Bruce Chilton, Craig a. Evans Authenticating the Activities of Jesus New Testament Tools and Studies 1998 (1)

8/11/2019 Bruce Chilton, Craig a. Evans Authenticating the Activities of Jesus New Testament Tools and Studies 1998 (1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bruce-chilton-craig-a-evans-authenticating-the-activities-of-jesus-new-testament 1/497



UTHENTIC TING TH CTIVITIES OF JESUS





AUTHENTICATING

THE ACTIVITIES OF JESUS

E D I T E D B Y

BRUCE CHILTON ND CRAIG A. EVANS

/ 6 8 V

B R I L LE I D E N · B O S T O N · K Ö L N

1999



This book is pr inted on acid f ree paper.

D i e D e u t s c h e B i b l i o t h e k C I P E i n h e i t s a u f t i a h m e

A u t h e n t i c a t i n g t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f J e s u s / ed. by Bruce D. Chil ton andCraig A. Evans. Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill, 1998

(New Te st am en t tools an d studies ; Vo l. 28,2)I S B N 9 0 - 0 4 - 11 3 0 2 - 9IS BN 90-04 — 1114 1-7 (Bd. 1 un d 2)

L i b r ar y o f C o n g r e s s C a t a l o g i n g - i n - P u b l i c a t i o n D a t a

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is also available

ISSN 0077-8842ISB N 90 04 11302 9

© Copyright 1999 by Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced translated stored ina retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any m eans electronic

mechanical photocopying recording or otherwise without prior writtenpermission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personaluse is granted by Brill provided that

the appropriate fees are paid directly to The CopyrightClearance Center 222 Rosewood Drive Suite 910

Danvers MA 01923 USA.Fees are subject to change.

P R I N TED I N TH E N ETH ER LA N D S



IN MEMORY OF BEN F. MEYER





CONTENTS

Preface ixAbbreviations xiContr ibutors xv

PART ONEMETHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

CRAIG A. EVANSAuthe ntica ting the Activities of Jesus 3JAMES D. G. DUNNCan the Third Qu est Hop e to Succeed? 31E. EARLE ELLIS

Th e Syno ptic Go spels and History 49WILLIAM R. FARMERRe flec tions upon the Historical Perim eters forUn derstanding the Aims of Jesus 59N. THOMAS WRIGHTFive Go spels but no Gosp el: Jesus and the Sem inar 8STANLEY E. PORTER and MATTHEW BROOK O'DONNELLThe Implications of Textual Variants for Authenticatingthe Activities of Jesus 121

PART TWOAUTHENTICATING THE ACTIVITIES OF JESUS

BEN F. MEYER

Ap pointed Deed, Appointed Doer: Jesus and the Scriptures . . . . J . RAMSEY MICHAELSTh e Itinerant Jesus and His H om e To wn 177DALE C. ALLISON, JR.Behind the Temptations of Jesus: Q 4:1-13 and Mark 1:12-13. . . BRUCE CHILTONAn Ex orc ism of History: M ark 1:21-28 21 5



JOEL MARCUSTh e Bee lzebul Con troversy and the Escha tologies of Jesus 2

JOSTEIN ÀDNATh e En cou nter of Jesus with the Ge rasene D em oniac 27DIETER ZELLERBedeutung und religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrundder Ve rw andlu ng Jesu (M arkus 9:2-8) 303MARTIN HENGELJesus, the Messiah of Israel: The Debate about the

M essianic M ission of Jesus 323BRUCE J . MALINAAssessing the Historicity of Jesus' Walking on the Sea:Insights fr om Cro ss-Cu lture Social Psych ology 351CRAIG A. EVANSJesus and Ze cha riah 's M essianic Hope 373WILLIAM KLASSENThe Authenticity of Judas' Participationin the Arrest of Jesus 38 9RICHARD J . BAUCKHAMDid Jesus W ash His Disc iples' Feet? 41 1BYRON R. MCCANEWhere no one had yet been laid : The Shame of

Jes us' Burial 431

Index of Biblical Literature 45 3

Index of M odern Authors 471



PREFACE

The present volume is a companion to Authenticating the Words ofJesus and is intended to review the appropriate criteria and necessarysteps in assessing the Jesus tradition, particularly the activities ofJesus. The title Authenticating the Activities of Jesus should not betaken to mean that the contributors have as their aim some sort of

apologetical goal, whose purpose is to prove that Jesus did every-thing attributed to him in the Gospels. Rather, the purpose is toclarify what procedures should be undertaken to distinguish traditionand meaning that stem from Jesus from that which stems from latertradents and evangelists. The opening essays by the editors in theWords volu me should clarify the exegetical and historical goals ofboth volumes.

The essays by James D. G. Dunn, E. Earle Ellis, William R. Far-mer, Ν . Th om as Wright, Ben F. M eyer, and M artin Hengel ap pearedin earlier form s in W illiam R. Farm er ed.), Crisis in ChristologyEssays in Quest of Resolution Livonia: Dove, 1995). They hav ebeen edited and updated for inclusion in the present volume. The edi-tors express their thanks to Professor Farmer and to the publisher.

The editors are grateful to Dr. Orton for his suggestion and to Dr.Theo Joppe for guiding the completed manuscripts through the press.

The editors also wish to thank the series editors, Professors BruceMetzger and Bart Ehrman, as well as the many contributors, whoselabors have made the volumes possible, and Mr. Chris Young for hisassistance in the preparation of the indexes.

October, 1998ruce ChiltonBard CollegeAnnandale-on-Hudson, New York

Craig A. EvansTrinity Western UniversityLangley, British Columbia





ABBREVIATIONS

AB Ancho r Bible (Com mentary)ABD D. N. Freed ma n (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols., Ne w

York: Doubleday, 1992)AB RL Anch or Bible Refere nce LibraryAC NT Augsburg Com mentary on the New TestamentAG JU Arbeiten zur Gesch ichte des antiken Judentum s und des

UrchristentumsANF A. Robe rts and J. Don aldson (eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers{ 10

vols., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898; repr. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1989)

ANRW W . Haase and E. Te mp orini (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang derrömischen Welt (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979-)

AN TJ Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament und JudentumArB ib Th e Aramaic BibleASO R Am erican Schoo ls of Oriental ResearchAT AN T Abha ndlungen zur Theo logie des Alten und Neuen Testam entsA TR Anglican Theological ReviewΒ Α Biblical ArchaeologistBAG D W. Bauer, A Greek English Lexicon of the New T estament and

Other Early Christian Literature (2nd ed., revised by W . F. Arndt,F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker; Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1979)

Β A R Biblical Archaeology Review

Β AS OR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental ResearchBB B Bonn er biblische BeiträgeBDF Β . Blass, A. De brunn er, and R. W . Funk , A Greek Grammar of the

New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1961)

BE TL Bibliotheca epheme ridum theologicarum lovaniensiumB F C T Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theolog ieBib BiblicaBiblnt Biblical InterpretationBibLeb Bibel und LebenBib Or Biblica et orientaliaBibRev Bible ReviewBibS em The Biblical SeminarBIS Biblical Interpretation SeriesBJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of ManchesterΒ Κ Bibel und KircheBL G Biblical Langu ages: Greek



B NT C Black s New Testament Comm entaryBT Β Biblical Theology BulletinBU Biblische Untersuchunge nB WA N T Beiträge zur W issenschaf t vom Alten und Neuen Testam entBZ Biblische ZeitschriftBZ NW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche WissenschaftCBQ Catholic Biblical QuarterlyCB QM S Catholical Biblical Quarterly Monograph SeriesCG TC Cambridge Greek Testament Com mentariesCH Calwer HefteC on B N T Coniectanea biblica, New Testam entC R IN T Com pendia rerun iudaicarum ad novum testamentumDJD Disco veries in the Judaean DesertDJG J. B. Gre en, S. M cK nigh t, and I. H. M arshall (eds.), Dictionary of

Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992)DRev Downside ReviewDSD Dead Sea DiscoveriesEFN Estud ios de FiI010gía Neo testamentariaEH S Europäische HochschulschriftenE K K N T Evangelisch-katholischer Komm entar zum Neuen Testament

EvQ Evangelical QuarterlyExpTim Expository TimesFB Forsch ung zur BibelFB B S Facet Books, Biblical SeriesFR LA N T Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen

TestamentsGGA Göttingische Gelehrte AnzeigenG N S Good News StudiesGreg GregorianumGTA Göttinger theologische ArbeiterGT B Gütersloher TaschenbücherHBT Horizons in Biblical TheologyH N T Handbuch zum Neuen TestamentHR History of ReligionsHS M Harvard Semitic M onog raphsH T K N T Herders theologischer Kom mentar zum Neuen TestamentHTR Harvard Theological ReviewICC International Critical Com mentaryIEJ Israel Exploration JournalIKZ Internationale katholische ZeitschriftIRT Issues in Religion and Th eolo gyITQ Irish Theological QuarterlyJAAR Journal of the American Academy of ReligionJAOS Journal of the Am erican Oriental SocietyJBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJE Judische EnzyklopädieJETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological SocietyJR Journal of Religion



JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic andRoman Period

JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and

Roman Period, SupplementsJSNT Journal for the Study of the New TestamentJS NTS u p Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement SeriesJSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement SeriesJS P S u p Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplemen t SeriesJTS Journal of Theological StudiesLC L Loe b Classical LibraryLD Lectio divinaLSJ Liddell, Scott, Jones, Greek-English LexiconMeyerK H. A. W. Meyer (ed.), Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das

Neue TestamentNA E. Ne stle and K. Alan d (eds.), Novum Testamentum GraeceNCB New Century BibleNICNT New International Commentary: New TestamentNIGTC New International Greek Testament CommentaryNovT Novum TestamentumNovTSup Novum Tetamentum, Supplements

NTAbh Neutestamentliche AbhandlungenNTO A Novu m Testam entum et Orbis AntiquusNTS New Testament StudiesNTTS New Testament Tools and StudiesPG J. Migne (ed.), Patrologia graecaPGM K. Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri graecae magicaePTMS Princeton Theological Monograph SeriesRAC Reallexikon für Antike und ChristentumRB Revue biblique

REJ Revue des études juivesRGG Religion in Geschichte und GegenwartRHPR Revue d histoire et de philosophie religieusesRSR Recherches de science religieuseRTP Revue de théologie et de philosophieSA C Studies in Antiquity & ChristianitySANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen TestamentSBB Stuttgarter biblische BeiträgeSBEC Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity

SBG Studies in Biblical GreekSB LD S Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation SeriesSBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph SeriesSBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical StudyS B L S B S Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical StudySBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar PapersSBS Stuttgarter BibelstudienSBT Studies in Biblical TheologyScEccl Sciences ecclésiastiques

SJL A Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity



SJT Scottish Journal of TheologyS N T Studien zum Neuen TestamentSN TS M S Society for New Testament Studies Monog raph SeriesSNTU Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (journal)SN T U Studien zum Neuen Testam ent und seiner Um welt (mon ograph

series)SN TW Studies of the New Testam ent and its W orldSR Studies in Religion/Sciences religieusesS SE JC Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and ChristianityStNeot Studia Neotestam enticaStr-B [H. Strack and] P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

aus Talmud und Midrasch (5 vols., M unich: Beck, 1922-61)S U N T Studien zur Um welt des Neuen Testam entsSV TP Studia in veteris testamenti pseud epigrap haTB ei Theologische BeiträgeTBI Theologische BlätterTDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the

New Testament ( 1964-74)T F The ologische Forschu ng (mon ograph series)TLZ Theologische LiteraturzeitungTRu Theologische RundschauTS Theological StudiesTSA J Texte und Studien zum antiken JudentumTU Texte und Untersuchun genTynBul Tyndale BulletinTZ Theologische ZeitschriftU B S G N T United Bible Societies Greek New TestamentUSQR Union Seminary Quarterly ReviewW B C W ord Biblical Com mentary

W U N T W issenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen TestamentZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche WissenschaftZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche



CONTRIBUTORS

William R. FarmerUniversity of DallasDallas, TexasUSA

Martin HengelUniversity of TubingenFederal Republic of Germany

William KlassenÉcole Biblique et ArchéologiqueFrançaiseJerusalemIsrael

Bruce J. MalinaCreighton UniversityOmaha, NebraskaUSA

Joel MarcusUniversity of Edinburgh

Edinburgh, ScotlandU K

Byron R. McCaneConverse CollegeSpartanburg, South CarolinaUSA

Ben F. MeyerMcMaster UniversityHamilton, OntarioCanada

J. Ramsey MichaelsSouthwest Missouri State UniversitySpringfield, MissouriUSA

Jostein ÄdnaMisjonsh0gsko1enStavangerNorway

Dale C. Allison, Jr.Pittsburgh Theological SeminaryPittsburgh, PennsylvaniaUSA

Richard J. BauckhamSt. Mary's CollegeSt. Andrews, FifeScotland

U K

Bruce ChiltonBard CollegeAnnandale-on-Hudson, New YorkUSA

James D. G. Dunn

University of DurhamDurham, EnglandU K

E. Earle EllisSouthwestern Baptist SeminaryFort Worth, TexasUSA

Craig A. EvansTrinity Western UniversityLangley, British ColumbiaCanadaRoehampton Institute LondonLondon, EnglandU K



Matthew Brook Ο DonnellRoehampton Insti tute LondonLondon Eng landU K

Stanley E. PorterRoehampton Insti tute LondonLondon Eng landU K

N. Thomas Wright

Lichfield CathedralStaffordshire EnglandU K

Dieter ZellerUniversity of MainzFederal Republic of Germany







A U T H E N T I C AT I N G T H E A C T I V I T I E S O F J E S U S

Craig A. Evans

It is largely to E. P. Sanders's credit that scholars in recent yearshave come to appreciate the importance of the act ions and act ivi t iesof Jesu s. In his inf luen tial boo k, Jesus and Judaism , San ders ident i f iedeight facts or act ivi t ies, about which we may be relat ively confident .They are as fol lows:

1. Jes us w as baptiz ed by John the B aptist.2. Jesus was a Gali lean who preached and healed.3. Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve.4. Jesus confined his activity to Israel.5. Jesus engaged in a controversy about the Temple.6. Jesus w as crucif ied outside Jerusalem by the Rom an authori t ies.

7. After his death Jesus ' fol lowers continued as an identif iable movement.8. At least some Jews persecuted at least parts of the new movement (Gal

1:13, 22; Phil 3:6), and it appears that this persecution endured at least toa time near the end of Paul's career (2 Cor 11:24; Gal 5: ; 6:12; cf. M att23:34; 10:17). '

In his later, less technical work, The Historical Figure of Jesus,2 San-ders enumerates several other highly probable facts:

1. Jes us wa s born c . 4 BCE at the approximate t ime of the death of Herodthe Great .

2. Jesus grew up in Nazareth of Galilee.3. Although Jesus taught in small vi l lages and towns, he seems to have

avoided cities.4. Jesus ate a final meal with his disciples.5. Jesus was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authori t ies, apparently by

orders of the High Priest.6. Altho ugh they aband oned Jesu s after his arrest , the disciples later sa w

him after his death. This led the disciples to the belief that Jesus wouldreturn and found the kingdom.3

1 E. P. Sand ers , Jesus and Judaism (Lon don : SCM Press ; Ph i l ade lph ia :Fortress, 1985) 11.

2 E. P. San ders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (Lon don and New Yor k:Penguin, 1993).

3 For a helpful tabulation that com pares the almo st indisputable fac ts given



I am in essential agreement with Sanders, both with regard to thisl ist and with regard to his emphasis on events and act ivi t ies. Of

co urs e, San der s has been cr i t icized fo r giving pr ior i ty to facts, asopposed to the sayings of Jesu s , wh ich i s w he re m ost s tudiest r ad i t iona l ly have begun .4 I am not , ho w ev er, im pre ssed by thiscrit icism; I believe that i t is prudent historical procedure to attemptthe construct ion of the basic f ramework, even sequence of events (aslimited as that may be), in the light of which Jesus' teachings andpractices should be studied.

I side with Sanders here for two reasons: (1) The or iginal , specif iccontext of the sayings of Jesus , wi th rare except ions , i s los t .Consequently, even if we are relatively certain of the authenticity ofa signif icant core of sayings, we are seldom certain of the or iginalset t ing in which they were ut tered and, therefore, of what preciselythey or iginal ly meant . As I see i t , interpretat ion of the sayings ismore vulnerable to the whims of modern subject ivi ty than are eventsand fac ts . Ob viously the fac ts have to be in terpre ted a lso , and

subject ivi ty remains a problem, but their context is more cer tain. Inmy judgment, what we can recover is a more or less general context ,not the specific conte xts of specific say ings . (2 ) N on- Ch r i s t i ansources suppor t cer ta in impor tant fac ts and so provide s igni f icantinform at ion for com parat ive s tudy. As I have argued e lsew here , wehave no re l iable sources of Jesus ' sayings outs ide of the NewTe s t a m e n t .5 Even if some of these sources were to be accepted as

containing histor ical ly t rustworthy tradi t ion, they give us no usefulinformation as to the setting and context of the sayings.6 From this I

by Sanders in his two books, see M. A. Powell , Jesus a s a Figure in History(Louisvil le: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998) 117.

4 See Sanders , Jesus and Judaism, 10-22.5 C. A. Evan s , Jesus and His Contempo raries: Com parative Studies ( AGJ U

25; Le iden : Bril l , 1995) 26-45 ; idem, Jesu s in non-C hrist ian Sou rce s, in B. D.Chil ton and C. A. Evans (eds.) , Studying the Historical Jesus: Eva luations of theState of Current Research (N TT S 19; Leiden : Brill , 1994) 44 3-7 8; idem, with J. H.Ch ar les wo rth , Jesus in the Ag raph a and Apo cryphal Gos pels , in Chi l ton andEvans (eds .) , Studying the Historical Jesus, 479-533.

6 Th e sam e con clusio n has been reached by J . P. M eier, A Marginal Jew:Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vo lume One : The Roots of the Problem and thePerson (A BR L 3; New Y ork: Dou bleday, 1991) 56-166. The Gospel of Thomas, afavor i te ext ra-canonica l source amon g many scholars , especia l ly those associa tedwith the Jesus Seminar, presents the sayings of Jesus completely free of context .



conclude that the h is tor ica l f ramework, made up of severa l fa i r lycer tain facts, must f i rst be clar if ied and then used as a pr imary

cr i ter ion fo r dete rm ining what saying s and episo des ough t to beconsidered the s t ronger candidates of authent ic t radi t ion and howthey should be interpreted.

In a recent work N. T. Wright has added a few facts to the list thatin my judgment are also probable:

1. Jesu s spo ke Aram aic, Hebre w, and probably some G reek.2. Jesus summoned people to repent pace Sanders) .3. Jesus made use of parables to announce the kingdom of God.4 . Jesus effec ted remarkable cures , inc luding exorc isms, as demo nstra t ions

of the truth of his proclamation of the kingdom.5. Jesus shared in table fel lowship with a social ly and rel igiously diverse

group, inc luding those whom many Torah-observant Jews would regardas sinners. '7

To Sanders ' s and Wright ' s severa l fac ts one can add a few moreco m ple m en tar y detai ls . I think that it is highly pro bab le that Jesu s

was viewed by the public as a prophet, that the Romans crucified himas k in g of the Je w s, and that fo l lo w ing Ea ster h is fo l lo w er sregarded him as Israel ' s Messiah. We shal l f ind that many of thesayings of Jesus cohere with these histor ical elements, of ten t imeseither explaining them or being explained by them. I think it is alsoappropriate to retain as highly probable Jesu s ' referenc e to tw elve .(Sanders expresses less confidence about this t radi t ion in his later

book . )8

I t wil l be useful to review a number of the proposed facts out l inedby Sanders and Wright , supplement ing them wi th the three pointsreco m m en ded above . W hat em erges i s a coherent h is tor ica l contex tand framework, in the light of which the sayings of Jesus should beinterpreted. Not every one of these elements wil l be accepted by

7

N. T. W right , Jesus and the Victory of God (Chr is t ian Orig ins and theQuest ion of God 2; London: SPCK; Minneapol is : For t ress , 1996) . Again , i t i shelpful to see the tabulation provided by Powell, Jesus, 154-55.

8 See now the very capab le def ens e of the pre-Eas ter origin of the Tw elv e inJ. P. M eier, Th e Circle of the Tw elve : Did It Exist durin g Jes us' P ublic M inis try?JB L 116 (199 7) 635-72 . Meier (p. 671 n. 83) exp oses the logical we akn esse s andimplausib i l i ty in W. Schmithals ' s The Office of the Apostle in the Early Church[Nashvil le: Abingdon, 1969] 69-70) proposal that the tradit ion of the Twelve is apost-Easter development that quickly faded, yet nonetheless left numerous traces inthe Gospels but had no impact on early Christian theology.



sch olars . Jürg en B eck er, for ex am ple , dou bts the histor ici ty of theTemple controversy. His important book wil l be t reated below. For

his part , Sanders does not think Jesus called for repentance and so hewil l disagree with par t of my supplement to the second fact . Therestorat ion of Israel , implied by the appointment of the Twelve, isnot accepted by some of the Jesus Seminar. Readers wi l l d iscernother points with which they and others disagree. In my opinion,how eve r, the fo l low ing fac ts can be wel l suppo r ted individua l ly,even in isolat ion, and taken together form a sol id, coherent f rame-work that makes sense and in part f inds important parallels in Jewishhistory of late antiquity.

1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. W ith l it tle fa nf ar e theM ark an evan ge list states that Jesu s w as bap tized by Joh n in theJo rd an (M ark 1:9). But M ar k's presentat ion of this even t , espec ial lyin the way i t is jux tap os ed to the narrat ive of Jo h n 's ac t ivi t ies, issubtle and effe ct ive . In eff ec t John b eco m es the fore run ner of Jesu s,the for eru nn er w ho ann oun ces the fulf i l lm en t of Isaiah 40, the grea t

passage of Israel ' s ant icipated restorat ion, as well as the fulf i l lmentof Jo hn ' s predic t ion of the com ing of a mig ht ier on e w ho wi l lbap tize [the peo ple] with the Ho ly Sp irit (M ark 1:8).

The evangel is t ' s sk i l l fu l and obviously tendent ious use of thetradi t ion does not , however, mil i tate against the authentici ty of them ateria l i tself . In view of the obvio us diff icu ltie s the story of Jes us 'baptism gave the early church, i t is highly improbable that the story

wa s invented . A t temp ts to deal wi th these d i ff icu l t ies are p la in lyevident in the Gospels : Mat thew qual i f ies the s tory by expla in ingwh y it is that Jesus would need to und ergo a bap tism of rep enta ncefor the fo rg ive ne ss of sins (M ark 1:4). M atthe w do es not retain thissen t en ce exac t l y,9 but mention of repentance is prominent in hisversion of the narrat ive nonetheless (cf . Matt 3:2, 8 [ f rom Q], 11) .Jesu s wis hes to un derg o it to fulf i l l all r igh teou sne ss (M att 3:15) ,though exactly how it does that is not made clear. That Jesus reallydoes not need to submit to baptism is emphasized by John's ini t ialrefusal to bapt ize Jesus (Mat t 3 :14) . By having John ask to bebap t i zed by Jesus seeks to ov erc om e the imp l icat ion that bein gbaptized by John means that John is the master and Jesus is the

9 Indee d his near om ission of M ark 1:4 wa s pro bab ly du e to a desir e to headoff the question of why Jesus would go to be baptized by a man who offered a

baptism of repentance.



student . Luke's revision of the s tory leaves the reader with theimpression that John himself did not actually baptize Jesus, for theformer had already been imprisoned (Luke 3:19-21) . John 's Gospelsays nothing about Jesus being bapt ized. Rather, the fourth Gospeltells us that Jesus baptized more disciples than did John (John 3:22;4:1-2) , that som e of Jo hn 's d isciples jo ine d Jesu s ' f o l low ing (1 :37) ,and that Joh n himself recog nized Jesus as the lam b of Go d w hotake s aw ay the sin of the w or ld (John 1:29).

The potent ial embarrassment of the bapt ism of Jesus is fur thermit igated in var ious ways. Mark says heaven opened, the Spir i tdescended on Jesus, and the heavenly voice recognized Jesus as thebeloved son, with whom God is well pleased (Mark 1:11). Matthewseconds this account, adding that the descending Spiri t perched onJe su s (M att 3:16 ). L uk e no tes that it w as the H o ly Sp iri t thatde sce nd ed on Jesu s and that it did so in bodily fo rm (Lu ke 3:2 2),perhaps to underscore the real i ty and substance of Jesus ' empower-ment through the Spiri t . The baptism account is r ichly embell ished in

the extracanonical Gospels . The Gospel of the Ebionites §4 and theGospel of the Hebrew s §2 respect ive ly exp and on the nu m in ou selements, while the Gospel of the Nazarenes §2 , fo l lowing M atth ew 'slead, has Jesus expressly reject the need for his baptism. The fourthGospel, which narrates no baptism, instead has the Baptist proclaimJesus' superiori ty and John's preparatory role (John 3:25-30).

The development of the tradit ion strongly recommends the authen-

tici ty of the baptism of Jesus by John. The effort to explain awayembarrassing elements , e i ther through correct ion, augmentat ion, oromission, makes i t clear that there was every reason not to manufac-ture such a story.10

If we agree that Jesus was baptized by John, what does it mean? Ithink that i t implies at the very least that Jesus was in essentialagreement with the Baptist 's agenda, an agenda that seems to have therestoration of Israel as i ts goal ( through repentance and preparationfor an eschatological moment) . In Jesus ' approximate t ime we knowof at least one other revivalist movement associated with the JordanRiver. Here we have in mind Theudas who summoned the crowds totake up their possessions and jo in him at the famous r iver (cf .Josephus , Ant. 20.5.1 §97 -98). In wh at was probab ly calculated as a

1 0 On the auth enticity of the baptism of Jes us, as well as disc ussio n of thecriterion of embarrassment, see Meier, Λ Marginal Jew 168-71.



reenactment of Joshua 's crossing of the Jordan, Theudas enjoined hisfo llo w ing to take up their po sses sion s and jo in him at this h istoricspot . At h is command, the prophet promised, God would par t thewaters al lowing him and his following to pass through unhindered. I tis probable that Theudas believed that such a sign would be but thefirst step in a new conquest of the Promised Land.

Besides the fact of John's presence at the Jordan River, which byitself could point to Joshua, we have the intriguing utterance that"God is able f rom these s tones to raise up chi ldren to Abra-ham" (Matt 3 :9 = Luke 3:8) . To what "stones" did John refer? Dowe not again have an echo of Joshua tradit ion? According to Joshua 4twelve stones representing the twelve tr ibes of Israel were set up atthe Jordan as a memorial to God's covenant with his people. The l inkin Josh 4:7 between stones ( ) and sons ( ) is especiallyapposite ("these stones will be for a memorial for the sons of Israelforever") , g iven evidence of wordplays involving these two sound-al ike words.1 1 The twelve s tones/ twelve t r ibes s ignif icance of the

"stones" in John 's speech gains support f rom the other probable factin Jesus' ministry, namely, his appointment of twelve apostles (Mark3:14 ; 6:7; M att 19:28 = Lu ke 22:3 0; cf. 1 Co r 15:5). T he pos sible , ifnot probable correlat ion between John 's preaching and the "stones"to which he makes reference, on the one hand, and the proclamationof Jesus and his speaking, if not appointment, of twelve emissaries,on the other, sug gests one m ore im portant p oint of continu ity betw een

John and Jesus and at the same t ime strengthens the probabil i ty thatJesus understood his mission in terms of the restoration of Israel .Our suspicion receives important corroboration in the saying aboutthe twelve who will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes ofIsrael (Matt 19:30 = Luke 22:28-30). Not only does this saying offer

1 1 Jos ep hu s (7.W. 5.6.3 §272) says that when a Ro ma n siege stone (ή πέτρα)

app roach ed the ramparts, watchm en would warn that the so n was co m ing (ό υ ιό ςάρχεται). This odd epithet, which makes no sense in Greek, in all probability isbased on Aramaic or Hebrew, as has been proposed. The possibil i ty that John 'swords may also allude to Isa 51:1-2 (as recommended by D. C. Allison and W. D.Dav ies , A Critical and Exegetical Com mentary on the Gospel according to SaintMatthew. Vo lume I: Introduction and Com mentary on Matthew I-VII [ ICC;Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988] 308) does not need to militate against the Joshuaallusion. For the view adopted here, see O. J. F. Seitz, , W ha t Do Thes e StonesM e a n ' ? JB L 79 (1960) 247-54. Seitz also draws our attention to Josh 5:7 ( theirsons, whom he raised up ).



important support to such an in terpretat ion, the saying is i tsel fclarified by the probable l inkage with John's words and activit ies atthe Jordan River.

2. Jesus was a Galilean who proclaimed the kingdom of God. Hisproc lam ation of it as the "good n ew s," as "fu lfi l led ," and as "at ha nd "is consistent with his recognit ion as a prophet.12 It is also consistentwith the theme of Isaiah 61 ("the Lord has anointed me to proclaimgood news") , to which Jesus al ludes in t radi t ion which surely isauthentic (cf. Matt 11:4-5 = Luke 7:22).1 3 Influence of the theologyof Seco nd Isa iah is wi tnessed th rou gho ut Jesu s ' m in is t ry1 4: theprovision of food (Mark 6:35-44; 8 :1-10; cf . Isa 25:6) , heal ing(Mark 1:29-31, 32-34, 40-45; 2:1-12; 3:1-6; cf. Isa 35:5-6; 61:1-2),and even rais ing the dead (Mark 5:35-43; Luke 7:11-17; cf . Isa26:19). Although how much of this tradit ion derives from the actualactivities of Jesus is debated, the contribution of Isaiah can hardly begainsaid. (On Jesus as healer and exorcist, see below.) An orientationtoward Second Isaiah s t rongly suggests that Jesus understood his

1 2 Tw o pas sage s in particular s trongly sugge st this: (1) M ark 6:4, whe reJesus' self-reference, "A prophet is not without honor except at home," can hardlyhave been the creation of the early church; and (2) the passage in which the soldiersmockingly ask Jesus to "prophesy" and so identify those who str ike him (Mark14:65; cf. Matt 26:68, where the request for identification is made explicit) . Thedoleful lament in Q, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which stones the prophets and kil lstho se sent to you . . ." (M att 23: 37 = Lu ke 13:34), also im plie s that Je su s

understood himself as a prophet. A few other passages lend additional support (cf.Matt 10:41 Mark 6:15; 8:27-28). Some references to Jesus as a prophet have beenadded by Matthew (21:11, 46) and Luke (7:16, 39).

1 3 Oc curren ces of "good n ew s" or "go sp el" ( ) are foun d in the secon d halfof Isaiah. There are five passages in all (Isa 40:1-11; 41:21-29; 52:7-12; 60:1-7;61:1-11). The summary in Mark 1:15 betrays significant points of dictional coher-ence with the Aramaic paraphrase of some of these passages from Isaiah. In Tg. Isa40:9 we read "T h e kingdom of your God is revealed[" instead of "H ere is yo ur

G od " Again , in Tg. Isa 52:7 we read The kingdom of your God is revealed'instead of "Your God reigns." The italicized words indicate the places where theAramaic departs f rom the Hebrew. The Aramaic diction approximates the gist ofJe su s' proc lam ation : "Th e time is fulfilled , the king dom of Go d is at hand ; repe nt,and believe in the good news." What draws the Aramaic tradition even closer toJesus ' proclamation is that the verses cited above are understood to relate theessence of the message that the prophet is to proclaim.

1 4 For a recent assessm ent of the influe nce of Seco nd Isaiah in Je su s' p rocla-mation, see O. Betz, "Jesus ' Gospel of the Kingdom," in P. Stuhlmacher (ed.) ,The Gospel and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 53-74.



message and mission in terms of nat ional restorat ion.Jesus ' proclamat ion of the k ingdom not only presupposed John ' s

ear l ier cal l to repentance, i t continued i t (Matt 12:41 = Luke 11:32;M ark 6 :12 ; Lu ke 13 :3 -5 ; 16 :30) .1 5 Consis tent wi th h is ro le aseschatological prophet Jesus ca l led for repentance and rebuked thosew ho cr i t ic ized h is ready acce ptanc e of those w ho jo in ed his m ov e-ment (Mat t 11:19 = Luke 7:34) . Repentance, moreover, was in somecircles understood to be a prerequisi te for the del iverance of Israel .I t is only in the post-Easter setting that repentance is qualified by thedemand for fai th in Jesus (cf . Acts 2:38-39; 3:17-21) .

3. Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve. Je su s isca l l ed r abb i , h i s m os t com m o n d es i g n a t i o n .1 6 His act ivi t ies ofteaching and disc ip le-making are consis tent wi th what we know ofJewish rel igious teachers of this per iod. His al lusive, ad hoc appeal toScr ip ture ref lec ts in terpre t ive tendencies that may be t raced to thesynagogue (as a t tes ted in prayers and in the Aramaic paraphrases) .His escha to log ica l and char i smat ic under s tand ing o f Scr ip tu re i s

para l le led in imp or tan t way s a t Q um ran . As a teac her , or rabbi ,Jesus disputed with other teachers about what const i tuted puri ty, ani m p or t an t f ac t o r i n I s r ae l ' s cov enan t w i t h God and , f r om aneschatological perspect ive , the nat ion ' s res tora t ion . Even his ac t ionsin the Temple precincts is consistent with his recognit ion as a rabbiand fo l lowed the examples of o ther rabbis before h im (see seventhpoint below).

The appointment of the twelve, taken with the proclamation of thekingdom of God, v i r tual ly makes cer ta in Jesus ' hopes for the res to-rat ion of Israel . That the twelve signif ied the twelve t r ibes of Israel

1 5 San der s (Jesus and Judaism , 226 -27 ) m ainta in s that Jesu s rega rded the cal lfor nat ional repentance sa t i sf ied by John ' s proclamat ion and bapt ism and that Jesusthere fo re on ly concerned h imse l f wi th summoning peop le , inc lud ing the wicked , to

jo in h im in fe l lowship in ant ic ipat ion of the k ingdom of God. For cr i t ic ism of th isview , see B. D. Ch i l ton , Jesu s and the R ep en tan ce of E . P. Sa nd ers , TynBul 3 9(19 88 ) 1-18. On the wider ques t ion of Jes us ' v iew of repe ntan ce and i ts re la t ion toqu es t io ns o f pur i ty, see Ch i l ton , E . P. San der s and the Qu es t ion o f Jesu s andPu r i ty, in Ch i l ton and C. A. Ev ans, Jesus in Context: Temple Purity and Resto-

ration (AGJU 39; Leiden: Br i l l , 1997) 221-30.1 6 Jes us i s cal led pa ßß i in M ark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; p a ß ß o w i in M ark 10:51.

The Greek equ iva len t διδάσκαλο? is found in Mark 4:38; 5:35; 9:17, 38; 10:17, 20,35; 12:14 , 19, 32 ; 13:1. S om e of the us ag es of κύριος· a n d è m a T c r r a a r e p r o ba b lyalso Gr eek equiv alents of rabb i .



can hardly be doubted and that such symbolism pointed to the wholeof Israel is highly probable and is consistent with later rabbinicdiscussion of the regathering of the twelve tribes in the age to come.

4. Jesus confined his activity to Israel. This adds fur ther supp ort toJesus' mission of restoration of Israel . If only a philosopher, and acynic one at that , why not more ministry in the cosmopolitan cit ieswithin and without Israel? Why no ment ion of act iv i ty in neigh-boring Tiberias and Sepphoris? The formulat ion in Matthew 10 mayreflect a great deal of editorial work of the evangelist, but surely theco m m an d to go no wh ere am ong the Gen ti les, but only go to the lostsh eep of the H ou se of Israe l (M att 10 :5-6; cf. 15:24),17 could nothave been generated in the church, even the Matthean church. Forone, the saying stands in obvious tension with the Great Commission,whereby the apostles are to make disciples of the nations, but it alsostands in tension with the immediate context of the MissionaryDiscourse. For later in the discourse the disciples are given instruc-t ions about what to say and not to fear when brought before the

Gentiles (cf. Matt 10:18). The instructions to go only to Israel veryl ikely or iginated in Jesus, which through contextual izat ion in theMissionary Discourse and in the Great Commission is qualified in animportant sense.

The over-al l impression one gains is that Jesus was indeed ateacher and prophet to h is own people. His teachings may havecontained implicat ions for Gent i les and he may have encountered a

few Gentiles (such as the Syro-Phoenician woman), but his ministryappears to have been confined for the most part to Israel i tself . Thisl imitat ion is consistent with the view, recommended above, thatJesus' ministry had as i ts goal Israel 's redemption.

5. Jesus was widely regarded as a remarkable healer and exorcist.Any fair reading of the Gospels and other ancient sources (includingJ o s e p h u s )1 8 inexorably leads to the conclusion that Jesus was well

1 7 The Ma tthean com plexion of these verses is unde niable, yet it is not easy toexplain them as Matthean inventions (esp. when the tension with Matt 28:16-20 istaken into account). The assumption that Luke omitted this material from Q is quitereasonable (cf. Luke 9:1-6). For reasons against a redactional origin of Matt 10:5-6,see D. C. Allison, Jr. and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Com mentary onthe Gospel according to Saint Ma tthew. Vo lum e Π : Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII (IC C; Ed inbu rgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991) 168-69.

1 8 In the part of the so-ca lled Testimonium Flavianum mo st scholars regard asauthen tic, Jose phu s describes Jesus as a doer of am azing deeds [παρ αδόξω ν έργω ν



known in his t ime as a healer and exorcist . Historians need not bedistracted by scientific and philosophical questions that inquire into

the exact nature of these events. I t is sufficient for historians toconclude that Jesus engaged in activit ies that led his contemporariesto view him as a healer and exorcist. Many scholars in recent yearshave adopted this view.19

Scholarship has now moved past i ts preoccupat ion with demyth-o log iza t ion .2 0 The miracle stories are now treated seriously and arewidely accepted by Jesus scholars as der iving from Jesus ' minist ry.Major studies on the historical Jesus discuss the miracles, whether ingeneral terms or in reference to specific miracles, with l i t t le or nodiscussion of myth or the philosophical issues at one t ime thought tobe necessary for any assessment of the miracle t radi t ions in theGospels .2 1 Several specialized studies have appeared in recent years,wh ich con clude that Jesus did things that were view ed as m iracles.2 2

πο ιητή?] Ant. 18.3.3 §63). Th is lang uag e is not negativ e; it is neu tral.1 9 See J . Jerem ias, New Testament Theology (New Yo rk: Scr ibn er 's , 1971)

91; B. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979) 155; Sanders,Jesus and Judaism, 166; J. D. Cro ssa n, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a JewishMediterranean Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991) 318-19; G. Twelftree,Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus ( W U N T2.54 ; Tüb ingen : Mohr [S iebeck] , 1993) 98-113 . Even the Jesus Seminar, a sreported in R. W. Funk (ed.) , The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus R eally Do? TheSearch for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (San Franc isco: Ha rperC ol l ins , 1998) ,

have accepted many of the mirac les (e .g . Mark 1 :30-31, S imon 's mother- in- law;Mark 1:40-42, the cleansing of the leper; Mark 2:3-5, 12, the paralytic; Mark 5:25-29, the woman wi th the hemorrhage; Luke 8 :1-2 , exorc ism; Mark 10:46-52, b l indBar t imaeus) .

2 0 On the declinin g influenc e of my th as sign ifican t fac tor in Jesu s resea rch,see C. A. Ev ans , Lif e-o f-Je sus Researc h and the Ecl ipse of M yth olo gy ,TS 54(1993) 3-36.

2 1 M any of the mo st s ign if ican t s tudies in Jesus in recent years take the

mirac les ser ious ly in to account , e .g . G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian sReading of the Gospels (Lo ndo n: Co ll ins; Philade lphia: Fortre ss, 1973) 58-8 2; M .Smi th , Jesus the Magician (San Francisc o: Harpe r & Ro w, 1978) 8-20 ; M eyer , TheAims of Jesus, 154-58; A. E. Ha rvey , Jesus and the Constraints of History(Lo ndo n: Du ckw orth , 1982) 105-18; Sande rs , Jesus and Judaism, 157-7 3; M . J.Bo rg , Jesus: A New Vision (San Fran cisco : Har per & Ro w , 1987) 57 -75 ; B.Wi the r ing ton , The Christology of Jesus (M inneap olis: Fortress , 1990) 145-77.

2 2 R. H. Fuller, Interpreting the Miracles (Phi ladelphia : W estm inster, 1963) ;German ed . , Die W under Jesu in Exegese und Verkündigung (Düss e ldorf : Pa tm os,1967). Ful ler con clud es that the t radi tion tha t Jesus d id perfor m exo rc ism s and



Th e pr incipal eviden ce for th is conc lusion has been ably sum m ar-ized by Barry Blackburn. As he puts i t ,23

the mirac le-working ac t iv i ty of Jesus—at leas t exorc isms and heal ings—easi ly passes the cr i te r ion of mul t ip le a t tes ta t ion .2 4 Such mirac les area t tes ted in Q, Mark, mater ia l unique to Mat thew and to Luke, and theGo spel of John (hea l ings only) , inc luding the s ign s so ur ce .2 5 J e s u s '

hea lings (which m ay also have been exo rcis m s originally) is very stro ng (p. 39).Fuller 's positive assessment anticipated the critical affirmations that have been heardin more recent years. G. Theissen, Urchristliche Wundergeschichten: Ein Beitragzur formgeschichtlichen Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien (Gü te r s loh :M ohn , 1974) ; ET: The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Ph i l a -delph ia: Fortress, 1983) 277: The re is no doubt that Jesus worked m iracles, healedthe sick and cast out de m on s ; P. J. Ac htem eier, M irac les and the Historical Je sus:A S tudy o f Mark 9 :14-29 , CBQ 37 (1975) 471-9 1 ; O. Be tz and W . Gr im m ,Wesen und Wirklichkeit der Wunder Jesu (ANT J 2; Fran kfur t am Main and Bern :La ng , 1977) ; Sm i th , Jesus the Magician, 101: In most mir ac le s tor ie s noexplanation at al l is given; Jesus simply speaks or acts and the miracle is done by

his perso nal pow er. This trait probably re flects historical fact ; D. Zeller, W un de rund Bekenn tn i s : zum S i tz im Leben u rchr i s t l i che r Wundergesch ich ten ,BZ 25(1981) 204-22; G. M aier, Zur neutes tament l ichen W unde rexeg ese im 19. und 20.Jah rhu nd er t , in D. W enh am and C. L. Blom berg (eds .) , The Miracles of Jesus(Gospe l Pe r s pec t ives 6 ; She ff i e ld : JSO T Press , 1986) 49-87 , 79 : His to r i scheForschung kann heute mi t guten Gründen sagen, dass Jesus damals Wunder ge tanha t ; Sanders , Jesus and Judaism, 157: Th ere is agre em ent on the basic fac ts:Jesus performed mirac les , drew crowds and promised the k ingdom to s inners ; H.

He n d r i c k x , The Miracle Stories of the Synoptic Gospels (London : Cha pm an; SanFra ncis co: Ha rper & Ro w, 1987) 22: Y es, we can be sure that Jesus performedreal signs which were interpreted hy his contemporaries as experiences of anextraordinary power (h is emp hasis) ; W ither ington, Christology, 155: Th at Jes usperformed deeds that were perceived as miracles by both him and his audience isdiff icult to doubt.

