Studies, p p . 4if.
2 9
R . E. B r o w n , ' I n c i d e n t s that are U n i t s in the S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s but dispersed in St J o h n ' , CBQ23 (1961), 152-5, while agreeing with w h a t I g o o n t o say b e l o w a b o u t the o t h e r t w o temptations, parallels this o n e with the urging o f j e s u s ' s brothers in 7 : 1 - 4 to h i m to g o u p to J e r u s a l e m a n d s h o w himself to the w o r l d . T h i s c a n n o t b e e x c l u d e d , b u t the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s are not great. In an earlier attempt at the s a m e exercise ( w h i c h B r o w n d o e s not m e n t i o n ) H . Preisker, ' Z u m Charakter des J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m s ' , in F. W . S c h m i d t , R . W i n k l e r and W . M e y e r ( e d s . ) , Luther, Kant, Schleiermacher in ihrer Bedeutung fur den Protestantismus: Festschrift fur Wobbermin (Berlin, 1939), p p . 379-93, parallels L u k e 4:2-4 ( i m p r o b a b l y ) with J o h n 4:31-34; L u k e 4:5-8 w i t h J o h n 6: i4f; and L u k e 4:9-12 w i t h J o h n 7:4-6. H e argues that the temptations are lifted o u t o f the ' m y t h i c a l settings' given to t h e m b y the synoptists and later supplied with historical o n e s b y J o h n . But again, if the ' m y t h i c a l ' settings h a d o c c u r r e d in J o h n and the 'historical' in the synoptists, n o o n e w o u l d h a v e d r e a m t o f m a k i n g such a j u d g e m e n t o f priority.
G.
462
J. A . T .
ROBINSON
political significance of the T e m p l e cleansing (and there is in fact nothing in the synoptic accounts themselves as opposed to their context to suggest otherwise), it is John in 6: 1 - 1 5 who enables us to appreciate the political as well as the religious meaning o f the desert feeding. This meaning could not be deduced from the Markan narrative, yet when introduced makes startling sense o f it. T h e clue lies in the Johannine conclusion, 'Perceiving that they were about to c o m e and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the hills by himself ( 6 : 1 5 ) . There is indeed good manuscript support here for the reading 'fled' (q)Etjyei) - which is scarcely likely to have been invented. Jesus's hand is forced and he finds himself compelled to rapid evasive action. Suddenly the political and paramilitary overtones o f this messianic meal become evident. From Mark we could, if we were looking for it, sense the manic excitement o f the crowds and their lost and dangerous condition o f lacking and looking for a leader (Mark 6: 33f; for the political background o f ' s h e e p without a shepherd', c p . N u m . 27: 1 7 ; 1 Kings 2 2 : 1 7 ; Ezek. 34: 5 ) . T h e n there is the significance, again if we were looking for it, o f the fact that they were all men (av5Q£g). J o h n (6: 10) agrees with Mark ( 6 : 4 4 ) and Luke ( 9 : 14) in so describing the five thousand. Matthew appears to miss the point in order to heighten the miraculous by adding 'besides women and children' ( 1 4 : 2 1 ; and also in 1 5 : 38) , For the context o f this desert assembly is evidently the same as that described in Acts 2 1 : 38: 'Then you are not the Egyptian w h o started a revolt some time ago and led a force o f four thousand terrorists (av5Qag xcbv aixaQicov) out into the wilds?' T h e wilderness was the natural place from which false prophets and messianic pretenders might be expected (Matt. 24: 2 4 - 6 ) and Josephus testifies later (AJxx. 9 7 - 9 , 1 6 7 - 7 2 , 188) to several such abortive risings by individuals promising signs and giving themselves out to be a 'prophet' (John 6: 1 4 ; c p . Mark 1 3 : 6; Acts 5: 3 6 1 ) . O f the same Egyptian that Acts mentions Josephus writes: 30
31
3 2
33
A charlatan, who had gained for himself the reputation o f a prophet, this man appeared in the country, collected a following o f about thirty thousand dupes, and led them by a circuitous route from the desert to the
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
O n this, c p . D o d d , Historical Tradition, p p . 212-17; idem, The Founder of Christianity ( L o n d o n , 1971), p p . 131—9; T . W . M a n s o n , The Servant Messiah ( C a m b r i d g e , 1953), p p . 69-71; H . W . M o n t e f i o r e , ' R e v o l t in the Desert?', NTSt 8 (1962), 135-41; and earlier, as s o often, Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p p . 151-3. I n c l u d i n g K*, the o l d Latin, Tertullian and Augustine. It is a d o p t e d b y B r o w n . U n l e s s X(OQi$ c o u l d here m e a n ' w i t h o u t any a d m i x t u r e o f w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n ' , as D o d d suggested to M o n t e f i o r e (NTSt 8 (1962), 137). But he d i d not repeat this in his o w n discussion o f the passage. C p . P. W . Barnett, ' T h e J e w i s h Sign Prophets - A . D . 40-70 - T h e i r Intentions a n d
Origin', NTSt 27 (1981), 679-97.
'His witness is true'
463
m o u n t called the m o u n t o f Olives. F r o m there he proposed to force an entrance into Jerusalem and, after overpowering the R o m a n garrison, to set himself u p as tyrant o f the people, employing those w h o poured in with him as his b o d y g u a r d .
34
Such, no doubt, was the kind of programme that many o f the crowd were expecting from Jesus in the wilderness. If, as J o h n says, they proposed to make him 'king', it could for them have meant no more than when Josephus uses the same word to describe how, 'as the several companies o f the seditious lighted upon anyone to head them, he was immediately created a king (PaaiXetjg)' (4J xvii. 2 8 5 ) .
3 5
Yet a bid for national power was a serious
possibility, for with 'the country . . . a prey to disorder . . . the opportunity induced numbers o f persons to aspire to sovereignty ( p a o i X e i a v ) ' (BJ ii. 5 5 ) . Indeed of J o h n 6: 1 5 William Sanday wrote: 'There is no stronger proof both o f the genuineness and o f the authenticity o f the Fourth Gospel than the way in which it reflects the current Messianic idea.'
36
This clue explains also the sudden and otherwise unaccountable ending to the story in Mark ( 6 : 4 5 ) : 'As soon as it was over he made (f|V&Yxaoev, forced) his disciples embark and cross to Bethsaida ahead o f him, while he himself sent the people away.' Evidently Jesus could not trust his associates not to share the surge o f the crowd and constitute
themselves his
bodyguard. Then, we read, 'after taking leave o f them (djtoxa^d^ievog autoic;), he went away eig TO ogog by himself alone' ( 6 : 1 5 ) . Here perhaps we may have the setting in life for the temptations to a populist programme which the synoptists represent him as rejecting in principle from
the
beginning (Matt. 4 : 1 - 4 , 8 - 1 0 ; Luke 4 : 1 - 8 ) but which could well have taken their particular form from the loaves and the mountain (cp. Matt. 4: 8, etc; 6 9 0 5 ) o f this desert crisis. If so, they will belong not so much to the first transition in Jesus's self-understanding, from the prophet o f d o o m to the charismatic liberator, but to the second critical turning in his m i n i s t r y though, as we have said, if Matthew is right, this too may have been triggered off by reflection upon the fate o f John (with Matt. 1 4 : 13 c p . also 1 1 : 1 2 - 1 4 and
1 7 : 9 - 1 3 ) . This time it was the shift arising from
the
dangerous misunderstanding to which the title o f Messiah, or anointed one, lay exposed. For it was open to be interpreted not only in religious but in political terms, as the equivalence o f 'Christ' and 'king' in popular usage makes clear (Mark 1 5 : 3 2 ; Luke 2 3 : 2 , 3 5 , 3 7 ; c p . Acts 1 7 : 7, 'They . . . assert ^ BJ ii. 26if. T r . H . St J. T h a c k e r a y ( L o e b Classical L i b r a r y ) . 1 have followed here the translation o f 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 . 25. R. M a r c u s in the L o e b edition takes JtQoioTCt^ievog to mean ' m a d e himself king', w h i c h seems less likely in the context. The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel ( L o n d o n , 1872), p . 124. 35