2 3 Th e quote d para gra phs , inc ludin g the foo tnote s , a re taken f r om B. L.Bla ckb urn , Th e M irac les of Jesu s , in Chi l ton and Ev ans (eds .) , Studying the

Historical Jesus, 356-57.2 4 A rg u e d inter alios by Fuller, Interpreting the Miracles, 25; N. Pe rrin,Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1976) 65; D. E.Au ne, M agic in Ear ly Chr is t iani ty, ANRW 2 .23 .2 (1980) 1525; W ither in gton ,Christology, 155-56, 201 .

2 5 Q: M att 4:3 = Lu ke 4:3; M att 8:5-1 0, 13b = Lu ke 7:1- 10; M att 11:4-5 =Lu ke 7:22; Matt 10:8 = Luke 10:9; M att 11:20-24 = Luke 10:13-15; M att 9:3 2-3 4 =12:22-29 = Luke 11:14-15, 17-22; unique Ma tthean material: 7:22; 9:27-3 1; 17:24-27; 21:14; unique Lukan material: 4:18 , 23-2 7; 5:1-1 1; 7:11 -17; 8:2; 9:54 ; 10:17-20; 13:10-17; 13:32; 14:1-6; 17:11-21; 22:51; 23:8, 37, 39; 24:19. The fragments



wonderworking is also attested in various forms of oral tradition isolated byform crit icism:2 6 (1) controv ersy, scholastic, and biographica l apo theg m s,2 7

(2) dom inical say ings, including logia (wisdo m sayin gs), proph etic sa yings,

church rules, and "I" sayings,2 8 (3) miracle stories, (4) legends,2 9 and (5)the passion narrative.3 0

(Moreover), Jesus' exorcistic and healing activity is mentioned or impliedby a few dominical logia with strong claims to authenticity. Following thecharge that Jesus exorcised as a sorcerer, both Mark and Q contain twodominical parables, the former of which, the "divided kingdom" parable(Mark 3:24-26; Matt 12:25-26; Luke 11:17-18), almost certainly originatedas a defense against the charge of demonically empowered healings and/orexorcisms. Only so could the language about Satan being divided againsthimself be meaningfully interpreted. Independently attested by Mark and Qand addressing a charge patently not created by the church, its claim to be anauthentic dominical saying is good. Its talk of the βασιλεία του σατανουcertainly comports well with Jesus' principal theme, the kingdom of God.3 1

One of the most revealing episodes, to which Blackburn also draws

of the four pericopae that constitute the remains of the Egerton Gospel contain avariant of the Healing of the Leper (Mark 1:40-45 par) and an extra-canonicalmiracle whose exact nature is uncertain due to lacunae. The critical question iswhether this gospel is independent of the Synoptics (pro Crossan , The HistoricalJesus, 428; contra J. A. Fitzm yer, The Gospel Acco rding to Luke [2 vols., AB 28,28a; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981-85] 1.573).

2 6 For conv enienc e I employ the categories and nom enclature proposed by R.Bultmann in his The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Ox ford: Black well , 1972);

German orig . Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT 12; Göt t ingen:V and en ho eck & Ru prec h t , 1921 ; 2nd ed . , 1931) . For a mu ch mo re rec en tapplication of form-cri t ical method which exploits the categories of ancient Greekrhetoric, see K. Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heideiberg: Quel leund M ey er, 1984).

27 Controversy: M ark 3:1-6 par; Lu ke 14:1-6; 13:10-17; M ark 3:22-30; 2:1-12par ; scholastic: M att 11:2-19 par; M ark 9:38-40 par; 11:20-25 par; biographical:Luke 17:11-19; Matt 17:24-27; Luke 13:31-33. Bultmann also regards Mark 7:24-

31 par and Matt 8:5-13 par as apothegms (cf . History of the Synoptic Tradition, 38-39) .

28 Logia . Mark 3 :24-26 par ; prophetic sayings: Ma t t :2 -24 par; 11:5-6 par;7 : 2 2 - 2 3 p a r ; church rules: M ark 6 :8-11 = M at t 10:5-16 = Luk e 10:2-12; Isayings: M att 12:27-28 par.

2 9 M at the w 4:1-11 par appear s to presu ppose Jes us reputa t ion as a mira c leworker.

3 0 M ark 15:31 par.3 1 Ad vo ca tes of the authen tici ty of this parab le include M eye r, The Aims of

Jesus, 156; and Cro ssan , Historical Jesus, xix, 318-19.



our attention, is the account in which Jesus is accused of being inleague with Satan (Mark 3:22-27):

22 And the scr ibes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessedby Be-elzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons." 23And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, "How can Satancast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself , that kingdomcannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will notbe able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and isdivided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter astrong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strongman; then indeed he may plunder his house.

W hat is interesting is the statement that "Satan . . . is com ing to anen d " (Mark 3 :26). An exact Latin equ ivalen t of M ar k 's εχβ ί τέλο ς·("comes to an end") is found in the Testament of Moses: "T he n his[i .e. God's] kingdom will appear in his entire creation. And then thedevil will come to an end [finem habebit], and sadn ess will be carriedaw ay to geth er with h im " (10:1 ) .32 The association of the appearance

of God's kingdom and the demise of the devil is the presupposit ionof the eschatology of both Jesus and the author of the Testament ofMoses, a ps eu de pig rap ho n wh ich in i ts f inal for m app eare d in thefirst third of the first century CE.33 What is especially interesting isthat what is viewed in the Testament of Moses as part of the E nd , atwhich t ime Satan will f inally be undone, in Jesus i t is viewed ashaving already been accomplished in his minist ry.3 4 What is antici-pated in the Testament is belie ved to be in the pro cess of fu lfi llm en tin Jesus' ministry. We find the same difference in temporal perspec-tive in the comparison of Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of Godand the paraphrasing in the Isaiah Targum. What in the Aramaictradition is anticipated, in Jesus' proclamation it is fulfilled (see n. 14above) .

Jesus ' widespread minist ry of exorcism, which included heal ings

3 2 Th e Vu lgate renders the pertinent part of M ark 3 : 6 in m habet.3 3 For text and trans lation, see J . Tro m p, The Assumption of Moses: A

Critical Edition with Com mentary (S V TP 10; Le iden : Brill, 1993) 18-19. O n theearly first-cen tury date of this writing, see Trom p, 116-17, and J. Priest, "Te stam entof Moses," in J . H. Charlesworth (ed.) , The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2vols . , ABRL 13-14; New York: Doubleday, 1983-85) 920-21.

3 4 Th e poin t is rightly ma de by M . de Jon ge , God s Final Envo y: EarlyChristology and Jesus Ow n View of His Mission (Stud ying the Historica l Jes us;Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998) 53.





t radi t ion . The passage in Deuteronomy out l ines the procedure for deal ingwith a s tub born and rebel l ious son, wh o ref use s to obey h is paren ts .More is at s take than relat ions within the family, however. He consti tutes a

threat to the welfare of the community as a whole, as is evident in the courtof appeal to which the case is to be referred and the agents through whomthe legally prescribed punishment is to be carried out. The problem is not tobe resolved by the parents alone. Instead, the charge against the rebel is tobe brought to the town council : to the elders gathered at the town gate. Theexecution of the rebel is to be by stoning, and is to be carried out by all theadul t males of the communi ty.3 7

Kee's insights reveal the extent to which Jesus ' comment ant icipateshis fa te in Je rus ale m . The saying m ay also shed im por tant l ight onJesus ' understanding of the kingdom in relat ion to his mission. Fromthe acc usa t ion that he was a g lu t ton and a dr un ka rd we sho uldprobably infer that Jesus had begun to ce lebrate the coming of thekingdom of God. I t is only when faced the probabil i ty of death, thatJe su s vow s not to drin k again of the fru it of the vin e until that da ywh en [he] dr ink[s] it new in the king dom of G od (M ark 14:25).

The charge that Jesus was a glut ton and drunkard, a f r iend of taxcollectors and sinners also draws at tent ion to the redemptive aims inhis ministry. This point is well i l lustrated in the popular Parable ofthe Pro digal Son (L uke 15:1 1-32 ) .3 8 Th e prod igal is said to ha ve

sq ua nd er ed his pro perty in loose livin g (v. 13) and is later acc us edby his olde r bro ther of hav ing cav orte d with ha r lot s (v. 30) . Butdes pi te h is sins, hav ing rep ented he is to be received with jo y (vv.

24, 32) . The natural inference from what is said of the prodigal andwhat is said of Jesus is that the latter 's association with sinners waspart of the resto rat ion of Israel . Jesu s sou ght to rec laim sin ne rsand enjoined the r ighteous to receive them. The kingdom of God,then, entai led a cal l to repentance and a ready acceptance of the peni-tent into ful l par t icipat ion, even celebrat ion, in the new community.

7. Jesus engaged in a controversy about the Temple. Th is cont ro-versy centered on cr i t icism of the rul ing pr iests.3 9 This is consistent

3 7 Kee , Jesus : a Glut ton and Dru nkard , 329.3 8 Eve n the Jes us Se min ar acce pts this para ble as prob ably authe ntic; cf . R.

W. Funk and R. W. Hoover ( eds . ) , The Five Gospels: The Search for theAuthentic Wo rds of Jesus (Sono ma : Po lebr idge P ress ; New York : M acm i l l an ,1993) 356-57.

3 9 In no sense did Jesus cri t icize the practice of sacrif ice or the ext ern als ofJudaism. This kind of interpretat ion derives from Christ ian apologetic and polemic,not from exegesis and history. The principal pericopes that underscore controversy



with Jesus ' being a rabbi , for on occasion rabbis did this sor t ofth ing .4 0 I t is consistent with his role as prophet, for the later prophetJesus son of Ananias d id something s imi lar.4 1 I t is also consistentwi th Jesus ' concern for the fa te of I srael , for i f Temple pol i ty i sdefect ive, Israel ' s restorat ion wil l be postponed.

The appeal to Isa 56:7 is highly signif icant and should not bedismissed as a Christ ian invention, ei ther to def lect charges that Jesuswas a t tacking the Temple or to f ind some scr ip tura l warrant toju st i fy his act ions. Th e saying , m y hou se shall be a ho use of pra yerfor the na t ion s (M ark 11:17), cann ot easi ly be exp laine d as der ivingf rom the ea r ly Church .4 2 Why would ear ly Chr is t ians wish to c la imthe Temple as the house of prayer for the nat ions? Would not such aview stand in tension with the Church? The assumption of Christ ian

between Jesus and the ruling priests are Mark 11:15-18, 27-33; 12:1-12, 38-40,41- 44; 14:53-52, 53-65; 15:1 , 1 1 ,31 -32 .

4 0 Pha risees incite the crow d to pelt Alex ande r Jann aeus befo re he could of fe rsac r i f i ce ( Josephus , Ant. 13 .13 .5 §372 -373 ) ; rabbis enco urag e you ths to da ma gean eagle H erod had moun ted over a Te mp le ga te (Josep hus , J.W. 1 .33 .2 -4 §648-655) ; and Rabbi Simeon ben Gamal ie l pro tes ts the overcharge for doves (m. Ker.1:7). On these incidents and their potential relevance for understanding the actionsof Jesus in the Temple prec incts , see B. D. Chi l ton , The Temple of Jesus: HisSacrificial Program within a Cultural H istory of Sacrifice (Un iversi ty Park: PennState Press, 1992) 100-111.

4 1 Jesus son of An anias cr ied out wo rds apparen t ly based on Jer 7 :34 , was

cuffed by some of the inhabi tants of Jerusa lem, was t rea ted sympathet ica l ly byothers , and f ina l ly was hauled in before the Roman governor. Af ter in ter rogat ion ,which included the infamous Roman scourging, the hapless Jesus was released, thegov erno r having d ecided he was nothing m ore than a harm less lunatic (cf . Jose phu s,J.W. 6 .5 .3 §300-309) .

4 2 Co nsis tent with their assu mp tion that Cita t ions of scrip ture are usua lly asign of the interpretive voice of the evangelist or the early Christ ian community,the Jesus Seminar th inks Mark 11:17 does not der ive f rom Jesus ; c f . Funk and

Hoover (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 97-9 8. In his recent work , J . Be cke r Jesus vonNazaret [de Gr uyte r Le hrb uch ; Berl in and Ne w Yo rk: de Gru yter, 1996] 40 8; ET:Jesus of Nazareth [Berl in and New York : de Gru yter, 1998] 332 ) also opin es thatthe al lusions to Isaiah and Jeremiah are the work of the evangelist . He concludesthis for two reasons: (1) The Old Testament quotations are recalled to explain thescene; and (2) the quotations are septuagintal. On the contrary, the quotations hardlyof fe r an expla nation that wo uld serve Christ ian interests or clarif y Ch rist ian ideas,whi le aff i l ia t ion wi th the LXX proves nothing, g iven the complexi t ies of Hebrew,Greek, and Aramaic biblical texts in the pre-70 period (as at tested by the Dead SeaScrolls). Besides, the LXX in this case is a literal translation of the (proto-) MT.



origin becomes even more problematic , i f Mark 's Gospel was notpublished until after the destruction of the Temple in 70. It is betterto understand the saying as originating with Jesus, for it is consistentwith h is resto rative theo logy , as the fuller con text of the pro ph eticoracle suggests. Isaiah 56:1-8 consti tutes an oracle that looks forwardto the day when all the peoples of the world will come to Jerusalem.Jesus' appeal to this oracle, which forms the scriptural presupposi-t ion for his complaint against Temple poli ty, is consistent with hisproclamation of the appearance of the kingdom. The kingdom is athand, Temple poli ty should reflect i t .43

The general historici ty of the Temple controversy is corroboratedin an impo rtant way in Josep hus. Ac cord ing to him, Pilate co nd em ne dJesu s to death upo n hearing him accused by the first me n amo ng u s[τω ν π ρ ώ τω ν α νδρ ώ ν π α ρ ' ή μ ΐν ]{Ant. 18.3.3 §64). W ho are thesef i rs t men among us ? The most probable candidates are Jerusalem's

ru l ing pr ies t s and associa tes . F i rs t -cen tury usage suppor ts th i ssuggestion. The author of Luke-Acts refers to Israel 's leaders as the

first of the peo ple : An d he wa s teaching daily in the Te m ple . T hechief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people [01π ρ ώ τοι του λα ού] were seeking to destroy him (Lu ke 19:47). Lu kelinks these firs t ones with the ruling priests and the scribe s. T w oadd itional exa m ple s in Acts shou ld be cited: An d the chief pries tsand the pr incipal men of the Jew s [ο ί π ρ ώ το ι τώ ν Ιο υ δ α ίω ν ]inf orm ed h im ( i. e. Go vern or Fes tus) agains t Pau l (Acts 25 :2 ) ;

After three days (Paul) called together the principal men of theJews [τους ο ντα? τώ ν Ιου δα ίω ν πρώ τους] (Acts 28:17 ). Ex am ple sfr om Jos eph us are inst ruct ive: Th ere cam e to (Ezra) cer tain m enwho accused some of the common people as wel l as Levi tes andpriests of having violated the constitution and broken the laws of thecountry . . . No sooner did he hear this than he rent his clothes forgrief . . . because the first men among the people [τους• π ρ ώ του ? το υλαού] were guil ty of this charge{Ant. 11.5.3 §140-141). Here, the

firs t m en are sy no ny m ou s with the Le vites and priests. In a textcloser to the one that concerns us, Josephus descr ibes Vitel l ius '

4 3 For the details of this line of interpretation, see C. A. Eva ns, Fro m 'H ou seof Prayer ' to 'Cave of Robbers ' : Jesus ' Prophet ic Cr i t ic ism of the TempleEsta blish m ent, in C. A. Evan s and S. Talm on (eds.) , The Quest for Context andMean ing: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (BIS 28;Leiden: Bril l, 199 7)41 7-42 .



m ov em en t against Are tas: Sinc e he had star ted to lead his armythrough the land of Judea, the Jews of the highest standing [av8pes01 π ρ ώ τοι] w ent to me et him and entreated him not to m arch thro ughtheir land. For, they said, i t was contrary to their tradit ion to al lowimag es . . . to be brought upon their soi lAnt. 18.5.3 §12 1). T he sef i rs t m en w ho are conce rned that Rom an icons not be al lowed to

pass through Judea were in all probability religious leaders. Vitelliusacc om m od ated the ir wishes . Acc ord ing ly, the f i r s t m en of theTestimonium Flavianum shou ld be und erstood as ruling priests andtheir associates. If this is correct , then we have in Josephus animpor tan t po in t o f agreement wi th the New Testament Gospels ,which tel l us that the ruling priests had Jesus arrested and handedover to Pilate.

8. Jesus ate a final meal with his disciples. In this m eal Jes us sp ok eof not drin kin g wine unti l that da y wh en he drin ks it new in thekingdom of God, a passage mentioned above. We now consider i t inits own right. Mark 14:22-25 reads:

22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, andgav e it to them , and said, Ta ke; this is my bod y. 23 An d he took a cu p,and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.24 And he said to them , Th is is my blood of the cov en ant, wh ich is pou redout for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit ofthe vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Jesus' anticipation that he will not drink wine again until he drinks

it in the kingdom of God clearly attests an expectation of Israel 'srestoration. The authentici ty of the statement is virtually guaranteedby the extreme improbabil i ty that the Markan evangelist or tradentsthat prec eded him , deca des afte r Jes us ' death, wo uld create a sayin gwh ose fu lf i l lm ent seemed pro blematic . The Paul ine version, which issome twenty years earl ier than the Markan version, does not retainthis part of the tradition. Its absence may have been the result of deli-bera te om ission . The material should be ju dg ed as largely authe ntic.Ho we ver, the Jesus Sem inar does not agree, for m ost Fel lows w ereconvinced that the supper tradit ion has been so overlaid with Chris-t ianizing elements and interpretation that i t is impossible to recoveranything of an original event, much less any of the original wordsspoken by Jesus.4 4 This judgment is too skeptical , for the words are

4 4 Funk and Ho over (eds.) , The Five Gospels, 18. Je su s' w ord s in M ark14:22b, 24b -25 are rated as gray , which expre sses grave reservations.



at tested in Paul , though admit tedly in a somewhat d ifferent form.Ac co rdin g to 1 Co r 11:23-25:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the LordJesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he hadgiven tha nks, he broke it, and said, This is my body w hich is for you . D othis in rem em bra nce of m e. 25 In the sam e way also the cup , after suppe r,say ing , Th is cu p is the new cove nan t in my bloo d. D o this, as oft en as youdrink it, in remembrance of me.

Paul 's form of the tradit ion underscores the memorial aspect of thew ord s of insti tution, a feature totally absent fro m the M ark an ver sion .This is important to note. The memorializing of the words of theLast Supper shifts the emphasis away from Jesus' anticipation of theimminent fu l lness of the kingdom, which his reference to dr inkingwine surely implies . Mark 's form is pr imit ive, the Paul ine form—attested in Luke 22:19—is secondary.

Je su s' exp ectation to drink wine an ew (κ α ινόν) in the kin gd omanticip ates not only the restoration of Israel, a kin gd om of G o d in

which the reign of God is felt throughout the nation and the world,4 5

but it also anticip ates an active adm inistr ative role for hims elf an d hisdisciples. The Q saying about the twelve si t t ing on thrones judgingthe twelve tr ibes of Israel , as well as the Markan saying about thedisciples not administering Israel the way the Genti les and mightymen of the world lord it over others, is part of this kingdom hope.Both of these sayings require some attention.

The Q Saying about the Twelve Judging the Twelve Tribes reads:Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on hisglorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones,judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt 19:28)

28 You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 and I assignto you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat anddrink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelvetribes of Israel. (Luke 22:28-30)

The Markan saying about Serving One Another reads:

42 You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord itover them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 But it shallnot be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your

4 5 For mo re on this ma tter, see B. Ch ilton, R eg nu m Dei De us Est,SJT 31(1978 ) 261 -70; idem, The Kin gdom of Go d in Recent Dis cus sion , in Chilton andEvans (eds.) , Studying the Historical Jesus, 255-80.



servant, 44 and whoever would be f irst among you must be slave of al l . 45For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give hisl ife as a ransom fo r ma ny. (M ark 10:42-45)

I have argued elsewhere that these mater ials may have been l inked inJesus' teaching, part of i t perhaps in a form something like this:

Th e sons of Ze be de e said to him , Gr ant us to si t , one at yo ur r ight handand one at you r left , in you r glo ry. But Jesu s said to them , Y ou do notknow what you are asking. To sit at my right hand or at my left is not mineto grant , but i t is for those for whom it has been prepared. Truly I say toyou , wh en I s it on my g lo r ious th rone , you who ha ve fo l low ed [or

continued with] me will also si t on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tr ibesof Is rae l . 4 6

The hope for the ful l manifestat ion of the kingdom of God, whichbrings with it Israel 's restoration, entails a shaking up of the polit icaland economic s t ructures of I srael . Old adminis t ra tors must go (asseen in the Parable of the Wicked Vineyard Tenants) , ser ious socialand rel igious wrongs must be set r ight (as seen in the warning about

the scr ibes who plunder widows, as seen in the widow's last mite) ,and ne w adm inistrator s, w ho do the wil l of G od (M ark 3:35) , mu stassume posi t ions of leadership (as seen in the Markan and Q sayings) .

In his f inal meal with his disciples, which left an indelible imprinton the col lect ive memory of his ear l iest fol lowers, Jesus spoke of theco m ing of the king dom and of blood of the co ve na nt . H ow ev er thatlast phrase was or iginal ly intended,4 7 it is very pro ba bly part of Je su s'hope for Israel ' s restorat ion. Dom Crossan is r ight to say that the

4 6 C. A. Ev ans, Th e Tw elve Th ron es of Israel: Scripture and Poli t ics in Lu ke22: 24 -30 , in Chi l ton and Eva ns , Jesus in Context, 47 3 n. 46. For arg um en ts insupport of the authenticity of these materials, see pp. 470-73 and notes.

4 7 On i ts me an ing as an al tern ative to the she dd ing of anim al blood in theTemple prec incts , see Chi l ton , The Temple of Jesus, 152-54; idem , Th e Puri ty ofthe Kin gdo m as Co nvey ed in Jesu s ' M eals , in E. H. Lo ver ing , J r. (ed .), Society

of Biblical L iterature 1992 Seminar Papers (SB LS P 31; At lanta : Scho lars Press ,1992) 473-88, esp. 487-88. Chil ton 's interpretat ion has been accepted by B. Lang,Th e Roots of the Euch ar is t in Jesu s ' Pr axis , in Lover ing , J r. (ed .) , Society of

Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers, 467-72. Whether we accept the tradit ionalin terpre ta t ion tha t Jesus saw the cup and bread as in some way s ignify ing h isanticipated death, or we accept Chil ton 's proposal that the elements were meant assubstitutes to the body and blood of the animal of sacrifice (i.e. better to eat breadand drink wine in puri ty than to slaughter an animal inappropriately acquired andoffered), we are st i l l lef t with the impression that Jesus envisioned, indeed hadcalled for national renewal and with it a higher form of purity.



Last Su pp er cam e to be rem em bere d as such beca use it wa s in factthe last supper shared by Jesus and his disciples,4 8 but this does nottake away from the probable fact that Jesus spoke of covenant andthe kingdom of God.

Although the final meal became theologized, insti tutionalized, andtaken up in the liturgy of the early Church, the fact that it stood outin the Church's memory and that statements about a covenant and avow not to drink wine until it could be drunk in the kingdom of Godwere part ly remembered attest to i ts importance and provide us witha context, in the light of which other sayings (and activities) may bebetter interpreted.

9. Jesus was crucified as king of the Jews outside Jerusalem bythe Roman authorities. The exe cutio n of Jesu s by the R om an s as όβ α σ ιλεύς· τώ ν ' Ιο υ δα ίω ν (M ark 15:26 parr. ) i s one of the s inglemost important data we have. In Latin the inscription probably readsometh ing l ike IESUS NAZARENUS REX IUDAEORUM, while theHebrew may have read 49. Dav id C at ch po le doub ts the

historicity of the titulus suspecting that i t has been drawn from theearlier material in Mark 15.50 But Mark wishes to portray Jesus asthe C hr ist , the son of G od , not as the king of the Je w s. T heRoman Senate, and later emperor Augustus, recognized Herod theGr eat as k in g of the Je w s, or k ing of Ju de a (Jos eph us, Ant.

14.1.3 §9: Η ρώ δη . . . βα σ ιλεΐ τώ ν Ίο υδ ίω ν; 14.11.4 §280: β α σ ιλέατη s ' Ι ο υ δ α ί α ς 4 0 9 § 15.11.4 ; : ό τώ ν ' Ιου δα ίω ν βασ

cf . J.W. 1 .14.4 §28 2-28 5; Ant. 14.14.4 §28 2-28 5). On ly R om an s callJesu s king of the Jews.51 In contrast, the mocking priests call Jesusking of Israel (vv. 31-32) . Chris t ians, how ever, regarded Jesus as

4 8 J . D. Cros san, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean JewishPeasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991) 361.

4 9 Th e trilingual tradition of the titulus rests only on John 19:20.5 0

D. R. Ca tchp ole, Th e 'Tr ium ph al ' En try, in E. Ba mm el and C. F. D.Moule (eds.) , Jesus and the Politics of His Day (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1984) 319-34, esp. 328. W. Bousset ( .Kyrios Christos [Gö t t ingen : Van den-hoeck & Ruprecht , 1913] 56) v iewed the titulus as unhis tor ica l , an erba ul ich eBe trach tung der g läubigen Jesu sge me inde . But in what sense could the titulus,wh ich for ear ly Ch r is t ians inadequate ly descr ibe d Jesus , serve as an ed ify ingmeditat ion ?

5 1 See a lso Ant. 15 .10 .5 §373, whe re an Ess ene gree ts the youn g Hero d asβα σ ιλέα 'Ιου δα ίω ν. Altho ugh the Essene is Jew ish, the prophe tic greeting co nv eysthe Roman epithet, not a religious, Jewish one.



the M ess iah , the son of Go d, and never cal l him king of the Jew s.In view of these co nsid erat io ns I hav e to agree w ith the m ajo ri ty of

scho la r s who accep t the titulus and i ts w ord ing as histo r ica l an dgen u i n e .5 2

T h e titulus ac cor din gly g ives us a grea t deal of insight into thenature of Jesus ' ac t iv i t ies and how his contemporar ies apparent lyviewed him. I f Jesus was in fact executed as a royal claimant , thenwe probably should regard the entry, in which Jesus is mounted onthe anim al (eviden tly as a con scio us ena ctm en t of Ze ch 9:9) , as alsohistor ical . For i t would have been a symbolic act such as this thatwould have contr ibuted to the growing bel ief that Jesus was in somesense a k ing. Jes us ' execut ion as k ing of the Jew s, mo reov er, maysuggest that the woman 's anoint ing of Jesus in Mark 14:3-9 was amessianic anoint ing, only later understood in the l ight of Easter as apreparat ion for burial . Other t radi t ions, such as the cry of bl ind sonof Tim ae us, in wh ich he addre sses Jesus as Son of D av id (M ark10:47-48) , also receive a measure of corroborat ion.

Th e cru cif ix ion of Jesus as king of the Je w s, there fore , ser iouslyweakens at tempts to interpret Jesus in non-messianic ways. The JesusSe m in ar ' s por t ra i t of Jesus m ore in terms of a Cy nic ph i loso ph erstumbles on the nature of Jesus ' death. At most a pest , nei ther Jewishnor Roman author i t ies would have paid much a t tent ion to h im. Agood bea t ing , pe rhaps impr i sonment , would have been more thansuff i c i en t . Exec u t ion , howe ver— and an execu t ion by c ruc i f ix ion a t

that—cal ls for a much bet ter explanat ion of the nature of Jesus 'words and act iv i t ies . When we not ice that the substance of h ism essa ge cen te re d on the k in gd om of G od , we may jus t i f i ab lysusp ect that his exe cutio n of the king of the Je w s w as related andthat this correlation surely points to a messianic agenda of some sort .

10. After his death Jesus' followers continued as an identifiable

5 2 G. Schn eider, Th e Pol i tica l Ch arge , in Bam mel and M oule (eds .) , Jesusand the Politics of His Day, 403-14. On p. 403 Schneider comments that the titulusi s h is tor ica l ly unim pea cha ble . Other suppor ters for the h is tor ic i ty of the titulusinc lude J . Wel lhausen, Das Evangelium Marci (Berl in: G. Re ime r, 1909) 130 -31;P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (S tud ia Juda ica : Forschungen zu r Wiss ensc haf tdes Ju de ntu m s 1; Ber l in : de Gr uyte r, 1961) 108; E. Din kier, Signum Crucis(Tüb ingen: M ohr [Siebeck], 1967) 306; E. Ba mm el , Th e titulus, in Ba m me l andMo u l e ( e d s . ) , Jesus and the Politics of His Day, 353-64. On p . 363 Bammel

con clud es tha t the wo rding of the titulus as it is rep orte d in the Go sp els is in alll ikelihood authentic .



movem ent and were called Christians because of their belief thatJesus was the Christ, the Messiah of Israel. The widespread under-s tanding of Jesus as I srae l ' s M essiah , and therefore G od 's So n ( inkeeping with Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7—all par t of the Davidic royalt r ad i t ion) , s t rong ly r ecom m end s a me ss ian ic e l ement tha t r each esback to the per iod of Jesus ' minis t ry. I f nothing messianic waspresent in Jesus ' ministry, i f only pr imari ly implici t , this widespreadmessianic understanding of Jesus is hard to explain. After al l , thereappears to have been no competing interpretat ions of Jesus among hisfol lowers, that is , some messianic and others non-messianic.

The force of this point seems lost on many who claim that therecogni t ion of Jesus as Messiah or ig inated only in the post -Easterset t ing. Had there been no m essian ic elem ent in Je su s ' teac hin g oractivity, at least nothing discernible to his following, then it is veryhard to under s tand where pos t -Eas te r Mess ian i sm came f rom. Theresur rec t ion a lone canno t accoun t fo r th i s widespread be l i e f , fo rthere is no pre-Christ ian messianic t radi t ion that viewed resurrect ion

as in some way evidence of a person's messianic ident i ty. The ear lyChurch, i t should be remembered, usual ly found the proclamation ofJe su s ' r esu r rec t ion an insuf f i c i en t apo loge t i c in Jew ish se t t ings .Alone , the r esur rec t ion o f Jesus cou ld no t compensa te fo r theenormity of the problem of his reject ion by the rul ing pr iests, hisostensib le defeat a t the hands of the Roman author i t ies , and hissh am ef u l exec u t ion . The M ess iah was to r em ain fo re ve r ( John

12:34).Al though due a l lowance must be made for i t s obvious apologet icslant , the quest ion with which Just in Martyr credi ts Trypho the Jewvery l ike ly approx imates the misg iv ings many Jews would haveenter tained when hearing Christ ian claims:

Th en Try ph o rem arked , Be assured that all our nation awaits the Me ssiah ;and we admit that al l the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to him.Moreover, I also admit that the name of Jesus by which the son of Nun wascalled, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But we are in doubtabout whether the Messiah should be so shameful ly cruci f ied . For whoeveris crucified is said in the Law to be accursed, so that I am very skeptical onthis point. It is quite clear, to be sure, that the Scriptures announce that theMessiah had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whetherby suffe r ing he was curse d . (Dialogue with Typho 89.1 )

Le ad us on, then , [Try pho] said, by the Scriptur es, that we ma y also bepers uad ed by you; for we kno w that he should s uf fer and be led as a sheep .





4. Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God.5. Jesus cured some sick people.6. Jesus drove out what were thought to be demons.

7. Jesus enjoyed a certain amount of populari ty in Gali lee and surroundingr e g i o n s .5 5 (pp. 61, 66-67, 171)

Other incidents recorded in the New Testament Gospels regardedby the Seminar as probable include Jesus ' bapt ism by John, h isasso cia t ion wi th s inn ers , for wh ich he was cr i t ic ized, h is use ofparables, plucking and eat ing grain on the Sabbath, scr ibal cr i t icismfor a l lowing his d isc ip les to ea t wi th unwashed hands, h is being

accused of being demon empowered, h is negat ive recept ion in h isho m e t o wn , h i s d r i v i ng ou t vendo r s i n t he Tem p l e p r ec i n c t s ,deser t ion by his d isc ip les , h is being handed over to Pi la te , whof logged him and had him cruci f ied . The Seminar bel ieves that thehear ing before the Jewish Counci l and the t r ia l before Pi la te arepropaganda, not histor ical . Indeed, with the regard to the lat ter, theSe m in ar state s: I t is not jus t the co nte nt of the tr ial but the fac t of a

t r ia l that lacks h is tor ica l foundat ion.5 6

Accord ing ly, the Seminardoes think Jesus was brought before the High Priest .57

What is therefore absent in the Seminar 's f indings is the quest ionthat C aia ph as the High Priest put to Jesu s: A re you the M ess iah , theson of the Ble sse d? as well as the detail that Jes us wa s cr uc ifie d as

kin g of the Je w s (M ark 14:61; 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26) .58 The ev idencefor the histor ici ty of both of these elements is st rong, especial ly forthe la t ter, which in turn lends impor tant suppor t to the former.These two detai ls also receive important support , as already noted,from the facts that before his death Jesus proclaimed the kingdom ofG od , and af ter h is death h is d isc ip les pro cla im ed h im to be theMessiah, the king of Israel . Logic strongly suggests that a messianice le m en t was p resen t in Je su s ' t ea ch in g and ac t iv i t i e s , if on lyimplicitly, and that this best accounts for this development.

W ha t is absent in the Sem ina r ' s work is a conv incing exp lanat ionof what led to Jesus ' death. Key elements in the Temple controversyare discounted, as well as Jesus ' appearance before the High Priest .

5 5 Funk (ed .) , The Acts of Jesus, 61 , 66-6 7, 171. See the con ven ient sum -mary of five points on p. 171 ( These observations are almost certainly historical. )

5 6 Funk (ed.) , The Acts of Jesus, 152.5 7 See Funk (ed.) , The Acts of Jesus, 146, wh ere M ark 14:53 is rated pi nk .5 8 See Fun k (ed.) , The Acts of Jesus, 146-48. M ost of this ma terial is rate d

black.



Th e Se m in ar ' s por t ra i t of Jesu s as a teac her (but not m es sia niccla imant) i s insuff ic ient to account for what happened to Jesus and

the ideas h is fo l lowing enter ta ined in the af termath . One remembersSanders ' s apprecia t ion of one impor tant aspect of the work of thel a t e Mor t on S m i t h .5 9 S and ers desc r ibes it as a ser iou s ef fo r t toexp la in h i s to r i ca l ly some of the p r inc ipa l puzz les abou t Jesus ,speci f ica l ly why he a t t rac ted a t tent ion , why he was executed , andw hy he wa s subse que ntly deif ied . . . regard ing Jesu s as essent ial ly ateacher does not answer these and related quest ions.6 0

The point is a good one. Much about Jesus ' teaching and act ivi t iescan be inferred from the resul ts . Why was he executed? Why did hisfol lo w ers regard him as Isra el ' s M essiah, despi te wh at by al l acco un tsshou ld have been v iewed as h i s d i squa l i f i ca t ion?6 1 T he we i g h t yre levance of these quest ions does not seem to have been adequate lyappreciated by the Jesus Seminar.

T h e p r o bab l e f ac t s t ha t hav e b een su r v ey e d ab ov e f o r m a

coherent p ic ture and provide a p lausib le f ramework in to which thesayings of Jesus may be placed. What emerges is a man whose publicl i fe be ga n in asso ciat ion with and app aren t support of the b ap tizingminis t ry of John. We immediate ly suspect an agenda of nat ionalr es to ra t ion . Co ns i s t en t wi th th is susp ic ion is Jes us ' sub seq ue n tproclamation of the kingdom of God, a proclamation that appears tobe an A ram aic in terpre ta t ion of Secon d Isa ia h ' s goo d ne w s. Th isobservat ion adds fur ther support to the idea of nat ional restorat ion,for Second Isa iah procla ims the coming new exodus. Again , consis-tent with this them e Jesus cal ls disciples and speak s of tw elv e. T hetwelve surely represent the twelve t r ibes of Israel . Jesus ' focus onIsrael is supported when we observe that he confined his act ivi ty toIsrael . His heal ings and especial ly his exorcisms were understood by

5 9 M. Smith , Jesus the Magician (San Franc isco: Harper & Ro w, 1978).6 0

Sanders , Jesus and Judaism, 7.6 1 See a lso R. M organ , N o n Angli sed Angeli: Some Angl ican React ions to

Ge rm an Gos pel Cr i t ic ism , in S . Syk es and D. Ho lme s (eds .) , New Studies inTheology I (Lon don : Du ckw or th , 1980) 1 -30 ; idem, Gü n the r Bo rnk am m inEn glan d, in D. Lührm ann and G. St recker (eds .) , Kirche: Festschrift für GüntherBornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag (Tüb ingen : M ohr [S iebeck] , 1980) 491 -50 6 .Morgan rightly calls at tention to the significance of the results of Jesus ' ministryand death . From the resul ts we may infer som e genera l th ings about what Jesus

did . The approach taken by A. E. Harvey 's Jesus and the Constraints of History:The Bam pton Lectures, 1980 (London: Duckworth, 1982) is s imilar.



Jesus as evidence of the powerful presence of the k ingdom of Godand the beginning of the demise of Satan. His exorcisms, in somesen se a r esc ue opera t ion , '1 i s consis tent wi th h is minis t ry ofreclam at ion, as seen in associa t ion wi th s inn ers and other Jew ishpeople who were marginal ized.

When Jesus takes h is program to Jerusalem he encounters ser iousopposi t ion from the rul ing pr iests. Jesus demonstrates in the Templepre cinc ts , evide nt ly as par t of a cr i t ic i sm leveled a gainst T em pl epoli ty. Th is act ion prov oke s fur th er an tago nism , which in turn lead sto threats about the loss of the rul ing pr iests ' hegemony. In his f inalmeal with his disciples, which may have been a Passover meal (whichagain would be consis tent wi th Second Isa iah ' s promise of a newexodus), Jesus vows that he will not drink wine again until he drinksit ne w in the k ingd om of Go d. His subse quen t ar res t and cruc i f i -x ion as k in g of the Je w s co nf i rm the m essia nic and nat io nale le m en t in h is minis t ry. This belief is fur the r co nf i rm ed w hen hisdisc ip les , upon hear ing about and in many cases personal ly exper i -

encing the resur rected Jesus , wi th conf idence procla im thei r masteras Israel ' s Messiah.

Critical research of the life and teaching of Jesus should take intoacco unt th is f r a m ew or k , o r p rov ide com pel l ing r easo ns fo r wh yJesus should be interpreted outside of i t . The essays that make up thebalance of the present volume are devoted to these issues and operatef r o m as su m pt i on s that are for the most par t i l lus t ra t iv e of the

general overview taken here. We hope to br ing to the fore the moreconvinc ing par t s o f the Th i rd Ques t , whi le c r i t i c i z ing dub iousassumpt ions and implaus ib le conc lus ions . We proceed on the as -sum ptio n that authe ntica ting the activities of Jesu s is jus t as im po rtan tas authenticat ing his words.





C A N T H E T H I R D Q U E S T H O P E TO S U C C E E D ?

James D. G. Dunn

I

In h is inf luent ia l and s igni f icant s tudy, A New Quest of theHistorical Jesus, James M. Robinson ent i t led his second chapter "The

Imposs ib i l i ty and I l l eg i t imacy o f the Or ig ina l Ques t . "1

I t wasimpossible bec aus e "the Go spels are pr im ary sources for the historyof the ear ly Ch urc h, and only secon dari ly sourc es for the history ofJesus"; " the twent ie th century presupposes the kerygmat ic nature ofthe Gospels, and feels real ly confident in asser t ing the histor ici ty ofits details only where their origin cannot be explained in terms of thel i fe of the Church." I t was illegitimate bec aus e such h i s to r i ca linqui ry runs counter to fa i th : "whereas the kerygma cal l s for exis-tent ial commitment to the meaning of Jesus, the or iginal quest was anat tempt to avoid the r isk of fai th by supplying object ively ver if iedproof for i ts ' fa i th . '"2

These two words, " impossib le ," " i l legi t imate ," sum up the fa i lureof the 19th century quest, or at least the reasons for that failure whenRudolf Bul tmann colossus- l ike s t i l l best rode the nar row wor ld ofNew Testament scholarship . To the two key quest ions , the answerwas a r esounding nega t ive . Can the 20th century scholar hope topenetrate back into the historical reality of Jesus in the early 30s ofthe co m m on era? "No Not wi th any con f iden ce; there are too ma nylayers of post-Easter ref lect ion and tradi t ion intervening," came thereply. Does the 20th century bel iever need to penetrate back to thehistor ical Jesus? Eq ually cam e the reply, "N o On the con trary, fai thwhich seeks to undergird i tself by history destroys i tself ." The same

two quest ions cannot be ignored, otherwise they wil l return to hauntany ren ew ed in teres t in the l i fe of Jesus . The sam e two w ord s," impossib le ," " i l legi t imate ," remain in p lace to bedevi l any a t temptto revive the quest and to close off the way back to Jesus with the

1 J . M. Rob inson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (SBT 25 ; Lon don :SCM Press, 1959) 26-47.

2

Ro b i n s o n , New Quest, 35, 37-38, 44.



s ign, "No Through Road."I t is t rue, of course, that the so-cal led "New Quest" provided what

most probably regard as an effect ive answer to the " i l legi t imacy"charge. Fai th may proper ly look to h is tory for information a sd i s t inc t f rom legitimation. S i n ce t he Go sp e l s a r e t hem se l v eskerygma, the kerygma val idates in teres t in the "What" of Jesus ' l i feas wel l as the "That ." To make fa i th depend on the mathemat icalpo in t o f Jesus ' c ruc i f ix ion3 is to encourage and invi te fai th in adocet ic or mythical Chr is t .4 And the argument could be re inforcedby observing the importance of the incarnat ion in Christ ian theology.An incarnat ional theology places incalculable weight on the thir ty orso years of Jesus' l ife, and particularly on the first three years of the30 s .5 The claim is that in Jesus ' l i fe , in that ministry, God revealedhimsel f more fu l ly and def in i t ively than ever before or s ince . Thereve la to ry s ign i f i cance o f tha t l i f e makes i t i nconce ivab le tha tCh r i s t i a n th eo log y sho u ld d i s re gar d tha t l if e o r r eg ard i t a sinconsequent ia l i f nothing i s to be known of that l i fe . On the

contrary, knowledge of that l i fe , or at least of Jesus ' ministry, inwhich the signif icance of his l i fe comes to focus, is essent ial i f therevelat ion of the incarnat ion is to have any content beyond the mere"Tha t . "

At the same t ime as the road-block of " i l legi t imacy" has beenl a rg e l y d i sm an t l ed ,6 however, the road-b lock o f " imposs ib i l i ty"seems to have been s t rengthened ra ther than weakened. I t was put

back in p lace by the fa i lure of the second or "new quest ." Thatbecame bogged down in unending debate over par t icular texts and in

3 Th e wor ds of S . Kierkegaa rd have of ten been referred to : "I f the con tem -pora ry gene ration (of Jesu s) had left nothing beh ind them but these word s: 'W ehave believed that in such and such a year the God appeared among us in thehumble form of a servant, that he l ived and taught in our community, and f inallydied, ' i t would be more than enough" (Philos oph ical Fragments [21962] 130).