3 6
4
6
J. A . T .
4
ROBINSON
there is a rival king, Jesus'). W h e n therefore, as John 6: 1 5 records, this equation became explicit, Jesus was compelled to a corrective, beginning with the Twelve. For the reply elicited from Peter in Mark 8: 2 9 , ' Y o u are the Christ', is followed not, as in Matthew's addition ( 1 6 : 1 7 - 1 9 ) , by acclamation, but by rebuke, the verb eJlixijido) recurring three times in 8: 3 0 , 3 2 , 3 3 . Thenceforward Jesus must insist with uncompromising abruptness on spelling out his mission in terms rather o f a Son o f man vindicated only out o f suffering and death, for which the models were this time to be found in Dan. 7 and Isa. 5 3 . (For the same contrast between Christ on the lips o f others and the Son o f man on Jesus's own, c p . Matt. 2 6 : 6 3 ^ Luke 2 2 : 6 7 - 9 . ) This testing o f the terms on which he could count on the disciples' loyalty is presented by the synoptists without occasion or motive as the climax o f the Galilaean ministry (Mark 8: 2 7 - 3 0 and pars.). But in J o h n it is explained by the desert crisis. It is this last which was the real turning point, o f which the testing o f the disciples' faith (6: 6 6 - 9 ) and the need for withdrawal ( 7 : 1 ) were the consequences. Thereafter care to avoid a premature denouement, which this crisis so nearly provoked, becomes decisive ( 7 : 2 - 9 ) . Yet J o h n makes it clear that the real truth o f what it is to be the messiah or king o f Israel (both o f which titles he uses more than any o f the synoptists) is not to be denied or repudiated o f j e s u s . Indeed they are introduced in the opening chapter ( 1 : 4 1 , 4 9 ) as essential ingredients o f what it means to confess him as the Son o f G o d ( 1 : 4 9 ) . But after chapter 6 the debate about h o w , and in what sense, Jesus can be the messiah becomes more subtle and more ironic ( 7 : 2 5 - 5 2 ) . Then in chapter 1 0 the argument focusses upon the category o f the shepherd, which, as Walter Grundmann has rightly stressed,
37
is intimately associated with that o f divine kingship.
In Ezek. 3 4 , a chapter which underlies the whole o f John 1 0 (and c p . again Ezek. 3 4 : 5 with Mark 6: 3 4 - the sheep without a shepherd), the shepherd is linked with the hope o f a Davidic messiah: 'Therefore I will save my flock, and they shall be ravaged no more . . . I will set over them one shepherd to take care o f them, my servant David; he shall care for them and become their shepherd. I, the Lord, will become their G o d , and my servant David shall be a prince among them' (34: 2 2 - 4 ) . It is understandable
therefore
that the claim by Jesus to be the true shepherd o f Israel provokes the question, ' H o w long must you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah say so plainly' ( 1 0 : 2 4 ) . It is the same question that in Luke ( 2 2 : 6 7 ) is later thrown at Jesus by the Sanhedrin. A n d the answer, though superficially different, is in fact the same: ' I f I tell y o u ' , he says in Luke, 'you will not believe.' 'I have told y o u ' , he says in John, 'but you d o not believe' ( 1 0 : 2 5 ; 3 7
P p . 295-318 a b o v e .
'His witness is true'
465
cp. 8: 2 5 , ' W h o are you?' . . . 'What I have told you all along' (NEB margin)). For in J o h n the messianic secret is not that Jesus says nothing, but that he says everything openly to the world ( 1 8 : 20) - yet only his own sheep can hear and believe ( 1 0 : 26f). Throughout this tenth chapter Jesus is at pains to distinguish himself as the g o o d from the worthless shepherds o f Israel,
38
echoing in 1 0 : 1 2 the
words o f the prophet Zechariah: 'Alas for the worthless shepherd w h o abandons the sheep' (Zech. 1 1 : 1 7 ) . In particular he dissociates himself from the pretenders claiming to enter and control the sheep-fold o f Israel. The contrast is not with those who have gone before him, as the
JIQO
k\iov o f
10: 8 has inevitably suggested. But this is very doubtfully part o f the true text.
39
T h e contrast is with those w h o come without authorisation
and
'climb in some other way' ( 1 0 : 1 ) . Jesus does not come 'of his own accord', but with the authority o f him w h o sent him ( 7 : 28f; 8: 4 2 1 ) : they c o m e in their o w n name, saying ty(b ei\ll, and claiming to be the Christ (Mark 1 3 : 6 and pars.; 1 3 : 2 1 - 3 and pars.; Luke 1 7 : 2 3 ) . T h e purposes for which the two c o m e are diametrically opposed: for Jesus it is to give life, for them it is to take life ( 1 0 : 1 0 ) . A n d whereas he voluntarily and o f his o w n accord lays d o w n his life for the sheep ( 1 0 : n , 1 5 , 1 7 1 ) , they by their resort to violence have their lives taken from them ( 1 0 : 1 8 ) . So far from being the nationalists they claim, true Israelites ( c p . 1 : 4 7 ) , they are aXXoiQioi ( 1 0 : 5 ) , foreigners to G o d ' s people ( c p . Matt. 1 7 : 2 5 1 ) . T h e y are burglars and bandits ( 1 0 : 1, 8 ) , XrjoraC, the word that is to be used subsequently for the political insurrectionary Barabbas, w h o is contrasted with the true 'king o f the Jews', Jesus ( 1 8 : 4 0 ) . It is the term too that Josephus uses for the Zealots, and he gives vivid examples o f these terrorists and their methods (AJ xvii. 269-85,
xx. 1 6 0 - 7 2 ; BJ ii. 5 5 - 6 5 , 2 6 4 ^ 4 3 3 - 4 0 ; iv. 5 0 3 - 1 3 ) . O n e in
particular (AJ xvii. 2 7 8 - 8 4 ; BJ ii. 6 0 - 5 ) offers an ironic commentary on J o h n 1 0 . After speaking o f ' t h e great madness that settled upon the nation because they had no king o f their o w n to restrain the populace by his moral example (aQEtfj),
Josephus goes on to tell o f an unknown shepherd
Athronges, w h o 'had the temerity to aspire to the kingship, thinking that if he obtained it he would enjoy freedom to act more outrageously; as for meeting death, he did not attach m u c h importance to the loss o f his life' (very different from voluntarily laying it d o w n ) . H e 'donned the diadem' and took the title o f 'king', and with his marauding bands slaughtered R o m a n s and compatriots alike, killing, as Josephus puts it, 'sometimes in 3 8
F o r the setting in life o f this p a r a b l e in the c o n c l u d i n g c h a l l e n g e to the J e w i s h leadership, see further ' T h e Parable o f the S h e p h e r d ' (John 10: 1-5)' in m y Twelve
New Testament Studies p p . 67-75. 3 9
s P
It is omitted inter alia b y p , , N * , R , al, lat, s y , sa - a powerful c o m b i n a t i o n . It is b r a c k e t e d in the U n i t e d Bible Society's text. 4 5
75
4
66
J. A . T. R O B I N S O N