4

Th is was the principal argum ent in the fam ou s essay of E. Kä sem ann , "D asProblem des h is tor ischen Jesus ," ZTK 51 (195 4) 125-53; ET: "T he Pro blem of theHis tor ica l Jesus ," in Essays on New Testament Themes (SBT 41 ; Lon don : SC MPress; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964) 15-47.

5 On the normal dating for Jesu s ' ministry.6 But note the prote st of L. T. Jo hns on, The Real Jesus (San Franc i sco :

HarperColl ins, 1996) 81-166, in which he echoes the earl ier protest of M. Kahler,Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus(Leipzig: A. Deichert , 1892; 2nd ed., 1896; repr. , 1956); ET: The So-CalledHistorical Jesus and the Historie B iblical C hrist (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964).



u n r e so l v e d d i spu t e s r ega r d i n g c r it e r i a f o r r ecog n i z i ng au t h e n t i cwords of Jesus .7 And the road-block was massively re inforced by thegrowing sense of cr i s i s regarding the h is tor ica l method i t se l f .8 T heless object ive meaning there was to be found in a text , the lesscont rol there could be on the meanings read f rom such texts , themore in tang ib le became the h i s to r i ca l Jesus , the more f rus t r a t ingbecame any quest . No wonder so many have turned thei r a t tent ion toredac t ion c r i t i c i sm, to r econs t ruc t ing the soc ia l con tex t s o f theGospels , or to a nar ra t ive cr i t ic i sm which concerns i t se l f wi th theworld of the text rather than the histor ical real i ty of i ts characters.

The fact that the second quest has enjoyed a recent f lowering in thepor t r ay a l o f a Jesus d rap ed in Cy nic c lo thes , based on du b io uspresupposi t ions regarding the spread of Cynic phi losophy in Jesus 'ear ly envi ronment , quest ionable analysis and dat ing of sources , andspec ious a rguments which equa te ana logy wi th genea logy,9 s implyunderl ines the severi ty of the cr isis .

In the face of such intractable problems of pr inciple and method,

what hope can any fur ther quest have? Can a th i rd quest hope tosucc eed ? S om ew ha t su r p r is i ng l y, an a f f i r m a t i ve an sw er, ev en astrongly aff i rmative answer can be given. The rest of this paper wil lbe devoted to f leshing out th is conf idence and to arguing that the" imposs ib i l i ty" bar r i cade can be c i r cumvented , even i f no t whol lyr em ov ed .

II

What d is t inguishes the so-cal led " th i rd quest of the h is tor ica lJesus" i s the convic t ion that any a t tempt to bui ld up a h is tor ica lpicture of Jesus of Nazareth must begin from the fact that he was af i r s t ce n tu ry Jew o pe ra t in g in a f i r s t cen tu ry m i l i eu . W e c anconf iden t ly assume tha t Jesus was b rought up as a r e l ig ious Jew.There is no dispute that his ministry was carr ied out within the land

7 See e .g . D. G. A. Calve r t , "An Exam inat ion of the Cr i te r ia for Dis t ing ui-sh ing the Authen t ic Words o f Jesus ," NTS 18 (197 1-72 ) 209-19; J. P. M eier, AMarginal Jew, vol . 1 (A BR L; New York: Do uble day , 1991) 167-95.

8 See e .g . J . Bo wd en, Jesus: T he Unansw ered Questions ( L o n d o n : S C MPress , 1988) .

9 See par t icu lar ly the cr i t iqu e of B. L. M ack , J . D. Cr oss an, and F. G.Downing by N. T. Wr igh t , Jesus and the V ictory of God (London : SPCK; Ph i la -delphia: Fortress, 1996) 28-82.



of Israel . His execution on the charge of being a messianic pretender("king of the Jews") is general ly reckoned to be par t of the bedrockdata in the Gospel t radi t ion . What more natura l , what more inevi -table than to pursue a quest of the histor ical Jesus the Jew?1 0

Su ch a s t a t em en t seem s very ob v io us , bu t i t i s one w hic hgenerat ions of scholarship seem to have res is ted . As the ra t ional i s tpreacher, the ideal man, the teacher of l iberal ethics, so beloved inthe f i rst quest , the histor ical Jesus was not only to be l iberated fromthe d i s to r t ing l ayer s o f subsequen t dogma, bu t he cou ld a l so bepresented as the one who l iberated the quintessent ial spir i t of rel igion

f rom the ou tmoded garb o f Jewish cu l t and myth . The ex i s t en t i a lJesus o f Bul tmann cou ld make the quan tum leap in to the p resen tm o m en t o f encoun t e r w i t hou t an y dep end ence o n h i s h i s t o r i ca lbackground. And the pr incipal cr i ter ion used in the second quest , thecr i ter ion of dissimilar i ty, t r ied to make a vir tue out of what secondquesters perceived as a necessi ty by reconst ruct ing thei r p ic ture ofJesus out of what dist inguished Jesus from his histor ical context and

set him over against his Jewish mil ieu. The older quests, we may say,m ul t ip l ied thei r d i ff icu l t ies by se t t ing out to f ind a Jesu s w ho w assomewhat l ike an isolated island in the south Pacif ic , when al l thet ime he was more l ike a headland on the great land mass of ancientIsrael and second Temple Judaism.

A contr ibutory factor of no l i t t le s igni f icance here i s the s t i l lmount ing react ion , not least in New Testament scholarship , as indeed

in Christ ian scholarship general ly, against the denigrat ion of Judaismwhich has been such a deeply rooted and long-standing feature ofChr i s t i an theo logy. The r epen tance and pen i t ence r equ i red by theHo l o caus t , t hough i n som e c i r cu m s t ances i n d ang e r o f be i ngoverplayed, have s t i l l to be fu l ly worked through a t th is point . Themindset which f igures Judaism as the rel igion of law to be set overagainst Christ iani ty as the gospel , with the chief task being to showhow Jesus belongs with the lat ter rather than the former, st i l l seemsto operate a t a deep subconscious level . And the por t rayal of thePhar isees as archetypal legal i s t s and bigots i s s t i l l popular. Oddlyenough , desp i t e severa l po ten t ea r l i e r con t r ibu t ions on Jesus theJew,1 1 i t was E. P. Sanders 's work on Paul wh ich caused the pen ny to

1 0 Th e case is wel l ma de by W right , Jesus, 83-124.1 1 W e may men t ion par t icular ly J . Jere mia s , New Testament Theology, Vol.

1: The Proclamation of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1971), notable for i ts apprécia-



drop f ina l ly in New Tes tament scho la r sh ip .1 2 I f t radi t ional NewTestament scholarship had misrepresented the Judaism wi th whichPaul had to do, how m uch mo re wa s it nec essa ry for Jesusrelat ionship to his ancestral Judaism to be reassessed. In that sense,S a n d e r s ' Jesus and Judaism ( 1985)1 3 has to be reckoned as the realbeginning of the third quest .

The prospects for the third quest have also been considerably easedby the f resh insights in to the character of second Temple Judaismw hich ha ve co m e to us during the last f i f t y years. He re the disco veryof the Dead Sea Scrol ls has pr ide of place. More than anything else

they have b rok en open the idea o f a m ono l i th ic , m on oc hr om eJudaism, par t icular ly as set over against the dist inct iveness of newlyemerging Christ iani ty. I t has now become possible to envisage Jesus,as also "the sect of the Nazarenes," within the diversity of late secondTemple Judaism in a way which was hardly th inkable before . Thisbreakthrough has been accompanied and re inforced by other impor-t an t dev e lop me nts— par t i cu la r ly the b rea kdo w n of the p rev iou s ly

q u i t e sh a r p d i s t i nc t i on be t ween Ju da i sm an d He l l en i sm ,1 4

therecognit ion that the portrayals of rabbinic Judaism in Mishnah andTalmud cou ld no t s imply be p ro jec ted backwards in to the f i r s tc e n t u r y,1 5 and the renewed interest in the r ich range of apocryphaland pseud epig raph ical Je wish l i tera ture as fur th er tes t imon y to thedivers i ty of second Temple Judaism.1 6 In short, i t is no exaggerationto say that scholarship is in a stronger posi t ion than ever before tosketch in a clearer and sharper picture of Judaism in the land ofIsrael at the time of Jesus.

t ion of Jesus as an Aramaic speaker; G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: Col l ins ,1973) , an o ld-fashioned presenta t ion , but of subt le inf luence; B. F. Meyer, TheAims of Jesus (Lon don: SCM Press , 1979) , wh ose ar ticula tion of herm eneu t ica lissues has been given too l i t t le consideration; J . K. Riches, Jesus and the Trans-formation of Judaism (Lon don: Dar ton , Lo ngm an & To dd, 1980) , which d i dn ' tqu i t e come o ff ; A. E . Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History ( L o n d o n :Duckworth , 1982) , whose t i t le indica tes an impor tant perspect ive only par t ia l lyachieved; and B. Chi l ton , A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible (Lo ndon: SPC K, 1984) ,overly dependent on a particular thesis.

1 2 E. P. Sand ers, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Lon don: SC M Press, 1977).1 3 E. P. Sanders , Jesus and Judaism (Lond on: SC M Press , 1985).1 4 M. Heng el , Judaism and Hellenism (2 vols. , Lo ndo n: SC M Press, 1974).1 5 Th e man y wo rks of J . Neu sner have been part icularly impo rtant here.1 6 See e.g. J . H. Ch arles wo rth (ed.) , The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2

vols ., Lond on: Dar ton , Lon gm an & Tod d; New York: Doubleday, 1983-85).



Not least of importance is the fact that the New Testament docu-ments themselves can and should be counted as par t of the evidencefor the character and diversi ty of f i rst century Jewish l i terature. Paulis the only Phar isee f rom whom we have f i r s t hand documentat ionfrom before 70 CE. And if the let ters of Paul have to be counted asJewish l i tera ture in an impor tant sense , then how much more theGospels. Even if one or more of the Gospels has to be at t r ibuted to aGent i le author, the t radi t ions which they conta in (we need onlyreckon with the Synoptic Gospels at this point) can hardly fai l to beclassif ied as "Jewish."

In shor t , whatever the mot ivat ion behind ear l ier quests of thehistor ical Jesus, everything invi tes and urges the at tempt to see Jesuswithin the context of f i rst century Judaism and to ask both what l ightthe Gospel t radi t ions shed on that Judaism and what l ight thatJudaism sheds on the Jesus t radi t ion.

Ill

I f protes t needs to be lodged against the a t tempt , impl ic i t orexpl ic i t , to begin by dis tancing Jesus f rom his ancest ra l re l ig ion,protest needs equal ly to be lodged against the equivalent at tempt todis tance Jesus f rom the churches which grew up f rom his work. Thislat ter dichotomy has also been a spin-off f rom ear l ier phases of thequest . The or iginal quest began precisely as a react ion against theecclesiastical Christ , the Christ of dogma: back to the historical Jesus,

the real Jesus, was the pr imary motivat ion. In this phase i t could bea rg u ed t ha t on l y by t hus d i s t anc i n g Je su s f r om subsequen tChr is to logy would i t be possib le to rediscover h im. But in thereact ion against the f i rst quest the dist inct ion between histor ical Jesusand Chr i s t o f f a i th was r e ta ined and g iven f r esh emphas i s bykerygmatic theology. And in the second quest the cr i ter ion of doubledissimilar i ty set the dist inct iveness of Jesus over against church as

wel l a s Juda i sm.1 7

Aga in , the mot iva t ion was under s tandab le : thesearch was the old one for an invulnerable base on which to bui ld astrong histor ical portrayal . But in seeking to avoid the Christ ianizedJesus as well as the Jewish Jesus, the method inevitably promoted theidiosyncrat ic Jesus, who could hardly be more than an enigma to Jew

1 7 Th e c leares t exposi t ion was by N. Perr in , Rediscovering the Teaching ofJesus (London: SCM Press ; New York: Harper & Row, 1967) 39-43.



and Christ ian al ike.18

But i f the s tar t ing assumpt ion of a fa i r degree of cont inui tybe twe en Je sus and his nat ive re l ig ion has a pr iori pe rsua sive ne ss ,then i t can hardly make less sense to assume a fa i r degree ofcontinui ty between Jesus and what fol lowed. Here the issue is not somuch that of portraying a Jesus who is "big" enough to explain theext ra ord inary grow th of the Jesus mo vem en t af ter h is death .1 9 It israther the continuity implicit in the self-identity of the first Christianchu rche s . H ere , af ter a l l, were smal l house group s who desig natedthe m se lve s by r e f e re nc e to Jesu s the Ch r i s t , o r Ch r i s t J esu s .

Sociology teaches us that such groups would almost cer tainly requirefounding tradi t ions to explain to themselves as well as to others whythey had formed dis t inct socia l groupings, why they were "Chr is-tia ns ." I t is un likely that a bare kery gm atic fo rm ula like 1 Co r 15:1-8 would provide suff ic ient mater ia l for se l f - ident i f ica t ion . Even theini t iatory myths of the mystery cul ts told a more elaborate story.And stor ies of such diverse f igures as Jeremiah and Diogenes were

preserved by their disciples as part of the legitimation for their owncommitment . Of course , counter examples can be named: we knowvery l i t t le of Qumran's Teacher of Righteousness. On the other hand,the Teacher of Righteousness never gave h is name to the movementhe in i t ia ted , whereas the f i r s t Chr is t ians could only expla in them-selves by reference to him whom they cal led "( the) Christ ."

This a priori logic is supported by the evidence that the passing on

of t radi t ion was par t of church founding from the f i rst . Paul wasca re f u l to r e fe r back to such fo un da t ion t r ad i t ions on severa loc ca sio ns (e.g. 1 C or 11:2; 15:1-3; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6-7; 1 T he ss 4 :1;2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). I t is true that the lack of explicit r e f e re nc e toJesus t radi t ion within the Pauline let ters appears to point in theopposi te direct ion. But , as I have argued elsewhere, there are a fairnumber o f allusions to Jes us ' teaching and beha viour in Pa ul 's let ters,and , more to the point , al lusions are jus t what we w ould expe ct w hen

1 8 For ear ly cr i t ique , see M . D. Ho oker, "Ch r is to logy and Me tho do log y,"NTS 17 (197 0-71 ) 480-8 7.

1 9 Sa nd ers put the point well by refe rring to the seco nd half of "K la us ne r 'stest": a good hypothesis regarding Jesus will explain why the movement initiated byhim eventual ly broke wi th Judaism (Jesus, 18). W rig ht reiterates the point in hisow n term s: e .g . "Jes us m ust be unde rs tood as a com preh ens ib le and yet , so tospeak, c ruci f iable f i rs t -century Jew, whatever the theologica l or hermeneut ica lc o n s e q u e n c e s " (Jesus, 86).



there was a large body of shared tradi t ion to which al lusion could bem ade w i t hou t f u r t he r i den t i f i c a t i o n .2 0 In other words, the let terswere no t themse lves the medium of in i t i a l ins t ruc t ion r egard ingfounding tradi t ions, but were able to draw on and refer back to thesetradi t ions as to something well enough known as par t of their sharedher i ta ge . I f fu r th er co nf i rm at io n is nee ded , it i s pro vide d by theprominence of teachers wi th in the ear l ies t Chr is t ian churches (Acts13:1; R om 12:7; 1 Co r 12:28; Ep h 4:11 ) . Te ach ers, indee d, seem tohave been the f i rst regular ly paid ministry within Christ iani ty (Gal6:6) . Why teachers? Why else than to serve as the congregat ion ' sreposi tory of ora l t radi t ion? What e lse would Chr is t ian teachersteach? A Chr is t ian in terpre ta t ion of the scr ip tures , no doubt . Butalso, we can surely safely assume, the t radi t ions which dist inguishedhouse churches f rom house synagogues or o ther re l ig ious , t rade orburial societies.

There i s a fur ther argument here which needs to be g iven someweight , even though i t has rarely been deployed.2 1 Since the rise of

form cr i t ic i sm i t has been a regular assumpt ion that sayings f i r s tu t tered in the name of Jesus by ear ly Chr is t ian prophets wereincorporated in to the Jesus t radi t ion .2 2 And that this happened in atl eas t some measure seems probab le .2 3 But i f prophetic ut terance isinvoked a t th is point then we a lso have to consider the longestabl i shed recogni t ion that inspi ra t ion could g ive r i se to falseprophecy. The need to test prophecy and to have tests for prophecy

was recognized more or less f rom the beginning of I srael ' s re l ianceo n p r o p h e c y.2 4 And as soon as we begin to read of prophets

2 0 See my "Jesu s Tra dit ion in Pau l," in B. Ch il ton and C. A. Ev an s (eds.) ,Studying the Historical Jesus: E valuations of the State of Current Research ( NTTS19; Le ide n: Brill , 1994) 1 55-78, esp . 176-78.

2 1 In wh a t fo l lo ws I d raw on my "Pro phe t i c T - S a y in g s and the Jesus

Tradit ion: the importance of test ing prophetic utterances within early Christ ianity,"NTS 24 (1977 -78) 175-98.

2 2 T he m ost thor oug h study is that of M . E. Bo ring , Sayings of the RisenJesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition ( S NT S M S 4 6 ; Ca m b r i d g e :Cambridge Univers i ty Press , 1982) .

2 3 A pop ula r and highly plau sible ex am ple is M att 18:20 (see e.g. Bor ing ,Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 214).

2 4 E.g. De ut 13:1-5; 1 Kg s 22:1 -38 ; Isa 28:7; Jer 28:9. Th e ancie nt prov erb ,"Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Sam 10:12; 19:24), reflects an early recogni-tion of the ambiguity of the prophetic experience.



operat ing in the ear l iest churches we f ind the same concern ref lected.Already in what may be the ear l iest wri t ing in the New TestamentPaul counsels: "Do not despise prophecy, but test everything, hold tothe good and avoid every form of evi l" (1 Thess 5:20-22) . And theconcern runs through the New Testament in to the second centurychu r ch es (Did. 11:7-8; 12:1; H erm as, Mand. 11:7, 11, 16): "B el ie v enot ev ery spirit , but test the spirits . . . " (1 John 4:1) .

Once this point has been grasped, i t gives r ise to an importantcorol lary of relevance for present discussion. The corol lary is thatwherever prophecy was act ive in the ear l iest churches i t is l ikely to

hav e been ac co m pa nied by wh at we might ca l l a he rm en eu t ic ofsusp ic ion . The p rophe t i c u t t e rance would no t au tomat ica l ly havebeen assumed to be inspired by the Spirit of Jesus or the words to bewords of ( the exal ted) Chr is t . The awareness that such ut terancesmust be t es t ed seems to have been con t inuous th rough I s rae l ' sprophet ic exper ienc e and into Ch r is t iani ty ' s prophet ic expe r ience .

The next step in the logic is the decisive one. What test would be

applied to such ut terances? One of the consistent answers is in effectthe test of already recognized and establ ished tradi t ion. I t was denialo f o r depar tu re f rom founda t iona l t r ad i t ion which most c l ea r lyat tes ted a fa lse prophecy, which should therefore not be given anycre de nc e (De ut 13:2-3; 1 Co r 12:3; 1 John 4:2-3) .

When this insight is brought to the issue of prophetic ut terancesbecoming incorporated into the Jesus t radi t ion the resul t is qui te far-reaching. For i t means, f i rst , that any prophecy claiming to be fromthe exalted Christ w ould be tested by what was already known to bethe sort of thing Jesus had said. This again implies the existence inm ost chu rc he s of such a ca no n ( the w ord is not ina pp rop riate ) offoundational Jesus t radi t ion. But i t also implies, second, that onlyprophe t i c u t t e rances which cohered wi th that assured fou nda t iona lmater ial were l ikely to have been accepted as sayings of Jesus. Whichmeans, thirdly, that any distinctive saying or motif within the Jes ustradi t ion is l ikely to have come from the or iginal teaching of Jesus,since otherwise, if i t originated as a prophetic utterance, i t is unlikelyto have been accepted as a saying of Jesus by the church in which itwas f i rst ut tered. In other words, we have here emerging an interes-t ing and potent ial ly im porta nt f resh cr i ter ion for rec og niz ing or igi-nal Jesus t radi t ion—a reverse cr i ter ion of coherence: the less c loselya saying or motif coheres with the rest of the Jesus t radi t ion, the

more l ikely is it that the saying or motif goes back to Jes us h im self .



In short, there is quite substantial circumstantial evidence both thatthe f i rst churches would have and actual ly did cherish and refer toJesus t radi t ion, provided for them as foundational t radi t ion by theirfounding apost le(s) , and that they would have been a ler t to thedanger of di lut ing or contaminat ing that vi tal foundational t radi t ionby incorporation into it of material incoherent with it .

r v

All th is a pr ior i reasoning and c i rcumstant ia l evidence i s g iven

immeasurably greater credibi l i ty by the most impor tant fac t of a l l :that we have immediately to hand clear evidence of the sort oftradition these earliest churches possessed and of how they regardedand handled that tradition. I refe r, of cou rse, to the Sy no ptic G os pe lsthemselves.

Here, in the f i rst place, we must take with due ser iousness thestar t ing point of form cr i t icism—that is , the recognit ion that behind

the wr i t ten G osp els ear l ier for m s of the t radi t ion can be c lear lyenough d i scerned , and the assumpt ion tha t these ea r l i e r fo rmsindicate the way in which this tradition was preserved and used in thef irst churches. Despite this, some discussions of Synoptic per icopes att imes almost seem to assume that when a copy of Mark or Matthewor Luke was f i rst received by any church, that was the f i rst t ime thech urc h had heard the Jes us t r ad i t ion con ta ined the re in . H owlud ic ro us In f ac t , i t . i s a lm os t se l f - e v ide n t tha t the Syn opt i s t sp roceeded by ga ther ing and o rder ing Jesus t r ad i t ion which hadalready been in circulat ion, that is , had already been well enoughknown to various churches, for at least some years if not decades.Where else did they f ind the t radi t ion? Stored up, unused, in an oldbox at the back of some teacher 's house? Stored up, unrehearsed, inthe fai l ing me m ory of an old apost le? Har dly On the con trary, i t ism uch m ore l ikely that wh en the Syn opt ics we re f i rs t rece ived by

va r i o u s chu r ches , t he se chu r ches already po sse sse d ( in oral orwr i t ten form) thei r own vers ions of much of the mater ia l . Theywould be able to compare the evangel is t ' s vers ion of much of thetradition with their own version.

This, surely, must be par t at least of the explanat ion of thevariat ions between Gospels. To treat such var iat ions solely in termsof redact ion of wri t ten sources betrays a gross fai lure of histor ical

reconstruct ion. The corol lary, of course, is that the task of t racing



t h e h i s t o r y of p a r t i cu l a r f o r m s b ec o m es i m me asu r a b l y m o r ediff icul t , s ince i t i s no longer a case of t racing a s imple l ineardevelopment . But i f such complexi ty and uncertainty is closer tohistorical reali ty, then any resort to more simplified hypotheses is aflight into fals e security w ho se outc om e de ser ve s little trust.

S eco n d l y, we have evidence of the way the Jesus tradition wasactually handled in the process of transmission. For with in theSynoptics themselves we can discern the effects of at least two if notth ree re te l l ings o f var ious t rad i t ions .2 5 I refer, of course, to theuniv ersal ly recog nized fact of l i terary in terdepe nde nce betw een the

Synopt ic Gospels . In terms of the pr incipal consensus, we can seehow Matthew and Luke used t radi t ion der ived from or shared withMark, how, less confidently, Matthew and Luke used Q material , andhow, much more speculat ively, any of these three or four wri t ingsmade use of ear l ier forms and blocks of mater ial . The f i rmest dataare the f i r s t ment ioned—how Mat thew and Luke used t rad i t ionderived from or shared with Mark—and this is where we should

obviously start . To start elsewhere is l ikely to lead quickly into aquagmire of speculat ive hypotheses, such as two or more recensionsof Q,26 and to provide little or no secure ground on which to build.

When, however, we look a t the c leares t example of t rad i t ion-h is to ry (Mark as a source for Mat thew and Luke) an impor tan tconclus ion soon emerges .2 7 That is the clear evidence of a deep andgenuine respect for the s tory being to ld or the saying recorded.

Again and again , even when mater ial is reordered or a s tory to lddifferent ly, we can be confident that the same event or the samesaying is in v iew. And even when dialogue or sayings have beenmodif ied ( to avoid possible misunderstanding) ,2 8 there is evidence ofa concern to hold as closely as possible to the earl ier form, that is,evidence of a respect for the earlier form of the tradition. This is notto discount the equal ly clear evidence of edi t ing—the reworking ofmater ial , the modif icat ion and elaborat ion of ear l ier forms, and soon. But over all, the strong thrust of the evidence is of a consistency

2 5 I do not say tw o or three layers of tradition , since I beli eve the imag e ofmultiple layers is misleading; see later in this section.

2 6 See again W righ t s cr i t ique Jesus, 41 .(42 7 I draw on my sem i-popu lar The Evidence for Jesus (London: SCM Press ;

Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985) 1-29.2 8

For good exa m ples , cf . M ark 6:5-6 with M att 13:58 and M ark 10:17-18with Matt 19:16-17.





An impor tant corol lary fo l lows f rom th is . I t i s that the usualmodel of analysing the pre-wr i t ten Gospel h is tory of the Synopt ictradi t ion is probably wrong. That model assumes layers of t radi t ion,layers of redact ion upon redact ion, separat ing the f inal Gospel formfr om any puta t iv e or ig inal der iv in g f rom Je su s ' own m inis t ry. Inconsequence the t ra i l leading back to an or ig inal Jesus word of tenbecomes so tor tuous that the quester is unable to pursue i t beyondtwo or three layers at the most and must give up having penetratedno fur ther back than, say, the 40s. But why should we assume thatthe process of t ransmission was a sequence of successive edi t ings of

individual forms? On the model of ora l t ransmission we shouldra ther assum e a subs tan t i a l s to re o f r em em be red ep i sod es an dteach ing f ro m Jesu s ' min i s t ry, r em em bered by the cong reg a t ion s 'tea ch er s as a pr im e par t of thei r resp on sibi l i ty, wi th re te l l ing susual ly focused in par t icular sayings fa i r ly f ixed in content , butotherwise var iously elaborated. In other words, the model is not somuch that of an archaeological tell , with success depending on abili ty

to dig down through many strata. A bet ter model is that of formssomewhat l ike space sa te l l i tes c i rc l ing round the remembered Jesus ,with the forms of the 60s and 70s not necessar i ly fur ther f rom Jesusthan those of the 40s and 50s.3 2 In short, in an oral culture, wherethe out l ine , them e and f ixed points of a che r ished t radi t ion w ereprobably soon establ ished and remained relat ively constant , the laterpre-wr i t ten re te l l ings were probably l i t t le or no fur ther f rom theoriginal than the first retell ings.

Final ly, we need also to reckon with a point now fair ly widelyacknowledged. I t i s that Bul tmann 's denia l that the Gospels werebiographies was almost cer tainly misplaced. What he real ly meant isthat they were not modern b io gra ph ies and the re f o re d id no tfac i l i tate a m ode rn bio gr ap he r 's interest in the l i fe and per son al i tyof Jesus . 3 3 But i t is now clear that the Gospels are very similar in

3 2 Th e image is not all that goo d, but it can be elab ora ted to dep ict J o h n 'sGospel as on a higher orbit, or to include the possibility of forms drifting out of thegravity of the reme m bere d Jesus, or being caug ht by a cou nterv ail ing gra vity. Th eearl ier image of a trajectory could be f i t ted to this also: e .g. Q material on atrajectory leading to a Gospel of Thomas no long er held within the origin al gr avityfield.

3 3 I echo here the fam ous com me nt o f Bu l tm ann (J es u s and the Word[Lo ndo n: Coll ins Fon tana, 1958] 14): I do indeed think that we can know almo stnothing concerning the l i fe and personal i ty of Jesus , s ince the ear ly Chr is t ian



type to ancient biog rap hies : that is, their interest is not the m od er none of t rac ing how an individual ' s character developed over t ime;

rather their concern is with the portrayal of a histor ical character bymeans o f r ecoun t ing ep i sodes and say ings which document tha tc h a r a c t e r .3 4 Of course, a Gospel is not simply a biography; i t ispropaganda; i t is kerygma. But then nei ther were ancient biographieswh ol ly d i spa ss ion a te and ob jec t ive . In o ther words , the o ver la pbe tween Gospe l and anc ien t b iography remains subs tan t i a l andsignificant. In short, the genre itself tells us at once that there was acons iderab le h i s to r i ca l in te res t in the fo rmula t ing , r e t e l l ing andcol lec t ing in to Gospel format of the mater ia l which now compr isesthe Synoptic Gospels.

In summary of this sect ion of the argument , then, we may simplysay that a pr ior i deduct ions, circumstant ial evidence, the character ofthe Synopt ic t radi t ion and the c learest indicat ions regarding i t st ransmission, and the very character of the Gospels themselves a l lreinforce each other and point f i rmly to the conclusion that a careful

scrutiny of the Synoptic tradition is l ikely to lead us back at manypoints to Jesus as he was remembered from the f i rst .

V

Bearing al l this in mind, how then should we proceed? When weput together the lessons to be learned f rom the fa i lure of theprevious quests and the potent ial for the third quest , two important

points seem to emerge, one of pr inciple, the other of procedure.Fi rs t the point of pr incip le . The Synopt ic t radi t ion provides

evidence not so much for what Jesus did or said in i tself , but forwhat Jesus was remembered as doin g or say ing by his f irst disc iple s,or as we might say, for the impact of what he did and said on hisf irst disciples. What we actual ly have in the Synoptic t radi t ion arethe memor ies o f the f i r s t d i sc ip les—not Jesus h imse l f , bu t the

remembered Jesus . The idea that we can get back to an object ivehistor ical real i ty, which we can wholly separate and disentangle fromthe disciples ' memories, and which we can then use as a check and

sources show no interest in ei ther, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary.3 4 See fur th er D. E. Aun e, The New Testament in its Literary Environment

(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 46-76; R. A. Burridge, What are the Gospels? AComparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (SNT SM S 70 ; Cambr idge : Cam br idgeUniversi ty Press, 1992).





At the same t ime we might observe that to make th is point i ss imply to recognize the nature of the evidence which any biographerhas to weigh who has no access to any wr i t ings of the b iography 'ssubject . That is to say, a portrayal of Jesus as seen through the eyesand heard through the ears of h is f i r s t d isc ip les i s nei ther ani l legi t imate nor an impossib le task , and such a por t rayal , careful lydrawn in terms of the evidence avai lable, should not be dismissed ordisparaged as inadmissible. After al l , i t is precisely the impact whichJesus made and which r esu l t ed in the emergence o f Chr i s t i an i tywhich we want to r ecover. Of cour se i t would be wonder fu l and

intr iguing if we could portray Jesus as seen by Pi late or Herod, byCaiaphas o r the house o f Shammai . Bu t we s imply do no t havesuff icient evidence for that , and even if we had, what would i t tel l usabo u t the cha rac te r and impac t of a min i s t ry wh ich t r a nsf or m edf i shermen and to l l co l l ec to r s in to apos t l es? In t e rms o f p ivo ta lindividuals on whom the history of the world has turned, i t is thela t ter in whom we are most in teres ted . And the Synopt ic t radi t ion

and the Gospels are precisely what we need for the task.Second the point of procedure. We need to at tend f i rst to the broad

pic ture , o therwise we are l iable to become quickly bogged down andlost in a mire of detai ls over individual disputed sayings. The cr i ter iafo r r eco gn iz ing au then t i c t r ad i tion a re usua l ly thoug ht abou t inreference only to individual sayings. But there i s a pr ior cr i ter ionwhich emerges more o r l ess d i r ec t ly ou t o f the cons idera t ions

marshaled above, and to which appeal should be made before turningto par t icular deta i l . The cr i ter ion i s th is : any feature which i scharacteristic of and relatively distinctive within the Jesus tradition ismost l ikely to go back to Jesus, that is , to ref lect the or iginal impactof Jesus on several at least of his f irst disciples. The logic is straight-forward: i f a feature is character ist ic and relat ively dist inct ive withinthe Jesus t radi t ion, then the most obvious explanat ion of i ts presencein the Jesus tradition is that i t reflects the characteristic and relativelydist inct ive impact which Jesus made on his f i rst fol lowers.

When we app ly th i s p r io r c r i t e r ion to the Jesus t r ad i t ion arem ark ably fu l l por t rayal quickly begins to em erge : a Ga l i lean w hoemerged f rom the c i rc le of John the Bapt is t and who minis tered fora lengthy per iod, most of h is minis t ry, in the smal l towns andvi l lages of Gal i lee ; a preacher whose main emphasis was the royalr u l e o f God ; a hea l e r who was f am o us f o r h i s exo r c i sm s i npar t icular ; a teacher who character i s t ica l ly taught in aphor isms and





s p e a k i n g was s ign i f ica nt for the f i r s t f low er in g of Ch r is t ian fa i th .That quest , I bel ieve, has good hope of success.



T H E S Y N O P T I C G O S P E L S A N D H I S T O RY

E. Earle Ellis

The four New Testament Gospels are v i r tual ly the only source forour knowledge of the acts and teachings of the ear thly Jesus.1 T heyare received by the Christ ian church as the work of inspired wri ters,apost les and prophets, who were guided by the Spir i t of God to givea t rue portrayal and interpretat ion of his l i fe and work, and they arealso h is tor ica l documents whose or ig in and format ion can be invest i -ga ted and in some measure d i scovered . Wr i t t en some t ime a f t e rJesus ' death and resurrect ion, they have been subjected to careful andpro longed s tudy to de te rmine the i r background and the degree tow hic h they acc ura te ly r e f l ec t h i s p re - resu r rec t ion m in i s t ry. T hehistor ical invest igat ion of the Gospels has taken mainly four routes:(1) the a t tem pt to ident i fy unde r ly ing doc um ents (know n as sou rcecr i t ici sm ) , (2) the at tem pt to ide nt ify individ ual l i terary un i ts andana lyze thei r form at ion and cha racter (know n as fo rm cr i t ic i sm ) ,(3) the at tempt to t race changes in these uni ts during their t ransmis-s ion pr io r to thei r use by the ev an ge l is t s (k no w n as t ra di t io ncri t icism ) , and, f inal ly, (4) the at tempt to ident ify changes that eacheva ng e l i s t h i m se l f m ad e in co m p o s i n g h i s Go sp e l ( k n o w n a s

red ac t ion o r com pos i t ion c r i ti c i sm ) . Each o f these ave nue s o fresearch is perfect ly legi t imate but , as in other areas of histor icalreconst ruct ion , the resul t s ar r ived a t are heavi ly inf luenced i f notdetermined by the wor ld-view wi th which the h is tor ian approachesthe texts and by his other histor ical and methodological assumptions.2

1 T he re is a br ief ref ere nc e to h is min is t ry by the f i rs t -ce ntu ry Jew ishh i s t o r i a n , J o s e p h u s Ant. 18 .3 .3 §63 -64 ) , and a few addi t ional sayin gs of theear th ly Jesus recorded e lsewhere in the New Testament (e .g . Acts 20:35) and inother sources ; c f . J . Jeremias , Unknow n Sayings of Jesus (Lo ndon : SP CK , 1958).

2 I add ress these que stions in mo re detai l in E. E. Ell is , Go spe l Cr it icism : APe rsp ecti ve on the State of the A rt , in P. Stu hlm ach er (ed.) , The Gospel and theGospels (Gra nd Rapids : Eerd ma ns, 1991) 26-52; idem, Th e His tor ica l Jesus andthe G os pe ls, in J . A dn a et al . (eds.) , Evangelium-Schriftauslegung-Kirche (P.S tuh lma cher Fes t sch r i f t ; Gö t t ingen : Va nden hoe ck & Rup rech t , 1997) 94-1 06 ;

idem , N ew D irection s in the History of Early Christ ia nity, in T. W . Hil lard et al .



I

An assumption that may be addressed at the outset is the view, st i l l

held in some quarters, that history wri t ing is an object ive science inw h i c h t he h i s t o r i an i s a neu t r a l ob se r ve r an d ev a l u a t o r o fp rob ab i l i t i e s . Th i s v iew has been e ffec t ive ly d i sc red i t ed by suchwri ters as Car l Becker, H. S . Commager, and, for b ib l ica l h is tory,A l a n R i c h a r d s o n ,3 and i ts fal lacies i l lustrated again in the work ofJohn Kenyon on cr i t ical histor ians in Bri tain.4

A s B e r n a r d L o n e rg a n5 and others have reminded us , the termhisto ry ma y be em ploy ed in two senses , that wh ich is wr i t ten and

that which is wri t ten about . I t is history in the former sense that ispresented to us both by the Evangelists and by modern histor ians ofear ly Christ ian i ty. Such history is by i ts very nature interpret iv e an dmodern histor ians, including of course the present wri ter, are no lesssubject ively involved in thei r reconst ruct ions than the Evangel is t sw ere in theirs. As one wh o very ear ly had to con trast the history ofthe War between the Sta tes received a t my grandmother ' s knee and

i n Je f f e r son Dav i s ' s The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Govern-ment6 wi th that presen ted , for exa m ple , by Ch ar les A. Be ard in thepubl ic school text -books of my high school years . I la ter read thediverse accounts of the minis t ry of Chr is t and his tor ic i ty of theGospels by, say, F. W. Far rar, C. H. Dodd and B. Gerhardsson7 o n

(eds .) , Ancient History in a Mod ern University (E. A. Judg e Fes ts chr i f t ; 2 vols .,

Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1998) 2 .71-92.3 C. Bec ker, De tachm ent and the W ri t ing of His tory ,Atlantic Monthly 106

(Oct. 1910) 524-36; repr. in idem, Essays (W estpor t : Gr een w ood , 1972) 3-28 ; H.S . C o m m a g e r, The Study of History (Co lum bus : C. E. M err i l l , 1966) 43- 60; A.R i c h a r d s o n , History Sacred and Profane (Lo ndo n : SC M Press ; Ph i l ade lp h ia :Westminster, 1964) 83-183.

4 J . P. Ke nyon , The History Men (London: Weidenfe ld and Nicolson, 1983;Pit tsburgh: Universi ty of Pit tsburgh Press, 1984).

5

B . Lo n e rg a n , Method in Theology ( Lo n d o n : Da r t o n , Lo n g ma n & To d d ;New York: Herder and Herder, 1972) 175.

6 J . Da vis , The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Governm ent (2 vols. , Ne wYork: D. Apple ton, 1881; repr. New York: T. Yoseloff , 1958) .

7 F. W . Fa r ra r, The Life of Christ (L ond on and N ew York : 1874; repr.1912); C. H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity (Londo n: Col l ie r-M acm il lan; NewYork : M acm i l l an , 1971) ; idem, Th e Fram ew ork of the Go spe l Na r ra t ive , inD o d d , New Testament Studies (Manchester : Manchester Univers i ty Press , 1953) 1-11; B. Gerhardsson, Mem ory and Manuscript (Lund: Gle erup , 1961; repr. Gr andRapids : Ee rdm ans , 1998) .



the one hand and D. F. Strauss and R. Bultmann on the other with adist inct sense of déjà vu.

The subject iv i ty inevi tably involved in the reconst ruct ion of thepast does not , of course, diminish the importance of a proper methodor ex cu se us f ro m cr i t i c i z ing h i s to r i ca l r ec on s t ruc t ion s tha t a redemonst rably defect ive in th is or o ther respects . A cur rent ly wide-spread view of the or igins of the Gospels with i ts skeptical at t i tudetoward the i r h i s to r i c i ty seems to me to war ran t such c r i t i c i sm,spec i f i ca l ly, (1 ) in i t s mis represen ta t ion o f i t s own confess iona lpresupposi t ions as a scient if ic or cr i t ical stance, (2) in i ts misuse of

his tor ica l method and (3) in i t s mistaken his tor ica l and l i teraryassumpt ions.

1. Th e histor ical study of the G osp els ha s been m ark ed for the pa sttwo centur ies by a c leavage in wor ld-views, character ized on the oneside by deism and on the other by Christ ian theism or, in the cate-gor ies of H. Thie l icke by Car tes ian and non-Car tes ian assumpt ions.9

In the mid- twent ie th century i t was dominated in many c i rc les by a

Ca r tes ian , that i s, ra t ional i s tic approa ch fo r wh ich R. Bu l tm ann w aspro bab ly the m ost inf luent ia l represe nta t ive . Re gard ing his tory andthe natural world as a closed con tinu um of cau se and ef fec t in w hic hhis tor ica l happenings cannot be rent by the in ter ference of super-na tu ra l t r anscenden t powers , 1 0 Bul tmann dismissed, and indeed on aprior i grounds had to dismiss, large port ions of the Gospels as latermythological creat ions . On the same grounds he had to l imi t the

au the nt i c saying s of Jesus to those he rega rded as or ig in at ing inJesus ' ear thly ministry since no exal ted Lord could, in fact , speak to

8 D. F. S t rauss , Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet (2 Vols . , Tü bing en: C. F.Oslander, 1835-36; repr. in 1984; 3rd ed., 1838-39; 4th ed., 1840); ET: The Life ofJesus, critically examined (3 vo l s . , Lo ndo n : C ha pm an , 1846 ; Ph i l a de lp h ia :For t ress , 1972; Lives of Jesus Ser ies ; London: SCM Press , 1973) ; R. Bul tmann,Jesus (Be r l in : De utsch e Bibl io thek , 1926) ; ET: Jesus and the W ord (New York :

Sc r ib ner 's , 1934; repr. 1958) .9 H. Th ie l i ck e , The Evangelical Faith (3 vo l s ., Gran d Rap ids : E e rd ma ns ,1974-81) 1 .30-173.

1 0 R . Bu l tm ann , Existence and Faith (New York: Harper & Row, 1960) 292(German tex t : TZ 13 [1957] 411-1 2) ; c f . idem, Ne ues Tes tam en t und M ytho l -og ie , Par t I I of Bu l tma nn, Offenbarung und Heilsgeschehen (BE vT 7 ; M unich :Kaiser, 1941) ; repr. in H.-W. Bar tsch (ed .) , Kerygm a und Mythos: Ein theol-ogisches Gespräch (TF 1; Ha mb urg-B ergs ted t : Reich und Heidr ich , 1948; 4 th ed . ,1960) 18 ; ET: Ne w Tes tam en t and M ytho logy , Kerygma and Myth: A Theol-ogical Debate (Lo ndo n: SP CK , 1953; 2nd ed., 1964) 7.



and through the Gospel t radi t ioners and Evangel is t s . These a t t i tudesand conc lus ions which Bul tmann and o ther r a t iona l i s t h i s to r i ansreprese nted as sc ien t i f ic and cr i t ica l we re in fac t only the exp res-s ion and predetermined resul t of thei r wor ld-view, that i s , the i rphi losophical and thus u l t imate ly confessional commitments .

2. Other quest ions of method are not unrelated to these phi losoph-ica l ass um pt io ns , fo r exa m ple , the ass ign m ent of the bur den o fp r o o f ' in de te rm in ing w hether a pa r t i cu la r ep i sod e in the G ospe l sor iginated in the pre-resurrect ion mission of Jesus and the cr i ter ia bywhich i t s pre- resur rect ion or ig in could be es tabl i shed. The proposed

cr i ter ia were (1) an episode ' s a t tes ta t ion in more than one Gospel ,(2 ) i ts l ack o f so -ca l l ed de ve lo pe d , tha t i s, po s t - r e sur rec t iontendencies , (3) i t s d iss imi lar i ty f rom the id iom or ideas found incon temporary Juda i sm or ea r ly Chr i s t i an i ty and (4 ) i t s coherencewi th o ther Gospel mater ia l thought to be authent ic . Some of thecr i ter ia raise cer tain probabil i t ies and some simply beg the quest ion,but non e of them produ ce any assured resul ts .1 1 As the cr i t iques of

M. D. Hooker and E. L . Mascal l have pointed out , the conclusionsdr aw n f r om them wer e very largely the resul t of ( the sch ol ar ' s )o w n p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s a n d p r e j u d i c e s . 1 2 Mo r eove r, t h e c r i t e r i ar ece i ved an i m por t ance beyo nd t he i r d ue f r om t he a s sum pt i on ,adopted by E . Käsemann and others , that the Gospel accounts shouldbe regarded as post - resur rect ion creat ions unless proven otherwise .1 3

Does this view of the burden of proof accord with good histor icalmethod?

According to E . Bernheim's c lass ic text on h is tor ica l method the

1 1 Cf . El l i s , Gospe l Cr i t ic ism , 30-31.1 2 M. D. Hook er, On Us ing the W rong To o l , Theology 75 (1972 ) 581 cf.

idem, Chr i s to logy and M ethodo logy, NTS 17 (1970 -71) 480-87 ; E. L. Ma scal l ,Theology and the Gospel of Christ (London: SPCK, 1977) 87-97.

1 3 E. Kä sem ann , Da s Problem des h is tor ischen Jesu s ,ZTK 51 (19 54) 125-

53; repr. in Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (vol . 1; Gö tt inge n:V an de nh oe ck & Ru pre cht , 1960) 187-214, here 205; ET: Th e Pro blem of theHis to r ica l Je su s , in Kä sem ann , Essays on New Testament Themes (SB T 41 ;London : SCM Press , 1964) 15-47 , he re 37 . He was fo l lowed by the Ang lo -American wri ters N. Perr in , Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus ( Lo n d o n : S CMPress ; New York: Harper & Row, 1967) 39 , and J . M. Robinson, A New Quest ofthe Historical Jesus (SB T 25; Lo ndo n: SC M Press, 1959; repr. M issoula : Scho lars,1979) 38. Th e lat ter is cri t iqued by R. P. M artin, Th e New Qu est of the H istorical

Je su s , in C. F. H. Hen ry (ed .) , Jesus of Nazareth: Savior and Lord ( Gr a n dRapids : Eerdmans, 1966) 25-45.



histor ian has the two-fold task of test ing the genuineness and demon-st ra t ing the nongenuineness of h is sources .1 4 Appl ied to the Gospelsth is means, as W. G. Kümmel has r ight ly seen1 5 that the histor ianmust demonstrate that any par t of the Gospel mater ials is created inthe post - resur rect ion church s ince the Gospels present thei r accountsin the context of the pre-resurrect ion mission of Jesus. In a wordgood histor ical method requires that a Gospel passage be received asan account of Jesus ' ear thly ministry unless i t is shown that i t cannothave or iginated there.

II

Under the inf luence of R. Bul tmann and M. Dibel ius1 6 the classicalfo rm cr i t i c i sm ra i sed many doubt s abou t the h i s to r i c i ty o f theSynopt ic Gospels , but i t was shaped by a number of l i terary andhistor ical assumptions which themselves are increasingly seen to havea doubtful histor ical basis. I t assumed, f i rst of al l , that the Gospelt radi t ions we re t ransmit ted fo r dec ade s exclusively in ora l form an dbegan to be f ixed in wri t ing only when the ear ly Christ ian ant icipa-t ion of a soon end of the wor ld faded. This theory foundered wi ththe discovery in 1947 of the l ibrary of the Qumran sect , a groupcon temporaneous wi th the min i s t ry o f Jesus and the ea r ly churchwhich combined in tense expecta t ion of the End wi th prol i f ic wr i t ing .Qumran shows that such expecta t ions d id not inhibi t wr i t ing butactual ly were a spur to i t .17 Also , the widespread l i teracy in f i r s t -

1 4 E . Be r n h e i m, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode (Le ipz ig : Du nck er &Humblot , 1903; repr. New York: B. Frankl in , 1960) 332; C. Langlois and C.S e i g n o b o s (In tr od uc tio n to the Study of History [New York: Barn es and No ble ,1966; orig., 1898] 157) are more skeptical.

1 5 W. G . Kü m me l , Dreissig Jahre Jesusforschung 1950-80) (BB B 60; ed . H.Merkle in ; Bonn: Hanste in , 1985) 28-29; c f . TRu 31 (1965-66) 42-43.

1 6

R . Bu l tm ann , Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition ( F R LA NT 12;Gött ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921; 2nd ed., 1931; 3rd ed., 1958); ET: TheHistory of the Synoptic Tradition (Ox ford : Basi l Black wel l ; New York: Ha rper &Ro w, 1 9 6 3 ) ; i d e m, Die Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien (2nd ed.,Gie sse n: Töp elm an n, 1930) ET: R. Bu l tman n and K. Ku ndsin , Form Criticism:Two Essays on New T estament Research (New York: Har per & Ro w, 1962) 11-76; M. Dibelius, Die Form geschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: M ohr [Siebeck] ,1919; 2nd ed., 1933); ET: From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Sc r ibn er 's , 1934;repr. Cambridge and London: James Clarke , 1971) .

1 7 C f . Ε . Ε . Ellis, Ne w Dire ctions in Form Critic ism , in Ellis, Prophecy and



cen tury Pa les t in ian Juda i sm,1 8 t oge ther wi th the d i ff e ren t l anguagebac kgro und s o f Jesu s ' fo l low ers— som e Greek , som e Aram aic , somebi l ingual—would have faci l i ta ted the rapid wr i t ten formulat ions andtransmission of at least some of Jesus ' teaching.1 9 Final ly, the factorthat occasioned wr i t ing in ear ly Chr is t iani ty, the separat ion of thebel ievers f rom the teaching leadership , was a l ready present in theminis t ry of Jesus who had groups of adherents in the towns ofGal i lee , Judea and probably on the Phoenic ian coast , the Decapol isand Perea. There are good grounds, then, for supposing not only thatthe t radi t ioning of Jesus ' acts and teachings began during his ear thly

minis t ry, as H. Schürmann has argued,2 0 but also that some of themwere given wri t ten formulat ion at that t ime.

Secondly, the ea r ly fo rm cr i t i c i sm t i ed the theory o f o ra lt ransmission to the conjecture that Gospel t radi t ions were media tedl ike folk t radi t ions, being freely al tered and even created ad hoc byvar iou s and sundry wa nde r ing char i smat ic j ack leg p reache r s . Th i sview, however, was rooted more in the e ighteenth century romant i -

cism of J . G. Herder2 1

than in an understanding of the handling ofre l ig ious t r ad i t ion in f i r s t - cen tu ry Juda i sm. As O. Cul lmann , B .Gerhardsson , H. Riesenfe ld and R. Riesner have demons t ra ted ,2 2 the

Herm eneutic in Early Christianity (Ti ib ingen : M ohr [S iebeck] ; Gran d Rap ids :Ee rdm ans , 1978) 237- 53; idem, Gos pel Cr i t ic ism, 39-43.

1 8 Cf . Joseph us , Against Apion 2 .25 §204: Th e La w ord ers tha t (chi ldre n)

should be taught to read . . . ; cf . idem, Ant. 12 .4 .9 §209; Phi lo , Embassy toGaius 115, 210 . Fur ther, see R. Ries ner, Jesus als Lehrer ( W UN T 2 .7 ; Tü b i n g e n :M oh r [Siebe ck], 1981; 4th ed., 1998) 112-15.

1 9 Jesus had hearers and doub t less som e conver ts f rom Syr ia (M at t 4 :25) , theDecapolis (Matt 4:25; Mark 3:8; 5:20; 7:31), Tyre and Sidon (Mark 3:8; 7:24, 31;Matt 15:21).

2 0 H . S c h ü r m a n n , D i e v o r ö s t e r li c h e n An f ä n g e d e r Lo g i e n t r a d i t i o n , inS c h ü r m a n n , Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evan-

gelien (Ko mm enta re und Be i t r äge zum Al ten und Neuen Tes tam en t ; Düss e ldor f :Patmos, 1968) 39-65; idem, Jesus (Paderborn: Bonifa t ius , 1993) 380-97.

2 1 J . G. He rder, Vom Erlöser der Menschen (Riga: Ha r tkno ch, 1796) ; idem,Von Sohn Gottes (Riga : H artk noc h, 1797); repr. in idem , Sämtliche Werke (ed. B.Sup han , 33 vo l s . , Hi ldesh e im: Olm s , 1994; o r ig . 1877-191 3) 19 .197 , 213-14 ,417-18, c i ted in W. G. Kümmel , The New T estament: The History of its Problems(Nashv i l l e : Ab ingdo n , 1972 )79-83 .

2 2 Ο . Cul lm ann, The Tradi t ion , in Cul lm ann, The Early Church (London:

SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956) 55-99; B. Gerhardsson The Originsof the Gospel Traditions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); H. Ries enfeld The Gospel



Judaism of the per iod treated such tradi t ions very careful ly, and theNew Tes tament wr i t e r s in numerous passages app l i ed to apos to l i ct radi t ions the same technical terminology found e lsewhere in Judaismf o r d e l i ve r i ng , r ece i v i ng , l e a r n i ng , h o l d i ng , k eep i ng , an d

gu ard ing , the t radi tioned teach ing.2 3 In this way they both identi-f ied thei r t radi t ions as holy w ord and show ed thei r con cern for acareful and ordered transmission of i t . The word and work of Jesuswere an important albei t dist inct par t of these apostol ic t radi t ions.

Luke (1 :2-4) used one of the same technical terms, speaking ofey ew itne sse s w ho del ive red to us the things con tained in his G ospe l

an d abou t w h i ch h i s pa t r on T h eo p h i l u s had been i n s t r u c t ed .S im i la r ly, the am anu ense s o r co-w orke r- secre ta r i es w ho co m po sedthe Gospel of John speak of the Evangel is t , the beloved disc ip le ,

who i s wi tness ing concern ing these th ings and who wro te thesethin gs , as an ey ew itne ss and a m em be r of the inner circle of Jes us 'd i sc ip les .2 4 In the same connection it is not insignificant that those tow ho m Jesu s ent rusted h is teach ings are not ca l led pr ea ch ers but

pu pi ls and apo st les , semi- techn ical terms for those w ho represen tand media te the t each ings and ins t ruc t ions o f the i r mentor o rp r i n c i p a l .2 5

A th i rd fundamenta l ax iom of c l ass ica l fo rm cr i t i c i sm i s a l sohistor ical ly doubtful , that is , that the geographical and chronologicalf ramework of the Gospels was whol ly the creat ion of the t radi t ionersand Evangel is t s . The Gospels are not chronologues, of course , and

the Eva nge l is t s fee l f re e , as d id the Rom an h is tor ian Su eton ius , toorganize thei r presenta t ion on themat ic or o ther l ines . However, i f

Tradition (Philade lphia: Fortress, 1970) 1-29; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer.2 3 Ro m 6:17 ; 16:17; 1 Co r 11:2, 23; 15:3; Phil 4:9; Co l 2:6-7 ; 2 Th ess 2 :15;

3:6; 2 Tim 3:14; Titus 1:9; 2 John 9-10; Jude 3: Rev 2:13, 24. Cf. >Abot 1:1 Philo,The W orse Attacks the Better 65-68; W . Bach er, Die exegetische Terminologie derjüdischen Traditionsliteratur (2 vols , in 1; Darm stadt : W issen scha f t l iche Bu chg e-

se l lsch af t , 1965) 1 .94ff . ; 2 .234 -35 et passim.2 4 John 19:35; 21:2 4-2 5; cf . 13:23; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:1 -10 ; 21 :7, 21- 23 .Cf . J . Α . Τ . Ro b in so n , Redating the New Testament (Phi ladelphia : W estm ins ter,1976) 298-311. Pace S. S. Sm alley, John Evangelist and Interpreter (Exeter: Pater-nos ter ; Nashvi l le : Nelson , 31984) 80ff . and R. E. Brown, The Gospel Accordingto John (2 vols. , AB 28, 28A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1970) l.ci-cii, who distin-guish the Evangelist from the Beloved Disciple.

2 5 On parallels with other rabbis and their disciples and other Jew ish usage cf.

M ark 2:18 = Luk e 5:33; K. H. Re ngs torf , απ όσ τολος,T NT

1 (1964 ) 413 -43 ;μαθητής , T NT 4 ( 1967) 431 -55 .



C. H. Dodd ' s schemat ic f r amework o f Jesus ' min i s t ry i s no t fu l lya c c e p t a b l e ,2 6 K . L . Schmid t ' s v iews a re much l ess sa t i s f ac to ry.2 7

Among o ther th ings Schmid t d rew too sharp a d icho tomy be tweenedi tor ia l and t radi t ional e lements in the Gospels and did not recog-nize that the Evangel is t s ' ed i tor ia l ar rangements , such as the journeyto Je rusa lem in Luke (9 :51-19 :44) , a re o f t en s imply a r ework ing o freceived t radi t ions .

If the ear ly form cr i t icism buil t upon a poor foundation, is there abet ter explanat ion of the or igin and formation of our Gospels?

Ill

An acceptable reconst ruct ion of the format ion of the Gospels mustt ake in to accoun t bo th f i r s t - cen tu ry Jewish a t t i tudes toward thet r ansmiss ion o f r e l ig ious t r ad i t ions and the char i smat ic , p rophe t i ccharacter of the ministry of Jesus and of the pr imit ive church. Withrespec t to the fo rmer B. Gerhardsson ' s concep t ion o f a con t ro l l edt ransmission of Gospel t radi t ions marked a c lear advance beyond theear l i e r fo rm cr i t i c i sm, bu t h i s r abb in ic ana logy was unab le toac co un t fo r the k ind of a l t e ra t ion and e la bo ra t io n o f Go sp e lt radi t ions that one observes even when compar ing one Gospel wi thano ther. Indeed , the t r ad i t ioner s and Evange l i s t s seem to hand leJesus ' word with the same kind of f reedom that they use with anothertype of holy w or d, the Old Te stam ent scr ip tures . Th ei r con duc t inthis respect is best explained by a prophetic consciousness.

J e s u s v i e w e d h i m s e l f2 8 and was perce ived by o ther s2 9 to be thebearer of the prophetic Spir i t , and he promised the same Spir i t to hisf o l l o w e r s .3 0 Already in his ear thly ministry the apost les were sent onthei r miss ions of teaching, heal ing and exorcisms in the ro le ofprophets whether, as J . Jeremias has argued, the Spi r i t was a l ready

2 6 C . H. Do dd , Th e Fram ewo rk o f the Gospe l Na r ra t ive , in Do dd , New

Testament Studies, 1-11.2 7 K. L . Sch mid t , Der Rahm en der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische

Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung (Ber l in : Tro witz sch , 1919; repr.Darmstadt : Wissenschaf t l iche Buchgesel lschaf t , 1964) .

2 8 M at t 13:57 = M ark 6 :4 = Lu ke 4 :18, 24; 13:33-34; John 4 :4 4; c f . M at t12:28 = Luke 11:20.

2 9 M ark 6:15; 8:28; cf . 8:11; 14:65 = Ma tt 26:67 -68 = Lu ke 22:6 3-6 4; 24:19 .3 0

M att 10:19-20 = M ark 13:11 = Lu ke 21:15 ; 12:12; John 7:38 -39; 14:17-18,26; 16:7; cf . Ma tt 3:11 = M a r k 1:8 = Lu ke 3:16.



confer red on them3 1 or, perhaps not very different , whether theSpirit of Jesus was active in their use of his name. It is clear in anycase that the Gospel traditioners included themselves among thosewho according to Matt 5:12, 13:11, Luke 21:15 and other passagesfulf il led a prophetic role both in their preaching and persecu tion andalso in their w riting as w ise men and scrib es, that is, scrip tureteachers .3 2 This prophetic consciousness best explains their boldnessand confidence both in their christological contemporization of OldTestament texts and in their similar treatment of the holy word ofJesus.

There are few if any historical or literary grounds to suppose thatthe Gospel traditions created events in Jesus' life or, indeed, that theymixed to any great degree oracles from the exalted Jesus into theGospel traditions. If a proper historical crit ical method is followed,proper presupposi t ions observed and the pract ices of f i rst-centuryPalest inian Judaism considered, the Gospels of the New Testamentwill be found to be a reliable presentation and faithful portrait of theteachings and acts of the pre-resurrection mission of Jesus.

3 1 J . Jerem ias, New Testament Theology (New York: Scrib ner 's , 1971) 79.Cf. Matt 10:1; Mark 6:7, 30; Luke 9:1-2; 10:9, 17.

3 2 Matt 13:52; 23:34; cf. Lu ke 11:49-51. Cf. W is 7:27; Philo, On the Giants5, 22; idem On the Unchan geableness of God 1, 3: prop het = wise m an.





R E F L E C T I O N S U P O N " T H E H I S T O R I C A L P E R I M E T E R S F O R

U N D E R S TA N D I N G T H E A I M S O F J E S U S "*

Wil l iam R. Farmer

As careful ly craf ted as the t i t le for this essay may be, i t remainsambiguous. By the "a ims of Jesus" do we mean Ben Meyer ' s s tunning

book by that t i t le?1

I f so, we would be obl iged to undertake a socialh i s to r i ca l an a lys i s o f Go spe l c r i t i c i sm in G er m an y dur in g thenineteenth century and posi t ion Meyer ' s book wi th in the context ofthe h is tory of ideas f rom Reimarus to the present . That i s a taskwor th under taking, but i t i s not my present task . Rather, by the"aims of Jesus" I refer not to Meyer 's book i tself , but the subject ofthat book, namely the guiding purposes of Jesus, which to understandhelps us make the most sense out of as much as possible of al l therelevant data bear ing on the quest ion of Christ ian or igins.

I think i t is fair to say that before Meyer wrote his book, thissub jec t was genera l ly r egarded in h igher c i r c les o f theo log ica lscholarship as off l imi ts . One of the basic assumpt ions of mid-twent ie th century cr i t ica l ref lec t ion has been that the se l f -conscious-ness of Jesus is beyond recovery. To at tempt to penetrate behind theear l iest st rata of the Synoptic t radi t ion as formulated in the pr imit ivePa les t in ian Chr i s t i an communi t i es has been to defy the gods o freason and cor rect academic behavior.

We have yet to take the fu l l measure of Ben Meyer ' s achievementsin his book The Aims of Jesus, but for th is ob serv er, it a l r ea dyappears that the whole quest ion of what we can know, and/or whatwe should a t tempt to unders tand about Jesus , has been recast in ave r y co ns t r uc t i ve way by Meye r ' s soun d l y g r o und ed and co m pr e -

hensive s tudy. The very formulat ion: " the a ims of Jesus ," serves tomake i t clear that what is under invest igat ion is not his personal i tywhich may be beyond recovery, nor h is pr ivate l i fe , which in any

* Th is essay is a shor ter vers ion of a pape r prese nted for d iscu ss ion a t as y m p o s i u m h o n o r i n g P r o f e s s o r Be n F. M e y e r h e ld a t M c M a s t e r Un i v e r s i t y,December 1989.

1 B. F. M eye r, The Aims of Jesus (Lo ndon : SC M Press , 1979) .





chal lenged deserves to be noted. There is no reason in pr inciple whyhis tor ica l s tudies of Jesus presupposing that he was suffer ing f romone or another mental i l lness should not be at tempted. However, suchstudies as have been made seem incomplete and thei r resul t s uncer-tain.

The third is the integrity of Je su s. T he po int at issue he re ispr imari ly this: did Jesus intend to deceive his fol lowers or did heal low them to be deceived? Sensi t ive pastors are aware of the fac tthat there are members of their f locks whose fai th in their integri tysomet imes d isposes them to be uncr i t ica l ly naive wi th regard to the

prob lems pas to r s exper ience in main ta in ing a t a l l t imes per sona lin tegr i ty in thei r minis t r ies . Therefore , when the in tegr i ty on thepart of Jesus is assumed by an histor ian, this assumption must not bem ad e naiv ely, but should be reg ard ed as a pre sup po si t io n , fo r ittends to l imit the range of human experience by which the histor ianjudges probabi l i t ies and improbabi l i t ies in h is reconst ruct ion of thepas t , by leav ing ou t o f co ns id era t ion po ss ib i l i t i e s which m igh t

otherwise be enter ta ined i f the suggest ion that Jesus may not havebeen a person of integri ty were real ly taken ser iously. To say thatJesus was a person of integri ty does not rule out the possibi l i ty thathe somet imes may have been conscious of fa i l ing to adhere to orw h o l e h e a r t e d l y a f f i r m w h a t h e p r e a c h e d . S u c h q u e s t i o n s a r evi r tual ly im po ssib le to se t tle bec aus e of the d i ff ic ul t ies wi th w hic hany invest igat ion in to the se l f -consciousness of Jesus i s f raught . Themater ia ls we have for unders tanding Jesus do not afford us as muchof th is k ind of knowledge about h im as we could wish . The basicquest ion is: did Jesus mean what he said; did he intend others to takehis words ser iously and did he h imsel f take ser iously the under-standing of existence to which he gave expression in his teaching? I tis an aff i rmative answer to this quest ion which is presupposed in thisessay. The degree to which anyone hesi tates to agree that Jesus was inthis sen se a pe rson of integri ty should lead her /him to a co rre spo nd -ing degree of skept ic ism regarding the possib i l i ty of ever knowingwith any degree of probabi l i ty what a ims of Jesus ac tual ly were ,s ince any conclusions that may be drawn on th is mat ter presupposesuch integrity on Jesus' part .

In the four th p lace i t i s presupposed that wi th in the pr imi t iveChurch there were those who remembered Jesus . Tha t Jesu s wa sremembered in the Church by those who had known him is in t r in-sical ly probable from vir tual ly every point of view, but since i t has





unders tanding the Aims of Jesus . These are fac ts or conclusions thatneed not be presupposed. They can a l l be demonst ra ted expl ic i t ly orinfer red f rom ci rcumstant ia l evidence.

P R E L I M I N A RY M E T H O D O L O G I C A L C O N S I D E R AT I O N S

The chief methodological problem in wr i t ing about the a ims ofJesus is chronology. Since the turn of century, cr i t ical theology hasbeen aware of the h is tor ica l uncer ta in ty of the gospel chronologies .Th is has led to a v i r tual mo rato r ium on w r i t ing " l ives of Je su s"

accord ing to the n ine teen th -cen tu ry mode . The c lass ic twen t i e th -cen tu ry r econs t ruc t ion by Bul tmann in h i s Jesus and the W ord isl a rg e l y r e s t r i c t e d to t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f J e s u s ' m e s s a g e .B o r n k a m m ' s Jesus of Nazareth is an im pro vem ent on Bu l tma nn ,pr imar i ly by taking in to account the in tervening parable research ofDo dd (T h e Parables of the Kingdom) and Jerem ias The Parables ofJesus).2

A peculiar meri t of the approach here to be presented is that i tgoes beyond the s imple r econs t ruc t ion o f Jesus ' message . Wi thou tunc r i t ica l depe nd en ce upon the gosp el chr ono logie s , it a t tem pts toexpl ica te Jesus ' teachings wi th in the context of an in t r ins ic develop-ment in his public career. To this extent i t serves in a modest way tode m on s t ra te the poss ib i l i ty of a "s to ry o f Je su s" acc ep tab le tohistor ians, a story which is not essent ial ly different f rom the story ofJesus famil iar to us f rom the Gospels.

The gospel t radi t ion or ig inated wi th Jesus and those who workedwith h im and expe r ienc ed h is saving inf lu enc e. It de velo ped in theea r l i e s t Ch r i s t i an com m un i t i e s whe r e Je sus was r em em ber ed andworsh ipped as the c ruc i f i ed and r esur rec ted Lord . The t r ad i t ions 'canonical funct ion in the church cal l s for theological and his tor ica lref lect ion upon the way i t developed into the forms given to i t in theGospels and upon the re la t ionship of these Gospels to one another

and to Scripture as a whole.

2 G . B o r n k a m m , Jesus von Nazareth (Urb an-B üche r 19 ; S tu t tga r t: Ko h l -hammer, 1956 ; Ith ed., 1977); ET: Jesus of Nazareth (New York : Harpe r & Row ,1960; repr. Minneapol is : For t ress , 1995) ; C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the King-dorn (L ond on: Nisbe t , 1935; 2nd ed . , Ne w Yo rk: Sc r ibn er 's , 1961) ; J . Jere mia s ,Die Gleichnisse Jesu (Zürich : Zw ingli , 1947; 10th ed., Gö tt ingen : V and enh oe ck &Ru pre cht , 1984) ; ET: The Parables of Jesus (Lo ndon : SC M Press , 1963; 3rd ed . ,New Y ork: Scr ibne r 's , 1972).



The Gospels embody t radi t ion concerning Jesus . Between Jesus andthe Gospels s tands the t radi t ioning process , by which the Gospels tor ies and sayings of Jesus were handed on. These t radi t ions wereoral and wr i t ten and included sayings both of Jesus and of ear lyChrist ian prophets speaking in the name of Jesus. They also includedaccount s o f eyewi tnesses concern ing the ac t ions and charac te r o fJesus and la ter modif ica t ions of th is t radi t ion made to meet thecha ngin g needs of d i ffe rent Chr is t ian c om m uni t ies .

This t radi t ioning process has never ceased. I t f lourished up to andthrough the per iod when the Gospe l s were wr i t t en and ach ievedmanifold expression dur ing the second and th i rd centur ies . I t wasno rm ed w i th the ado pt ion of the fo urf old Go spe l ca no n, which inturn has enhanced the t radi t ioning process through i ts inf luence uponthe visual , ar ts , music, l i terature, and preaching.

The canonical Gospels afford us our best access to the ear l ies tt r ad i t ion s co nc ern ing Jesus . F ro m a fo r m -cr i t i c a l s tudy o f theG os pe ls, it is clear that the Jesu s t radi t ion w as alread y r ichly dev el-

oped by the t ime the Gospels were wri t ten. A study of this developedtradi t ion is rewarding because i t helps clar ify the character of Jesusand impr ov es our un der s tan d in g o f the ev an ge l i s t s ' p urp ose inwri t ing the Gospels.

T he Gosp e l s represen t Jesus as he was r eme m bere d and w orsh ippe din cer ta in Chr is t ian co m m uni t ie s a gene rat ion af te r the beg innin g ofthe church. This is clear f rom the t radi t ions concerning Jesus that the

evangel is t s used, which include not only t radi t ions that or ig inatedwi th Jesus h imsel f and his f i r s t associa tes , but a lso many whichref lect the needs of later Christ ian communit ies.

Ch r is t ia ni ty as a re l ig iou s m ov em en t beg an wi th Jes us and hisdisciples in Palest ine, a meeting place for diverse cul tural inf luences.This does not mean, however, that no viable dist inct ions can be madebetween the envi ronment of Jesus and that of the evangel is t s . Theen v i r on m en t of Jesu s o f N azar e th was spa t i a l ly Pa les t in ian andtempora l ly p re -Pau l ine . There fore , wha tever he d id and sa id , how-ever d is t inct ive i t may have been, would have been accommodated tothose who shared th is envi ronment . Presumably t radi t ion concerningJesus ' words and act ions, which achieved stable form at a very ear lydate , would tend to ref lec t th is envi ronment both conceptual ly andpic tor ia l ly.

On the o ther hand, the envi ronment of the evangel is t s was ext ra-Palest inian and post-Pauline. We can assume that what the evangelists





comes al ive against the background of his environment as i t is knownthro ug h a s tudy o f the top og rap hy , ge og rap hy , and c l im ate o fPa lest in e and the history of Pale st inian Ju dais m prior to AD 70, thenan e lement in the t radi t ion i s i so la ted or ident i f ied which may beear ly. I f th is t radi t ion would be uninte l l ig ib le outs ide Pales t ine orunfamil iar in gent i le-or iented c i rc les , then the probabi l i t ies increasethat such a saying or story belongs to an ear ly stage in the develop-ment of the t radi t ion. Mater ial in the Gospels which presupposes thedeath and resurrect ion of Jesus and ref lects a si tuat ion where he isr em em be r ed and wo r sh i pp ed a s a t r an scen d en t b e i n g r ep r e sen t st radi t ion which may have or ig inated in some post -Easter Chr is t iancommuni ty. Such t radi t ion could have developed e i ther ear ly or la te ,e i ther in Jewish or gent i le c i rc les . Paul ' s le t ters preserve evidencethat mythopoeic tendencies were at work at a very ear ly date in someChr i s t i an comm uni t i es , p roduc ing pow er fu l chr i s to log ica l s t a t ementsabout Jesus.

There a re four major tu rn ing po in t s in the deve lopment o f the

t radi t ion lead ing f ro m Jesu s to the G osp els : (1) Je su s ' b apt ism byJohn fol lowed by the arrest , imprisonment , and death of the Baptist ;(2) Jesus ' chal lenge of rel igious authori t ies cl imaxing in his cleansingof the Temple fo l lowed by a f inal ins t i tu t ional iz ing meal wi th h isdisciples, his arrest , t r ial , death, and resurrect ion and the emergenceof a pos t -Eas te r mess ian ic communi ty ; (3 ) sec ta r i an conf l i c t andd iv i s ion wi th in the Jew ish-Chr i s t i an m ess ian ic com m uni ty o ver the

manner by which Gent i les were to be admit ted to fu l l membership;and (4) the inspir ing rediscovery and renewal of ecumenical uni ty inthe af termath of the mar tyrdom of chief apost les Peter and Paul inRome and the ou tb reak o f the ca tas t roph ic Roman-Jewish mi l i t a ryconfl ict . From this out l ine i t may be seen that the crucial matter isnot w he re a t radi t ion belon gs in som e tem poral prog ression m ark edoff by dec isive per iods in a dev elop m enta l sequ enc e.

The publ ic career of Jesus fa l l s between the f i r s t and second ofthese decis ive per iods and took place in Pales t ine . The Gospels werewri t ten dur ing or fo l lowing the four th and are ext ra-Pales t in ian inprovenance. Paul ' s le t ters provide us wi th an indispensable cont ro lfo r und er s ta nd in g how the Jesus t r ad i tion dev e lop ed be tw een thesecond and four th turning points by i l luminat ing the th i rd . Paulhimsel f was in t imate ly acquainted wi th both the Jewish-Palest in ianenvironment of Jesus and wi th the ext ra-Pales t in ian , gent i le-or ientedenvironment of the evangel is t s , and his l i fe and work provide an



indispensable h is tor iographical br idge between the two.Because of both the h is tor ica l uncer ta in ty concerning the gospel

chronologies and the mythopoeic character of much of Jesus ' " l i feand ministry," i t is best to focus our at tent ion on sayings of Jesuswhich or iginated during the per iod of his ear thly ministry i f we wishto reflect on the aims of the actual Jesus.

Within the corpus of the t radi t ion which or ig inated dur ing theperiod of Jesus ' ear thly ministry, the parables afford the best key forun de r s t an d i ng h i s c a r ee r and ch a r ac t e r. Howeve r, t he f o l l o wi n gpoints concerning the parables mer i t considera t ion: (1) the parables

are not to be interpreted al legorical ly (Jül icher) ; 2) in his parablesJesus procla ims that the eschatological k ingdom of God has a l readybroken in to rea l i ty (Dodd) ; (3) form cr i t ic i sm enables the cr i t ic toident i fy the parables of Jesus as belonging to the genre of rabbinicparables, while as a whole present ing theological ly dist inct ive content(Jeremias) ; and (4) form cr i t icism enables the cr i t ic to dist inguish theor ig inal form of Jesus ' parables f rom the addi t ions that were made

by the ear ly church (Jeremias) . Once these mat ters concerning theparables become clear, i t i s possib le to recapture the most adequateimage of Jesus ' career and character.

To do th is i t i s a l so necessary to meet minimal chronologicalrequi rements . One need only recognize that Jesus ' publ ic minis t rybegan wi th h is bapt ism at the hands of John, whose ident i ty i ses tabl i shed by the h is tor ian Josephus; that Jesus ' minis t ry ended in

cru c i f ix ion in r esp ons e to the f a te fu l dec i s ion s o f the p ro cur a to rPontius Pi late and the high pr iest Caiaphas, whose identi t ies are alsoestabl i shed by Josephus; and that between the beginning and end ofJe su s ' m inis t ry a two -fold and co m po un d cr isi s occurred . Centra l tothis cr isis was opposi t ion to Jesus by the rel igious authori t ies, whofel t chal lenged by his pract ice of ea t ing wi th tax col lec tors andsinners. Recognizing this fact makes i t possible to perceive a crediblere la t ionship between Jesus ' minis t ry and his death and to develop anint r insic chr ono logy for h is ear th ly career.

This can be accompl ished by ar ranging the sayings of Jesus andpa r t i cu l a r l y h i s pa r ab l e s i n r e l a t i o nsh i p t o t h i s t wof o l d an dcompound cr is i s . For example , a parable in which Jesus rebukes thesel f - r ighteousness of those who resent God 's mercy toward repentants inner s would have been p rompted by h i s dec i s ion to defend h i sact ion of eat ing with tax col lectors and sinners against the cr i t icism

of the Phar isees . This i s a decis ion, however, that could not have



come unti l af ter a decision by the Pharisees to cr i t icize such conduct ,which decis ion could not have been made before some tax col lec torsand sinners had decided to accept Jesus ' invi tat ion to table fel lowship.This decis ion in turn could not have taken place unt i l a f ter Jesus 'de cis io n to invi te repe ntant tax col lec tors and s inners in to the in t im acyof h is table fe l lowship . And th is decis ion of Jesus could not havetaken place unt i l some of these persons had decided to respond to hisgracious cal l to repentance, which could not have come unt i l a f terJesus ' decision to leave the sparsely set t led regions of the wildernessof Judea where he had been with John and to carry his gracious cal l

to repentance into the more densely populated urban areas of Israel .With th is necessary sequence of decis ive moments in Jesus ' publ ic

career, i t i s possib le to reconst ruct in out l ine form the essent ia ldevelopment of his message. The abi l i ty to do this rests on the pre-mise that the parables and other sayings of Jesus were not conceivedal l at once, but l ike the let ters of Paul , were composed in response topart icular si tuat ions. The essent ial out l ines of this development are as

fol lows:1. Jes us fo l lo w ed John the Bap t i s t, p ro c la im ing the im m ine n t

coming of the k ingdom of God.2. His initial message issued in:

(a) A gracious call to repentance

(b) A posit ive response from "tax collectors and sinners."

(c) The acceptance of s inners in to table fe l lowship , which crea ted a new

community that existed in anticipation of the coming kingdom.3. Jesus ' minis t ry was beset by two separate cr i ses ; and a th i rd

occur red which was compounded by in te rac t ion be tween the o thertwo.

(a) An in ternal c r is is developed among Jesus ' fo l lowers because of uncer-tainty concerning the coming of the kingdom.

(b) An external c r is is developed because of the Phar isees ' res is tance to

Jesus ' message and h is table fe l lowship wi th s inners . Jesus rebuked thePharisees and declared that i t was better to be a repentant s inner than a self-r ighteous keeper of the law. The a t t i tude of the Phar isees toward Jesusbecame increasingly hosti le , and they plotted his death. Even in the face ofdeath, Jesus reaffirmed the truth of his message.

(c) The external confl ict with the Pharisees compounded the internal uncer-ta in ty am on g the fa i t hfu l , ra is ing the que s t ion: shou ld we rea l ly a l lows inne rs in our f e l low sh ip ? Jesus a ssu red h i s d i sc ip le s tha t Go d wou ld

separa te the jus t f rom the unjus t . Go d a lone , not some r i tua l , would decid ew ho is jus t if ie d and w ho is not .



On the basis of this analysis of Jesus ' ministry and message, theimage of Jesus i s that of one who in the face of God 's imminentdest ruct ion of the wicked i ssued God 's gracious cal l to repentance,and wi th co m pa ssio n and joy rec eived s inne rs in to h is fe l lo w ship .Moreover, i t is the image of one who defended this act ion in the facto f c r i t i c i sm and r ebuked t h e se l f - r i g h t eou s a t t i t ud e o f t ho seauthor i t ies who resented God 's mercy toward repentant s inners . Thesignif icance of this image of Jesus ' l i festyle is both theological andexistent ial . There is in the parables of Jesus a theology of grace, athe olo gy w hich i s e th ica l ly and mo ral ly conc ern ed w i th the l i tt le

ones—those who are d isadvantaged and vic t imized by the socia l andrel ig io us s t ru ctu res of thei r exis tenc e . This i s a the olo gy o ut ofwhich comes a cal l to repentance and a promise of God's salvat ion toa l l who respond . In shor t , Jesus ' pa rab les demons t ra te beyondreasonable doubt that the one who communicated these parables andthei r message provides the pr imal h is tor ica l and theological contextwi th in which to r e f l ec t on the mean ing o f the c ross and the

r e su r r ec t i on .When the parables of Jesus preserved in the Gospel of Matthew are

ana l y ze d t heo l o g i ca l l y and com p ar ed t o t h e pa r ab l e s o f J e suspreserved in the Gospel of Luke, in every case the theology of theparables in Matthew can be matched by the theology of one or moreof the parables in Luke. Moreover, the theology of Jesus ' parables isessent ia l ly the same as the theology of Paul . S ince we learn f rom

Paul h imsel f that he preached the fa i th of the church he oncepersecuted , i t fo l lows that Paul preached a pre-Paul ine fa i th . Thehis tor ian has no a l ternat ive but to conclude that the theology com-mon to Paul and to the two s t reams of parable t radi t ion preservedseparately in Matthew and Luke goes back to Jesus. To imagine thatthese three s t reams of t radi t ion converge in some unident i f ied pre-Pauline theologian would be to create an unnecessary set of histor icaland theological problems.

I t is important to clar ify one fur ther point . There is sol id textualbasis for making a fundamental theological d is t inct ion between Jesusand John the Bapt is t . L ibera t ion theologies can be s t rengthened i fthey are careful not to blur this dist inct ion and if they do not wrong-ly con clud e that the polar iz ing eff ec t of Jo hn ' s preac hing should beat tr ibuted also to Jesus and identif ied as the cause for Jesus ' executionat the hands of the polit ical establishment.

Such a conclusion would be a vast overs impl i f ica t ion of a complex



ques t ion and would l eave impor tan t ev idence unexp la ined—evidencebo t h f r om t he pa r ab l e s i n L u ke and Ma t t hew and f r om P au l ' saccount of h is pre-Chr is t ian persecut ion of the church. This evidenceindicates that the re l ig ious author i t ies , who were drawn f rom ther ighteous elements within the establ ished world of Jewish piety, wereopposed to Jesus ' message and conduct . The woes of Jesus (which, tobe sure, were added to in the bi t terest of terms during the persecu-t ion of the church in which Paul the Pharisee took par t) and hisc leansing of the Temple polar ized h is re la t ionship wi th the re l ig iousauth ori t ies a nd sealed his fate. Je su s ' fate w as not in the f i rst instanc e

sealed by direct confrontat ion with Pi late and his pol i t ical authori tyor wi th Roman mi l i tary forces s ta t ioned in the capi ta l . Thus, whi lethe words of the psalmist "zeal for thy house has consumed me" (Ps69:9) have been ci ted in Scripture in connect ion with Jesus ' cleansingof the Temple (John 2:17) , Jesus was categorical ly more than a zealotor polit ical activist .

There i s no one category ( l ike carpenter, k ing, teacher, or exor-

cist) that can d o just ice to the unique c aree r of Jesus. T he best w ay inwhich to approach an understanding of Jesus as an histor ical f igure isto focus on his role as rel igious reformer ( l ike Bernard of Clairvauxor Romero of Salvador) . He cer ta in ly taught h is d isc ip les to lovetheir enemies, any reconstruct ion that stumbles on that fact wil l nots tand up to cr i t ic i sm. The reconst ruct ion offered here c lar i f ies there la t ions hip betw een re l ig ion and pol i t ics in Jes us ' en vi ro nm en t and

focuses at tent ion on what is t ruly l iberat ing in Christ iani ty.The theology which comes to expression in the words and act ions

of Jesus i s a theology which works against every form of oppressionand exploi ta t ion and binds together a l l persons who love God andthi rs t af ter r ighteousness . I t i s a theology which cal l s for resource-ment and renewal in the l i fe of the church and for pol i t ical involve-m ent in the s t ruggle for jus t ic e in so cie ty— for se l f - sa cr i f ic e and aread iness fo r mar ty rdom as exempl i f i ed in the l ives o f Maha tmaGandhi , Mar t in Lu ther King , J r. , and Archb i shop Oscar Romero .Jesus ' prophet ic power to unmask hypocr isy and se l f - r ighteousness i sabsolutely central to this theology and very distinctive of i t .

Where cer ta in parables of Jesus are in terpre ted wi th in the contextof in i t ia l developments in h is minis t ry and speci f ica l ly wi th in thecontext of his gracious cal l for repentance, they enable the histor ianto make informed suggest ions about the in tent ion of Jesus as herespo nde d to the exigen cies and di ff icul t ies he enc oun tered . H ow wa s



one to under s tand the de lay in the coming o f the k ingdom whichJoh n had pro nou nce d to be a t han d, espec ia l ly af ter Jo hn ' s ar res t andexecut ion? And i f one were to under take to cont inue procla iming the

coming of the k ingdom, how should he or she perceive th is minis t ry?Was i t to be understood as the work of God to be carr ied out duringan extension of the per iod of grace in the face of the comingjudgment? I f so , was i t not reasonable to expect that in due season,fa i l ing the f ru i t s of repentan ce, th is per iod of grace w ould co m e to asud d en and j u s t end ( L u ke 1 3 : 6 - 9 ) ? As f o r t hose w ho w ou l dmistakenly hold back because of their fear that the cost of repentance

might be too great , was i t not impor tant for thei r sake to emphasizethe jo y of the k in gd om (M at t 1 3:44-45)? Should not those w ho we rede l inquen t in se t t ing the i r houses in o rder be r eminded o f theinev i t ab i li ty of jud gm en t (Mat t 21 :33-41 ; Luk e 20 :9 -16) , the app ro-priateness of radical act ion in the face of cer tain change (Luke 16:1-8b) , the fo l ly of not t rust ing Go d (M at t 25 :14 -30 ; Lu ke 19:1 1-27 ) ,and t he sudde nness and unex p ec t ed ness o f G od ' s j ud g m en t ( M a t t

24 :45 -51 ; Lu ke 12:42-46; 13:1-5)?Cer ta in ly parables which dramat ical ly i l lus t ra te the fo l ly of post -

pon ing r epen tance (Mat t 22 :1 -10 ; 25 :1 -13 ; Luke 13 :6 -9) and whichteach the wisdom of l iv ing in ready expecta t ion of God 's graciousju d gm en t (Lu ke 12 :35-38) m os t l ike ly w ould have o r ig ina te d ins i t u a t i o n s w h e r e s u c h e x p e c t a t i o n s w o u l d b e e n l i v e n e d a n dhe igh ten ed — in the per iod of Je sus ' ac t ive m inis t ry af ter h is bap t ism

into the movement of John and his decis ion to cont inue procla imingthe imminence of the k ingdom fol lowing John ' s ar res t and death .Even wi th in th is per iod i t i s possib le to postu la te development .