hope o f gain and at other times from the habit of killing'. T h e contrast with the ' g o o d ' shepherd, especially as it is drawn out in J o h n 10: 1 0 , could scarcely be more striking. It is the determination to present Jesus as the true messiah or king o f Israel and yet to make clear that he repudiated the overtones o f political violence with which it was bound to be associated that dominates the tragic irony o f the Johannine passion story. Before moving to this, however, we should note the build-up to the arrest and trial o f j e s u s which J o h n is careful to record. In Mark there is an early reference to a plot of Jewish factions to make away with Jesus (3: 6 ) , but then no plans or procedures are mentioned until the very end ( 1 1 : 1 8 ; 1 2 : 1 2 ; 1 4 : i f ) , when things are rushed through in hugger-mugger fashion ( 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 ; 1 5 : 1 - 1 5 ) . In J o h n there are a series o f abortive attempts at arrest or violence to Jesus's person (7: 3 0 , 3 2 , 4 4 ; 8: 2 0 , 5 9 ; 1 0 : 3 1 , 3 9 ) , leading to a formal meeting and resolution o f the Sanhedrin when a warrant is issued for his arrest and he is publicly 40
declared a wanted man ( 1 1 : 4 6 - 5 7 ) . B a m m e l has subjected this passage to close analysis and concluded that its parallels with Jewish usage and tradition
afford good confidence that it represents
reliable historical
material. H e summarises its main points as follows: (a) a picture o f the prosecution o f j e s u s which makes the legal proceedings begin a considerable time before the crucifixion; (b) the fact that the legal processes are started and carried out solely by the Jews; (c) the part played by Caiaphas and the arguments presented by him; (d) the withdrawal of Jesus. He goes on: 'Each o f these elements looks strange, but together they give a picture which is thoroughly consistent, and is paralleled in more than one detail by traditions which d o not merely reproduce the Fourth G o s p e l . '
41
Indeed the meeting and resolution o f the Sanhedrin and the part played by Caiaphas seem to be reflected independently in Matt. 2 6 : 3 f .
There
however this tradition is combined with Markan material which sets it a bare two days before Passover and with a dating o f the crucifixion which contradicts the clear determination that 'it must not be during the festival . . . or there may be rioting among the people' (Matt. 2 6 : 2 , 5 ) . T h e Johannine chronology is altogether more intelligible.
4 0
'Ex ilia itaque die consilium fecerun? in E. B a m m e l ( e d . ) , The Trial of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1970), especially p p . 29-35. C p . B r o w n , John, i, 44if; ii, 799; D o d d , Historical Tradition, p p . 27f. Trial, p . 35. It w o u l d take us w i d e o f our p u r p o s e to enter in detail into the w h o l e question o f the dating o f the crucifixion, b u t it is o n e where (in contrast with the cleansing o f the T e m p l e ) there is substantial critical support for the J o h a n n i n e c h r o n o l o g y . 4 1
4 2
42
'His witness is true'
467
In J o h n Jesus goes into hiding after the warrant for his arrest until six days before Passover ( 1 1 : 5 4 ; 1 2 : 1 ) . Then 'the next day the great body o f pilgrims w h o had come to the festival, hearing that Jesus was on the way to Jerusalem, took palm branches and went out to meet him' ( 1 2 : 1 2 1 ) . In all the records o f the triumphal entry
43
there is the same tense mixture o f the
spiritual and the political. T h e distinctive emphasis of J o h n is to present Jesus's action as the conscious corrective of a planned political ovation. In the synoptists it is Jesus himself w h o stage-manages his entry on a donkey (Mark
u : 1 - 7 and pars.)
and
the crowd which spontaneously
cuts
brushwood from the fields (Mark 1 1 : 8 ) or branches from the trees (Matt. 2 1 : 8 ) . In John it is the crowd which takes the initiative, coming out from Jerusalem to greet him with a reception calculated to evoke the spirit o f M a c c a b a e a n nationalism ( 1 2 : 1 3 ) . apparently
4 4
It is Jesus w h o counters this by an
spontaneous action: 'But (5e) Jesus found a donkey and
mounted it' ( 1 2 : 1 4 ) . T h e 'but' is omitted in the N E B . J . N .
Sanders
45
however is surely right in interpreting it as 'a prompt repudiation o f the crowd's acclamations'. T h e purpose o f the act o f prophetic symbolism is clear. It is to say ' K i n g o f Israel' ( 1 2 : 1 3 ) , yes: but not that sort o f king (12: 15).
4 6
There is no suggestion in John, as in Luke ( 1 9 : 3 7 ) , that the
disciples had any part in the demonstration, or even in finding and preparing the donkey (Mark 1 1 : 1 - 7 and pars.). They are merely recorded as not understanding. For, as the evangelist stresses, the true significance o f what happened could only be understood later in the light of the distinctive and paradoxical manner in which Jesus was in fact to enter upon his glory ( 1 2 : 1 6 ) . Like all the history in the Fourth Gospel it is written 'from the end' and its telling has been moulded by that 'calling to mind' which must wait upon the gift o f the Spirit ( 1 4 : 2 6 ) . Yet what is 'remembered' is not only
4 3
4 4
4 5
C p . E . D . Freed, ' T h e Entry into J e r u s a l e m in the G o s p e l o f J o h n ' , yi?Z, 80 (1961), 329-38 (for d e p e n d e n c e u p o n the synoptists), and D . M . S m i t h , Jr, 'John 12: i2ff and the Q u e s t i o n o f J o h n ' s U s e o f the S y n o p t i c s ' , JBL 82 (1963), 58-64 (against dependence). C p . W R . Farmer, ' T h e P a l m B r a n c h e s in J o h n 12.13', JTkSt n.s. 3 (1952), 62-3; and R . H . Lightfoot, St John's Gospel ( O x f o r d , 1956), p . 238. C p . in particular 1 M a c e . 13:51 (the o n l y other o c c u r r e n c e o f (3atg in the biblical writings) and 2 M a c e . 10: 7 (cppivixctg). T h e fact, if it were a fact ( w h i c h it is n o t ) , that p a l m s d i d not g r o w in J e r u s a l e m (e.g. R . B u l t m a n n , Das Evangelium des Johannes ( G o t t i n g e n , 1941), p . 319 ( E T The Gospelofjohn ( O x f o r d , 1971), p . 418); to the contrary, H . StJ. H a r t , ' T h e C r o w n o f T h o r n s in J o h n 19.2-5', JThSt n.s. 3 (1952), 72), w o u l d not necessarily indicate that J o h n d i d not k n o w his t o p o g r a p h y b u t that they had been b r o u g h t in earlier (for liturgical purposes; c p . N e h . 8: 15) and were used with p r e m e d i t a t e d p u r p o s e ; c p . B r o w n , John, i, 456f. J . N . Sanders a n d B . A . M a s t i n , The Gospel according to St John ( L o n d o n , 1968), p .
288. 4 6
T h e p o i n t o f the q u o t a t i o n s from Z e c h . 9:9 a n d (as he argues) Z e p h . 3: 16 is well b r o u g h t o u t b y B r o w n , John, i, 462f.
468
J.
A. T. ROBINSON
'that this had been written about him' but 'that this had happened to him': not merely interpretation but event. Sanders's comment at this point is again apposite: So far from being 'hardly possible as history' (Barrett, p. 347), his [John's] account may well reveal a better understanding than the other evangelists' ofjesus's dilemma, as 'Son of David' by right, and conscious of a mission to save Israel, yet refusing to adopt the only policy that the majority of his people would understand or accept. 47
For J o h n the entry into Jerusalem, with its tragic-comic ' G o d bless the king o f Israel!', presents the reader in advance with the clue by which the trial o f j e s u s is to be interpreted: its proceedings turn more insistently than in any other gospel upon the question, 'Are you the king o f the Jews?'
( 1 8 : 33)-
48
Indeed the whole of the latter part of John's Gospel is presented as a kind of cosmic political trial, o f which it is the function o f the last discourses to supply the heavenly dimension or spiritual interpretation. This was brought out in a most original but neglected article by T h e o Preiss, 'Justification in Johannine T h o u g h t ' , originally submitted to the Festschrift for Barth's sixtieth birthday in 1 9 4 6 and translated in the posthumous collection o f his essays, Life in Christ** As far as I know, it has received no mention in any subsequent commentary on J o h n .
50
Preiss drew attention to
the markedly juridical emphasis in J o h n ' s Gospel (and Epistles), in such categories as legal agent, witness, j u d g e , judgement, accuse, convict, advocate.
51
T h e whole action is viewed as a 'gigantic juridical contest'
between Jesus as the authorised persona o f G o d and 'the Prince o f this world', culminating in a great reversal of judgement, when it will be seen that it is the latter w h o is c o n d e m n e d and Jesus w h o has won the case by his exaltation to the Father. T h i s will become apparent only in the light o f the work o f the Paraclete; for he, as both defending and prosecuting coun sel, will call the victorious lives o f Christians to witness in the court o f heaven to clinch the great demonstration o f how matters really lie. Meanwhile in the earthly events, for those w h o have the eyes to see it, 'the 47
John, p p . 288f.
4 8
I n J o h n ' s passion narrative there are 12 o c c u r r e n c e s o f paoiXeiig (plus 3 o f PaoiXeia), c o m p a r e d with 4 in M a t t h e w , 6 in M a r k a n d 4 in L u k e . T h i s is the m o r e n o t a b l e in v i e w o f only 2 o c c u r r e n c e s in J o h n o f f| PaoiXeia TOV 9 e o \ ) .
4 9
E T ( L o n d o n , 1954), p p . 9 - 3 1 .
5 0
51
It is o n e o f the merits o f H a h n ' s article, ' D e r Prozess J e s u nach d e m J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m ' , EKK ii, 95, that he c o m m e n d s it, albeit briefly. Surprisingly, it d o e s not e v e n receive mention in A . E. H a r v e y ' s Jesus on Trial. A Study in the Fourth Gospel ( L o n d o n , 1976), w h i c h c a m e o u t t o o late to b e taken into a c c o u n t here, but w h i c h e x p a n d s the s a m e thesis in a most suggestive m a n n e r .
Key
passages for these t e r m s are J o h n 5:22-47; 7:45-52; 8:13-18, 28, 45f;
12:31-3, 44-50; 14:30^ 15:22-7; 1 6 : 7 - 1 1 , 3 3 ; 18:29
t o
l
9-16.
'His witness is true'
469
judgement o f this world' ( 1 2 : 3 1 ) is about to be played out with all its ambiguities and double meanings. It is the world that supposes it is doing the judging. Pilate, as the unwitting representative o f the higher power, not merely o f Caesar but o f G o d , exercises the royal t^ovoia granted to him ( 1 9 : 1 1 ) . H e takes his seat on the tribunal as j u d g e ( 1 9 : 1 3 ) . Yet the exdSloev could be deliberately ironical, carrying the overtones also o f the transitive sense of'setting' upon the judgement-throne the M a n to w h o m the right to pass judgement has been committed ( c p . 5: 2 7 ) . T h e transitive sense cannot be the primary o n e ,
52
though echoes o f this way o f thinking in
the early church are to be found in the Gospel o f Peter 3: 7, ' T h e y put upon him a purple robe and set him on the judgement-seat and said "Judge righteously, O King o f Israel!" ' , and in Justin, Apol. i. 3 5 . 6 , 'They tormented him, and set him on the judgement-seat, and said, "Judge us".' In both these cases it is the Jews w h o d o this; but in John it would be part of the irony o f Pilate's action. For, in contrast with the synoptists, J o h n has Pilate himself bring out the prisoner in his purple cloak and mock radiate crown
53
and publicly present him to the Jews as their king ( 1 9 : 1 4 ) . A n d the
political implications o f the scene are drawn out to the full: ' I f you let this man g o , you are no friend to Caesar;
54
any man who claims to be a king is
defying Caesar' ( 1 9 : 1 2 ) ; ' "Crucify your king?" said Pilate. " W e have no king but Caesar", the Jews replied' ( 1 9 : 1 5 ) . O f course the story is written up to bring out the theological dimensions o f the drama that is being enacted. But once again J o h n appears to be giving the truth, as he sees it, of the history, rather than creating ex nihilo. As Brown says,
55
T h e Synoptic Gospels never adequately explain why Pilate yielded to the importunings o f the crowd and the priests. . . . John's picture o f Pilate worried about what might be said at R o m e has a very good chance o f being historical. According to Philo, Ad Gaium xxxviii. 30if, Pilate was naturally
5 2
5 3
5 4
55
Despite H a r n a c k , L o i s y , M a c g r e g o r , and most recently I. d e la Potterie, 'Jesus, roi et j u g e d ' a p r e s J n . 19:13: £xd6ioev ini fir\\iaxo<;\ Bb 41 (i960), 217-47. F o r a full survey, c p . D a u e r , Passionsgeschickte, p p . 269-74, w h o c o m e s d o w n against. A s B u l t m a n n observes, John, p . 664, 'an ctvxov w o u l d b e indispensible'. D o d d , Historical Tradition, p . 119, and H a h n , EKK ii, 48-50, are also decisive for the in transitive. ( F o r striking parallels for the p r o c u r a t o r taking his seat o n the (Jfjutt c p . J o s e p h u s , BJ ii, 172, 301.) Y e t other c o m m e n t a t o r s are surprisingly o p e n to a s e c o n d a r y m e a n i n g : e.g. Barrett, R . H . Lightfoot, B r o w n , a n d L i n d a r s , a d l o c . C p . H a r t , JThSt n.s. 3 (1952), 66-75. Even i f his theory is not substantiated the irony remains. For ' C a e s a r ' s friend' as a title o f h o n o u r , c p . E . B a m m e l , 'iXog xoiJ xaioctoog', ThLZ 77 (1952), 205-10; E. Stauffer, Jesus. Gestalt und Geschichte (Bern, 1957), p p . 11 of, E T Jesus and his Story ( L o n d o n , i960), p p . iogf; S h e r w i n - W h i t e , Roman Society, p . 47.