P resumably Jesus would have under s tood the l esson the au thor i t i e sin tended by John ' s execut ion: "A disc ip le i s not above his teacher :(Mat t 10:24) . Jesus ' decis ion to car ry on would have been real i s t iconly i f he understood that he did so at great r isk. Although John hadbee n behe ade d , a m ore unusua l fo rm of exec u t ion wa s c ruc i f ix ion .For Jesus to say "Take up (your) cross and fo l low me" (Mat t 16:24)was h is way of making c lear that he had placed himsel f outs ide thedisc ip l ine and protect ion of the es tabl i shed wor ld of Jewish p ie ty,and was cal l ing upon others to do the same. This establ ished world ofJew ish p ie ty der ived i ts ea r th ly ju r i sd ic t ion f ro m Rom e. Thu s , incoming in to conf l ic t wi th the re l ig ious author i t ies , Jesus was r i sk ingthe u l t imate wrath of Roman power. To speak in th is way was ad e t e r m i n ed r e spo nse t o a po l i cy o f op p r e s s i on wh i ch had b ee n



calcula ted to d iscourage dangerous rhetor ic associa ted wi th messianicact ivi ty. But Jesus was not int imidated by what the authori t ies did toJoh n. H e cont in ued to prea ch. "N o one can serve two m aste rs . . .Yo u can no t serve Go d and ma m m on . . . Rep ent , and en ga ge in theservice of Go d . . . for the k ing dom of heave n i s a t ha nd " (M at t 6 :24 ;3:2) .

When Jesus sa id , "Take up (your ) c ross and fo l low me" (Mat t16:24) or "Leave the dead to bury thei r own dead" (Mat t 8 :22) , hetook upon himsel f the fu l l measure of God 's absolute demand whichw as enta i le d in m essia nic leadership . With such star t l ing s ta tem ents

Jesus chal lenged others to f ree themselves f rom a para lyzing fear ofhuman author i t ies both those who sa t in Moses ' sea t and those whorepresen ted the emperor. In the fo rmer say ing , Jesus unob t rus ive lyclar i f ied the a l l - impor tant quest ion of whether he was naively cal l ingothers in to a course of ac t ion where the sacr i f ices being r i sked mightbe greater than he himself was prepared to bear.

"What wil l i t prof i t a man, i f he gains the whole world and forfei ts

h is l i fe?" (Mat t 16:26) . "Whoever would save h is l i fe wi l l lose i t "(Mat t 16 :25) . Such b rave and bo ld words s t aved o ff the d i s in te -g r a t i n g e f f e c t s o f t em p t a t i on t o ab an d on ho pe f o r t he k i n gd om ' scoming , once news o f John ' s a r r es t and impr i sonment was fo l lowedby conf i rmat ion of h is death . Even so , such sayings do not seem tocarry one to the hear t of Jesus ' message. They simply show that Jesusgave expression to qual i t ies that help account for h is emergence as a

leader in Israel , greater than John.If we are to t rust the ear l iest and most rel iable t radi t ion, Jesus saw

himsel f in prophet ic cont inui ty wi th John in commitment to the ca l lfor nat ional repentance in the face of the imminent coming of thekingdom (Mat t 11:7b-19) . But Jesus saw himsel f in radical d iscont in-ui ty wi th John rega rding the basis fo r adm issio n in to the k ing do m(Mat t 21:28-32) . John ' s s t r ic tures against the moral laxi t ies of the

peop le were uncompromis ing and the os tens ib le cause fo r h i s dea thwas h is denuncia t ion of immoral i ty in h igh places . With Jesus i t wasotherwise . The misdeeds of the weal thy and powerful d id not seem topreoccupy him, though he was not unmindful of the p l ight of ther ich (Matt 19:23-24; Luke 16:19-31) . Jesus came to save sinners, notto condemn them. As chi ldren of their Father in heaven, they in turnwere counseled to love thei r enemies even as God loved his (Mat t5 : 4 3 - 4 8 ) . T h ey w er e adm on i sh e d n o t t o pu t f o rg i ve ne ss on anyca lcu la te d basis , but to for giv e f ree ly, boldly , un co nd i t ion al ly, and



from the hear t—not seven t imes, but seventy t imes even (Matt 18:21-35) .

T he f e l low sh ip of such a com m uni ty o f fo rg iv en and fo rg iv ingsinner s was poign ant and joy fu l . "Th ere wi l l be m ore joy in h eav enover one s inner who repents than over n inety-nine r ighteous personsw ho need no r ep en tanc e" (Luke 15 :7 ) . Th ere fore , Jesus a te wi thsinners and celebrated thei r repentance (Luke 15:1-10) . Such radicaldoc t r ine and p ract ice wa s d i ff icul t to jus t i fy by legal precede nt f romJewish scr iptures. So revolut ionary an at t i tude on the par t of Jesuscould only i r r i ta te author i t ies whose socia l impor tance res ted upon

the i r mas te ry o f the exege t i ca l in t r i cac ies o f a l i f e -encompass inglegal system.

In this respect , the relat ionship of Jesus to the Pharisees cal ls forsome c lar i f ica t ion . Thei r opposi t ion to h is pract ice of admit t ing taxcollectors and sinners into int imacy of table fel lowship was rooted intwo dist inguishable legal concerns. First , there were the explici t foodlaws, cal led kashrut , which forbade eat ing pork, a kid seethed in i ts

mother 's milk, meat with the blood st i l l in i t , and the l ike. Theselaws had governed the d ie t of Jews for centur ies and served to keepthem from eat ing with genti les or other Jews who l ived and ate l ikegent i les . Second, there was the pur i ty code which, when appl ied tothe lai ty, separated Jew from Jew social ly. Such social separat ion wasgoing on in the t ime of Jesus when some groups of Jews wereapplying the pr iest ly puri ty code to the lai ty. The Jews who did this,

ca l led haberim

in rabbinic sources , we re even tual ly fo l low ed by therabbis, who at tempted to extend the provisions of the puri ty code toall Israelites.

S ince gent i les were present in the Holy Land, r ighteous Jews wereaffec ted in d i ff e ren t ways as f a r as ea t ing was concerned . Theysomet imes found i t he lpful to band together to see that the kashrut

laws were ful ly observed (and the puri ty code, too, when that was ofco n ce r n to t hem ) . A co m m o n t ab l e w h e r e p r ope r p r ec au t i on sregard ing these l aws were observed was in o rder among r igh teousJe w s w ho , wh en awa y f rom ho m e, cou ld no t dep end u pon th i sservice being rendered by members of thei r respect ive fami l ies .

The admission of unr ighteous Jews ( those lax in thei r observanceof the kashrut l aws ) in to the table fe l low sh ip of thos e w ho w erer ighteous was permit ted at the discret ion of the leaders of the group.Such admissions were defended on the grounds of hesed ( covenan ta llove) and just i f ied as a means of recrui t ing new members for the



fe l lowship or for the renewal movement , as the case might be .The Pharisees as r ighteous Jews, that is , as observants of the Law

of Moses , including the kashrut l aws, had no par t icular gro un ds forobject ing to th is pract ica l way of fac i l i ta t ing the observance of thelaw wi th in the wider communi ty. To the extent that the Phar iseeswere looked to by the author i t ies , tha t i s , the Roman-backed highpriest ly ol igarchy, as the par ty best able to pol ice the land in termsof observing the law, or to the extent that they were recognized bythe people (and so perceived themselves) to be author ized by God topolice the land, the Pharisees were nervous about any si tuat ion where

the r ighteousness of those observing the law was being dangerouslyimputed to the unr ighteous. (This i s precise ly what Jesus ' acceptanceof s inners a t table fe l lowship impl ied . ) Such nervousness could bestbe a l layed by requi r ing a prob at iona ry per iod dur ing which an yo neseeking admission to an eat ing group could give evidence of a sincerein tent to become t ru ly and endur ingly observant .

A scandalous fea ture of Jesus ' admit t ing unr ighteous Jews in to the

in t imacy o f h i s t ab le f e l lowsh ip was the absence o f any f ixedprobat ionary per iod. The most l ibera l of the haberim requ i red onemonth (t Dem 2.10-12) and the Essenes required two or three years.

Compared to the more es tab l i shed r e l ig ious g roups , then , Jesus 'fe l lowship appeared dangerously subvers ive of that law upon whosest r ic t observance the Phar isees p laced such great impor tance. In anycase , s imple prudence d ic ta ted that the Phar isees take the precau-

t ionary step of warning r ighteous Jews who were most l ikely to heedtheir warning. (Because of pol i t ical restraints placed upon them thatcurtai led that zeal for the law, there was general ly l i t t le the Phariseescould do against tax col lec tors and others who l ived l ike gent i les ,except to excommunicate them f rom thei r table fe l lowship . )

The Phar i sees were ce r t a in ly no t the on ly r igh teous Jews inPalest ine . The Qumran communi ty const i tu ted a haven for those whowanted to be r ight with God according to the Law of Moses. Doubt-less there were o ther such r ighteous communi t ies . But the specia lstatus of the Pharisees in the eyes of the people and their role in thepower structure of the establ ished world of Jewish piety, at tested byJo sep hu s , j u s t i f y r ega r d i ng som e of t he New T es t am en t ev i d en ceabout them as val id.

Fi rs t , Paul was a Phar isee , and he was granted pol ice power byJewish authori t ies. He was not granted those powers because he was aPhar isee , but s ince he was a Phar isee he had credent ia ls that s tood



him in go od stead in ca rryin g out his po l ice dut ies. Th e local p eo pl ep r e sen t a t t he a r r e s t s P au l m ade , whose co ope r a t i on w i t h t hear res t ing author i t ies was impor tant , knew that Paul was a Phar isee .

There fore they assen ted to h i s au thor i ty as der ived f rom God , no tf rom Rome. Second, Jesus recognized the Phar isees as r ighteous andal luded to them when his teaching requi red the example of a r ighte-ou s pe rso n ( fo r ex am ple , the pa rab le of the tax co l lec tor and thePhar i see in the Temple) . Th i rd , Jesus perce ived a d i ff e rence be tweenthe r igh teousness p rac t i ced by the Phar i sees and the obed ience hetaught h is d isc ip les to render to God. Four th , Jesus a t t imes came

in to con f l i c t wi th the Phar i sees , fo r exa m ple , over Sabb a th ob serv -ance and over h is pract ice of admit t ing s inners in to the in t imacy ofhis table fe l lowship . This la t ter opposi t ion possib le arose only inthose cases where the s inners were gui l ty of notor ious t ransgress ion,as wi th tax col lec tors . F inal ly, Jesus recognized that the Phar iseespossessed au thor i ty to ru le on the in te rp re ta t ion o f the Law ofMoses . Taken as a l ega l gu i ld , however, the i r example d i sc red i t ed

the i r u l t imate au thor i ty as r e l i ab le exponen t s o f God ' s r equ i rementsof his sons and daughters.

W he the r Jesu s is resp ons ible for the w oe s against the Phar ise es i san histor ical quest ion affected by the source paradigm that is applied.A cc o r d i ng to t he t w o- d oc um en t hy po t he s i s , M a t t h e w 2 3 can beu n d e r s t o o d as a n e x p a n d e d M a t t h e a n c o n s t r u c t i o n r e p r e s e n t i n gdevelopment of t radi t ion f rom Q, some of which was a lso known to

Mark . On fo rm-cr i t i ca l g rounds , however, even assuming the two-document hypothesis , there i s much against th is v iew. The t radi t ionprese rved in Mat thew 23 r e f l ec t s the in f luence o f o ra l t r ad i t ion ,Jew ish and Pa les t in ian in p ro ve nan ce . Re gard ing Ma t the w as theear l ies t of the extant Gospels removes a l l doubt about the Jewish-Christ ian and Palest inian or igin of most i f not al l of the t radi t ion inMat thew 23 .

I t i s poss ib le on fo rm-cr i t i ca l g rounds to r econs t ruc t the moreoriginal form of the woes and to separate the t radi t ion that has beenadded. Paul ' s own tes t imony of h is a t tack upon the church f i t s thehis tor ica l req ui re m en t of a k ind of v io len t perse cut ion w hic h, w he ninf l i c t ed by some Phar i sees upon some Chr i s t i ans , would exp la inthese b i t t e r add i t ions . The woes themse lves , however, may wel l beauthent ic to Jesus . They cer ta in ly are profoundly consonant wi th thebest-at tested sayings of Jesus.

Thus, i t i s c lear that one can give a credible account of the



im por ta nce o f the Phar i sees fo r und er s tan d ing the N ew Te s tam ent ,espe cia l ly the im po r tan ce of thei r opp osi t ion to Je su s ' table fe l lo w -ship wi th tax col lec tors and s inners , wi thout se t t l ing the quest ion asto the extent the puri ty code was being applied to al l Israel i tes in thet ime of Jesus . Depending upon the extent that the pur i ty code wasappl ied and whether the Phar isees had any in teres t a t a l l in gain ingwide acceptance of i t among the la i ty, Jesus ' table fe l lowship wi th taxcol lec tors and s inners could have been of added concern to the Phar i -sees . A concern would have been there in any case , based s imply onthe k shrut l aws. It w ould not hav e been only the Pha r isees ' con cer n ,

but one shared by al l r ighteous Jews, to one degree or another.I t was normat ive that r ighteous Jews not ea t wi th s inners . As one

who came in the way o f r igh teousness , John had no t ea ten wi thsinners . But Jesus d id . This marks a profound theological d i fferencebetween John and Jesus (Mat t 11:16-19) .

The object ion of scr ibes and Phar isees to Jesus ' pract ice of ea t ingwi th t ax co l l ec to r s and s inner s l ed to a major c r i s i s fo r Jesus .

Succumbing to pressure to abandon th is pract ice would possib ly havebrought Jesus favor ; ins tead, he s t ruck a t an impor tant root of theprob lem—the se l f - r igh teousness o f a sc rupu lous r e l ig ious es tab l i sh -ment .

Jesus represented the legal author i t ies ' emphasis on minut iae of thelaw an d thei r neglec t of jus t ic e , m erc y, and fa i th as the coun sel of"bl ind guides" (Mat t 23:23-24) . This , however, may be a car ica ture .

In any case , Jesus h imsel f came f rom a re l ig ious background so akinto Ph ar i sa i sm as to co m m an d the r espec t o f the Phar i sees . Th e i ranx ie ty over wha t he was do ing may have been roo ted in thepercept ion that one of thei r own kind was endanger ing the in teres tsof "the r ighteous." Jesus openly said that he did not come to cal l ther i g h t eo u s ( Ma t t 9 : 9 - 13 ) . A l t h ou g h h e h i m se l f was kn o w n a s ar ighteous man, in ea t ing wi th s inners Jesus was breaking down the

bar r i e r s by which many r igh teous Jews main ta ined an inner g roups t r eng th . Th i s g roup s t r eng th was necessa ry to wi ths tand ex te rna lp r e s su r e s t o co m pr om i se r e l i g i ou s sc r u p l e s in t he i n t e r e s t s o fach iev ing an imp roved ec ono my and a more cosmo pol i t an soc ie ty.

Jesus ' table fe l lowship wi th tax col lec tors and s inners may not havebeen in the f i r s t ins tance the nuc leus o f a new communi ty. Never-theless, i t was based upon the recognit ion that God is the Father ofal l . Indeed, i f a man has a hundred sheep and one goes astray, wil l henot leav e the n inet y-n ine to sear ch for the on e that i s los t? A nd



having found it , will he not put i t on his shoulder and bring it backrejo ic ing and cal l to h is f r iends, "Rejoice wi th me, for I have foundmy sheep which was lost" (Luke 15:3-6; cf . Mat t 18:10-14)? Howmuch more wil l our heavenly Father rejoice over the return of a lostson (Luke 15:11-24)? Therefore , how appropr ia te that we celebratethe repentance of those los t sons of Abraham who, once dead int r espasse s , a re now a live th rough Go d ' s merc i fu l jud gm en t (Lu ke15:25-32; 19:1,10) .

By such forceful imagery as th is , Jesus defended his pract ice oftable fel lowship with tax col lectors and sinners. Parables l ike the one

about the los t son and his e lder brother (Luke 15:11-32) or thelabore r s in the v ineyard (Mat t 20 :1 -16) were f i r s t c r ea ted inresponse to th is cr i s i s in Jesus ' minis t ry. They were used to defendthe gospel of God 's unmer i ted and uncondi t ional acceptance of therepentant sinner. Similar ly, the parable about the great banquet (Matt22:1-10; Luke 14:16-24) served to remind the r ighteous that theyhad no gro un d for com plain t over the esch atolog ical ac cep tan ce of

sinners since they themselves had turned their backs on the kingdom(cf . Matt 23:13) .

These parab les in themse lves were p robab ly no t in tended toal ienate the scr ibes and Pharisees, but to forestal l their inquisi tor ialactivity among the disciples. Nor is a parable l ike that of the Phariseeand the tax col lector in the Temple (Luke 18:9-14) designed to hurtrather than to heal . The Pharisee in the parable does not represent al l

Pharisees and cer tainly not the ideal Pharisee. But to make his pointtha t goodness can become demonic and des t ruc t ive when i t l eadsgood men to i so la te themselves f rom others , Jesus chose a man f romone of the most vir tuous circles of Jewish society. I f such a man, nomat ter how moral , p laces h is t rust in h is own r ighteousness anddespises others, he goes from the house of God to his own house in awrong re la t ionship to God. However, a s inner who places h is or hertrust in the mercy of God goes home in a r ight relat ionship to God.

The love God has for the s inner shows no lack of love for ther ighteous. "All that is mine is yours," says the father to his elder son,but "i t was f i t t ing to make merry and be glad, for this your brotherw as dea d, and is al ive; he w as lost , and is fo u nd " (L uk e 15:31 -32) .This noble and hear t fe l t sent iment d id not go complete ly unheeded,but lodged i t se l f wi th in the col lec t ive unconscious of the Phar isa iccommuni ty, there to work i t s way inexorably against every tendencyt o w a r d h a r d - h e a r t e d n e s s , w i t h i n t h e r a n k s o f t h e r i g h t e o u s .



Subsequent ly, the e lder brother, a s t r ic t Phar isee , whi le persecut ingthe church, was won over by the powerful rea l i ty of God 's love. Hebecame a s taunch defender of what some regarded as an i l l ic i t tablefel lowship, but which he himself saw being at the hear t of the gospelfor which Jesus had died (Gal 2:11-21) .

In spi te of the cogency of Jesus ' defense of the gospel of God 'sm er cy t ow ar d r epen t an t s i nne r s , o p p o s i t i o n f r o m t h e r e l i g i o u sesta bl i sh m en t s t i ffe ne d. In th is per iod of opp osi t ion f ro m re l ig io usauthori t ies responsible for upholding the law in the towns and ci t iesouts ide Jerusalem, Jesus formulated h is woes against the "scr ibes andPhar i sees . " These u t t e rances a re uncompromis ing . By th i s t ime theissue had become clear ; I srael was a t the crossroads. The peopleco u l d e i t he r f o l l ow t hose wh om Je su s cha r ac t e r i zed a s "b l i ndgu ides , " who hypocr i t i ca l ly he ld in the i r hands the keys o f thekingdom but who nei ther entered themselves nor a l lowed others toenter (Matt 23:13) , or they could fol low Jesus. I rony turned to bi t tersa r c a sm in t he j ud gm en t : "W oe t o y ou , s c r ibe s and P ha r i se e s ,

hy po cr i t e s For you bu ild the tom bs o f p ro phe t s and ado rn themonuments of the r ighteous, say, ' I f we had l ived in the days of ourfa thers we would not have taken par t wi th them in shedding theblood of the prophets ' " (Mat t 23:29-30) . You hypocr i tes , Jesus sa id ,because in so speaking you condemn yourselves as among those whomurder p rophe t s . For as you d i ssoc ia te yourse lves f rom those whohave done evi l and vainly imagine that had you been in their place

you would not have commit ted the s ins they commit ted , you showyourselves to be the very k ind of se l f - r ighteous persons who wi l lcondone the ki l l ing of those God sends us as his messengers.

U nc om pro m isin g w ords l ike these sealed the fa te of Jesus . By thei ruse he un m ask ed w hat ma ny in pos i t ions of p r iv i l ege and po w er cou ldnot bear to have unmasked. Jesus penet ra ted the facade of goodnessbehind which persons h id thei r lus t for power. He represented them

to be l ike "whi tewashed tombs , which ou tward ly appear beau t i fu l ,but wi th in . . . a re fu l l of dead m en 's bo nes " (Mat t 23:27 ) .

Af ter invect ive l ike th is , the legal author i t ies were beside them-selves to f ind some charge on which to get r id of Jesus. The compli-ance of high pr iest ly circles and the rest of the Jerusalem ol igarchywas assured once Jesus made i t c lear that he ca l led for changes notonly in men 's hear ts , but in the ins t i tu t ions of Zion—speci f ica l lywithin the central inst i tut ion, the Temple i tself (Matt 21:12-13) .

With the Pharisees, the high priests, and the elders of the people in



concer t , t he Roman au thor i t i e s , had they ins i s t ed on due p rocess ,would have r i sked a tear in the del ica te ly woven fabr ic of pol i t ica lco l l abora t ion . Th i s co l l abora t ion enab led Rome to main ta in v iab le

control over a key sector in the defensive per imeter of i t s f ront ierwi th the Par th ians , who were an ever-present threat to the s tabi l i tyof the eastern provinces . Ostensib ly, in the in teres t of mainta in ingJewish law and Roman order, Jesus was executed . This was done inspi te of the fac t that Jesus programmat ical ly ins is ted that he came"no t to des troy the law, but to fu lf i l l i t" (M att 5:17) . M or eo ve r, Jes ustaught h is d isc ip les that unless thei r r ighteousness exceeded that of

the scr ibes and Phar isees , they would never enter the Kingdom ofHeaven (Matt 5:20) . Yet i t can hardly be doubted that in fulf i l l ing the"law and the prophets ," Jesus ran afoul of the scr ibes and Phar isees .This occurred not only when he a te wi th tax col lec tors and s inners ,but a lso in regard to o ther mat ters as , for example , the Sabbathob se rv an ce (M at t 12 :1 -8 ; Lu ke 14 :5 ) . Jesu s ce r t a in ly ch a l l e ng edJewish legal authori ty and, as for Roman order, i t was to be replaced

by the Kingdom of Heaven. So the d ie had been cast wel l in advance.Whi le Jesus d ied a r ighteous man by the s tandards of the Kingdom ofHeaven, he did not go to the cross innocent of breaking the law as i twas r epresen ted by the mores o f the loca l popu lace . Nor was heinnocent of d is turbing the peace as i t was preserved in and throughimper ia l order. He was cruci f ied in the end by the Romans as apol i t ica l cr iminal . We can imagine the mixed feel ings of anguish andrel ief on the par t of responsible Jewish authori t ies. Yet we are not ina posi t ion to know wi th any degree of cer ta in ty the mot ives of thepr incipals who were involved in h is death .

This out l ine of essent ia l developments between the death of Johnand the death of Jesus i l lustrates how tradi t ion or iginat ing with Jesus,which is preserved in the Gospels, can be set within the context of hisl i fe s i tuat ion . The t radi t ion can be seen to come a l ive against thehis tor ica l background of the Jews in Pales t ine when Herod Agr ippawas Tet rarch of Gal i lee and Perea , when John the Bapt is t had beenpre ach ing a bap t i sm of r epe n tan ce in the Jo rdan va l l ey, and wh enPont ius Pi la te was procurator of Judea.

In retrospect , on the basis of what can be supported by histor icalinqui ry, i s i t possib le to say something about the character of Jesusand about his public ministry? Jesus ' character is the mark he lef t or"eng r aved " upon h i s d i sc i p l e s , i nc l ud i ng t he t ax co l l ec t o r s an dsinners he admit ted in to the in t imacy of h is table fe l lowship . This



fe l lowship heard Jesus g ladly and remembered his words and act ions .M em be rs o f th is f e l low sh ip took r espons ib i l i ty fo r fo rm ula t ing andhanding on to the ear l iest churches such authentic sayings of Jesus asin fact have been preserved in the Gospels.

T o the de gr ee that the un de rs ta nd ing of l i fe ex pr ess ed in theseauthent ic sayings was actual ly represented by Jesus in h is own l i fes i tuat ion , that i s , through his words and act ions—to th is degree i t i spossib le to speak about the character of Jesus . Conf in ing the inqui ryto that nu cleu s of sayin gs which bey ond a rea son able do ubt can beaccepted as authentic sayings of Jesus, i t is possible to conclude that

in r ebuk ing se l f - r igh teousness and ch id ing those who resen ted God ' smercy toward s inners , Jesus d isc losed something about the k ind ofpers on h e was . He can be seen as a pub l ic f igu re in re la t ion ship too t h e r f i g u r e s . H i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d h i s h u m a nco nc ern for o thers , and many w ere mo ve d by it . Th ey saw not o nlyhis f r iendship for tax col lec tors and s inners , but more . They saw aco nce r n f o r com m un i t y.

Pre tent iousness and se l f - r ighteousness on the par t of individuals orgroups i s one of the most ser ious cor rupt ing inf luences affect ing theheal th and in tegr i ty of communal exis tence . Individual and col lec t ivese l f - r igh teousness on the par t o f au thor i t i e s , when uncha l l enged i sl ike a hard cem en t by w hich ou tm od ed and un jus t ecc le s ias t i ca l ,economic, pol i t ica l , and socia l s t ructures are kept defensib le in thefac e o f jus t i f i e d opp os i t ion f ro m ad vo ca te s o f soc ia l o r r e l ig iou s

reforms. Pr ivi leged individuals or castes are secure only so long as i ti s possib le for socie ty to perceive thei r posi t ions of pr iv i lege asc lo thed wi th the garments o f r igh teousness . To pu l l a s ide thesegarments and to expose hypocr isy and abuse i s a revolut ionary act ofa most radical nature.

Jesus exposed hypocr isy and abuse . For h im to rebuke the pr idefulse l f - r ighteousness of re l ig ious author i t ies was to s t r ike a t an impor-

tant source of cont ra- redempt ive inf luence in h is own l i fe s i tuat ionand to encourage the cont inuat ion of the individual and covenanta lr enewal tha t was t ak ing p lace in r esponse to h i s p reach ing . Thosewhom Jesus had he lped to perce ive themse lves as s inner s dependen tupon the unmer i ted grace of God were g lad to know that he not onlyreceived s inners , but defended th is ac t ion when i t was cr i t ic ized. Andinsofar as i t was possib le , they were moved to go and do l ikewise .

There was in th is compassionate but d isconcer t ing s tance of Jesus ady n am i c sou r ce o f r edem p t i v e p ower wh i ch wor ked ag a i n s t t h e



at tempt of the es tabl i shed wor ld of Jewish p ie ty to s t ructure humanex i s tence on the exc lus ive g round o f the mosa ic covenan t . Such asource of power provided the basis for a d is t inct ive s ty le of l i fe

where in Jesus and h i s d i sc ip les worked joyfu l ly fo r a r econc i l ingmode o f human ex i s t ence open to God ' s g race and to a fu tu re con-di t ioned by (1) s in and the expecta t ion of God 's imminent dest ruct ionof s inners ; (2) the unbounded sovereign love of God; and (3) a fa i thw hich led them to subm it to the jud gm en t of Go d and to t rust them -selves ut ter ly to the mercy that was intr insic to and inherent in God'slove. This i s a s ty le of l i fe grounded in God 's sovereign love which

resul t s in a new creat ion (Paul ) , and being born again ( John) . Jesusl ikened this new style of l i fe to "becoming l ike a chi ld."

Thi s per sona l s t ruc tu r ing and r es t ruc tu r ing o f the i r h i s to r i ca lexis tence , th is shaping of the rea l i t ies of thei r human envi ronment ,and the co m pa ss io n and joy asso c ia ted w i th th i s c rea t ive s t an cesusta ined and gave theological depth and di rect ion to thei r fe l low-ship. Clear ly there is more to Jesus than this. But this understanding

of his public career and character carr ies the invest igator to the veryheart of what can be shown as both essent ial and enduring in Jesus.





F I V E G O S P E L S B U T N O G O S P E L

J E S U S A N D T H E S E M I N A R

N. T h om as Wr i gh t

L O O K I N G F O R J E S U S

People have been looking for Jesus for a long t ime, but never qui te

l ike th is . The "Quest of the His tor ica l Jesus" has been proceeding, inf i ts and star ts , for two hundred years. I ts story has of ten been told;1

in recent years there has been a f lurry, not to say a f lood, of wri t ingabout Jesus , and debates of a l l sor ts , about every aspect of thee v i d e n c e , a n d e v e r y c o n c e i v a b l e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f J e s u s ' l i f e ,t each ing , work , and dea th , have been runn ing to and f ro .2 Most of

1

N. T. W right , "Q ues t for the His tor ica l Jesu s ," ABD 3 .796-802 .2 W e may no te , fo r in s tanc e W . R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, andJosephus: An Enquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period ( Ne wYo rk : Co lum bia Unive rs i ty P ress , 1956) ; G. B. Ca i rd , Jesus and the JewishNation (Lon don : Ath lone Press, 1965); G. Verm es , Jesus the Jew: A Historian sReading of the Gospels (Lo ndo n : Co l l ins ; Ph i l ade lph ia : For t re ss , 1973) ; idem ,Jesus and the World of Judaism (Lo ndo n : SC M , 1983; Ph i l ad e lph ia : For t re ss ,1984) ; idem, The Religion of Jesus the Jew (London : SCM; Minneapo l i s : For t re ss ,

1993) ; B. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus ( Lo n d o n : S C M , 1 9 79 ) ; i d e m, ChristusFaber: The Master-Builder and the House o f God (PT M S 29; Al l i son Pa rk : P ick -wick, 1992) ; idem, "Jesus Chr is t ," in D. N. Freedman e t a l . (eds .) , The AnchorBible Dictionary (6 vols . , Ne w Yor k: Do uble day , 1992) 3 .773 -96; A. E. Ha rve y,Jesus and the Constraints of History: The Bampton Lectures, 1980 ( L o n d o n :Duckworth , 1982) ; M. J . Borg , Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings ofJesus (S B EC 5 ; Ne w York and Tor on to : Mel len , 1984) ; idem, Jesus: A NewVision (San Franc isco: Harp er & Ro w, 1987) ; E. P. San ders , Jesus and Judaism(London: SCM; Phi ladelphia : For t ress , 1985) ; idem, The Historical Figure of Jesus(London and New York: Penguin , 1993) ; G. Theissen , Der Schatten des Galiläers.Historische Jesus-forschung in erzählender Form (M unich: Kaiser, 1986); ET: TheShadow of the Galilean: The Quest of the Historical Jesus in Narrative Form(Ph i lade lph ia : For t ress , 1987) ; R. A. Ho rs ley , Jesus and the Spiral of Violence:Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Franc i sco : Harp e r & Row ,1987); S. Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Histori-cal Investigations (Phi ladelph ia : For t ress , 1988); J . H. Ch ar lesw orth , Jesus withinJudaism (AB RL ; New York : Dou b leday, 1988) ; B. W i the r ing ton , The Christologyof Jesus (M inne apo l is : For t ress , 1990) ; J . P. M eier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking



t h i s wr i t i ng has been p r odu ced by i nd i v i d ua l s ch o l a r s , wor k i ngindependent ly. But in the las t few years a new corporate venture hasemerged, a t tempt ing by a process of d iscussion and vot ing to ar r ive

at an answer to the quest ion: "What d id Jesus rea l ly say?" This grouphas ca l l ed i t se l f "The Jesus Seminar, " and among i t s many recen tpubl ica t ions one s tands out as a k ind of f lagship: The Five Gospels,publ i shed l a t e in 1993 by Macmi l l an ( though emana t ing f rom theS em i na r ' s own pub l i sh i ng h ouse , P o l eb r i dge P r e s s ) . T h i s i s t hesubject of the present chapter.

No doubt there are a t leas t as many opinions about the "The Jesus

Seminar" as the Seminar i t se l f holds about Jesus . Passions , in fac t ,a l ready run high on the subject , and may run higher yet before thes to rm aba tes . Some of the Seminar ' s members t r ea t any ques t ion ingof i ts work l ike a slap in the face—though not with the turning of theother cheek, as one might have thought consider ing that that sayingrec e ive d the r a re acc o lad e o f a r ed vo te (me an in g au th en t i c ; seeb e l o w ) .3 In o ther quar ters , one only has to ment ion the Seminar to

pro vo ke a wry sm i le , or even g u ff aw s of laugh ter. At a pa cke d andhigh-prof i le meet ing of the Socie ty of Bibl ica l L i tera ture ' s "Paul ineTheology" seminar in 1991, the person in the chai r—one of the mostsenior and respected of Nor th Amer ican bib l ica l scholars—rejected acal l for a vote on the subject that had been under d iscussion bysimply saying, "This a in ' t the Jesus Seminar." This was greeted wi thlaughter and applause in about equal measure .

So what is the Jesus Seminar up to, and what should be think abouti t ? I t has now comple ted many year s o f de ta i l ed and pa ins tak ingwork, and, though i t may wel l a l l deserve d iscussing, there i s no

the Historical Jesus. Vo l u m e O n e : The Roots of the Problem and the Person(A BR L 3 ; Ne w York : Do ub led ay, 1991) ; idem, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking theHistorical Jesus. Vo l u m e Tw o : Mentor, Message, and Miracles ( A B R L 9 ; N e w

Yo r k : Do u b l e d a y, 1 9 9 4 ) ; J . D . Cr o s s a n , The Historical Jesus: The Life of aMediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Fran cisco: Ha rper Co l l ins , 1991) ; B. Ch i l ton ,The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural H istory of Sacrifice(Universi ty Park: Penn State Press, 1992); idem and C. A. Evans, Jesus in Context:Temple, Purity, and Restoration (A G JU 39; Le iden: Br i l l , 1997) ; C. A. Ev an s ,Jesus and His Contemporaries: Com parative Studies (A GJ U 25 ; Le iden : Br i l l ,1995) .

3 M at t 5 :39; c f . R. W . Funk and R. W . Ho ov er (eds .) , The Five Gospels:

The Search for the Authentic Words o f Jesus ( S o n o m a : P o l e b r i d g e ; Ne w Y o r k :Macmil lan , 1993) 143-45.



space here to go in to i t s many products , wi th a l l the i r presupposi -t ions , methods , dec i s ions , and r esu l t s .4 I have, in any case, wri t tenabout a l l tha t e lsewhere .5 I want in this essay to concentrate on The

Five Gospels, the book towa rds w hich a ll e l se w as p re l im inary.The "Five Gospels" in quest ion are ( in case there was any doubt)

Mark , Mat thew, Luke , John , and Thomas. T he inc lusio n of the lastof these wil l st i l l raise one or two eyebrows, through i t is by nowwel l known tha t the Seminar t akes k ind ly to Thomas, not lea stbecause of i t s apparent s imi lar i ty wi th ( some reconst ruct ions of ) thehypothet ica l source "Q"—and, as we shal l see , the por t ra i t of Jesus

which i t appear s to suppor t . More s t r ik ing i s the t echn ique wi thwhich the Seminar ' s resul t s are d isplayed. The old "red le t ter tes ta-ments" picked out al l the words of Jesus in red; this one accords thats ta tus to the favored few among the sayings, those which the Seminarvoted as h ighly l ikely to emanate f rom Jesus h imsel f . The res t ofJesus ' sayings are se t in p ink, gray, and black, on a rough s l id ingsca le o f the p robab i l i ty and improbab i l i ty o f the i r coming f rom

Jesus; I shal l discuss the precise nuances of the colors present ly. Eachsaying, s tory, or group of sayings/s tor ies i s then commented on, andthe r easons fo r the vo t ing a re exp la ined , som et im es b r i e f ly, s om e-t imes up to a few pages. The text is broken up from t ime to t ime by"cameo essays" on key topics ( the k ingdom of God, the son of man,and so for th ) . Th e text is a t t rac t iv ely la id out , wi th d ia gr am s andoccasional p ic tures . Everything i s presented about as c lear ly as i t

cou ld be ; nobody, f rom h igh schoo l s tuden t upwards , cou ld f a i l tosee what was being said. All in al l , i t is a substant ial product , andwhatever one thinks of the actual resul ts , i t clear ly represents a greatdeal of hard labor.

A New Translation

Six fea ture s of the boo k cal l fo r gen eral co m m en t r ight f r o m thestar t . F i r s t , i t uses what the Seminar has ca l led "The Scholars Ver-s io n" [ s i c ]— i t s ow n tr ans la t ion o f the four can on ica l Gos pe l s an d

4 See , fo r ins tan ce , R. W . Fun k, B. B. Scot t , and J . R. Bu t ts (eds .) , TheParables of Jesus: Red Letter E dition. A Report of the Jesus Sem inar ( S o n o m a :Pole br id ge , 1988) ; R. J . M il ler, The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Ver-sion (Son om a: Po lebr idge , 1992); and the Se m inar ' s jou rna l , Forum: Foundationsand Facets.

5

N. T. W r igh t , Jesus and the Victory of God (Chr i s t i an Or ig ins and theQu est ion of G od 2; Lo ndo n: SPC K; Minne apol is : For t ress , 1996) 28-82 .



Thomas. Th i s i s an a t t em pt to r epre sen t , in co l lo qu ia l A m er i ca nEngl ish , the or ig inal f lavor of the Greek. Now i t i s our turn to beslapped in the face:

Although Jesus was indignant , he s t re tched out h is hand, touched h im, ands a y s t o h i m, "O k a y — y o u ' r e c l e a n "6

The king came in to see the gues ts for h imself and not iced th is man notproper ly a t t i red . And he says to h im, "Look, pa l , how'd you get in herewithout dress ing for the occas ion?"7

When Jesus not iced the i r t rus t , he sa id , "Mis ter, your s ins have been for-g iven you ."8

I have no ob jec t ion to co l loqu ia l t r ans la t ions—though one migh thave thought th is would be the People ' s Vers ion, not the Scholars ' .W ha t I do f ind som ew ha t objec t iona ble is the d ism issive tone of thein t roduct ion, which expla ins that o ther vers ions are "fa in t ly Victor-ian" and se t a context of "pol i te re l ig ious d iscourse sui table for aPur i t an par lo r. "9 The New Revised S tandard Vers ion comes in fo rpart icular cr i t icism; one suspects that i ts main faul t in the eyes of theSV translators is that i t is a l ineal descendant , on one side of thefamily at any rate, of the old King James Version, which, as we shal lsee , r epresen t s a l l tha t Seminar abomina tes by way of Amer icanrel ig ion. The authors make great p lay of the fac t that , unl ike mostBible t ransla t ions , th is one both includes the non-canonical Thomasand is not author ized by any eccles ias t ica l or re l ig ious bodies . In-s tead, po m po us ly, "T he Scho lars Version i s autho r ized by scho lars ."1 0

Present and Absent Friends

But , second, which scholars? Seventy- four names are l i s ted in theback of the book, and there have been other members , qui te inf luen-t ial in ear l ier stages of the debate, who are not explici t ly mentionedh e r e .1 1 Some of them are househo ld names in the wor ld o f New

6 M ark 1 :41; Funk and Ho ove r (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 43. T he re is a hint

here that the transaction between Jesus and the leper was not a healing, but s implyJesus ' declarat ion that he should no longer be treated as an outcast .

7 M at t 22:12 ; Fun k and Ho over (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 234.8 Lu ke 5 :20; Fun k and Ho ove r (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 283.9 Funk and Ho ove r (eds .) , The Five Gospels, xiii-x viii, her e at xiv.1 0 Funk and Ho ov er (eds .) , The Five Gospels, xviii.1 1 Fo r exa m ple , Bur ton M ack , au thor o f A Myth o f Innocence: Mark and

Christian Origins (M inneap ol is : For t ress , 1988) and o ther wo rks which have had aprofound impact on the work of the Jesus Seminar. Over 200 members are repor ted



Testament s tudies: Rober t Funk himsel f , the dr iv ing force behind theen t i r e en te rp r i se , whose ea r l i e r work on the Greek g rammar o f theN ew T es ta m ent is un iver sa l ly r ecogn ized as au thor i t a t ive ; D om in icCr ossan , whose com bi na t i on o f en o r m ous e r ud i t i o n , sub t l e t y o fthought , and fe l ic i tous wr i t ing s ty le have r ight ly ensured him wide-spread r espec t ; James Robinson , whose work on the Nag Hammaditexts has placed the ent ire discipl ine in his debt ; Marcus Borg, BruceChi l ton , and Wal ter Wink, a l l of whom have made dis t inguished anddist inct ive contr ibut ions to the study of Jesus in his context (and tomuch e l se bes ides) ; Ron Cameron , whose fo r th r igh t and p rovoca t ive

wr i t i n g s on Thomas and r e la ted top ics a re r igh t ly f a m ou s ; JohnKloppenborg , one o f the l ead ing spec ia l i s t s on the hypo the t i ca lsou rce Q . In any l is t o f co n tem por ary Nor th A m er ic an b ib l i ca lscholars, al l these would f ind a place of honor.

But one could compi le a very long l i s t of Nor th Amer ican NewTes tament scho la r s , inc lud ing severa l who have wr i t t en impor tan t lyabout Jesus , who are not among those present , and whose work has

had no visible impact on the Seminar at al l . The most obvious is EdSanders , whose work, massive in i t s learning, and a lmost unique ini t s inf luence over the present s ta te of scholarship wor ldwide, seemsto hav e been ignored by the Se m ina r— ex ce pt fo r one tiny pa r t icular,and that precise ly where Sanders i s a t h is weakest .1 2 Another f igurewhose work has been to ta l ly ignored i s Ben F. Meyer, who has moreunders tanding of how ancient texts work in h is l i t t le f inger than

many of the Jesus Seminar seem to have in the i r en t i r e word-processors , and whose wr i t ing on Jesus i s u t ter ly r igorous, u t ter lyscholar ly, and ut ter ly d i fferent in i t s resul t s f rom anything in thevo lume we a re cons ider ing .1 3 So, too, one looks in vain for membersof the t eac h ing f a cu l t i e s o f m any of the l ead ing N or th A m er ic anco l l eg es and un iv er s i t i e s . Th ere is no bo dy cur ren t ly t ea ch ing a t

to have be longed a t one s t age o r ano the r ; Funk and Hoover ( eds . ) , The FiveGospels 34.

1 2 Cf . Sanders , Jesus and Judaism remarka b ly absen t f rom the b ib l iograp hyof The Five Gospels cf . too Sanders , The Historical Figure of Jesus. E. P. San -ders and M. Davies , Studying the Synoptic Gospels (Lon don : SC M ; Ph i lade lph ia :Trinity Press International , 1989), is l is ted in the bibliography of The Five Gospelsas an exc ellent guide , thoug h an yo ne taking it seriously wou ld be for ced to rejecta good deal of the Jesus Seminar 's methods and resul ts . See be low.

1 3

Cf . e sp . M eyer , The Aims of Jesus i d e m, Christus Faber idem, JesusCh r i s t .





not repre snt "s ch ola rs," as simp ly as that ; it repr esen ts som e scho lars,and tha t mos t ly (wi th some in te res t ing excep t ions) f rom a verynar row band among se r ious con temporary r eader s o f the Gospe l sw o r l d w i d e .1 6

These comments abou t the make-up o f the Seminar h igh l igh t apoint which must be c lear ly made before we go one s tep fur ther.Though this book claims, on every page, to speak for al l the Fel lowsof the Seminar, i t becomes increasingly apparent that i t comes f romthe Seminar ' s Chai r, Rober t W. Funk (R. W. Hoover i s named as co-author, though there i s no indicat ion of which author draf ted whichparts) . Dissent ient voices are, of course, recorded in the report ing ofvoting pat terns. But i t would be a mistake to saddle al l , perhaps evenmost , of the Fel lows with the point of view, and the arguments, thatwe f ind on page a f t e r page . Only occas iona l ly i s th i s r ea l lyacknowledged . In the b ib l iography, fo r ins tance , one o f MarcusBorg ' s books i s l i s ted , wi th the comment "I t goes a lmost wi thoutsay ing tha t he d id n ' t vo te w i th the ma jor i ty on ev ery i ssue . "1 7 One

suspects that that is something of an understatement . In the presentessay , therefore , I am discu ssing the wo rk of Fun k and H oov er, notnecessar i ly that of o ther Fel lows; we may note , though, that thewhole layout and intent of the book predisposes the reader—not leastthe no n-a cad em ic reader, who is c lear ly in v iew — to assum e that theverdicts reached are those of "scholars" in a much broader sense.

A Driving Agenda

There is , thirdly, a fur ther agenda involved at this point , which is ,one may suspect , the major force which mot ivates the project ingeneral and several ( though by no means a l l ) of i t s members . Theya r e f u nd am en t a l l y an t i f undam en t a l i s t . L i s t en t o t he se won de r f u l l yob j ec t i v e , va l ue - f r ee , s cho l a r l y com m en t s , t aken f r om t h e b ook ' sin t roduct ion:

Once the discrepancy between the Jesus of history and the Christ of fai themerged from under the smothering cloud of the historic creeds, i t was onlya ma t ter of t ime befor e scho lars sought to d ise nga ge [ the two ] . . . I t i si ronic tha t Roman Cathol ic scholars are emerging f rom the dark ages of

1 6 Th ere is, for ins tance , a good deal of impor tan t work on Jesus e ma nat in gfrom Latin America; but one would not guess i t from reading the Seminar 's publica-t ions .

1 7

Funk and Ho over (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 540, refer r in g to Borg , Jesus:A New Vision.





Such s tudy, indeed, i s somet imes regarded wi th suspic ion, as thoughi t might pre judice the pure , object ive , neut ra l reading of the text .Leave aside for the moment the impossibi l i ty of such object ivi ty (seebelow). The real problem is that i f one is to discuss what are essen-t ia l ly theological and phi losophical i ssues , in terms both of themethod requi red for ser ious s tudy of Jesus and of the content andimpl icat ions of Jesus ' proclamat ion, one real ly requi res more sophis-t icat io n than the Se m ina r, in this bo ok at least , can o ffe r. Th is w il lbecome apparent as we proceed.

Which Gospels?

The four th in t roductory point concerns the t reament of the d i ffer-ent "G os pe ls ." A s I sa id , it is now c om m on pla ce to t rea t the bo okknown as the Gospel of Thomas a long side the cano nical Gosp els . I fwe are s tudying the ent i re Gospel t radi t ion , th is i s c lear ly manda-tory. The Seminar i s to be congratu la ted for pushing th is fac t in tothe public eye (and for the marvel lous work of producing texts of alarge number of re levant documents which had not been easi ly avai l -able hi ther to) . But , when al l is said and done, huge quest ions remainabout the re levance of Thomas for the study of Jesu s. By no m ea nsall students of i t agree with the majority of the Seminar in placing itear ly and independent of the canonical Gospels .2 1 I f members of thepublic are interested in knowing what "scholars" think, they ought tobe to ld fa i r and square that d iagrams in which a hypothet ica l f i r s tedi t ion of Thomas is pla ced in 50s of the first ce ntu ry are tho ro ug hlytendentious, and belong out on a l imb of current scholarship.2 2

In par t icular, we should not accept wi thout quest ion the assump-t ion that Thomas, and for that m at ter f ra gm en ts l ike the Ege r tonpapyrus, are (or belong to) gospels. I t al l depends on what you mean.Thomas do es not cal l i tself a "g os pe l ." No r, for that m atter, do M at-thew, Luke, and John; and the opening note in Mark ("The beginning

of the gospel of Jesus Christ") may well refer, not to the book whichthen fo l lows, but to the events which i t purpor ts to record . The

2 1 In fav or: S. J . Patterso n, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma: Po le -bridge, 1993), noted in the bibliography as being influential in the Seminar. Against:C. M. Tucke t t , Nag Ham madi and the Gospel Tradition: Synoptic Tradition in theNag Hamm adi Library (Studies of the Ne w Testam ent and i ts W orld; Ed inbur gh: T.& T. Clark , 1986) ; idem, "Thomas and the Synopt ics ," NovT 30 (198 8) 132-57.

2 2 See Funk and Ho over (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 18, 128.



meaning of the word "gospel" in the f i rst two centur ies of the Chris-t ian era is , in fact , qui te controversial ;2 3 suf f ic ie nt to note here thatto call Thomas, and for that ma tter "Q ," "g os pe ls" is to m ak e qu ite afar-reaching decision. I t is to say that these works are to be regardedas proclamations ab ou t Jesu s, of the sam e sort as the fo ur be t ter-known "gospels," despi te the fact that they do not narrate the story ofJesus, do not ( for the most par t) proclaim him as Messiah, do not tel lof h is dea th and res ur re ct io n— do not , in fac t , do the very th ing swhich seem, f rom the Pau l ine ev idence , to be wha t the ea r l i es tChrist ians regarded as "gospel ." Bringing Paul into the picture at thispoint i s of course i t se l f cont rovers ia l , but not near ly so much asmaking Thomas con temporary wi th h im.2 4

I suggest that nothing would be lost , and a good deal of clar i tyregained, i f , ins tead of refer r ing to Thomas, and indeed "Q ," as"gospels," and thereby supposing that they record the theology of anentire group within very ear ly Christ iani ty, we see them as what theyare ( supposing for the moment that "Q" ever exis ted) : col lec t ions of

say ings . Ca l l ing them "gospe l s" obscures the obv ious d i ff e rence o fgenre between them and the four ordinar i ly so cal led . In an a t temptto gain a hear ing for d i fferent supposed presenta t ions of Jesus , the

2 3 For exam ple , see H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History andDevelopment London and Philadelphia: Trinity Press Interna tional , 1990), on wh ichsee N. T. Wright , The New Testament and the People of God (Chr is t ian Orig ins

and the Quest ion of Go d 1; Lond on: SPC K; Minn eapol is : For t ress , 1992) 371-44 3;and , fo r some comments on Pau l ' s mean ing o f the t e rm, N. T. Wr igh t , "Gospe land Theology in Gala t ians ," in L. A. Jerv is and P. Richardson (eds .) , Gospel inPaul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Rom ans for Richard N. Longenecker(JS NT Su p 108; Shef f ie ld : She ff ie ld Aca dem ic Press , 1994) 222-39.

2 4 Th e suggest ion (Funk and Ho over [eds .], The Five Gospels, 500 -501 ) tha tthe Gnost ic ism in Thomas is very l ike wh at we find in Joh n and Pau l w ou ld belaughable if it did not reveal culpable ignorance of the entire drift of Pauline studies

in the last forty years. The brief sketch of how Thomas got its na m e (p. 20) rev ealsan astonishing naivety, speaking of the apostle being "revered in the Syrian churchas an apostle ," and giving as evidence for this Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15;Ac ts 1:13; Joh n 11:16; 20:2 4; 21:2. The at tr ibution to T ho m as , w e are told, "tel lsus nothing about the author," but "may indicate where this gospel was writ ten." Inwhich of the above texts do we f ind evidence for Thomas in Syr ia? I f the wri tersappl ied the same skept ic ism to c la ims about Thomas as they do, on the same page ,to c la ims about the o ther four ( the evidence of Papias , for ins tance) , i t would

quickly become c lear how l i t t le evidence there i s for an ear ly da te , or a Syr ianprove nance , for the Th om as col lect ion .



current fashion dis tor ts precise ly that sor t of l i terary analysis that"scholars" ought to favor.

In fac t , a l though The Five Gospels prin ts all of Jo hn as w ell as theothers, i t is clear that John is regarded a pr ior i as having l i t t le orno th ing to do wi th Jesus h im se l f . Th i s , indeed , is one o f the S em in ar ' svaunted "seven pi l lars of scholar ly wisdom."2 5 But here we see qui tesharp ly, wha t we sha ll obs erv e in m ore de ta il p resen t ly : the S e m in ar ' smethod has not been to examine each saying al l by i tself and decideabout i t , but to star t with a fair ly clear picture of Jesus and ear lyChr i s t i an i ty, and s imply run th rough the mate r i a l impos ing th i s

picture on the texts.

All Cats Are Gray in the Dark

A note , next , on the color-coding of the sayings. This i s c lear lym ean t to con vey a de f i n i t e and p r ec i se m e an i ng . T h e "o r d i na r yreader, " b rowsing th rough The Five Gospels, p icks up qui te quicklythat red or pink is a qui te rare accolade, that black is common, and

that gray, close enough ( i t seems) to black, also dominates at severalpoints . The book 's cover ref lec ts something of th is balance, wi th asmall red box on a large black background, and in the small red boxthe w o rd s "WHAT DID JESUS REALLY SAY?" It seem s f airly c lea r thatred denotes what Jesus said, black what he did not , and that pink andgray are sof ter var iants on these two.

Not so s imple , however. The vo t ing sys tem was qu i t e complex .2 6

There a re two cumbersome se t s o f "mean ings" fo r the four co lo r s ,and an in t r ica te system of number ings for the votes , which were thenaveraged out . This means that in any given case , especia l ly in re la-t ion to pink and gray, the color on the page does not represent what"scholars ," even the smal l se lec t ion of scholar ly opinion representedin the Seminar, ac tual ly th ink. A pink vote a lmost cer ta in ly meansthat , on the one hand, a sizeable minori ty bel ieved Jesus actual ly saidthese wo rds , wh i le a substan t ia l m inor i ty we re con vinc ed, or near lyconvinced, that he did not . Most , in fact , did not vote pink; yet that iswha t appear s on the page . ( I am reminded o f the no to r ious funda-

2 5 Funk and Ho ove r ( eds . ) , The Five Gospels, 3 . Th e say ing s of Je su s inJohn are voted almost uniformly black, with 4:43 a soli tary pink ("a prophet gets norespect on h is own turf ' ) , 12:24-25 and 13:20 a lonely pa i r of grays ("unless thekernel of wheat fal ls to the earth and dies . . ." and "if they welcome the person I

sen d, they w elc om e m e . . .") .2 6 De scr ibe d in Funk and Ho over (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 34-37.



menta l i s t a t t empts to harmonize how many t imes the roos te r c rowedwhen Peter denied Jesus. One of the only ways of doing i t is to saythat the rooster crowed, not three , but n ine t imes. Thus a supposeddoc t r i n e o f s c r i p t u r a l i ne r r ancy is "p r e s e r v ed "— at the e n o r m o u scost of saying that what ac tual ly happened is what none of the textsrecord.) Th us, the Jesu s Sem ina r cou ld pr in t a text in p ink or gray,even though the great majority of the Seminar voted red or black.The colors , especia l ly the two middle ones , cannot be taken as morethan an averaging out of widely d ivergent opinion. I t i s per fect lypossible that the color on the page, i f gray or pink, is one for whichnobody voted at al l .

In par t icular, the gray sayings conceal a very in teres t ing phenome-non. Spies on the Seminar repor t that in some cases the gray verdic tcould be seen as a v ic tory—for those who, against the gra in of theSeminar, th ink Jesus might wel l have sa id the words concerned. TakeLuke 19:42-44 for an example . This s tern warning about the comingdest ru ct ion of Jeru salem f i t s wi th an "ap oc aly pt ic " s trand of teach ing

which, in a lmost a l l o ther cases , the Fel lows of the Seminar votedblack by a substant ial margin. But on this occasion a paper was givenargu ing tha t the words cou ld indeed have been spoken by Jesus .Enough Fel lows were persuaded by th is to pul l the vote up to gray—a qu i t e r em ark ab le v ic to ry fo r those wh o vo ted r ed o r p ink . See nf r om wi t h i n t he S em i na r, w he r e a go od n um ber s t a r t w i t h t h eassumpt ion that v i r tual ly no sayings go back to Jesus h imsel f , gray

can thus mean "well , maybe there is a possibi l i ty af ter al l . . ." Seenf rom ou t s ide , o f cour se—in o ther words , f rom the per spec t ive o fthose fo r whom the Seminar ' s p roduc t s , pa r t i cu la r ly th i s book , a red e s i g n ed — i t con vey s a ve r y d i f f e r e n t m essage , n am e l y "p r o bab l ynot ."

Another example o f th i s occur s in the summary account o f thevote on Mat t 18:3 ("I f you don ' t do an about- face and become l ike

ch i ld ren , you wi l l never en te r Heaven ' s domain") . The fo l lowing i stypical of l i teral ly dozens of passages:

The op in ion was even ly d iv ided . Some red and a l a rge number o f p inkvotes , in favor of authent ic i ty, were offse t by substant ia l gray and b lackvotes. The result was a co m pro m ise gray design ation f or this version an d alli t s para l le ls .2 7

Or again , in deal ing wi th the Parable of the Two Sons, and the

2 7 Funk and Ho ov er (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 213.



subsequen t say ing (Mat t 21 :28-3 la and 21 :31b) :

Fif ty-e ight percent of the Fel lows voted red or p ink for the parable , 53percent for the saying in v. 31b. A substantial number of gray and blackvotes pulled the weighted average into the gray category.2 8

W ithou t us ing a pocke t ca lcu la to r, I co nfe ss I cann o t und er s tan dhow, i f a major i ty in each case thought the saying authent ic or pro-bab ly au then t i c , the "weigh ted average" tu rned ou t to be "probab lyinauthentic." A voting system that produces a resul t l ike this ought tobe scrapped. The average reader, seeing the passage pr in ted as gray,wi l l conclude that "scholars" th ink i t i s probably inauthent ic ; where-as , even wi th the smal l company of the Seminar, the major i ty wouldc lea r ly d i sagree .2 9

In evaluat ing the color scheme, therefore , i t i s impor tant not toth ink that consensus has been reached. The Seminar ' s vot ing methodsand resu l t s r emind one somewhat o f I t a l i an po l i t i c s : wi th p ropor-t ional representa t ion , everybody 's votes count to some extent , but theresul t is ser ious instabi l i ty. Gray and pink sayings are l ike the smileon a pol i t ic ian ' s face when a deal has been s t ruck between minor i typar t ies ; the informed observer knows that the coal i t ion i s a patch-upjob, which wi l l not s tand the tes t of t ime. The reader, par t icular lythe reader outs ide the scholar ly gui ld , should beware . This volume isonly a snapshot of what some scholars th ink wi th in one par t icularcontext and af ter a cer tain set of debates. But even the snapshot is outof foc us, and the colors have been a ffec ted by the proc ess of dev elop -

ment . This may be f ine i f what one wants i s an impressionis t ic ideaof the s ta te of p lay. But the Seminar promises , and c la ims to offer,much more than that . I t c la ims to te l l the unvarnished t ru th . Andtherein l ies the sixth and f inal point for comment at this stage.

Jumping on the Bandw agon after the Wheels Came Off

Perhaps the deepest f law in terms of apparent method is that this

book appeals constant ly, as does a l l the l i tera ture of the Jesus Semi-nar, to the possibi l i ty that by the applicat ion of supposedly scient if icor "scholar ly" cr i ter ia one wi l l ar r ive a t a def in i te answer to thequ est io n as to w hat Jesus ac tual ly sa id . Th is ju m ps o ut of the v ery

2 8 Funk and Hoo ver ( eds . ) , The Five Gospels, 232.2 9 See a lso Funk and Ho ove r (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 250 , on M at t 24 :32 -

33: 54% voted ei ther red or pink, but a 35% black vote resulted in a gray compro-mise (for which, apparently, only the remaining 11% had voted).



cover of the book: the subti t le ( The Search for the Authentic Wordsof Jes us ) has the wo rd auth ent ic und erl ined, and the sub -subt i t le ,

W ha t d id Je sus Real ly Say ?, is clearly inte nd ed to em ph as iz e therea l ly . Th e w ho le en ter pr i se see m s to o f fe r the pos s ib i l i ty o f

object iv i ty cer tainty, of methods which wil l produce resul ts as water-tight as 2 + 2 = 4.

The puzzle about this is that it buys heavily into exactly the sort ofposi t iv ism that is now rout inely abandoned by the great majori ty ofscho lars wo rk in g in the f ie lds o f h is to ry and tex ts— inc lud ing byseveral members of the Jesus Seminar themselves. The idea that byhistor ical invest igat ion one might arr ive at a posi t ion of unbiasedobject ive cer tainty, of absolute uncondi t ioned knowledge, about any-thing, has been shot to pieces by cri t iques from a variety of points ofview. All knowledge is condi t ioned by the context and agenda of theknower; al l reconstruct ions are somebody 's reconstruct ions, and each

so m eb od y sees the wor ld th rough their ow n eyes and no t the i rneighbor ' s . Th is i s so widely acknowledged that one would have

thought i t unnecessary to s tate , le t a lone to s t ress . The posi t iv is t icbandwagon got s tuck in the mud some t ime ago, and a succession ofcr i t ics , looking back to Marx, Nietzsche and Frend but now looselygathered under the umbrel la of postmodernism, has cheerful ly pul ledits wheels off al together. This, of course, has not f i l tered through tothe pop ular m edia, wh o sti ll wan t to kn ow whe ther som ethin g actu -al ly ha pp en ed or not . Th e Jesu s Sem inar, in i ts desire to go p ubl ic

with the results of scholarship, has apparently been lured into givingthe publ ic what i t wants , rather than what scholarship can in factprov ide . As the prev ious d iscuss ion about vo t ing and co lor-codingmakes clear, the one thing this book cannot offer is an answer to thequestion on i ts front cover. All i t can do is to report , in a mannerthat will often mislead the ordinary reader, what some scholars thinkJesus may have said.

At th is point some members of the Seminar wil l want to protest .They know very well that posit ivism is a dead-end street . They fullyappreciate that most of the color-codings, especial ly the pink andgray, are co m pr om ise so lu t ions h id ing a goo d deal of deb ate anduncer t a in ty. Unfo r tuna te ly, such sub t l e t i e s were to t a l ly lo s t onwhoever wrote the blurb on the back of the book, which encouragesthe average reader, for whom the book is designed, to assume thatthe colors in the book provide cer tain , object ive, copper-bot tomed,posit ivist ic answers:



Did Jesus rea l ly g ive the Se rm on on the M oun t? I s the L or d ' s P ray e rcomposed o f h i s au then t i c words? THE FIVE GOSPELS a n s w e r s t h e s equestions in a hold, dynamic work that wil l s tart le the world of tradit ional

b ib l ica l in terpre ta t ion . . . In pursui t of the h is tor ica l Jesus , [ the schola rs]used their collective expert ise to determine the authentici ty of the more than1,500 sayings a t t r ibuted to h im. Their remarkable f indings appear in th isbook . . .

Only those sayings that appear in red type are considered by the Seminar tobe close to what Jesus actually said . . . According to the Seminar, no morethan 20 percent of the sayings attributed to Jesus were uttered by him . . .3°

Undernea th the rhe to r i c abou t making the r esu l t s o f scho la r sh ipgeneral ly avai lable , therefore , we f ind a new form of an o ld d iv idebetween the scholars and the s imple fo lk . The in t roduct ion to th isboo k cas t iga tes those scho la r s w ho kn ew of the p ro b le m s abo u tf inding the histor ical Jesus (not to mention the Christ of the church'sfa i th) , but w ho kept these f in din gs f ro m the publ ic , w ho w an ted toh av e t h e i r f r ag i l e f a i t h co n f i r m ed . T h e S em i n a r c l a i m s to h av ebr idged th i s d iv ide . Bu t then the Seminar, whose members c l ea r lyknow that thei r own work i s cul ture-condi t ioned, and that the color-co d i ng sy s t em r epea t ed l y h i des com pr om i se an d se r i ou s d i sag r ee -ment , keeps these fac ts f rom i t s own publ ic , which wants to have itsfragile faith in positivism supp or ted and co nf i r m ed . At th i s me ta -level , encouraging the reading publ ic to th ink that the o ld Enl ighten-ment bandwagon is s t i l l ro l l ing a long, when in fac t the wheels cameoff it so m e t im e ago, is jus t as i r res pon sible as the pre ac he r w hohides f rom the congregat ion the fac t that there are ser ious quest ionsto be faced about the or igin and nature of ear ly Christ iani ty.

T his is not to say , of cou rse, that al l re su l ts of Jesu s-s ch ola rsh ipare tenuous and uncertain. There is such a thing as genuine histor icalknowledge, and i t does a l low us to make def in i te c la ims about Jesus .But i t is not to be attained by the route of positivism, sti l l less by thedubious method of vote- taking within a small circle of scholars. I t isto be a t ta ined by the route of cr i t ica l rea l i sm—a his tor ica l methodwhich proceeds, not by a tomist ic d iscussion of i so la ted e lements , butby the ser ious process of hypothesis and ver i f ica t ion , dur ing whichthe perspect ived of the histor ian is i tself taken into account . I havewr i t t en abou t th i s e l sewhere .3 1 A good many scho la r s a re pur su ing

3 0

Th e em pha sis is in the original .3 1 Wr i g h t , The New Testament and the People of God, 8 -120.



th is path to a lesser or greater extent . The Jesus Seminar has chosennot to do so.

TO W A R D S A N E W P O RT R A I T

The in t roduct ion to the book conta ins a lengthy sect ion (pp. 16-34)set t ing out the ru le s of w r i t ten ev id en ce and the ru les of ora lev ide nc e wh ich the Sem inar fo rm ula ted and adop ted fo r use in it sw ork . T he re a re th i r ty - s ix o f these ru l es . Bu t aga in and aga inth ro ug ho ut the boo k , the ru les bo i l do w n to th ree gu id ing p r inc ip lesw hich a re whe e led ou t a lmo s t ad nau sea m as the jus t i f i ca t ion fo raccepting, or more usual ly for reject ing, a par t icular saying or set ofsayings.

These th ree ac tua l gu id ing p r inc ip les may be fo rmula ted as fo l lows .Fi rs t , the Sem ina r in fac t pre sup po ses a par t icu lar por t ra i t of Je sus .Se co nd , the Se m ina r ad op t s a pa r t i cu la r, and h igh ly m is lea d in g ,pos i t ion abou t escha to logy and apoca lyp t i c , pa r t i cu la r ly abou t thek i n g do m o f God ; t h i s t oo was p r e sup posed . T h i r d , t h e S em i n a rassumes a par t icular p ic ture of the ear ly church, especia l ly i t s in ter-est in and transmission of mater ial about Jesus. In each case there isevery reason to reject the pr inciple in quest ion. We must look at eachin turn.

Jesus the Distinctive Sage

As we just saw, the expl ic i t in tent ion of the Seminar was to exam-

ine al l the sayings and vote on them one by one, al lowing a portrai tof Jesus to emerge s lowly and bi t by b i t . Thus, for ins tance , theedi tors can speak of Mat t 7 :16b, which was voted p ink, as beingp laced in to the r ed /p ink da taba se for determining who Jesus was(p . 157, emphasis added) . But what has in fac t happened i s exact lythe reverse. For the majori ty of Fel lows at least , what comes f i rst isan assumpt ion about who Jesus rea l ly was, which i s then used as the

yardst ick for measur ing, and of ten ru l ing out , a good many sayings.Th is ass um pt io n foc uss es on the por t ra i t of Jes us as a t rav el ing

sage and w on de r-w ork er (p. 128). Say ings can be assessed a ccord -ing to whether they f i t wi th th is .3 2 The Fel lows, or a t leas t thei rspo kes per son s in th is vo lum e, som eho w kn ow that Jesu s i s a re t icentsage w ho d oes not in i t ia te deb ate or of fe r to cast out de m on s, and

3 2

Fo r ex am ple , see Funk and Ho ove r ( eds . ) , The Five Gospels, 326 , ondaily brea d in the M atthean and Lu kan versions of the L or d ' s Praye r.



w h o do es not spea k of him self in the f i rst pe rso n (p. 265 ) . O n thisbas i s they f ee l ab le to m ake jud gm en ts abou t say ing s which , s incethey make Jesus do some of these things, cannot be his. As a ret icent

sage , Jes us d id no t fo r m al ly en l i s t fo l low er s (p . 284 ) ; he usedsecu la r p rov erbs , hav in g per hap s acqu i red h i s kn ow led ge o f co m -mon lo re f rom i t ine ran t ph i losopher s who v i s i t ed Gal i l ee whi le hew as gro w ing up (p . 287) . H e does not , how eve r, quo te the Heb rewscr ip tures very of ten (pp. 376, 380) , so that when we f ind such quo-ta t ions a t t r ibuted to h im, they a lmost cer ta in ly come f rom the ear lychurch , which , un l ike Jesus , was very concerned to under s tand h i s

work in the l ight of the scr iptures.As a ret icent sage, Jesus did not , of course, predict his own death

(pp. 94, 208, and very frequently) ; st i l l less did he refer to himselfin any way as Messiah or Son of God (pp. 75 , 312, and regular ly) .Among the reasons g iven for th is la t ter assumpt ion i s the remarkablea rg u m en t :

Jesus taught that the last wil l be f irst and the f irst wil l be last . He admon-

ished h is fo l lowers to be servants of everyone. He urged humil i ty as thecardinal v i r tue by both w ord and exa mp le . G iven thes e te rms, it is d i ff ic ul tto imag ine Jesus mak ing c la ims fo r h imse l f . . . un less , o f course , he though tthat nothing he said applied to himself .3 3

What the wr i ters seem to ignore i s precise ly that Jesus taught thesethings. By what r ight? Even at the level of teaching, Jesus ' words carryan impl ic i t se l f - reference. When we put even a smal l amount of h is

t each ing in to i t s f i r s t - cen tu ry Jewish con tex t ( see be low) , i t wasinevi table that quest ions should be asked about who he thought hewas; and vir tual ly inevi table that he would ref lect on such a quest ionhimsel f . Ins tead of th is context , however, the Seminar ' s spokespersonsoffer one that may perhaps be thought jus t a l i t t le anachronis t ic :

Like the cowboy hero of the American West exempl i f ied by Gary Cooper,the sage of the ancient Near East was laconic, s low to speech, a person of

few wo rds . Th e sage does no t p rovok e encoun te r s . . . As a ru le , the sageis se l f -e ff ac ing , mode s t , unos ten ta t ious .3 4

Jesus , then, was not aware that he had a speci f ic miss ion to car ryout (p . 70) . He did not orga nize fo rm al m iss io ns (p . 311 ) . H e w asnot g iv en to ins t i tu t ion bu i ld ing (p . 213) . Th e older l ibera l i sm w asr ight af te r a l l : Je su s ' te ach ing w as about bein g nice to pe op le , not

3 3

Fun k and Ho ove r (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 33.3 4 Fun k and Ho ove r (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 32.





screening out a whole range of mater ia l which several of the leadingJesu s- sch o la r s a roun d the wo r ld , in m ajo r, se r ious , and co n te m po -rary works of h is tor ica l reconst ruct ion , would regard as absolute ly

cent ra l . By far the most impor tant of these i s the mater ia l of tendes ig na te d apo ca ly p t i c ; and , wi th in tha t, Jesu s ' ann ou nce m ent o ft he k i ng do m o f G od — or, a s t he S em i na r o f t en pu t s i t, h e av en ' sim pe rial rule . T he reje ct io n of this m ater ia l is the large st and m os tcent ra l presupposi t ion that the Seminar br ings to i t s ent i re work, andit deserves a separate sect ion.

The Resolutely Non-Apocalyptic JesusThe most thoroughgoing way in which the Seminar app l i es the

cr i ter ion of d iss imi lar i ty, according to which Jesus s tands out f romhis su r round ing con tex t , i s in r e l a t ion to apoca lyp t i c . Here th i sreader at least had a strange sense of déjà vu. Near ly th ree decadesago Klaus Koch wrote a book descr ib ing, among other th ings , whathe ca l l ed the agon i sed a t t emp t to save Jesus f ro m ap oc a lyp t i c .3 7

Alber t Schwei tzer, a t the turn of the century, had descr ibed Jesus asan apo ca lyp t i c v i s ionary ; m any theo log ian s a f t e r Sc hw ei tze r fo un dth i s too much to s tomach , and nea t ly ex t r ac ted Jesus f rom h i ssu r r o un d i ng Jewi sh , and apoca l yp t i c , co n t ex t . T h i s was no r m a l l ydone for apologet ic mot ives: i f Jesus predic ted the end of the wor ld ,he was wrong, and th is has ser ious impl icat ions for Chr is to logy.

The Jesus Seminar, of course , harbors no such mot ive . Instead, i thas a d i fferent one, no less a l l -pervading: Jesus must not in any wayap pe ar to g ive sanct ion to co ntem po rary ap oca lypt ic preac hing , suchas tha t on o ffe r in the fund am enta l i s t m ov em ents aga ins t which theSeminar i s r eac t ing so s t rong ly. Jesus mus t no t , the re fo re , havesupposed that the end of the wor ld was a t hand, or that God was aboutto ju dg e peo ple , or that the Son of M an (w ho m the Sem ina r pers is t sin m islea din gly cal l ing the Son of A da m ) w ould short ly co m e on theclo ud s. Al l these th ings form the scr ip tura l basis for m uc h s tock- in -t r ade fundamenta l i s t p reach ing ; the Seminar the re fo re wishes to ru lethem out of cour t .3 8 The o lder f l igh t f rom apoca lyp t i c was des igned

3 7 K. Koch , The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic: A Polemical Wo rk on a Neglec-ted Area of Biblical Studies and its Dam aging Effects on Theology and Philosophy(SBT 2 .22; London: SCM, 1972 [German or ig inal , 1970]) .

3 8 Any who th ink th is analys is ove r-sus pic iou s should spend hal f a day read-

ing through the Seminar 's journal Forum : Foundations and Facets , and the work ofBurton Mack in part icular, which was heavily influential on the Seminar 's decisions



to save or thodox Chris t iani ty ; the newer one is designed to subvertit.

But , thou gh the m ot iv e i s d i ffe ren t , the eff ec t i s the sam e. A l tho ug hJoh n the Bap t is t is descr ibe d as the precu rsor and m ento r of Jesu s(p. 128), Jesus' own ministry and message were utterly dist inct . Johnpronounced apocalyp t ic-s ty le warn ings of impending judgment ; Jesusdid not . Likewise, the very ear ly church ( though not the Seminar 'shypothetical early Q, and not Thomas) reinter preted Je su s' say ing s inan apocalypt ic s ty le which dis tor ted Jesus ' own intent ion. Thus Matt10:7 , in wh ich Jesu s tells the discip les to ann ou nce that H ea v en 'simp er ia l ru le is c los ing in , i s an apo calyp t ica l ly o r ien ted su m m ar y,w hic h w as not , ho we ve r, the point of v iew of Je su s (p . 168) . So ,too, the w arn ing s of ju dg m en t on cit ies that rejec ted the discip les a re

al ien to Jesus, al though not to the ear ly disciples , who may haverever ted to John the Bapt i s t ' s apocalyp t ic message and th rea t o fjudgment , o r they may s imply have been in f luenced by apocalyp t icideas that w ere ev ery w he re in the air (p. 169).

Stated as baldly as this, the agenda is exposed for what i t is: afur ther agonized at tempt to rescue Jesus from contaminat ion with thedrea ded apo caly p t ic . By what m ean s does the Sem inar kn ow , apriori tha t Jesus so f i rm ly re jec ted som eth ing whic h wa s eve ry-w he re in the air, wh ich was absolu tely centra l to the w ork of Jo hn ,wh o i s ack no wle dg ed as Jesu s ' p recu rsor and m ento r, and wh ichwas fundamenta l , in some shape or fo rm, to a l l fo rms of ear ly

Chris t iani ty known to us—except , of course, to the Thomas co l lec-t ion ? (W e had bet ter leave the dou bly hyp othet ical Early Q out ofaccou nt , s ince the only reason for invent ing a non -apo calyp t ic Ear lyQ , wh en so m any apo calyp t ic say ings are in the M at th ew /L uk eparal lels upon which the Q hypothesis rests , i s the very assumptionwe are examining, that Jesus and one strand of his followers did notmake use of th is world of thought . ) I f a lmost everyone else thought

and spoke l ike that , how do they know that Jesus did not?3 9

The

at this point; cf . Β . L. M ack , Th e Kingd om Sa yings in M ark ,Forum 3 (1987) 3-47; idem, A Myth of Innocence.

3 9 See also Funk and Ho ove r (eds.) , The Five Gospels 112, where the com-me n t (on M ark 13 :14 -20) tha t a lmo s t anyo ne cou ld have fo rm ula te d thesew arn ing s is follow ed at onc e by the report of near-u nanim ity am on g the Fellow sthat Je su s w as not the auth or of any of these sayin gs . In plac e of the distin ctiv e

Jes us of som e tradit ional Christolo gy, wh o stood out f ro m ev ery on e else beca useof his divinity, we have the dist inctive Jesus of the Seminar, who was cer tainly



an sw er is that they do not . Th is co nc lus ion w as, in their phra se, inthe a i r f r om the incep t ion of the Se m inar . I t wa s a s tar t ing p oint ,not a resul t . I t may even, we may suspect , have been one of the

reasons why the Seminar came in to exis tence in the f i r s t p lace .But this view of apocalyptic, and of Jesus ' par t icipat ion in i t , can

be cont rover ted again and again by ser ious s tudy of the f i r s t -centuryph en om en on wh ich goes by that nam e. I have argue d in deta i l e l se-w her e , in l ine wi th a fa i r am ou nt of co nte m po rar y sc hola rship , that

a p o c a l y p t i c is b e s t u n d e r s t o o d as a c o m p l e x m e t a p h o r - s y s t e mthrough which many Jews of the per iod expressed thei r aspi ra t ions ,

no t fo r o ther-w or ld ly b l iss , nor fo r a b ig ba ng wh ich w ou ld endthe space-t ime world, but for social , pol i t ical , and above al l theologi-cal l ibera t ion .4 0 This enables us to aff i rm that Schwei tzer and otherswere absolute ly r ight to see Jesus as par t of apocalypt ic Judaism,whi le denying Schwei tzer ' s unhis tor ica l not ion (shared, of course , byfundamenta l i s t s ) tha t apoca lyp t i c l anguage was des igned to be t akenl i tera l ly. The Seminar i s f ight ing a shadow.

In par t i cu la r, the l ang ua ge o f the Kin gd om of G od has bee n s tud iedin great deta i l by scholars wi th far more awareness of the f i r s t -century Jewish context than is evident in the present book.4 1 There isno s ign that th is scholarship has been even noted , le t a lone takenser iou sly, by the Semin ar. Instead, there i s a pers is tent and m ud dle drepet i t ion of outdated and/or naive points of view:

M ark 13 is an apoc alyps e (an apoca lypse tel ls of events that are to take place

at the end of history. In Mark's version, the end of history wil l occur whenthe son o f Adam appears on the c louds and ga the r s God ' s chosen peop lefrom the ends of the ear th) . This and re la ted themes make Mark 13 soundm uch l ike the Boo k of Rev elation . . .

A no tab le fe atu re of early Ch rist ian instruc tion is that teac hin g abou t last

incapable of saying things that almost anyone else at the t ime might have said. This

is almost a secular version of the Docetic heresy.4 0 Wr i g h t , The New Testament and the People of God, 280-338 .4 1 For de ta i ls , see e .g . (am on g a grea t ma ny) B. Chi l ton (ed .) , The Kingdom

of God in the Teaching of Jesus ( IRT 5 ; Lon don : SP CK ; Ph i lade lph ia : For t re ss ,1984) ; idem, God in Strength: Jesus Announcem ent of the Kingdom (SN TU 1 ;Fre i s t a d t : P löch l , 1979 ; r ep r. Bib Sem 8 ; Sh eff i e ld : JS O T Press , 1987) ; G. R.Be a s l e y - Mu r r a y, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rap ids : Ee rd ma ns , 1986);R. S . Barbour (ed .) , The Kingdom of God and Human Society: Essays by Mem-

bers of the Scripture, Theology and Society Group (Ed in burgh : T. & T. Cla rk ,1993); and the discussions in the other works about Jesus referred to above in n. 2.



th ings ( t e rmed eschatology) occu rs a t the con clus io n of the ca te chis m ormanual of instruction. Paul tended to put such matters toward the close ofhis le t te rs , for ex am ple , in 1 Th es s 5 :1-1 3 and 1 Co r in th ians 15. In the

sec ond -ce n tu r y Chr i s t i an man ua l know n as the Did ach e , in s t ruc t ion ineschatology also comes last , in chapter 16.

Mark thus appropr ia tedly makes Jesus ' d iscourse on las t th ings h is f ina lpub l ic d iscou rse . . 4 2

An apocalypse is a form of l i terature in which a human agent is guided onan o therworld ly tour by means of v is ions . On tha t tour, the agent learnsabout a supernatura l wor ld unknown to ordinary fo lk , and the secre ts of thefu tur e are also re veale d . . .

T he so-called l i t tle apoc alypse as sem bled by Mark in chap ter 13, and co piedby Matthew and Luke, is not actually an apocalypse in form. But i t has thesame func t ion . . 4 3

The comment about Paul shows, as c lear ly as anything e lse , the shal -low and large ly spur iou s level of ana lysis em plo ye d he re. Paul is ju stas ca pa ble of ta lk ing abo ut (wh at we cal l ) the las t th in gs a t o ther

points in h is le t ters (e .g . 2 Cor in th ians 5) . And the whole s ta tement—i t i s ha rd ly an a rgument—is des igned to min imize the ro le o f

ap oc aly pt ic in the Go spel accounts , i so la t ing M ark 13 and its para l -lels f rom the rest of the text , in a way which, as the last commentquoted taci t ly admits, does great violence both to that chapter and tothe rest of the synoptic t radi t ion.4 4

I t is with discussion of the Kingdom of God (or whatever i t is to

be cal led; H ea ve n ' s Impe r ia l Ru le does hav e the v i r tue of jo l t ing orco nf ro n t in g a con tem pora ry r eader in a way tha t K ing do m of G odhas largely ceased to do) that the problem is focussed most c lear ly.Th e ca m eo ess ay on the subjec t (pp . 136-37) is ext re m ely reve al ing;and what i t reveals i s a s t r ing of misunders tandings, pre judices , andfalse ant i theses.

The essay sets out four categories. First , there is the preaching ofJohn the Bapt is t . Second, there are sayings of Jesus which speak ofG o d 's ru le as fu tu re . Thi rd , there are sayings of Jesus w hich spea k ofGod 's ru le as present . Four th , there i s a passage f rom Paul . Alreadythere a re p rob lem s, ( a ) Th e passage quo ted f ro m Joh n the Bap t i s t(Mat t 3 :7 , 10) does not ment ion the Kingdom of God, and in any

4 2 Funk and Ho over ( eds . ) , The Five Gospels, 1074 3

Funk and Ho over ( eds . ), The Five Gospels, 246.4 4 See W r igh t , The New Testament and the People of God, 394-95 .



case would be regarded by many as a la ter formulat ion , not necessar-i ly giving us access to John himself , (b) The main passage quoted asan ex am ple o f say in gs of Jesu s abou t G o d ' s fu tu re ru le i s M ark13:24-27 and 30, which again does not ment ion the Kingdom of God,but speaks instead of the son of man coming on the clouds, (c) Oneof the passages quoted as i l lus t ra t ing sayings of Jesus about God 'sru le as present in Luke 11:2 , which i s the pet i t ion f rom the Lord ' sPray er, here t ransla ted as Im po se your impe r ia l ru le . If th is indi -cates that the k ingdom is a l ready present , why is one commanded topray for i t as though i t were not yet here? (d) The s ingle passage

quo ted f r om Paul is 1 Th ess 4 :15 -17 , which says nothin g abou t theKingdom of God, but speaks of the dead r i s ing , the Lord descending,and the l iv ing Chr is t ians being caught up in the a i r. There are , ofcourse , passages in Paul which speak expl ic i t ly about the Kingdom ofG od , and in so m e that kin gd om is a pres ent real i ty (e.g. Ro m 14:17) .Th e only reason I can ima gine fo r quo t ing 1 Th ess alon ians 4 in th isco nt ex t is that the autho r of the ess ay i s as su m in g an e qu at i on

be t w een f u t u r e K i ng dom o f G o d and en d - t i m e apo ca l y p t ic ev en t s ,and t ak ing passages abou t the l a t t e r, which fundamenta l i s t s haveinterpre ted in a par t icular way (e .g . the rap ture ) as ex pre ssion s ofthis ap oc al yp tic view of the kin gd om . But eac h stage in this l ine ofthought i s qui te unwarranted . Indeed, the author of the essay moreor less agrees wi th the fundamental i s t in terpre ta t ion of the key texts ,in order then to dismiss them as indices of Jesus ' mind.

The discussion which fo l lows the c i ta t ion of these texts poses anut ter ly spur ious e i ther-or :

Does this phrase [Kingdom of God] refer to God's direct intervention in thefu tu r e , so m eth ing co nne c ted wi th the end o f the wor ld and the la s tjudgment , o r d id Jesus employ the phrase to ind ica te someth ing a l readypresent and of more elusive nature?

T he f i r s t o f these op t ion s i s usua l ly t e rm ed a poc a lyp t i c , a v iew f u l ly

expressed in the book of Revela t ion , which is an apocalypse .4 5

H ere w e hav e it : ap oc aly pt ic i s, m ore or less , that w hich fu nd a-m enta l i s t s bel iev e abou t the end of the w or ld . Th e autho r see m s toimply that the fundamental i s t s have actual ly read some of the textscor rect ly. So much the worse for the texts ; c lear ly the Seminar i sgo ing to t ake a d i ff e ren t v iew, which wi l l invo lve d i t ch ing thosew icke d ap oc aly pt ic ideas and se t t ing up i ts ow n a l ternat ive . But if

4 5 Fun k and Ho ove r (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 37.



t h i s loaded a rgumen t func t ions l ike a shopkeeper pu t t ing ex t raweights onto the scales, what follows is the equivalent of leaning onthem with both elbows:

Did Jesus share this [apocalyptic] view, or was his vision more subtle, lessbombastic and threatening?