John, ii, 89of.
J.
470
A. T.
ROBINSON
inflexible a n d stubbornly resisted w h e n the J e w s c l a m o r e d against h i m until they m e n t i o n e d that the E m p e r o r Tiberius w o u l d n o t a p p r o v e his violating their customs. 'It was this final point that particularly
struck
h o m e , for he feared that if they actually sent an embassy, they w o u l d also e x p o s e the rest o f his c o n d u c t as g o v e r n o r ' . . . . A shrewd ecclesiastical politician like Caiaphas w o u l d have been quite aware o f the prefect's vulnerability and p r o m p t to p r o b e it. Yet
in
all
this
the
non-political
and
56
non-violent
nature o f Jesus's
kingship is m a d e explicit in J o h n 1 8 : 36ft ' M y k i n g d o m does not b e l o n g to this w o r l d . I f it d i d , m y followers w o u l d b e fighting to save m e from arrest b y the J e w s . M y kingly authority c o m e s from elsewhere.' ' Y o u are a king, then?' said Pilate. Jesus answered, ' " K i n g " is y o u r w o r d . M y task is to bear witness to the truth. F o r this was I b o r n ; for this I c a m e into the w o r l d , and all w h o are n o t d e a f to truth listen to m y v o i c e . '
57
T a k i n g u p , as the passage d o e s , the previous injunctions at the arrest, ' L e t these others g o ' ( 1 8 : 8 ) and 'Sheathe y o u r s w o r d ' ( 1 8 : 1 1 ) , there c o u l d not be a clearer disavowal o f power-politics. Y e t , equally, the manner in w h i c h the religious charge against Jesus, which for the J e w s is the real gravamen in all the Gospels ( M a r k 1 4 : 6 3 f and pars.; J o h n 1 9 : 7 ) , was capable o f being twisted into the political is nowhere m o r e fatefully evident than in J o h n . H e stresses that the two aspects were inseparable. arrest o f j e s u s
constables o f the Jewish court ( 1 8 : 3 , 1 2 ) . been m u c h questioned, and even d e n i e d .
5 6
5 7
5 8
5 9
In this G o s p e l the
is already the work o f R o m a n soldiers, as well as o f the 5 8
59
T h i s R o m a n involvement has But if one's first reaction is to
It w a s precisely this sort o f d e n u n c i a t i o n to R o m e b y his subjects that led to Pilate eventually losing his post in 36-37 (Josephus, AJ xviii. 88f). C p . the e c h o in the last w o r d s o f the test o f messiahship in 10: 27: ' M y o w n sheep listen t o m y v o i c e . ' T h e VJiTjoexai, a w o r d w h i c h J o h n always uses in its technical sense, w e r e n o t ' t e m p l e p o l i c e ' ( N E B ) b u t constables o f the court o f the Sanhedrin acting in its j u d i c i a l c a p a c i t y . C p . M a t t . 5: 25; M a r k 14:65; J o h n 18: 22; A c t s 5: 2 if; a n d note the i r o n y o f J o h n 18:36: 'my tJJiT]Qexai'. E.g. b y Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (4th edn. R e g e n s b u r g , 1969), p p . 90-9; E T o f 2nd e d n . 1959: The Trial of Jesus Westminster, M a r y l a n d , 1959), p p . 63-70; a n d B a m m e l , p . 439 a b o v e . It seems to m e m o s t i m p r o b a b l e that J o h n d i d not intend to use OJteiQa a n d xi\ia.QXOq, like the rest o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t writers, as the equivalents o f the R o m a n cohors a n d tribunus. ( S o in revised E T o f E . Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus i ( E d i n b u r g h , 1973), p . 372, n. 86.) O f c o u r s e the L X X d o e s n o t d o s o b e c a u s e it is not talking a b o u t the R o m a n s ; b u t its parallels certainly d o n o t bear o u t the desired m e a n i n g o f OJieiQa as a small d e t a c h m e n t ( e . g . 2. M a c e . 12:20!). Such resort b e c o m e s plausible only if R o m a n participation is utterly i m p r o b a b l e - b u t see b e l o w . M . G o g u e l , La Vie de Jesus (Paris, 1932), p . 315 ( E T The Life of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1933) p p . 468O, a n d P. W i n t e r , On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p p . 44-9, m a k e the point that R o m a n
'His witness is true'
471
find it strange and historically improbable, it may on reflection again bear out, and indeed explain, the synoptic account. All the synoptists concur and it is the only point in the story at which Luke agrees verbatim with Matthew and Mark - that Jesus asked the question of his captors, ' D o you take me for a bandit, that you have come out with swords and cudgels to arrest me?' (Mark 1 4 : 4 8 and pars.) N o w if we stop to ask w h o would arrest a Xflorrjs, and h o w , the answer is obvious. It was certainly not the Jews who apprehended Barabbas (John 1 8 : 4 0 ) or the two Xflorai crucified with Jesus (Matt. 27: 38; Mark 1 5 : 2 7 ) . It was the Romans; and they would take the proper military precaution of doing it in force. What is distinctive about the arrest o f Jesus is that the Jewish authorities took the initiative and collaborated. T h e y did so because the informer was in their pay and was answering the call of the Sanhedrin, which John alone reports, 'that anyone who knew where he was should give information, so that they might arrest him' ( 1 1 : 5 7 ) . T h e words ofjesus to Pilate in 1 8 : 3 6 ('my followers would be fighting to save me from arrest by the Jews') presuppose again that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who were out to seize him ( c p . 1 9 : n ) . Their reasons for wanting him were religious ( 1 1 : 4 7 1 ) , though doubtless the Jewish establishment was able easily enough to obtain R o m a n assistance by representing him, then as later, as a danger to the peace. But in the first instance he was a wanted man on the Jewish list, for w h o m a summons was out from a properly convened Jewish court. So it is to this court that he was handed over - by the Romans. 60
So far from this being irregular or improbable there are close parallels in the story of Acts 21 to 2 3 . There too 'the officer' (xikiaQXOq) commanding 'the cohort' (xfjg OJteiQT)g) took a force o f soldiers to keep the peace ( 2 1 : 3 1 1 ) , and he too supposes he has gone out against a Xflaxrjg: 'Then you are not the Egyptian that started a revolt some time ago and led a force o f four thousand terrorists out into the wilds? ( 2 1 : 38). W e are not told how 61
62
60
6 1
6 2
participation in the arrest goes against J o h n ' s tendency (as they see it) to place responsibility for the death o f j e s u s o n the J e w s while exonerating Pilate, and c a n n o t therefore b e regarded as his invention. H . - W . Bartsch, ' W e r verurteilte Jesus z u m T o d e ? ' , Nov Test 7 (1964/65), d o e s n o t think W i n t e r establishes this. But I w o u l d regard R o m a n participation as in any case entirely natural u n d e r the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n d in n o w a y 'astonishing' ( C . K . Barrett, The Gospel of John and Judaism ( L o n d o n , 1975), p . 71; t h o u g h he is w r o n g in saying that in J o h n 'the R o m a n s rather than the J e w s arrest J e s u s ' (italics m i n e ) ) . 1 o w e this p o i n t to H a h n , EKK ii, 40. O n the legal aspects o f this, c p . S h e r w i n - W h i t e , Roman Society, p p . 48-70. A s has often been o b s e r v e d (e.g., Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p p . i6of), J o h n ' s similar use o f 'the c o h o r t ' in 18: 3, 12 m a y reflect k n o w l e d g e o f the fact ( c p . J o s e p h u s , BJ ii. 224; v . 244) that prior to the J e w i s h w a r a R o m a n c o h o r t was regularly quartered in the T u r r i s A n t o n i a a n d always m o u n t e d guard to prevent disorders at the feasts. After 70 a radical c h a n g e took p l a c e in the garrisoning o f Palestine; c p . Schiirer,
History, i, 366f.
472
J.
A. T.
ROBINSON
many troops he took - obviously not the whole cohort o f six hundred men (later he detached two hundred to convoy Paul to Caesarea ( 2 3 : 2 3 ) ) . As Bernard comments on John 1 8 : 3 : 6 3
It is n o t . . . to be supposed that John means that the whole strength of the regiment (cf. Mark 15: 16) was turned out to aid in the arrest ofjesus; the words A.a|3(bv xf|v ajieioav indicate no more than that Judas had got the help of'the cohort , i.e. a detachment, with whom the commanding officer of the garrison came (verse 12), in view of possible developments. 5
Moreover, there is no difficulty about the fact that the Romans deliver the prisoner bound to the Jewish authorities. For in Acts, even though Paul is a declared R o m a n citizen ( 2 2 : 25—9) and is in Roman protective custody, he is on a charge before the Jewish high court (22: 30; 2 3 : 28f), and it remains within the power o f the Sanhedrin to apply to the commandant to bring him before them ( 2 3 : 1 5 ) . Subsequently Lysias reports: 'I found that the accusation had to d o with the controversial matters in their own law, but there was no charge against him meriting death or imprisonment' ( 2 3 : 2 9 ) . That would have been the end o f it as far as the Romans were concerned, were it not that, thanks to information received (|!Tivv8eioTi5, the same technical term as in John 1 1 : 5 7 ) , a plot against Paul's life had been uncovered ( 2 3 : 3 0 ) . 64
With Jesus too, since the threat o f civil violence turned out to be equally unfounded, that would have been the end o f it for the Romans - had not the Jews been able to represent their religious charge of blasphemy as at the same time the political one of high treason. A n d this is really the nub o f the whole affair. T h e strength o f the Johannine account is that it gives, I believe, a better explanation o f the relationship o f the two than any other. All the Gospels agree that Jesus went to his death on a political charge and yet that the participants in the drama, the Jewish leaders, Pilate, and Jesus himself, all knew in their hearts that this was a false charge. T h e real accusation lay elsewhere, yet it was the political one that could, and must, be made to stick. A s D o d d succinctly sums up the situation,
MJohn, p . 584. T h i s had not prevented the c o m m a n d a n t , like the magistrates at Philippi (16: 22), o r d e r i n g a preliminary flogging (22: 241"), and it is interesting that it c o m e s at the s a m e stage a n d is d e s c r i b e d b y the s a m e term ((Aaori^eiv) as in J o h n ' s a c c o u n t o f the trial o f j e s u s (19: 1). Y e t it is regularly asserted (e.g. b y B. A . M a s t i n in Sanders a n d M a s t i n , John, p p . 399^ and B. Lindars, The Gospel of John ( L o n d o n , 1972), p p . 363O that J o h n has deliberately o r ignorantly turned upside d o w n the M a r k a n - M a t t h a e a n order, where, quite properly, the (severer) jiagellatio o c c u r s after the sentence ( M a t t . 27: 26; M a r k 15: 15) as a regular part o f the preliminaries to crucifixion ( c p . J o s e p h u s , BJ ii. 306; v. 449; L i v y xxxiii. 36; S h e r w i n - W h i t e , Roman Law, p p . 27O. L u k e (23: 16, 22) also mentions the threat o f a preliminary beating in the s a m e p l a c e as J o h n , but w e are not told whether it w a s carried o u t . 6 4
'His witness is true'
473
The priests had a double aim in view: Jesus must be removed by death; he must also be discredited. The death sentence therefore must be legally and formally pronounced by the governor. T h e surest w a y to secure such a sentence would be to cite the Defendant on a charge o f political disaffection. But such a charge would b y n o means discredit him in the eyes o f the Jewish public; quite the contrary. It was for the Sanhedrin to show that he was guilty o f an offence against religion. 65
T h e one charge that met both requirements was that o f claiming to be the Christ, which could be interpreted from the religious point o f view as the blasphemous one o f making himself Son o f God
(John 10: 3 3 ~ 6 ;
66
c p . 5: 18;
1 9 : 7 ) and from the political point of view as the seditious one of pretending to the throne. A n d the Gospels agree on the fatal way in which these three terms, Christ, Son o f G o d and King, could slide, or be made to slide, into one
another (Matt. 2 6 : 6 3 ; 2 7 : 4 2 ^ Mark 1 4 : 6 1 ; 1 5 : 3 2 ; Luke 2 2 : 6 7 - 7 0 ;
2 3 - 2 , 35> 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, ^on, 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<™ Reifenberg, A . , i28n, 4i6n R e i m a r u s , H . S., 1 1 - 1 2 , 28, 34, 52, 53,
6in, 129, 232n, 289, 322
O p p e n h e i m e r , A . , 11 i n O r d n u n g , C , 62n O s s a , L . , 66n O t t o , R . , 4ign O t t o , W . , 2 5 m , 252n
R e i n a c h , S., 29n, 35n R e i n a c h , T . , 433n R e i n c k e , G . , 353n R e i n h a r d , F. V . , 13 Reitzenstein, R . , 228n R e m b e , A . , 14 R e n a n , E., 23 m Rengstorf, K . H . , 165 R e v e n t l o w , H . v o n , 447n R i c h , A . , 67n
Pallis, A . , 366 P a n n e n b e r g , W . ; 63n Parker, P., 30m
R i c h a r d s o n , A . , 72n, 454-5 Rieger, P., 368n R i e p l , W . , 353n, 3 6 m