Th e Fel lo ws . . . a re incl ined to the second opt ion : Jesus con ceive d ofG o d 's rule as all aroun d him but diff icu lt to disc ern . . . Bu t J es us 'uncommon v iews were obfuscated by the more pedes tr ian concept ions ofJohn, on the one hand, and by the equally pedestr ian views of the ear lyChrist ian community, on the other.4 6

As we saw before, Jesus seems to have been radical ly different f romhis p re dec esso r and m entor, and was rad ica l ly misunders tood byalmost al l h is fo l lowers from the very beginning. In par t icular, despi tethe other passages (e.g. p. 7) in which the authors regard Paul as thegreat Hel lenizer, or gnost icizer, of the gospel , they wheel h im outthis t ime as another representat ive of Jewish-style apocalypt ic:

The views of John the Baptist and Paul are apocalyptically or iented. The

ear ly church as ide f rom Paul shares Paul ' s v iew. The only ques t ion iswhether the set of texts that represent God's rule as present were obfuscatedby the pess imis t ic apocalypt ic no t ions of Jesus ' immediate predecessors ,contemporar ies , and successors .4 7

Ap oc alyp t ic , then, is unsub t le , bom bast ic , threatening, ob fus cato ry,pedes t r ian , and pess imis t ic— and shared by everybody f ro m John theBapt is t through to the ear ly church, apart f rom Jesus himself . This

picture is then fi t ted into the broader old-l iberal agenda, as follows:fu tur e-k in gdo m say ings are about judg m ent and cond em nat ion , whi leJesus ins tead offered forg iveness , mercy, and inc lus iveness .4 8 Theevidenced adduced to support th is astonishing piece of rhetor ic—andth is remarkably o ld- fash ioned , a lmost p re-Schwei tzer, v iew of Jesus—is the existence of texts about the Kingdom as a present real i ty,such as Luke 17:20-21, 11:20, and Thomas §11 3. In add i t ion, the

parables are supposed to represent the kingdom as a present , ratherthan a fu tu re , rea l ity. Th e Jesus Semin ar there fore vo ted pres en t -k ing do m say ings p ink ,4 9 and fu tu re-k ingd om say ings b lack . It was

4 6 Fun k and Ho ove r (eds.) , The Five Gospels 137.4 7 Funk and Ho ove r (eds.) , The Five Gospels 137.4 8 Fun k and Ho ove r (eds.) , The Five Gospels 1574 9 For example , Thomas § 113: the explicit reaso n giv en f or the vo te is that this

say ing provides a coun terweigh t to the v iew that Jesus espo used pop ular apo ca-lyp t ic is m (Funk and Ho ove r [eds .] , The Five Gospels 531). Here, no doubt, is



as easy as that.I ha ve to say that if I had been serve d up this ca m eo es sa y by a

f i r s t - y ea r und e rg r adu a t e , I wo u l d qu i ck l y have d ed uce d t ha t th e

student , whi le very ingenious, was unfamil iar both wi th some of thebasic secondary d iscussions of the topic ,5 0 and, more damaging s t i l l ,wi th the meaning of the pr imary texts in thei r f i r s t -century context .The de te rmina t ion to ru le fundamenta l i sm off the map a l toge ther hasso dominated the discussion ( i f not the Seminar i tself , at least in thisapparent ly authori tat ive interpretat ion of i ts work) that texts of greatsubtlety and var iety have been forced into a t ight and ut ter ly spurious

ei ther /or and played off against one another. I t would be one thing tof ind a s tudent doing th is . When two senior academics do i t , a f terhav ing gon e on record as saying that cr i t ica l scholars pract ice thei rc ra f t by sub m i t t ing the i r wo rk to the ju dg m en t o f pee r s , w hi le

non-cr i t ica l scholars are those who put dogmat ic considera t ions f i r s tand insis t that the fac tu al ev ide nc e co nf i rm theo logica l pre m ises ,5 1

the uncomfor table suspic ion i s aroused that i t i s the la t ter descr ip-

t ion, not the former, that f i ts the work we have in our hands. Sadly,th i s susp ic ion can on ly be conf i rmed by the bombas t i c , th rea ten ingand ut ter ly pedestr ian nature of the discussion i tself .

T he re is , of cou rse, a goo d deal mo re to be said abou t the K in gd omof God in the teaching of Jesus . There i s need for much discussionand careful reconst ruct ion . This , however, cannot be the p lace for i t .We conclude that , when i t comes to the cent ra l theme of the teaching

of Jesus , the Seminar, a t leas t as repor ted in th is volume (and wi thdissent ient voices drowned out by the vot ing averages and by thosew ho vo ted b lack for eve rythin g on pr incip le) , a l low ed i tse lf to m ak e

one of the rea l reasons for the Seminar 's long-running love-affa i r wi th Thomas: thecol lec ton o ffers apparent h is tor ica l grounds for dum ping apocalypt ic .

5 0 Fo r exa mp le , G. E . Ladd , Jesus and the Kingdom : The Eschatology of

Biblical Realism (Lo ndo n : SP CK , 1966) ; Ch i l ton (ed . ) , The Kingdom of God\i d e m, God in Strength; Be a s l e y - Mu r r a y, Jesus and the Kingdom; Ba rbo ur (ed .) ,The Kingdom of God; and the many recent d iscuss ion of the parables , e .g . M.B o u c h e r , The Mysterious Parable: A Literary Study ( C B Q M S 6 ; W a s h i n g t o n :Ca tho l ic Bibl ica l Asso cia t io n , 1977) ; K. E. Bai ley , Poet and Peasant/ThroughPeasant Eyes (Gra nd Rap ids : Ee rdm ans , 1983); J . Drury , The Parables in theGospels: History and Allegory (Lond on : SPC K, 1985) . The ma jo r ea r l i e r d i scus -s ions , involving such magis ter ia l f igures as Dodd and Jeremias , might as wel l not

have happened .5 1 Fun k and Ho ove r (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 34.



i t s key decis ions on the basis of an i l l - informed and i l l -advisedd i s junc t ion be tween two i l l -de f ined types o f k ingdom-say ings . Theent i re h is tory of debate th is century on the subject of Jesus andeschatology goes by the board . I t i s one th ing to d isagree wi th thel ine of thought running, broadly, f rom Schwei tzer to Sanders . I t i ssom eth ing e lse to ignore it a l toge ther. Esch atolo gy and apo caly pt ic ,and K ing do m of G od wi th in tha t, has here been m isun der s too d ,misana lyzed , and wrongly marg ina l i zed .

Two ta i l -p ieces to th is d iscussion: f i r s t , the effect of the Seminar ' spor t ra i t of Jesus a t th is point i s to minimal ize h is Jewishness . Theau thor s c la im , of cou rse , that Jesus w as not the f i r s t Ch r is t ia n (p .24); that is , he does not belong to the Christ ian movement, but (pre-sum ably ) to Juda i sm. But on ly min imal ly— if the Se m ina r ' s ana lys i sof K ing do m of G od we re to be acce pted . Qu i te unin tent ion al ly, ofcourse , the Seminar has reproduced one of the most dubious fea turesof the older l iberal picture of Jesus. Judaism only appears as the darkback c lo th aga ins t which the j ew el of Jesu s ' m ess ag e— no t now as a

Christian m e ssag e , bu t a s a sub ve r s i ve , p r e se n t - k i n g dom , a l m o s tp r o t o - g nos t i c , poss i b l y - Cyn i c , l a co n i c - cowbo y m essage— sh i nes t hemore b r igh t ly. We do no t ac tua l ly know any th ing abou t wander ingpagan phi losophers whom Jesus might have met in the days of h isyouth . There i s no evidence for them. But they are brought in ofnecess i ty ; o therwise one migh t have to admi t tha t Jesus ' l anguageabout the Kindom of God was thoroughly Jewish , and belonged wi th-

in the Jewish set t ing and aspirat ions of his day.At the same t ime, the authors are clear ly anxious not to play Jesus

off aga inst Je w s. Th ey are very m uc h aw are that som e a l legor icalr ead ings o f Jesus ' t each ing have p roduced t r ag ic consequences fo rJewish-Chr is t ian re la t ions (p . 234) . They are so coy about using thewo rd Jew tha t they insi st on say ing Jud ean ins tead— even , am us-ingly, when the Jews in quest ion are most ly Gali leans, not Judeans at

al l (e .g. p. 168) . But they see m u na w are that , w ithin ou r ow n ce ntu ry,the a t tempt to pain t Judaism as dark , pessimist ic , bombast ic , pedest r i -an re l ig ion, exp ect in g a great and cataclys m ic f inal jud gm en t , and topa in t Jesus as hav ing coun te red th i s by o ffe r ing ( the supposed lyunJewish message o f ) mercy and love and fo rg iveness , has i t se l fgenera ted t r ag ic consequences .

Second, there are a l l sor ts of s igns that the authors , represent ing

some but sure ly not a l l of the Seminar, s imply do not unders tandhow f i r s t -century Judaism, in a l l i t s p lura l i ty, works . The discussion



of ha l low ed be you r nam e5 ' in Matt 6:9 implies that there is apar ad ox in Jesus us ing the fo rm A bb a and then ask ing tha t thena m e be r ega rded as sac red (p . 149) . Th ere may, no dou b t , be a

paradox there , but not a t that s impl is t ic level . The point of askingthat the d iv ine name be hal lowed is , as has very of ten been pointedout , that the nam e is hal low ed w hen the people of God are v ind icated ,rescued f rom thei r enemies . This d iscussion i s sadly typical of manypoin t s where qu i t e bas ic per spec t ives on cen t ra l t ex t s seem to beigno red a l togeth er. Thus , for ins tanc e , we read that Lu ke 23:31 ( i fthey do this when the wood is green, what wil l they do when i t is

dry ? ) is en igm at ic , w hich i s un do ub ted ly t rue . But then, w he n th eau tho rs say no on e kn ow s w hat i t m ean s, al tho ug h it , too, m ust h av esom e t h i ng t o do w i t h t he f a ll o f J e r u sa l em ( p p . 3 95 - 9 6 ) , o n ewonders i f they bothered to check any of the major commentar ies .

In par t icular, the authors offer (p. 242) a br ief discussion of f i rst-century Phar isa ism, in order to substant ia te the Seminar ' s decis ion tocast black votes for most of the sayings in Matthew 23. They repeat

uncr i t ica l ly the l ine which Sanders took f rom Morton Smith , thoughthere was never much evidence for i t and a lways p lenty against i t :the Pharisees were based in Judea, not Gali lee, so Jesus may not haveco m e in to con tac t wi th them or even kno w n mu ch abo u t them (pp .242 , 244) .5 2 This i s backed up in a way which nei ther Sanders norSm ith sug ges ts : T he teac hing s of the rabb is in Jes us ' day w ere a l lcirculated by word of mouth; i t was not unt i l the third century C.E.

that rabb inic tradi t ions took wr i t ten form in the M ish na h. Th is las tstatement is of course t rue, but total ly i r relevant , implying as i t doestha t w ord -of - m outh c i r cu la t ion wou ld be a casua l , ine ff i c i en t , unc er-tain thing, so that , lacking wri t ten texts, Jesus would not have knownmuch about Phar isa ic teaching. As we shal l see present ly, however,in a substant ia l ly ora l cul ture , ora l teaching wi l l have c i rcula ted farm ore w idely , and far m ore effe ct ive ly, than wr i t ten texts .

The authors fur ther suggest that the Phar isees became the dominantpar ty af te r the fa l l of Jeru sale m , and that a t the cou nci l of Jam nia ,

5 2 S e e S a n d e r s , Jesus and Judaism; M . Sm i th , Pa le s t in ia n Ju da i sm in theF i r s t C en tu r y, in H. F i sche l ( ed . ) , Essays in Greco-Roman and Related TalmudicLiterature (N ew Yo rk : Ktav , 1977) 183-97 . San der s (T h e Historical Figure) hastoned th i s r igh t down, pe rhaps as a r esu l t o f h i s fu r the r r esearches r e f l ec ted in h i sJudaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE ( L o n d o n : S CM ; P h i l a d e l p h i a : Tr i n i t y

P r e s s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1 9 9 2 ). F o r d i s c u s s i o n , s e e W r i g h t , The New Testament andthe People of God, 181 -203 : on th is poin t , see esp . 195-96 .



in 90 C.E. , the Ph ar is ee s la id the fo un da t io ns fo r the surv iva l ofJuda i sm in i ts mo dern fo rm — rab bin ic Jud a i sm . M eanw hi le , even inthe las t qu ar t er of the f i r s t ce ntu ry, the em er gi ng ch urc h, in i t sPalest inian and Syrian locales, was st i l l largely a sectar ian movementwi t h i n Juda i sm .

Al l th is compr ises so many hal f - t ru ths and inaccuracies that one i st empted to wonder whe ther i t i s wor th r ead ing fu r ther in a booksup po sed ly ab out the f i r s t centu ry.5 3 I t is highly likely that the Phari-sees were a l ready very inf luent ia l , qui te possib ly the most inf luent ia lg r o up , w i t h i n t he p l u r i f o r m Juda i sm o f t h e p r e - 70 pe r i od . T he

gro up tha t be cam e do m inan t a f t e r 70 wa s one var i e ty o f Phar i se es ,namely the Hi l le l i tes , over against another var ie ty, the Shammai tes .Bu t eve n th i s w as no t ach ieve d ov ern igh t ; i t w as on ly wi th thecollapse of the second revolt , in 135, that the shif t of inf luence wascomple te . In add i t ion , our knowledge o f the counc i l o f Jamnia i svery nebu lous ; i t s da te and ach ievements a re very uncer ta in . Thela ter rabbinic t radi t ions about i t a re , most l ikely, far more heavi ly

over la id wi th subsequen t r e in te rp re ta t ions than a lmos t any th ing wefind in the Gospels. To use i t as a f ixed point for establ ishing ear lyChr i s t i an mate r i a l i s l ike a h iker t ak ing a compass bear ing on asheep. F inal ly, we do not ac tual ly know very much a t a l l about thechurch in Palest ine and Syria in the last quarter of the century. Whatwe do know is that a sharp d iv is ion between the church, precise ly inPalest ine and Syr ia , and Phar isa ic Judaism of the more zealous ( i .e .

Shammai te ) va r i e ty had a l r eady t aken p lace in the first five yearsafter Jesus death. W e kn ow this be ca use of Saul of Ta rsu s, al ias theapost le Paul , who, for nei ther the f i rst nor the last t ime, puts a spokein the whee l o f the Jesus Seminar ' s specu la t ive r econs t ruc t ions o fear ly Chr is t iani ty.

Le st al l the se cr i t ic ism s be m isu nd ers too d, I sho uld stress: ther e isnothing wrong wi th t ry ing to popular ize the resul t s of scholarship .

Quick overviews of complex i ssues are necessary in such work. Butpopula r i za t ion somet imes r evea l s c ruc ia l weaknesses which a morehighf lown and abst ract language would have masked. So i t i s in th iscase . Ser ious con temporary r esearch on f i r s t - cen tu ry Juda i sms by nomeans ru les ou t the poss ib i l i ty, which mus t then be dec ided ( andinterpre ted) on qui te o ther grounds, that Jesus d id come in to sharp

5 3 On a ll of the fo l lo w ing, see W right , The New Testament and the People ofGod, 145-338.



confronta t ion wi th the Phar isees . What the d iscussion te l l s us i s thatthe Seminar, or at least i ts spokespersons in this book, are not to bet rusted to know thei r way around the deta i l s of the f i r s t century,

which they are supposed to be descr ib ing.5 4

Oral Culture, Storytelling, and Isolated Sayings

T he th i rd dr iv in g pr incip le beh ind a great m any of the S em in a r ' sdecis ions can be s ta ted qui te bald ly.5 5 I t is assumed that only isolatedsayings of Jesus circulated in the ear l iest post-Easter per iod. Unless asaying can be conceived as having enough intr insic interest and, as i twere , s taying power to survive being passed on by word of mouth ,al l by i tself and without any context , we can assume that i t cannot beoriginal to Jesus. Words of Jesus which fai l this test , and which occurwi th in more extended nar ra t ives , are s imply par t of the s toryte l ler ' sar t , or of the evangel is t ' s theology.5 6 This is , at i ts hear t , an assump-t ion about the nature of ear ly Christ iani ty.

Examples o f th i s p r inc ip le in opera t ion cou ld be p icked f romalmost anywhere in the book ' s 500 and more pages . Here a re sometaken a t random:

Th e wo rds ascr ibed to Jesus in th is s tory [ rebuking w inds and wav e; M ark4:3 5-4 1] wou ld not have c i rcula ted ind epen dent ly d ur ing the ora l per io d;they reflect what the storytel ler imagined Jesus would have said on such ano c c a s i o n .5 7

T he s tor ies M ark ha s col lec ted in cha pter f ive of h is gospel conta in wo rds

5 4 Co m pa re Funk and Hoo ver ( eds . ), The Five Gospels, 362- 63 , wh ere weare bli thely told that peo ple in the ancient w orld (wh ich people? al l peo ple? Jew s?)

though that the sky was held up by mountains that serve as pil lars at the edge ofthe w orld . N o doubt some peo ple though t tha t. To off er it as an in terpre ta t ive gr idfor a text in the Gospels (Luke 17:6, which is in any case about trees, not moun-tains) is rather l ike trying to interpret a Mozart opera by means of nuclear physics.

5 5 See Fun k and Ho ove r (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 25 -29 , d i scussed be low.5 6

Ev en at the level of repor t ing wh at i s in the text , the Se m in ar 's spo ke s-pe rsons he re l eave much to be des i red . In Funk and Hoover ( eds . ) , The FiveGospels, 210 , com me nt ing on M at th ew 's Tran s f igura t ion na r rat ive (17 :1 -9 ) , theydecla re tha t , by contra s t wi th M at thew , in M ar k ' s vers ion , Jesus says noth ing a tal l , and say that in this respect Luke has follo we d M ark. H ow eve r, in Mark 9:9 wefind a saying of Jesus, parallel to that in Matt 17:9, but s imply in indirect speech:

He instructed them not to describe what they had seen to anyone, unti l the son ofA da m r ise f ro m the dea d. Fun k, as a gram ma rian , would sure ly ackno wle dge tha toratio obliqua is still oratio.

5 7 Funk and H oov er (eds .) , The Five Gospels, 6 0



ascribed to Jesus that are suitable only for the occasion. They are not part i-cu la r ly memorab le , a re no t aphor i sms o r pa rab les , and would no t havecircula ted independent ly dur ing the ora l per iod . They cannot , therefore , bet raced back to Jesus .5 8

The words ascribed to Jesus [during the healing of the blind man in Mark8:22-26] are the invention of the evangelist . Because they are incidental dia-logue and no t memorab le p ronouncements , they would no t have beenrem em bered as exac t word s o f Jesus .5 9

Jes us ' p ubl ic d isco urse is rem em bere d to have consis ted pr im ar i ly of apho-r isms, parables , or a chal lenge fo l lowed by a verbal re tor t . Mat t 4 :17 doesnot fal l into any of these categories.6 0

The remarks quoted from Jesus [ in Matt 8:5-13] are intel l igible only as partof the narrat ive and could not have circulated as a separate saying apart fromthis narrat ive context . They were accordingly voted black.6 1

The words at tr ibuted to Jesus in the story of the feeding of the crowd allbe long to the narra t ive texture of the s tory. They cannot be c lass i f ied asaphor i sms o r pa rab les and so cou ld no t have c i rcu la ted independen t lydur ing the ora l per iod , 30-50 C E As a con seq uen ce , they canno t be t raced

back to Jesus, but must have been created by the storytel ler.6 2

T he basis for these jud gm en ts i s fou nd in the exte nd ed disc ussio nor ora l memory and t radi t ion in the in t roduct ion (pp. 25-29) . I t i simpossib le , wi thout quot ing the ent i re sect ion and discussing i t l ineby l ine , to show the ex ten t o f the misunder s tand ings i t r evea l s .Though the authors regular ly refer to ora l cul tures , the only actualexamples they give come f rom a very non-oral cul ture , that of thei ro w n m o d e r n We s t e r n w o r l d .6 3 Re fe r r in g to wh a t Th uc yd ide s says

5 8 Fun k and Ho over ( eds . ) , The Five Gospels, 62.5 9 Funk and Ho over ( eds .) , The Five Gospels, 75.6 0 Funk and Ho ove r ( eds . ) , The Five Gospels, 134. Pro cru s tes wo uld hav e

been proud of this one.6 1 Funk and Ho over ( eds . ) , The Five Gospels, 160.6 2

Funk and Ho over ( eds . ), The Five Gospels, 205, com par e wi th 199-200.6 3 W e rephrase jok es and wi t t i c i sms , such as those o f Osca r W i lde (Funkand Hoover [ eds . ] , The Five Gospels, 27 ) ; we kn ow that o ra l me mo ry re ta insl i tt le else othe r than sayin gs and ane cdo tes that are short , prov oca tive, and m em or -ab le (p . 28 ) ; r ecen t exper imen ts with m em ory have reached va r ious conc lus ionsabout the capaci ty of memory, emphasiz ing tha t , though people remember the g is tof what was said, they do not recall the exact phrases. All of these examples are100% ir re levant when we are consider ing a genuinely ora l cul ture , such as s t i l l

ex is ts in cer ta in par ts of the world , not leas t among peasant communi t ies in theM iddle Eas t . On the wh ole topic , see K. E. Bai ley, Info rm al Co ntro l le d Oral Tra-



about making up speeches to suit the occasion (p. 27) is not to thepoint; the speeches in question tend to be longer by far than any ofJesus ' reported discourses, even the Sermon on the Mount and the

Johannine "farewel l d iscourses." In any case, Thucydides was a manof learning and let ters, and to that extent less representative of agenuinely oral cul ture.

The theo ry tha t say ings , aphor i sms , memorab le one l ine r s , andsometimes parables are the th ings that survive, whereas stories aboutJesus , wi th h is words embedded wi th in them, do no t , i s c lear lypromulgated with one eye on the results. "It is highly probable," we

are to ld—this , recal l , a t the in troductory level , before we have exa-mined a single saying —that the earl iest layer of the Gospel tradit ionwas made up almost ent i rely of s ingle aphorisms and parables thatcirculated by word of mouth, without narrat ive context—precisely asthat tradit ion is recorded in "Q" and Thomas.64

With the evidence thus well and truly cooked in advance, i t is notsurpr i s ing tha t the por t ra it o f Jesus- the -qu izz ica l -sage "em erg es" f ro m

the subsequent d iscussion. I t could not help doing so . The theoryabout what sort of material survives in oral tradit ion, I suggest , wasdesigned to produce exactly this result .

Against this whole l ine of thought we must set the serious study ofgenuinely ora l t rad i t ions tha t has gone on in var ious quar tersrecen t ly.6 5 Communities that l ive in an oral culture tend to be story-telling co m m un it ie s . Th ey sit arou nd in long ev eni ng s tel l ing and

l i s ten ing to s to r ies—the same s to r ies , over and over again . Suchstor ies , especial ly when they are involved with memorable happen-ings that have determined in some way the existence and l ife of thepar t icu lar g roup in ques t ion , acqui re a fa i r ly f ixed form, down toprecise phraseology ( in narrat ive as wel l as in recorded speech) ,extremely early in their l ife—often within a day or so of the originalincident taking place. They retain that form, and phraseology, aslong as they are told. Each vil lage and community has i ts recognized

dition and the Synoptic Gospels ,, Asia Journal of Theology 5 (1991 ) 34-54.6 4 Fun k and Ho ove r (eds.) , The Five Gospels 28.6 5 For exam ple , see H. W ansb roug h (ed .) , Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradi-

tion (JS N TS up 64; Sh eff ie ld: JS O T Press, 1991), referr ing to a large am oun t ofear l ier work; Bai ley, " Informal Contro l led Oral Tradi t ion ," 34-54 . The fo l lowingdiscussion depends on these and similar s tudies, and builds on Wright, The New

Testament and the People of God 418-43; and idem, Jesus and the Victory of God133-37.



s toryte l lers , the accredi ted bearers of i t s t radi t ions; but the wholecommuni ty knows the s tor ies by hear t , and i f the te l ler var ies themeven s l ight ly they wi l l le t h im know in no uncer ta in terms. Thismatters qui te a lot in cul tures where, to this day, the desire to avoid

sh am e is a pow er fu l mot iva tion .Such cu l tu res do a l so r epea t , and hence t r ansmi t , p roverbs and

pi thy sayin gs. Indee d, they tend to kno w fa r m ore prov erb s than theora l ly s t a rved modern Weste rn wor ld . Bu t the c i r cu la t ion o f suchindividual sayings is only the t ip of the iceberg; the rest is narrat ive,nar ra t ive wi th embedded d ia logue , heard , r epea ted aga in and aga in

within minutes, hours and days of the or iginal incident , and f ixed inmemor ies the l ike o f which f ew in the modern Weste rn wor ld canimagine. The storytel ler in such a cul ture has no l icense to invent oradapt at wil l . The less important the story, the more adaptat ion maybe possib le ; but the more impor tant the s tory, the more the ent i reco m m un i ty, in a proc ess that i s inform al but very effect iv e , wi l l k eepa c lose watch on the precise form and wording wi th which the s tory

is told.And the s tor ies about Jesus were nothing i f not impor tant . Even

the Jesus Seminar admits that Jesus was an i t inerant wonder-worker.Very wel l . Supposing a woman in a v i l lage i s suddenly healed af ter alengthy i l lness. Even today, even in a non-oral cul ture, the story ofsuch an even t wou ld qu ick ly sp read am ong f r i e nds , ne ig hbo rs a ndre la t ives , acqu i r ing a f ixed fo rm wi th in the f i r s t two or th ree

re te l l ings and re ta in ing i t , o ther th ings being equal , thereaf ter. In acu l t u r e whe r e s t o r y t e l l i ng was an d i s an a r t - f o r m , a m em o r ab l eevent such as this, especially if i t were also seen as a sign that Israel 'sGod was now at las t a t work to do what he had a lways promised,would be told at once in specif ic ways, told so as to be not just acele bra t ion of a he al ing but a lso a ce le bra t ion of the Kin gd om ofGod . Even t s and s to r i es o f th i s o rder a re communi ty - fo rming , and

the s to r i es which fo rm communi t i es do no t ge t f r ee ly o r loose lyadapted. One does not d is turb the foundat ions of the house in whichone is l iving.

W hat abou t de tache d aphor i sm s , then? Clear ly, a m em ora b le say-ing i s a memorab le say ing , and cou ld c i r cu la te independen t ly. Bu twh at abou t say ings which som et ime s have a con tex t and som et im esnot? I suggest that the fo l lowing hypothesis i s far more l ikely than



tha t proposed by the Seminar.6 6 I t was only la ter, when the commun-i t i es had been sca t t e red th rough ex te rna l c i r cumstances ( such assundry per secu t ions , and the d i sas t rous Jewish War o f 66-70) , tha t

individual memorable sayings, which might very wel l have enjoyed af l ou r i sh i n g ea r l i e r l i f e within va rious narra tive settings, w o u l dbe co m e de tach ed f ro m those se t t ings and bec om e chreiai, i so la tedpi thy sayings wi th minimal nar ra t ive context , such as we f ind (ofcourse ) in Thomas, an d also to so m e ex ten t in Lu ke . I t is he av ilyi ron ic tha t the r eason o f t en g iven fo r suppos ing Luke ' s ve r s ion o f

Q to be ea r l i e r than M at th ew ' s is tha t L uk e ' s ve r s io ns o f Q

say ings a re more chre ia - l ike , whi le Mat thew ' s a re more embedded inJewish , and of ten in nar ra t ive , contexts . Unless one had been fa i r lywel l bra inwashed by the idea that Jesus- t radi t ions consis ted or ig inal lyof non-Jewish , detached sayings, and only in the second generat ionacq uired a Jew ish se t t ing , co m ple te wi th scr ip tura l ov er to ne s and sofor th , the most natura l h is tor ica l hypothesis here would have beenthis : that Jesus ' ear l ies t hearers , being Jews, eager for thei r God to

act in thei r present c i rc um stanc es , w ould have to ld s tor ies about Jesusin a thoroughly Jewish way, wi th scr ip tura l echoes both del ibera teand accidental . Then, later on, the church which was leaving the t ights to ry te l l ing communi t i es , and go ing ou t in to the wider Hel l en i s t i cwor ld , would f ind i t eas ie r to de tach say ings f rom the i r o r ig ina lnar ra t ive context and present them, l ike the sayings of wise teachersin the Greco-Roman wor ld , as i so la ted nuggets of wisdom.

The Jesus Seminar 's view of oral t radi t ion is thus based, not on themost l ikely histor ical hypothesis, but on the same view of the dist inc-t ive Jesus that we have seen to dominate thei r whole p ic ture . Jesuswould no t have quo ted Scr ip tu re ;6 7 he did not share, or address, the

6 6 So m et im es the absen ce o f na r ra t ive con tex t in the Thomas co l lec t ion isremarked on (e .g . Funk and Hoover [eds .] , The Five Gospels, 122) as tho ug h this

were of grea t s ignif icance—which i t c lear ly i s not , s ince Thomas neve r has anys u c h c o n t e x t s . Wa v i n g Thomas a ro und (e .g . p . 102) , as tho ug h i ts de tac he dsay in gs som eho w prove tha t the say ing f i r s t c i r cu la ted inde pende n t ly and on lysubsequent ly acquired i t s synopt ic context , const i tu tes an empty ce lebra t ion of ac i rcular a rgument .

6 7 Fo r exam ple , Funk and Ho over ( eds . ), The Five Gospels, 174, w he re there fe re nc e to M icah in M at t 10:34-3 6 is g iven as a reas on for in au the nt ic i ty.C om pa re p . 201, where we are to ld tha t sch olars be l ieve tha t mo st , per hap s a l l,qu otatio ns fro m scripture at tr ibuted to Jesu s are secon dary accr etion s. Th is is quitebreathtaking, both in i ts ignoring of serious and well-known scholarly tradit ions in



aspi ra t ions of h is contemporary Jews; he d id not even fo l low the l inetaken by h i s p recu r sor and m entor. No th ing mu ch m em ora b le everhappened to him, or i f i t did we do not know about i t . He was not in-

volve d in inciden ts wh ich m ad e a dee p im pression on the on look ers ,causing them to go at once and tel l what they had seen over and overagain, with the anecdote quickly f ixing i tself into a pat tern, and thewords o f Jesus , inc lud ing inc iden ta l words , becoming par t o f tha tr egu la r ly r epea ted s to ry. He never spoke abou t h imse l f ( the moreone th inks about th is suggest ion , the more absurd i t becomes) ; h isconversat ion consis ted only of subvers ive , teas ing aphor isms. He must ,

in shor t , have been a very pecul iar human being (as one Fel low ofthe Seminar pointed out to me, a Jesus who a lways and only u t teredpi thy aphor isms would s tar t to look l ike some of the less crediblecinemat ic Jesuses) . Such a person would in fac t be qui te maddening.M or e im po rtan t ly, as a histor ian I f ind it incre dible that such a Jes uscould have been a signif icant histor ical f igure. I t is not at al l clearwh y peo p le wo uld have fo l lo w ed h im , d ied fo r h im , loved h im ,

invented r ich and powerful s tor ies about h im, and (wi th in an a lmostincre d ib ly shor t t ime , and wi th in a con tex t of co n t in u in g Jew ishm on o t h e i sm ) wor sh i pped h i m .6 8

Perh aps the greates t wea kn ess of the w hole con st ruct l ies jus t here .In order to sustain their home-made view of Jesus, the authors of thisbook, and presumably a fa i r number a t leas t of Fel lows of the JesusSeminar, have had to invent , as well , an ent ire picture of the ear ly

church out of not much more than th in a i r. Somet imes they haveborrowed other people ' s invent ions , but they, too , are based on l i t t leor nothing. Paul , as we have seen, i s the one major f ixed point inear ly Chr is t iani ty ; we know that he was act ive , t ravel l ing , preachingand wri t ing in the 40s and 50s, but we do not know anything at al l ,wi th the same cer ta in ty, about a lmost anyone e lse . We do not knowthat Q eve n exis ted ; noto r iously, there i s a gro w ing bod y of opin-ion that i t did not ( though one would never guess this f rom readingThe Five Gospels , ev en as there is a gr ow ing body of opin ion ,

which Jesus is seen as a major exposi tor of Scr ip ture , and in the ext raordinarynonJewishness of the por t ra i t which emerges .

6 8 On the wo rsh ip o f Jesus and Jewish mo no th e i sm , see N. T. W r igh t , TheClimax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinb urgh: T. &

T. Cla rk; M inne apo l is : For t ress , 1991) 18-136; W righ t , The New T estament andthe People of God, 457.



r epr esen ted s t rong ly wi th in the Jesus Sem inar, tha t ex po un ds eve rm or e co m pl ex t heo r i e s abou t i t s o r i g i n , deve l opm en t , h i s t o r i ca lse t t ing , and theo log ies .6 9 Of course , once scholars are a l lowed to

invent whole communi t ies a t wi l l , anything i s possib le . Any j igsawpuzzle can be solved if we are al lowed to create new pieces for i t at awhim. But we should not imagine that histor ical scholarship bui l t onthis principle is of any great value.

C O N C L U S I O N

Le t me be qui te c lear, in br in gin g the d iscus sion to a c lo se , onsevera l poin ts a t w hich m isun de rs tan din g of wh at I ha ve sa id m ightperhaps ar i se .

Fi rs t , I have no qua r re l wi th the ente rpr ise of pu bl ish ing as m uc hof the ear ly Jesus-mater ia l as possib le , f rom both the canonical andnon-canonical sources , and br inging every scrap of possib ly re levantev iden ce in to fu l l p lay. Indeed, I am deep ly gra te ful for the im m en selabo r and e ffo r t tha t m em be rs of the Se m ina r have ex pe nd ed toenable al l of us involved in the search for Jesus to study these textsmore easi ly. But , as wi th recent cont rovers ies about the Dead SeaScrol l s , the Seminar should be wary of suggest ing that those whof ind the canon ica l mate r i a l to be more r e l i ab le than the non-canonical are par t of a conspi racy of s i lence , inspi red by thoroughlyno n-h i s to r i c a l m ot ive s , tha t is , by the des i r e fo r som e fo r m of c l os ed -minded t r ad i t iona l Chr i s t i an i ty. F rank ly, both t he des i r e to p ro ve

o r t ho d ox y and the desire to dis pr ov e it oug ht to be an ath em a to theser ious histor ian. The f i rst of these is , of course, the way to what isnormal ly ca l l ed fundamenta l i sm; the second , t aken by a t l eas t some(and they are c lear ly inf luent ia l ) in the Jesus Seminar, i s no lessc losed-minded , and in f ac t fundamenta l i s t , i n p rac t i ce . Ha t red o for tho do xy is jus t as unhistor ic al a star t ing p oint as love of i t.

Se co nd , I hav e no quar re l w i th pop ular iza ton. I to ta l ly agre e w i th

Rober t Funk that the resul t s of scholarship are far too impor tant , onthis of a l l quest ions , to be conf ined to the c lassroom and l ibrary. Iwil l go fur ther. The Jesus Seminar, in this and in several other of i tspub l ica t ions , h as don e as good a job of popular iza t ion as any scho lar-ly gro up or individual I hav e ever seen. I ts char ts , d iag ram s, tables ,lay out , an d so fo r th are ex em pla ry . I am not , in short , in any w ay a

6 9

Th e prob lem at ica l na ture of th is aspect of Q s tud ies is t rea ted by C. A.Evans in h is chap, on assumptions and methodology ( in Authenticating the Wo rds .



scho la r ly snob , who wants to keep the d i scuss ion wi th in a charmedc i rc le . My prob lems l i e e l sewhere . The th ing which i s thus be ingof ten b r i l l i an t ly communic ia ted , espec ia l ly in The Five Gospels, isnot the assured resul t of scholarship . I t i s a compromise of pseudo-dem ocr a t i c s cho l a r sh i p , ba sed o n p r i nc i p l e s we have seen goo dreason to ques t ion , employ ing methods tha t many repu tab le scho la r swould avoid , ignor ing a great deal of very ser ious (and by no meansnecessa r i ly conserva t ive) con temporary scho la r sh ip , making e r rone-ous and anachron i s t i c assumpt ions abou t the ea r ly church and i t scu l tu ra l con tex t , and apparen t ly d r iven by a s t rong , and s t rong ly

dis tor t ing , contemporary agenda. There was no point in popular iz ingal l th is . One should only popular ize scholarship when i t has passedthe text this boo k i tself sug gests: su bm it t ing w ork to the ju d g m en t ofpeers (p . 34) . For what i t i s wor th , my judgment i s that The FiveGospels do es not pas s the test . A ny non -sc ho lar read ing this bo ok isl ikely to be ser iously misled, not only about Jesus, but about the stateof ser ious scholarship . This i s culpably i r responsible .

Th ird , I repe at wh at I sa id ear ly on: I ha ve no quar r e l w i th thescho la r sh ip o f ma ny m em bers o f the Sem inar. Som e I am pr iv i l egedto count as f r iends, and I t rust that what I have said here wil l not puttha t f r i e nd sh i p in j eo pa rdy . F rom wi th in the Se m inar, a s w e s aw ,several of the discussions, not least some of the votes that ended upgray, must appear as highly signif icant , points of potent ial advance inunder s tand ing . Severa l Fe l lows have done s t e r l ing work in per suad-

ing others within the Seminar to adopt , or at least to al low for, viewsother than thei r or ig inal ones; pul l ing votes up f rom black to graymay ind ica te , fo r many, an open ing o f an o therwise c losed mind .From wi th in cer ta in c i rc les in the Nor th Amer ican academy, th is i squi te a s igni f icant achievement . From outs ide the Seminar, however,the present volume cannot but appear as a d isaster, for which theindividual Fel lows cannot and must not be held responsible , s ince

they did not wr i te i t . The two authors of th is book are men whosew ork in o ther f i e lds I adm i re and have used a goo d dea l : F u n k ' sGreek grammar i s a lways c lose a t hand, and Hoover ' s work on a keyG ree k term used onc e by Paul is fou nd at io na l , I am p ersu ade d, fo rthe cor rec t under s tan d ing o f a mu ch con t rover ted and huge ly impo r-t an t passage .7 0 But they, as the named authors , must unfor tunate ly

7 0 R . W . Funk , A Greek Grammar of the New T estament and Other Early

Christian Literature (5 th ed . , Ch icag o and Lo ndo n: Un ivers i ty of Ch icag o Press ,



bear responsibi l i ty for th is , the f lagship work of the Jesus Seminar.I t does them no credi t . Indeed, i t obscures any good work that theSeminar i t se l f may have done.

Fou r th , and perhap s mos t impor tan t ly o f a l l: I ag ree co m ple te lywith the Seminar that the search for Jesus in his histor ical context ispo ssib le, vi tal , and u rge nt . I am as co nv inc ed as they are that if thechurch ignores such a search i t is l iving in a fool 's paradise. What ism ore , m y ow n s tudy of Jesu s leads m e to th ink that co ns er va t iveand o r tho do x Ch r i s t i an i ty, in the twen t i e th cen tu ry a t l eas t , hasof ten , indeed qui te regular ly, missed the point of Jesus ' sayings and

deeds almost ent irely. But the way to address this problem is not , andcannot be , the way taken by the Jesus Seminar. One cannot tackleser ious histor ical problems by taking them to bi ts and voting on thebi ts one by one. The only way forward must be the way of genuineh i s to r iography ; and one may search The Five Gospels f ro m cov er toco ve r in va in fo r such a th ing . Ther e a re a goo d m an y pe op leengaged in ser ious h is tor ica l s tudy of Jesus a t the moment , but the

Seminar in i t s corporate ident i ty (as opposed to some of i t s indivi -dua l members ) canno t be r eckoned among the i r number.

Fi f th , in con clusio n, I quest ion w heth er the Jesu s propose d by TheFive Gospels con st i tu tes , or off ers , goo d new s, i .e . go sp el , a t a l l .The main th ing th is Jesus has to offer, i t somet imes appears , i s thenews tha t the fundamenta l i s t s a re wrong . Some of us be l i eved tha tanyway, on qu i t e o ther g rounds . As ide f rom tha t , Jesus becomes a

quizzical teacher of wisdom, to be ranged a longside o ther quizzicalteachers of wisdom, f rom many t radi t ions . No reason emerges as towhy we should take this teacher any more or less ser iously than anyother. I t is not clear why even a sustained at tempt to fol low his max-ims, h is i so la ted aph or ism s, should of fe r ho pe in a w or ld thre aten edby eco log ica l d i sas te r s , nuc lea r ho locaus t s , r esurgen t t r iba l i sme—and , fo r tho se insu la ted f r o m such th in gs in ce r t a in par t s o f the W es t -e ra wor ld , the mora l and sp i r i tua l bankrup tcy o f mate r i a l i sm. Thew hole point of ca l l ing G ospe ls G osp els wa s, I sugge st that they didcontain reason for hope, good news to a world that badly needed i t .

The Five Gospels, in o ther w ords , syste m at ica l ly de co nst r uc ts i tsown t i t le . I f this book gives us the t ruth about Jesus, about the ear lychurch, and about the wri t ing of the f ive books here studied, there is

1973) ; R. W . Ho over , Th e harpagmos En igm a: A Phi lo logica l Solut io n , HTR 64(1971) 95-119 ; see Wr igh t , The Climax of the Covenant, 56-98.



no gospel , no good news. There i s only good advice , and we have noreason for th inking that i t wi l l have any effect . Many members of theJesus Seminar would d isagree s t rongly wi th th is conclusion, but th isbook does not g ive us any means of seeing why. In any case , thosewho per s i s t in see ing the Seminar ' s por t r a i t o f Jesus as somehowgood news are bound to say, as the book does on a lmost every page,tha t Mat thew, Mark , Luke , and John go t i t a l l wrong , p roduc ingthe i r own var ia t ions on the pedes t r i an , bombas t i c , apoca lyp t i c , andessen t i a l l y f undam en t a l i s t wor l dv i ew. I f t he S em i n a r i n s i s t s onreta in ing the wo rd G os pe ls in the t i tle , then, it i s the wo rd f i v ethat is deconstructed: al l one is lef t with is Thomas and, of co urse ,the dou bly hypo thet ica l Ea r ly Q .

From a h is tor ica l point of v iew i t might of course be t rue thatthere is no good news to be had. Christ iani ty as a whole might simplyha ve been wh is t l ing in the dark for two thousa nd ye ars . Su bv ers iveaphor isms may be the only comfor t , the only hope, we have. But th isquest ion must be addressed precise ly from a historical point of view.

And, when al l is said and done, The Five Gospels is of no he lp wh at-ever in that task . There i s such a th ing as the ser ious contemporarysearch f or Jesu s in h is h is tor ica l contex t . Th is par t icular book m ak esno contr ibut ion to i t .