O ' N e i l l , J. C . , 5 m , i45n, 366n O p e l t , I., i85n, 372n
Pascher, W . , I39n, I40n
Riesenfeld, H . , 74-5, i34n, 307n
Paulus, H . E. G . , 13, 273n P e a b o d y , F. G . , 56n Pedersen, S., i66n
Rivkes, M . , 372n R o b b e , M . , 2on, 22n, 23n R o b e r t s o n , A . , 24-6 R o b e r t s o n , J. M . , 28n R o b i n s o n , J. A r m i t a g e , 457-8
Perrin, N . , 133, I36n, i4on Pesch, R . , i35n, i37n, 138 Peters, C . , i2on
Peterson, E., 2g6n, 322n Petsch, H . , i3n Peukert, H . , 62n, 63n
R o b i n s o n , J. A . T . , 453-76; 42, i54n, 440n, 453n, 457n, 46on, 465n, 473n, 474" R o d r i g u e s , H . , 37
484
Index o f authors
Roloflf, J., 1 3 5 " ' '37n> *39
n
S c h i i r m a n n , H . , 134, 296n, 336, 337, 339,
R o p e s , J. H . , 43211 Rorforf, W . , 13811, 13911 Rosenberg, A . , 3m R o s e n t h a l , J., 1 9 m Rostovtzeff, M . , 344
340, 385, 407, 4 1 m Schwartz, E., 2i3n, 2i6n, 226n, 436n
R o t h , C , 5 m , 54n, 333n, 334n
66n, i29n, 227n, 2&gn Schweizer, E., I36n, 328n, 333n
S c h w a r z , G . , 338n S c h w e g l e r , A . , 91 S c h w e i t z e r , A . , n n , 26, 28n, 29, 34, 53,
R o u b i c z e k , P., 24n Rowley, H . H., 25m R z a c h , A . , 1 i8n
Saalschiitz, J. L., 277n, 278n Saeki, P. Y . , u 8 n , 422n, 437n Sahlin, H . , 1 1 2 n Salin, E . , i24n, 26m S a l v a d o r , J., 44, 445 S a m u e l , R . , 279n S a n d a y , W . , 463 Sanders, J. N . , 467 S a n d m e l , S., 43n Sattler, W . , 1 i5n, i28n Sauler, F., 377n
Sherwin-White, A . N . , 244n, 262n, 27m, 41311, 469n, 47m, 472n, 475n
Schalit, A . , 252n, 4i8n Schaller, B . , 1 4 m S c h a u m b u r g - L i p p e , F. C . z u , 2n, 3 m Scheftelowitz, I., 368n Schelkle, K . H . , 3 6 5 ^ 367n
Schenk, W . , 356n, 444n Schille, G . , 22 m , 228n
Schirmer, D . , iisn, 4i6n Schlatter, A . , i2on, i87n, 24on, 266n-267n, 283, 302n, 304n, 305n, 3o6n, 3!5 > 349, 405 , 4 3 » 4 9 n
n
I
n
S e e b e r g , E., 3 m , 373n Seeley, J. R . , 26n S e g u n d o , J. L . , 63n Seibert, I., 3i3n Senior, D . P., 447n S e v e r i n o C r o a t t a , J., 65n Shaffer, E., 1 i n Shalit, A . , 3 9 m Shaull, R . , 62n, 6511 S h a w , G . B . , 35n, 5on
J
n
S c h l u m b e r g e r , E., 209n S c h m i d , J., 1 4 m , 2i4n, 405 S c h m i d t , K . L . , 71 S c h m i d t h a l s , W . , 367n S c h m o l l e r , O . , 13 S c h n a c k e n b u r g , R . , 459 S c h n e e m e l c h e r , W . , 447n
Schneider, G . , 403-14; 39m, 399n, 409n, 413n, 424n S c h n e i d w e i l e r , F., 35n, ngn S c h o l e m , G . , 32n Schonfield, H . J., 49, 52n, 202n S c h r e i b e r , B . J., 356n S c h r e i b e r , J., 38n S c h r o t e r , M . , 62n
Schubert, K . , 385-402; 393n, 396n, 397n, 40m Schulthess, F., 1 isn Schultz, H . , 367n S c h u t z , O . T . , 377n S c h u l z , P., 23on
Schurer, E., 26, I94n, 244n, 368n, 369^ 4i6n, 434n, 443n, 448n, 47on, 4 7 m
Siebeneichler, F., 64n Sieveking, H . , 1 i n S i m k h o v i t c h , V . G . , 31, 235n S i m o n , M . , 4, 154 Smalley, B . , 26sn S m a l l w o o d , E . M . , 96n Smith, B . T . D . , 223n Smith, D . M . , Jr, 467n S m i t h , H a r o l d , 265n S m i t h , M o r t o n , 5n, 88, 92n, 94n, i5on,
i86n, 286n S m i t h , R . F., 66n, 67 S m i t h , W . , s o n , 58n S o b r i n o , J., 65 Soden, H . von, 12in S o d e r , R . , i87n, iSgn S o w e r s , S., 4n, 4111 S p e n g l e r , O . , 30-1
Spitta, F., i2on, 137, 2i4n, 227n, 232n, 359n, 427n, 436n Stahli, M . J., 56n Stanton, G . N . , i93n Stapel, W . , 33n Stasiewski, B . , 22n, 23n Stauffer, E., 39n, 56n, i o g n , i i 4 n , i i 7 n ,
ii9n, i36n, 228n, 373n, 4^9n
i2on, i38n, 23 m , 41711,
i3on, i4on, 266n, 429n,
i33n, i42n, 283n, 43m,
Steck, R . , i8n Stegemann, H . , 14m Steller, J., 445 S t e p h e n , J. F., 4 3 m Sternberger, G . , 378n Stevenson, J., 2i8n
i34n, i35n, 211, 2i8n, 36on, 368n, 434n, 458n,
Index o f authors Stier, H . E., 37611
Strack, H . L . , 19211, 25m, 26711, 27811, 44 n 4
S t r a t h m a n n , W . , 29911
Straub, J., 20911, 35411 Strauss, D . F., 93, 130, 27211, 27411 Strecker, G . , 4 m , 1 3 m , 13611, 26711, 36611, 44011 Streeter, B . H . , 21911, 40511, 41311 Strobel, A . , 2i6n, 22011, 3 7 m , 4 5 m Strugnell, J., 27911 S t u h l m a c h e r , P., 1 3 i n , I 3 3 n - i 3 4 n , 3 7 m Stumpff, A . , 1 i6n Styger, P., I 9 7 n
Styler, G . M . , 101-7; 2i4n Sutherland, C . H . V . , 243n, 244n, 245, 248, 376n, 377n S w e e t , J.,
1-9
V i t u c c i , G . , 368n Vogelstein, H . , 368n V o g t , J., 338n V o l k m a n n , H . , 434n V o l k m a r , G . , 13
Volterra, E., 363n Wagenseil, J. C . , 202n, 2i8n W a g n e r , R . , 15, 16, 232n W a g n e r , S., 12911 Walker, R., 14m, 27m W a l t h e r , 45 m
Walther, A . B . v o n , 354n, 3 5 9 ^ 363n W a r r e n , M . , 58n W a r s c h a u e r , J., 35n W a s h i n g t o n , I. R . , 6on W e b e r , J. C . , T r , 12911 W e b e r , M . , 115n
S y d e n h a m , E. A . , 376n Szramkiewicz, R . , 434n
W e b e r , W . , 239n W e e d e n , T . J., 83n, 326n W e i d e l , K . , 28n, 24on
T a l b e r t , C . H . , n n , i2n
W e i f f e n b a c h , W . , 13 Weinel, H., n8n W e i n e r , H . , 27n
Tasker, R. V . G., 6gn T a u b e s , J., 36n T a y l o r , R . O . P., 75n T a y l o r , V . , 86n, 336, 339, 34m,
405^
457" Tcherikover, V . , 272n, 278n Telford, W . R . , i25n T h a c k e r a y , H . St J., 372n T h e i s s e n , G . , 11 i n
T h i e l , R . , 356n T h o m p s o n , S., i87n Thiising, W . , 3ion
Till, W . , i2on, 2i8n Tischendorf, C . v o n , 378n, 4i6n, 448n, 449" T o d t , R . , i6n T o r r e s , C . , 2, 61 Torrey, C. C., i i s n T o y n b e e , J. M . C . , 2 o g n
Trilling, W . , i38n, i66n T r o c m e , E., 46n, 83n, 334n T r o l t s c h , E., i8n, 2 i n , 27n
T u r n e r , C . H . , 76, 77n, 78, 46on, 475n
Weinert, F. D . , 279n W e i n s t o c k , S., 376n Weiss, B., i3on, 1 4 m , 378n, 379, 443n W e i s s , F., 45n
Weiss, H . F., i29n, 298n W e i s s , J., 13, i4n, 28n, i22n, 273, 275n, 355" Weitling, W . , 14-15, 16, 17 W e l l h a u s e n , ) . , 27, 28, 115, i23n, i27n, i36n, 1 4 m , 2i3n, 2i5n, 2i6n, 222n, 223n, 224n, 225n, 227n, 235n, 238n, 24on, 266n, 271, 274n, 276n, 283n, 304n, 356, 417n, 42on, 436n W e l l s , G . A . , 28n
W e n d l i n g , P., 224n, 238n W e n g e r , L . , 43on Werfel, F., s 6 n W e r n e r , M . , 25
W e r n l e , P., i3on, i37n, i39n W e s t , L . C . , 244n W e s t e r n , W . , 348 W e t h , R . , 62n
U n n i k , W . C . v o n , 366n, 382n
W h e r r y , E . M . , 2i8n
v a n d e r H o r s t , P. W . , 74n
W i d e r g r e n , G . , 22 m W i d g e r y , A . G . , 27n W i e d e n h o f e r , S., 64n
v a n d e r K w a a k , H . , 407, 4i3n van d e r L o o s , H . , 2 6 7 ^ 273n v a n d e r Steinen, U . , 56n
Vannutelli, P., 355n V e r d a m , P. J., 437n
485
Wiefel, W . , 374n Wifstrand, A . , i99n Wikenhauser, A . , 14m
Wilckens, U . , 423n
Vermes, G., 5 m
W i l c o x , M . , 44m
V i n c e n t , H . , 357n
W i l e s , M . F., i83n
486
Index o f authors
Wilkens, W . , 2i6n, 21911, 30411, 30511
W o o d , H . G . , 232n, 29on
W i l l i a m s , A . L . , 35611 W i n d i s c h , H . , 21-2, 28n, 33n, 36n,
W r e d e , W . , 81 4on,
357n, 38m W i n k , W . , 38n, 43n W i n k e l , M . E., 3 m
Winter, 298n, 415n, 443n,
P., 45-7, 48, son, ii3n, i29n, 329n, 356, 357n, 364n, 389n, 406, 417n, 42on, 428n, 4 2 9 ^ 442n, 446n, 47on, 47 m
Wiinsche, A . , 267n Wyclif, J., 265n Y a d i n , Y . , 1, 228n, 44m, 442n Y o d e r , J. H . , 233n Z a h n , T . , 433n Zeitlin, S., 45n
W i s e , I. M . , 432n
Zerwick, M . , 2i4n Zimmerli, W . , 86n, 422n
W i s e , S.,
Z i m m e r m a n n , H . , 385
43n
W o h l e b , L . , 2i4n W o h l e n b e r g , G . , 11 in
Zockler, O . , 353n, 44on Zsifkovits, V . , 375n
Index of references OLD
TESTAMENT
Genesis
8 49 49 49
:
: 16 8-12 : io
-n
26011 169 401 32411
Exodus
5 17 18 18 19 20 22 25 28 30 30 30 30 38 38
2 30 : : : :
25 1 18 26-7
: if : f 3 5
• 13 : i3f 15 27-9 : 2f : 26 5
25611 291 28311 221 27111 22011 337 27811 27911 27811, 279, 281, 459 277 27211 293 27811 280
15 19 24 25 27
:2 = 4 : 16 : 23 : 21, 28
258 345 139" 14, 17, 25, 28, 345 i39n 22011 259" 146 259" 281
Numbers
3 : 46f 7 18 : 8, 14 18 : 2iff 19,: 2 24 : 17 25 : 7 - i 3 27 : 17
26511 22011 281 254" 324 401 398 211, 462
Deuteronomy 1
: 15
:
6 : 5 9 • 37 : 34 10 : 10 1 1
288n 28811 32211 28811
/ Samuel
6 : 7 8ff
: 12
9f 9 : It
10 : 2 i f 16 : 7
324 22911 221 230 22911 23211 249"
2 Samuel
7 : 4-5 170 7 12, 14 400 7 12-14, 16 170 10 1 to 11 : 1 165 10 : 4 344 20 306 / Kings
1 1 13 22
: 32-40 • 35 : 13 : 17
319 321 324 220, 462
2 Kings
2 : 17 3 21 9 : 13 :
221
244 293 184 '39n 254" 217, 393" 393" 347 324 136 139" 141 171 164
Judges
8
Leviticus
6 : 4 8 : 23-4 1 if 14 :
13 13 : 7-12 13 : 13-18 H :: 3ff 14 :: 22ff 18 : 15 18 :: 18 19 :: 15 21 : 3 21 : 20f 23 : 9ff 24 : iff 27 : 26 32 : 35
181 291 325 487
488
Index o f References
2 Kings - contd.
10 : 16 12 : 4 - 1 6
288n 278n
/ Chronicles
17 : 1 1 - 1 4
400
2 Chronicles
278n 278
24 : 4 - 1 4 24 : 5 Ezra
5 6 6 7
460 278n 372n 278n
• 16 :9 : 10 : 21-3
Nehemiah
5 8 10 13
: : : :
25611 467n 278 332
i4*f 15 32f 8
Job 1 and
2 24 : 5 26 : 14
3ion 112n 87
Psalms
2 :1 2 :7 8 :2 22 22 : 17 40 : 7 57 69 : 9 69 : 10 69 : 25 no : 1 118 : 22 118 : 2 f 132 : 9 5
426n 400 322 173 45on 344 356 456 i25n 168 389, 390, 4 ° o HA
04 325, 330 374n
Proverbs
7 : 15 24 : 21
322n 26on
Ecclesiastes
8 :2
260
Song of Solomon
1 : 8 4 :7
u8n 280 n8n
Isaiah
1 : 3ff 1 : 7 1 : 7ff 2 : 2 2 : 15 3 : 3 6 : 8-10 6 : 9f 9/: 1 11 : 12 25 : 6f 29 : 3-4 29 : 13 29 : 18 29 : 19 33 • i7f 35 42 : 6 49 • 6 52 : 13 52 : 13 to 53 : 12 53 53 : 5 53 : 7 53 : 8 53 : 10, 11 53 : 12
56 58 61 61 61 66 66 : 16
169 155 170 173 155 221 160 82 401 309 457 163 2
4 9
n
117 i2on 170 461 401 401 86 86, 394> 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
Index o f References
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
Index o f References
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
Index o f References
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
Index o f References
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
Index o f References
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
Index o f References
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
Index o f References
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
Index o f References
/ 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
Index o f References
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
Index o f References
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