T H E IM P L I C AT I O N S O F T E X T U A L VA R I A N T S F O R

A U T H E N T I C AT I N G T H E A C T I V I T I E S O F J E S U S

Stanley E . Por ter and Mat thew Brook O'Donnel l

1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N

In our paper in the previous volume of th is two-volume work on

au then t i ca t ing the words and ac t ions o f Jesus , we a rgued tha tsystemat ic research in to var ia t ion among the manuscr ip ts of the NewTes t am en t con t a i n i ng t he wor ds o f J e sus was no t i ceab l y absen tamong recent work on the His tor ica l Jesus . We car r ied out a deta i ledstudy of the textual var iants in the words of Jesus in the Synopt icGospe l s a s r eco r ded by t he Nes t l e - A l an d2 7 and suggested the needfor a reconsidera t ion of both the cr i ter ia used for authent ica t ing the

words o f JesuS and those opera t iona l in t ex tua l c r i t i c i sm. Ofpar t icular concern was the seeming lack of a t tent ion in His tor ica lJesus studies to the precise wording of the words of Jesus as they arefound in the Greek t ex t o f the New Tes tament . Th i s d i s regard i slargely due to the Aramaic Hypothesis , which, though showing s ignsof decl ine , has had a cent ra l inf luence upon the manner in whichHistor ical Jesus research has been carr ied out . As a resul t of this, we

suggested that i t was in fac t not so much the words of Jesus butra ther the concepts of Jes us that w er e be ing s tud ied . Fr om thats tandpoint , the lack of a t tent ion to the textual var iants i s under-s t andab le—syntac t i ca l , morpho log ica l and even l ex ica l va r i a t ion i sless s ign i f ica nt if the que st ion is Co uld Jesus ha ve sa id so m eth ingalon g these l ine s? instead of D id Jes us say this or no t?

In th i s paper, we do no t p ropose to ca r ry ou t a de ta i l ed

classif icat ion of the var iants regarding the act ions of Jesus, as we didin the f i rst study of the words of Jesus. One reason for this is thedi ff icul ty in ext ract ing just the ac t ions of Jesus f rom the text of theSy no pt ic G osp els . Th e que st ion of how m uch of a c lau se or ve rseshould be considered as par t of an act ion of Jesus is assessed in thef i r s t sec t ion . H ere we dev e lop ca teg or ies fo r c l ass i f i ca t ion o f theac t ions o f Jesus , in t roduc ing d i s t inc t ions r egard ing p rocesses tha tmay prove helpful in subsequent research. Then, in the next severa l



sections, we focus specifically on the processes at tr ibuted to Jesus inMark 's Gospel , which are real ized by the verbal forms in the Greektext. We use the same classifications for variants that we used in theprev ious paper, a l though we wi l l c i te examples se lec t ive ly. Thesecatego r ies of var ian ts inc lude addi t ion / inser tion , sub t rac t ion /om iss ion ,l ex ica l d i ff e ren t i a t ion / rep lacemen t , morpho log ica l a l t e ra t ion (e .g .tense-form/ aspect , mood, voice, case, number) , and syntax, usual lypertaining to word order. These sect ions examine the textual var iantsin several per icopes from Mark (and their Synopt ic paral lels) in thel ight of their potent ial s ignif icance for Histor ical Jesus research (wealso include an appendix with fur ther instances for examinat ion) .

2 . E X T R A C T I N G T H E A C T I O N S O F J E S U S

1 What Counts as an Action of Jesus?

In investigating the words of Jesus, i t was a relatively simple task,with the aid of a standard red-letter edit ion of the New Testament, to

ex t rac t the words a t t r ibu ted to Jesus f rom the Synopt ic Gospels .Repeat ing th is procedure for the act ions of Jesus, on the other hand,is not such a self-evident task. Consider, for instance, the first versesin Mark where any act ions of the character, Jesus, are found (Mark1:9-10):

9 κ ά ί έ γέ νε το eu εκ είνα ι? τ α ΐς ή μ έρα ι? ήλθεν Ίησ ου ? άπ ό Ν α ζαρέτ τη ?Γ α λιλα ία ? κα ΐ έβα πτ ίσ &η e l ? τόν Ίορ δά νη ν ύπό ' Ιω άννου . 10 κα ΐ εύθύ?

ά ν α β α ίν ω ν έκ το υ ϋ δ α τ ο ? είδ ε ν σ χ ι£ ο μ έ ν ο υ ? το ύ ? ο υ ρ α ν ο ύ ? κα ΐ τ όττνεΰμα ώ ? π εριτερά ν κ α ταβ α ινο ν * ε1£ α ύτόν.

The underl ined words are those that have var iant readings in theN e s t l e - A l a n d2 7 , and the aster isk indicates that cer tain manuscriptsadd words at th is point—in th is case, και μ έ ν ο ν is fo un d in (W )33. How much of these two verses should be classi f ied as belongingto the act ions of Jesus? If we were to consider solely the processes

(verbal forms) of which Jesus was the subject or actor then η and 61are the only words that should be included in a corpus of the actionsof Jesus. In addi t ion, the grammatical ized actor, Ίησου?, should alsobe included in these words. For our present purpose, none of thesewords exh ib i t t ex tual var ian ts . But what about the preposi t ionalp h r a se ά π ό Ν α £ α ρ ε τ ( f r o m Naza r e t h ) ? It mo d i f i e s t h e v e r b η ,which we have classified as an action of Jesus, and thus serves as an



adjunct in that c lause .1 I t is related to the action of Jesus, providing aloca t ive or ig in fo r the process . Th ere a re two var ian ts for the wo rdΝ α ζα ρ έ τ ( a tt e st ed in Β L Γ Δ 28 33 565 600 892 1241 242 7 25 421844 /2211) , one read ing Ν α ζα ρ ά τ (A Ρ) and the o the r Ν α £α ρέθ (DΚ W Θ / 4 2 2 4 / 13• , wh ich was fo rmer ly r ead in the Nes t l e -Aland2 6.Fu r the r, wh a t abo u t t he ac t ion o f Joh n upo n Je s us? Je s us w asb a p t i z e d ( έβ α π τ ίσ θη ) in t he Jo rdan by John (v. 9) . Sh ou ld this becounted as an act ion of Jesus? In one sense , i t cer ta inly re la tes tosome th ing tha t J e sus was invo lved in—he was bap t i zed . S imi l a r ly,the Spir i t i s sa id to have descended upon Jesus (6ls αύτόν) . The tex t

r e a d i n g α ύ τ ό ν is s u p p o r t e d b y Β L ( W ) / · · 13 33 2427 Majo r i tytext . In l ine with the parallels in Matt 3:16 and Luke 3:22, there is av a r i a n t έ π ' α ύτ ό ν suppor t ed by impo r t an t m anus c r ip t s ( A L W Θβ 33 M ajo r i t y text) . I f th is c lau se is inc lude d in the act ion s of Jesu s ,then the s ign i f i can t t ex tua l va r i an t κα ι \ιέ ν ο ν ( a n d r e m a i n e d )sho uld be taken into con side rat io n. Fina l ly, wh at abou t the c la use κα ιέγένβτο èv έκβίναις τα ΐς· ή μ έρ α ι? ( A nd i t hap pen ed in those da ys )

— d o e s tha t co ns t i tu te a par t of the ac t io ns of Je su s? I t i s l esscon ne c ted w i th the ac t ions of Jesu s ( he ca m e . . . he saw ) than theinformat ion tha t Nazare th was the p lace f rom which he d id the ac t ionand that John was the person who bapt ized him. However, i t may s t i l lbe cons idered as an e lement in the ac t ions of Jesus , and thus thevar ian ts for the words κα ι èyév6T need to be cons idered .

2. Types and Levels of ActionTh ese o bserv a t ion s have l ed us to p rop ose d i ff e re n t types o f ac t ionsor levels of ac t iv i ty for c lass i fy ing the ac t ions of Jesus . These aresu m m ari ze d in the char t be low . Dire ct ac t ion s (Level 1) are tho se inwhich Jesus i s the g rammat ica l sub jec t , and ac to r o r agen t o f aprocess . These are usual ly ins tances where a f in i te ac t ive voice verbfo rm i s found , though appropr ia te gen i t ive abso lu tes and in f in i t ives ,

1 On the elem ent s in a Gre ek clau se, see S. E. Porter, Idioms of the GreekNew Testament (BLG 2; Sheffield : She ffield Acad em ic Press, 2nd edn, 1994) 286-97. The three major components of a clause are subject (S) predicate (P) andcomplement (C). Th e com ple m ent inc ludes every thing in the clause that is not eitherthe main verb and its modifiers (predicate) or grammatical subject and its modifiers(subject), and is sometimes divided into further units, including that of adjunct (A).

The complement includes d irect and/or indirect objects and preposi t ional phrases(the latter often treated as adjuncts). These categories are used in the chart below.





ana ly t i ca l f r amework th rough which to cons ider the ac t ions o f anycharacters within the Gospel narrat ives, in this case Jesus.

3 . THE DI RECT ACTI ONS OF J ES US ( LEVEL 1 )

Since this essay is par t of this larger project on authenticat ing theact ions of Jesus, within the l imited space avai lable we wil l devote ourgreatest amount of at tent ion to the direct act ions of Jesus (Level 1) .We t r ea t he re th ree s ign i f i can t examples , f rom two ca tegor ies o ftextual var iant .

Lexical a l tera t ion/di fferent ia t ion in the ac t ions of Jesus , par t icular-ly the direct act ions of Jesus, is the most l ikely place for conceptualvar ia t ion to take p lace . The reason for th is i s that these types ofvar iant show places where a d i fferent verb has been used to descr ibean ac t ion o f Jesus . The sem ant ic c l ass i f ica t ions found in the L o u w -Nida l ex icon2 provide a useful tool for char t ing lexical d i fferences asvar ian t s change semant ic domains o r sub-domains . Such a sh i f t indomains or sub-domains , indicat ing a shi f t in sense of the verb , and

hence d is t inct ion in the ac t ion , has obvious impl icat ions for s tudyingthe nature of the ac t ions of Jesus , and, wi th i t , ra ises quest ionsr ega r d i n g au t hen t i ca t i ng t he se ac t i on s . As we ou t l i n ed i n ou rprevious s tudy, and has been conf i rmed in th is s tudy as wel l , i tunfor tunate ly appears to be the case that most work on the words andact ions of Jesus pays l i t t le a t tent ion to the speci f ic wording of theGreek text , that is , what Jesus actual ly said or did according to the

account , but is more interested in the concepts that l ie behind them,that i s , whether Jesus sa id or d id something somewhat l ike what i srepo r ted . Th e pr ima ry reason fo r th is neg lect of the G reek w ord s ofJesus appear s to be the v iew tha t they may mere ly r epresen t anAramaic or ig inal . I t i s less easy to account for the lack of concernregarding the act ions of Jesus.

Mark 2 :23 (69) .3 This example of lexical a l tera t ion/di fferent ia t ion

in the direct act ions of Jesus is representat ive of a number of var iantrea ding s in the Syn opt ic G os pe ls repo r t ing of the ac t ion s of Jesu s .These are cases where a root lexical i tem has var iants wi th d i fferent

2 J . P. Lo uw and E. A. Nid a, A Greek English Lexicon B ased upon Semantic Domains (2 vols. , Ne w York : Un ited Bible Soc iet ies, 1988).

3 As in the prev ious ar t ic le , we refer to the Syn opt ic per ico pe nu m ber s in A.

H u c k , Synopsis of the First Th ree G ospels ( rev. H. Lie tzm ann and F. L. Cro ss ;Oxford: Blackwel l , 9 th edn, 1949) , by reference number in parenthes is .



p r ep o s i t i o n a l p r e f i x e s . A t M ar k 2 : 2 3 , Nes t l e - A l an d2 7 r ea ds κα ΐέ γ έ νε τ ο αύ τ ό ν èv t o î s σ ά β βα σ ιν π α ρα π ο ρε ύ βσ θα ι δ ια τώ ν σ π ο ρ ί-μ ω ν ("A nd i t hap pen ed on the Sab bath for h im to pass through theg ra in f i e ld s" ) . Th e in f in i t ive π α ρα π ορ 6 ύ6 σ θα ι is foun d in $>88 Θ7 0 0 8 9 2 / 2 2 11 . T h e v a r i an t r ead i n g δ ια π ο ρ ε υ ε σ θ ο α ( " t o p a s sthro ug h" ) is fou nd in B (C) D 242 7 and π ο ρεύ εσ θα ι ("to go ") in W ,/ 1 3 . L u k e ' s paral lel has the inf in i t ive δια π ο ρ εύεσ θα ι (L uke 6:1) andM at th ew 's has the f in i te un -pr ef ix ed form έττορεύθη (Mat t 12 :1) .The t ex tua l ev idence is s t rong ly Alexandr i an fo r πα ρ α π ο ρβ ύ εσ θα ιwith $p88 and , but m ore balance d with both Alex and rian (B ) andWes t e r n ( D) t e s t i mo n y f o r δ ια π ο ρ ε υ ε σ θ α ι. O n t he b a si s o faccounting for the origins of the variants, Taylor asserts that

T h e ch an ge to διαττορεύεσθα ι can readily be ex pla ine d as the sub sti tuti on ofa more exact expression and an assimilat ion to Lk. vi . I , whereas there is noreason wh y διαττορεύεσθα ι should be replaced by π α ρα πο ρεύεσ θα ι.4

Thus , t he t ex t -c r i t i ca l canon o f d i s s imi l a r i ty f avours παραπορβύ-εσ θα ι as the or iginal Mark an reading . In addi t ion, assum ing M ark anpr io r i ty, Tay lo r sugges t s tha t Mat thew and Luke ' s r ead ings a re" c l e a r l y m e a n t a s i m p r o v e m e n t s , "5 bu t then c i t es M o u l to n ' ssu gg estio n that M ar k 's κα ι έγέ νε το with the infin it ive6 "is perhaps ap r i m i t ive ass im i la t ion to Lk 61 . "7 I t i s not clear how Taylorreconc i l es these two pos i t ions . E i the r Mat thew and Luke a re"improving" on Mark, or the text of Mark is an ear ly assimilat ion toLuke, but i t i s d i ff icul t to see how both can be the case. Moultonmakes h is comment in the con tex t o f h is d i scuss ion of supposedHebraisms in Luke, par t icu lar ly the fo r ty o r more occurrences o fκα ΐ έγέ νε το . 8

4 V. Ta y l o r, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with

Introduction Notes and Indexes (Lon don: M acm i l lan , 1959) 215.5 Tay lo r, Gospel According to St. Mark 215.6 και έγέν ετο occu rs four t imes in M ark : 2 :23; 4 :4 ; 9 :3 ; 9 :26 . M ark 2 :23 i s

the only instan ce in the Gosp el w he re there is a cate nat iv e con struc t ion (se e P orter,Idioms of the Greek New Testament 197-98) , which occurs three t imes in theGospel of Luke: 6:1; 6:6; 16:22.

7 J . H . M oul to n , A Grammar of New Testament Greek. I. Prolegomena

(E din bu rgh : Τ . & T. Clark , 3rd edn , 1908) 17. In a foot note , M oul ton sug ges t s" Π α ρ α π ο ρεύ β σ θα ι( A L D al ma y be a re li c of M k ' s or ig ina l tex t . Pre sum ablythis indicates that Moulton was using a text that had the διαττορείκσ θαι readin g.

8 M oul ton i s par t i cu la r ly resp ond ing to D al m an ' s l is t o f "S em i t i s m s in theS y n o p t i c G o s p e l s " ( G . D a l m a n , The Words o f Jesus: Considered in the Light of



In terms of the semantics of each of the three verbs, they areobvious ly c lose ly re la ted , and concern l inear movement . The Louw-Nid a l ex ic on p lace s a ll t h ree w ord s in do m ain 15, "L ine ar

M o v e m e n t "9 (πα ρα πο ρεύο μ α ι [15.28] , δια πο ρεύο μ α ι [15.21, 22] andπ ο ρ εύο μ α ι [15.10, 18, 34]) , a l thoug h within dif fer en t su b-d om ain s.Taking the "a" sense for each word, the three different sub-domainsare: πο ρεύο μ α ι "M ove , C om e/G o," δ ια πο ρεύο μ α ι "Travel , Jou rne y"and π α ρ α π ο ρεύ ο μ α ι "Pass , Cross Over, Go Throu gh , Go Ar ou nd . "The basic sense of al l three of these verbs is the same, i t must benoted , but each has a d iff eren t exte nde d sense. The sub -do m ain s of

the Louw-Nida lex icon are genera l ly o rdered f rom less to g rea terspeci f ic i ty in meaning ,1 0 an ordering ref lected in these three verbs,w i th π ο ρ ε ύ ο μ α ι b e in g th e le as t a nd π α ρ α π ο ρ ε ύ ο μ α ι th e m o s tspecif ic . Thus, whereas al l three Gospels are in agreement that Jesuswas involved in l inear movement regard ing gra inf ie lds , the var ia-t ions in word choice in the Synopt ic accounts , mirrored in Mark 'stextual variants, raise the question of what specific action Jesus was

performing . Gundry th inks tha t the au thor o f Mark ' s Gospel hasdel iberately separated the act ion of Jesus (παραπορεύομαι) f rom thatof h is d isciples (01 μ α θη τα ί α ύ τοΰ ή ρ ξα ντο όδόνποιεΐν τίλλοντες·τους σ τ ά χ υ ς H is d iscip les beg an to m ak e a path plu ckin g h ea dsgrain ) . He suggests that the purpose of this separation

Is to ma ke a clean separation betwee n Je sus ' going along without p luckingears of grain and the disciples ' making their way while p lucking ears of

grain; for the Pharisees will not raise a question about Jesus' conduct, butonly about the conduct of his disciples, and he will defend their conduct,not his own.1 1

It is plausible to think that , assuming Markan priori ty, the writer ofMark's Gospel is reflecting a specific view of the actions of Jesus, asref lected in the form of verb selected. Jesus is depicted as passing

Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aram aic Language [ trans. D. M . K ay ;Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909] 17-36) . For a more recent discussion of Mark2:23 as an alleged Semitism, see E. C. Maloney, Semitic Interference in Ma rcanSyntax (SB LD S 51; Ch ico: Scho lars Press, 1981) 85-86.

9 Louw and Nida, Greek-Eng lish Lexicon, 1.181-211 . Do m ain 15 is a largeand complex domain, with 33 sub-domains.

1 0 E. A. Nid a and J. P. Lo uw , Lexical Sem antics of the Greek New Testament(SBLRBS 25; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 110-11.

11

R . H . Gu ndry, Ma rk: A Com mentary for His Apology for the Cross(Gra nd Rapids : Eerd ma ns, 1993) 140 (his em pha sis) .



through the f ield , not p lucking the grain , whi le h is d isciples arespecif ical ly descr ibed as p lucking the grain . The use of the verbπαραπορεύεσθαι , wi th the p re f ixed p repos i t ion παρά , fo l lowed bythe prep osit io nal ph rase w ith δι,ά, seem s at least co m pa tibl e w ith thissense, if not require i t .12 This d is t inct ion in the act ion is confirmedby other features of Mark's account in relation to Matthew and Luke.For example, Mark is the only wri ter to specify a separate set ofm ov em en ts for the disciples (ή ρ ξα ντο όδό ν π ο ιε ί ν) , wi th the o thertwo Gospels seeming to include the disciples in the action of Jesus.Matthew states that "Jesus went (έπορεύθη) through the grainf ields

and his d isciples were hungry and began to pluck heads of grain"(Matt 12:1) , seemingly including the disciples in the act ion of theverb έπο ρεύθ η . Lu ke 's version is closer to M ar k ' s , wi th και έγέ νε τοwith the inf in i t ive construct ion, and states that "his d isciples wereplucking and eat ing heads of grain , rubbing them with their hands"(Luke 6:1) . The focus is p laced upon their act ion of p lucking andeating the grain, and not their moving through the field. I t seems to

be assumed in the Lukan account that the disciples are included inJes us ' t ravel l ing th rough the f ie ld (δ ια π ορ εύεσ θα ι δ ιά σ π ο ρ ίμ ω ν) .There are a l so impl ica t ions of the tex tual var ian ts in Mark forSynopt ic relat ions. As Taylor notes (see above) , the Markan readingwi th π α ρ α π ο ρ εύ εσ θα ι can accou nt bes t fo r the o ther var ian ts in away that the other var iants cannot . Further, the dis t inct ion in theactions seems to have been lost by the other ( later) Synoptic writers.

Perhaps nei ther appreciated the dis t inct ion being made between whatJesus and his d isciples d id as they passed through the f ields, eventhough th is d is t inct ion in Mark is confirmed by the react ion of thePharisees to the disciples ' but not Jesus ' act ions. Luke retains thesense of passing through, but Matthew loses any sense but that of theac t i o n o f mo v emen t , an d b o t h h av e t h e P h a r i s ee s en q u i r i n gregarding Jesus and the disciples ' behaviour.

The conc lus ions to be d rawn f rom the p rev ious d i scuss ion ,especia l ly regard ing au then t ica t ing the ac t ions of Jesus , wi l l res tpart ly on the solution to the Synoptic problem that one adopts. Butleaving that issue aside for the moment , th is example i l lust rates theimportance of analyzing the textual variants of the actions of Jesus,

1 2 On the sem antic s of the prepo sitions πα ρά and διά , see Porter, Idioms of the

Greek New Testament, 166-68, 148-51, wh ere the gloss es "alo ngs ide, parallel toor bes ide " and "th rou gh " are sugg ested for πα ρά and διά respective ly.



especial ly in comparison of the Synopt ic accounts . In th is instance,the variants in Mark point to an early (if not authentic) descriptionof a specific action of Jesus, over against those of his disciples. One

is also able to account for the react ions to Jesus ' act ions ( in th isinstance, the lack of reaction to his actions) and the nature of theo ther Synopt ic accounts . I t should be in terms of these speci f icactions of Jesus that any test of authenticity is made.

There are also numerous examples of morphological al terat ion inthe direct act ions of Jesus. Frequent ly f in i te verbs are replaced byinf in i te cons t ruct ions , such as an adverb ia l par t ic ip le phrase , a

geni t ive absolute clause, or a form of the inf in i t ive. Two examplesare illustrative of the relation of this kind of variant to the actions ofJesus.

Mark 3 :33 (89) . Jesus ' mother and bro thers have come to thehouse in which Jesus is staying, and they send a messenger inside toinform him of their presence.1 3 N e s t l e - A l a n d2 7 g ive s the rea din g κ α ια π ο κ ρ ιθ εί? α ύ το ΐ? λέγει. ("A nd an sw erin g them h e said" ), fo u nd in

B (C ) L Δ 89 2 242 7 . Th e mo od of the two verbal f o r m s i ssw itch ed in the read ing in A D (Θ ) M ajo ri ty text , wh ich is κ α ιά π εκρ ίθη α υ το ί? λέγω ν ("And he answ ered them say ing") . Both ofthese readings are comprised of a s ingle clause. There are, however,two addi t ional var ian t read ings tha t ins tead use two f in i te verbf o rm s . T h e f irs t h as r ela tiv ely w ea k m a n us cr ip t e vi de n ce ( / 2 8 13) - 700 2542) , άπ εκρ ίθη α ύ το ΐ? και λ έγει ("H e answ ere d and he said ").Notice that the tense-forms of the verbs do not vary in these threereadin gs, άπ ο κ ρίνο μ α ι being in the aoris t tense -form and λέγω in thepresent . The fourth var iant l is ted in the apparatus of Nest le-Aland2 7

fo r th i s c l ause is 0 ? δε ά π εκ ρ ίθ η κα ί ε ίπ ε ν α ύ το ΐ? ( "A nd heanswered and he said to them"), found in W (33) . Here there is acomplex of var ia t ion : add i t ion of the re la t ive pronoun , makinganaphoric reference to Jesus, and the use of two clauses, wi th thethird-person personal pronoun (αύτοΐ?) moving to the second clauseafte r ει, wh ich h as altered in both m oo d and ten se- for m .

In th is instance, the external evidence seems st rongly to supportt h e ch o i ce o f t h e Nes t l e - A l an d2 7 commi t t ee . However, i t i s

1 3 For ano ther analy sis that appre ciates the textual variants, one of few that wehave discovered, see G. D. Kilpatr ick, "Jesus, his Family and his Disciples," JSNT

15 (1982) 3-19; repr. in C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter (eds.) , The Historical Jesus:A Sheffield Reader (BibS em 33; She ff ield: She ff ield Ac adem ic Press, 1995) 13-28.





Obviously such an examinat ion cannot reveal any hard and fast ru lefor these features. There are many factors that inf luence tense-formchoice and the posi t ion of a subject group, for instance, within a

c lause . The fo l low ing tab le show s the occur rences o f ά π ο κ ρ ίνο μ α ιfollowed by λέγω in the Gospel of Mark. Of the 18 examples1 9 foundin Nes t l e -Aland2 7, only two are paratact ic construct ions, with twof in i te verb- forms in separa te c lauses (Mark 7 :28 and 12 :34) . Thisfact could be taken as internal evidence against the paratactic variantreadings for Mark 3:33, in addi t ion to the weak external evidence.2 0

Of the 16 (or 17) remaining instances with a single complex clause

(hypotact ic construct ion) , there is only one where λέγω occurs as anadverb ia l par t ic ip le modi fy ing the verb άποκρίνομαι—Mark 15 :9 , όδέ Π ιλ ά το ? ά π εκρ ίθη α ύ το ΐ? λέγω ν ( "A nd P i l at e answ ered themsaying") . Al l the other instances are ei ther an adverbial par t icip lefo rm of ά π ο κ ρ ίνο μ α ι, m od i fy in g λέγω , o r a subs tan t ival use o f thepar t ic ip le (ό α π ο κ ρ ιθ ε ί? ) as the sub jec t o f λ έγω . This ra i ses thequestion of whether this pattern should be taken as internal evidence

again st the reading in A D (Θ ) M ajor i ty text , κα ι ά π εκ ρ ίθη α ύ το ΐ?λέγω ν ("A nd he answ ered them saying") .

3:33 καΐ ά πο κρ ιθεί? αύ τοΐ? λ έγει Α --Ρ

6:37 δ δε ά πο κρ ιθεί? ει [α ύτοΐ?]2 1 S - P - C

7:28 ή δε άπ εκρίθη καΐ λέγει αύτω S - Ρ and P -C

8:29 άπ οκ ριθε ί? ό Π έτρο ? λέγει αύ τω Α - - S - P - C

9:5 άπ οκρ ιθε ί? ό Π έτρο? λέγει τω Ίησ οΰ Α - - S - P - C9:19 ό δε άποκριθεί? αύτοΐ? λέγει S --P

10:3 δ δέ ά π οκ ριθεί? ει α ύ τοΐ? S- -P-C

10:24 ό δε Ίησ ο υ? π ά λιν ά πο κρ ιθεί? λέγει α ύτο ΐ? S -- A - P - C

10:51 καί ά πο κρ ιθεί? α ύτω δ Ί ησ οΰ? έίπ εν Α -- S - P

11:14 καΐ άπ οκρ ιθεί? ει αύ τη Α -- P - C

11:22 καί ά πο κρ ιθεί? ό Ίησ οί)? λέγει α ύτο ΐ? Α - - S - P - C

11:33 καί ά πο κρ ιθέντε? [τω Ί ησ οΰ λέγουσ ιν]2 2 Α --P

1 9 A ltho ug h listed in the table, the seco nd ex am ple from M ark 11:33 do es nothave αποκριθεί? in the printed text.

2 0 ά π εκ ρ ίθη α υτο ί? κα ι λέγει (β • ( 2 5 4 2 700 28 3 )ε ι α ύ τοΐ? (W [33]) .

2 ' α ύ τοΐ? is om itted by A L /1 33 892 2427.2 2 The order of verb and indirect object is transpos ed in A D / ' M ajor ity text.

T h e N e s t l e - A l a n d2 7

reading, τω Ίη σ ο ΰ λέγου σ ιν, is at tested by p4

5vid β C L ΝW Δ θ Ψ / 3 28 33 579 892 2427 2542.



11:3323καΐ [α πο κρ ιθεί?] ό 1 ησ οΰ? λέγει α ύτο ί? [ A ] - S - P - C

12:34 ά πεκ ρίθη είπ εν αύ τω Ρ and P -C

12:35 και α πο κρ ιθεί? 6 Ί ησ οΰ ? ελεγεν A - S - P

14:48 καΐ α πο κρ ιθεί? δ Ί ησ οΰ? ει α ύτοί? A - S - P - C15:2 ό δε άπ ο κ ρ ιθεί? α ύ τω λεγει. S - P

15:9 δ δε Π ιλά το? άπ εκρίθη α ύτο ι? λέγω ν S - P - C

15:12 δ δε Π ιλά το? π ά λιν ά π εκρ ιθεί? έλεγεν α ύ τοΐ? S - A - P - C

As noted above, in the case of Mark 3:33 the external evidenceseems s t rongly in favour o f the Nest le-Aland2 7 r ead ing . However,the sug gested m etho d fo r exa m ining pat terns within an author to aidin the decis ion regard ing a par t icu lar var ian t appears to mer i tcons idera t ion . The th i rd co lumn of the tab le ind ica tes word-grouporder fo r the ά π ο κ ρ ίνο μ α ι- λ έγω cons t ruc t ion in M ark . Aga in , t herecogni t ion of a par t icu lar pa t tern might be sugges t ive in onedirect ion when examining syntact ical word-order var iants .

The paral lels to the Markan pericope contain the same construc-

t ion: M att 12:48, ό δέ ά π ο κ ρ ιθ εί? είπ εν τω λ έγο ντι α ύ τω2 4 ( "Andthe one answering said to the one speaking to him") and Luke 8:21, όδέ αποκριθεί? είπεν προ? αυτού?2 5 ("And the one answering said tothem' ') , with no significant variat ion.

Mark 6:6 (108) . A second example of morphological var iat ion inthe d i rec t ac t ions o f Jesus concerns an a l tera t ion in tense- form.Fo l low ing a hos t i le recep t ion in Jes us ' ho m e tow n (τήν π α τρ ίδ α

α υ το ύ ) and h is inab i l ity to pe r fo rm man y m iracles there , M arkrepor ts tha t Jesus "was amazed on account o f the i r fa i th lessness"( έ θ α ύ μ α ζ ε ν δ ιά τ ή ν ά π ισ τ ία ν α ύ τ ώ ν) . T h e imp e r f ec t i n d i ca ti v e(έθαύμαζεν ) read in the text of Ne st le -A la n d2 7 is found in A C D LW Θ β · 13 33 Major i ty tex t . Prev ious ed i t ions , speci f ica l ly Nest le-A l a n d2 5, read an aoris t indicat ive (έθαύμασεν) supported by Β 5 6 52427. Taylor has the aoris t form in his text , not ing the imperfect

var iant in h is apparatus, but making no comment .2 6

Gundry sugges tst h a t " t h e i m p e r f e c t t en se of έ θ α ύ μ α ζ ε ν appears to make h is

2 3 N e s t l e - A l a n d2 7 does not include άποκριθεί? in this verse, following Β CL Ν Γ Δ Ψ 33 579 892 2427. It is found in A D Κ β · 13 (28) 1241.

2 4 Th ere are a num ber of var iant readings for τω λεγοντι α ύτω ( Β D 33 8921424): C L θ β 1 3 Majority text read τω e t αύ τω , Ζ omi ts αύ τω and W om i ts thewhole phrase .

25 ?p75 has α ύ τόν for α υτο ύ? .2 6 Taylor, Gospel A ccording to St. Mark, 301.



m ar v e l l i n g co n cu r r en t w i th t he t o wn s p eo p l e ' s a s t o n i sh m en t . "2 7

Meier po in ts ou t tha t there are few references to Jesus being"surprised" in the Gospel t radi t ions and that " throughout al l FourGospels—with the no tab le excep t ion of Mat t 8 :10 par. and Mark6:6 — ref ere nc es to Jesu s ' being astonished are s imply absen t ."2 8

Th e imp erfec t tense- fo rm , l ike the presen t tense- for in , g ram m at ica -l izes imperfective aspect, but, in opposit ion to the present indicative,i t a l so g rammat ica l i zes r emoteness .2 9 The aor i s t t ense- form gram-maticalizes perfective aspect, and neither the imperfect nor the aoristind ica t ive g rammat ica l i zes abso lu te t empora l r e fe rence . So the

question concerning variants in this verse is one of aspectual dist inc-t ion. Aspectual choice is a resul t of the "author/speaker 's reasonedsubject ive cho ice of concept ion of a p rocess , "3 0 separate f rom theobject ive real i ty which is being descr ibed. The implicat ions of thesegrammatical points for Histor ical Jesus research are that , even i f achoice between two read ings , which d i ffer in tense- form, can bemade on the basis of strong textual evidence, we are not necessari ly

taking a step towards authenticating an action of Jesus by arguing forselection of a part icular aspect or tense form. Aspect is an inherentlytex tual ly -based fea ture ,3 1 not one grounded in a par t icular object ive,external world . Therefore, one can only speak with cer tainty aboutthe choice of aspect made by the author, and not necessar i ly aboutthe ob jec t ive nature o f the p rocess i t i s descr ib ing . This fac theightens the need for greater at tent ion to be paid to the larger

2 7 G u n d r y, Mark, 293 . He ma kes no refe ren ce to the variant readin g with theaorist indicative. But he does make an attempt to examine Mark 's use of tense-forms within this section, noting that the towns people 's astonishment (έξεττλήσ-σ ο ντο [3:2]), their takin g offe ns e at Jesu s (έσκ α νδα λίζοντο [3:3]) and his inab ilityto pe rfo rm m iracles (ούκ έδύ να το [3:5]) are also con vey ed by impe rfect tense -fo rms .

2 8 J. P. M eie r, A Ma rginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. II. Mentor,

Messag e, and Miracles (AB RL ; Ne w York: Do ubled ay, 1994) 725; cf . 771 η. 206.He makes no reference to the variant reading in Mark 6:6. Note that in the Mattheanparal le l to Mark 6 :1-7 there is no reference to Jesus ' amazement . The o theroccu rrence of θαυμ άζω with Jesus as the subject that M eier mak es reference to usesan aorist indicative (έθαύμασεν) in both Matt 8:10 and Luke 7:9.

2 9 See Por ter, Verbal Aspect, 198-211 , esp. 20 7-2 08 . For a less tech nica ldescription, see Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 20-45, esp. 33-35 .

3 0 Porter, Verbal Aspect, 1.3 1

Th e term text here is being used in the broadest sense as referring to theresult of language use, either spoken or written.



con t ex t o f i nd i v i dua l va r i an t s , p a r t i cu l a r l y pa t t e r n s w i t h i n apar t icular author,3 2 when making decis ions in cases of morphologicala l tera t ion .

4 . T H E I N D I R E C T A C T I O N S O F J E S U S ( L E V E L 2 )

In sect ion two, we descr ibed indirect act ions of Jesus as includingpassive const ruct ions where Jesus i s the grammat ical subject , but therecip ient of an act ion per formed by e i ther a s ta ted or an unsta tedagen t (Leve l 2 ) . However, a s ide f rom the example f rom Mark 1 :9 ,

he w as bap t i zed in to the Jo rd an by Jo hn ( êβ α π τ ί σ θ η eis τ ο νΊ ο ρ δ ά ν η ν ύ π ό ,Ιω ά ννο υ ) , presen ted in that sect ion, there are fe wexamples o f pass ive const ruct ions wi th Jesus as the grammat ica lsubject in Mark 's Gospel , to say nothing of instances with textualvar iants . I t i s thus necessary to concentrate upon examples in th iscategory of act ion where Jesus is the recipient (grammatical object)of the action of another individual or group of individuals.

Mark 14:65 (241) . Two variant readings in th is verse serve toi l lust rate cases of addi t ion/ inser t ion and omission/delet ion in var iousmanuscr ip ts regard ing the ind i rec t ac t ions o f Jesus . The Nest le-A l a n d2 7 re ads: και ή ρ ξα ντό Ti v eç έμ π τύ ειν α ύτω καί π β ρικα λύ π τβ ινα ύτού τό π ρό σ ω πο ν ("A nd cer ta in ones began to sp it on h im and tocover his face"). There are two variants at tached to this part of thesen tence (which conta ins two fur ther in f in i t ive c lauses) . The f i r s t ,foun d in (D) Θ 565 700 , in ser ts the ph rase α ύτού τω πρ οσ ώ πω ("onhis face ") fo r α ύτω . This is s imi lar to Mat t 26 :67 , τό τε ένέ π τυ σ α νe t ? τ ό π ρ ό σ ω π ο ν α ύ τ ο ύ ( " T h e n th e y s pa t o n h i s f a c e " ) .3 3 Theappara tus o f Nes t l e -Aland2 7 does not indicate the basis of the readingin their pr in ted text , a l though the UBSGNT4 , which has added thisvariant to i ts apparatus since the previous edit ion, indicates that i t is

3 2 Th is is particula rly the case with aspe ctua l cho ice, but also other lingu istic

features in the Greek language. One of the most useful ways to visualize aspectualusage in narrative is in terms of planes of discourse. The model describes the wayin wh ich the diff ere nt ten se- form s play diffe ren t roles in pres entin g bac kg rou nd(per fec t ive aspec t » ao r is t t ense - fo rm ) , fo reg ro und ( imp er fec t ive aspec t »presen t and imp erfec t tens e-form s) and fron tgrou nd (stative aspect » perfe ct andp luper fec t t ense- fo rms) in fo rmat ion . See Por te r, Verbal Aspect, 9 2 - 9 3 ; idem,Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 23.

3 3 As sum ing M arkan pr ior i ty, M atthew has a l tered M ar k ' s com plex c lause

with four infinitival clauses to three finite clauses, omitting reference to blindfolding(π ερικα λύτττω ) and in ser ting έρρά ττισ αν ("th ey hit him ).



found in A Β C L W Δ / 1 5 7 33 28 3• - an d o th erThe second variant is that Bezae (D) omits the reference to Jesusbe ing b l ind fo lded (και π ερ ικ α λ ύ π τε ιν α ύτοΰ τό π ρό σ ω πο ν) , wh ich

is again in l ine wi th Mat thew's vers ion . Luke, however, re ta insreference to th is act ion (Luke 22:64) . Taylor, in h is comments onMark 14:65, suggests that the verse 's " in terpretat ion is complicatedby textual problems."3 5 He notes that Matthew and Luke include theq u es ti o n τις έσ τ ιν ό π α ίσ α ? σ ε ; ("W ho is the one s t r ik ing yo u?" )among the words of those beat ing Jesus. This quest ion is found inso m e M ark an m anu scr ip ts as well (N W Χ [Δ ] Θ / 7 0 0

892 1424 2542) .3 6

Taylo r sug gests that th is read ing is pro bab ly anassimilation to the text of Lk or Mt,3 7 but then poin ts ou t that if iti s omit ted , the reference to bl indfolding becomes superf luous.3 8 TheGr eek tex t upo n wh ich h is co m m en tar y i s pur po r ted ly bas ed , amodif ied form of the text of Westcot t and Hort ,3 9 however, has thesame tex t as tha t o f the Nest le-Aland2 7 . 4 0 That the phrase , κ α ιπ ε ρ ικ α λ ύ π τ ειν α ύ τ ο υ τό π ρό σ ω π ο ν, is an add itio n is, ac co rd in g to

Taylor, suppor ted by Luke hav ing π ερ ικ α λύ ψ σ α ντε? , a s we l l a s theq u es tio n τις έσ τιν ό π α ισ α ? σ ε; In supp ort of his po sit ion, he c itesStreeter, who devotes considerable at tent ion to the Synopt ic paral lelsfor th is per icope, v iewing the var ious manuscripts of Matthew and

3 4 In the seco nd edit ion of his textual co m m en tary , M etzg er asser ts that the

w i tn e s s e s th a t h av e rep l aced α ύ τω w ith α ύ το ΰ τω π ρο σ ώ π ω w er e " n o d o u b tinf luenced by the parallel account in Mt 26.67" (A Textual C omm entary on theGreek New Testament [Lon don : Un ited Bible Societies , 1st edn , 1971; Stuttgart:Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft , 2nd edn, 1994] 96-97) . The variant is given an "A"r a t in g in t h e U BS G N T4 . Given the lack of discussion of the variant in thecommentary, and the posited certainty of this rating, it is more than a little puzzlingthat the variant has been introduced into the new edition.

3 5 Taylor, Gospel According to St. Ma rk, 571.3 6

Th e shor ter read ing (π ρο φ ή τευσ ον) without the ques t ion is g iven a "C "ra t ing in the UBSGNT3 and upgraded to a "B" in the UBSGNT4 . M e t z g e r ' scommentary is , however, unchanged. He states that the longer reading "appears tobe an assimilation to the text of Matthew (26.68) or Luke (22.64)" (Te x t u a lCommentary, 1st ed n, 155; 2nd ed n, 97) .

3 7 Taylor, Gospel According to St. Mark, 571.3 8 Taylor, Gospel A ccording to St. Mark, 571.3 9 Tay lo r, Gospel According to St. Mark, vi.4 0

See B. F. W estc ott and F. J. A. Ho rt, The New Testam ent in the OriginalGreek(yo\. ;Ca m br id ge: Macm il lan , 1881) adloc.



Mark as exhibi t ing par t icular ly complex assimilat ion.4 1 Based on theobservat ion that v ir tual ly al l the manuscripts of Matthew have theques t ion "Who s t ruck you?" bu t no t the reference to b l indfo ld ing ,

and that the b l indfo ld ing i s omi t ted by D and o thers in Mark ,S t r ee t e r q u es t i o n s wh e t h e r M a t t h ew wo u l d h av e o mi t t ed t h eblindfolding if he had seen i t in his source. This is reinforced by thefact that the quest ion, "Who st ruck you?" seems to depend upon theinabil i ty of Jesus to see who had done i t .42 Th is observat ion leadsStreeter to posit that:

The original text of Matthew and of Mark omitted both the veiling and thewords "Who is it, etc." These two stand or fall together. In Luke they areboth original; and from Luke the first has got into the Alexandrian (but notinto the ear liest Antiochene and Western) text of Mark; the second has gotinto all the texts of Matthew.4 3

If this analysis of the origin of the text is accepted, the implicationsof th is posi t ion for authent icat ing the indirect act ions of Jesus areobvious , par t icu lar ly i f Markan pr io r i ty i s assumed. Luke ' s refer-ence to bl indfolding and the accompanying quest ion are, i f he is theone who originated them, his tor ical ly quest ionable and most l ikelyredactionally motivated, and not original to an earl ier source.

In contrast , however, Gundry thinks that the text of Mark 14:65 isor iginal to h im, and that he has not included the quest ion, "Whostruck you?" because he is more in terested in the act ions of thosebeat ing Jesu s, "becau se those act ions fulf i l the passion pred ict ions."4 4

He notes that Matt 26:67-68 has reference to Jesus' face but not to i tbeing covered, whi le Luke has no ment ion of Jesus ' face but includesthe covering. For Gundry, th is fact "favors that the or iginal text of

4 1 Streeter ques tions whether the pass age might not be one that "ha s speciallyinvited assimilation, and this to such an extent that it has taken place independentlyalong three different l ines of transmission" (B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A

Study of Origins [Lon don: M acm il lan , 1936] 326) . Th e ques t ion τ ί? εσ τίνόπ α ίσ α ? σε; in M ark "is inf luentially suppo rted in each of three main stream s oftextual tradition."

4 2 Re ferr ing to the blindfo lding, Streeter sugg ests that M atthe w "w ou ld hav ebeen unlikely to omit such a striking point, if it had occurred in his source, moreespecially as the whole point of the taunt 'P r o p h e s y who it is that struck thee'depends upon the fact that He was prevented by the veil f rom seeing w ho did it"(Streeter, Four Gospels, 326).

4 3

Streeter, Four Gospels, 326-27.4 4 G u n d r y, Mark, 887.



Mark 14 :65 ment ioned bo th ."4 5 In reference to the omission of theclause concerning the covering of Jesus ' face in D, Gundry suggests anumber of possibil i t ies:

Apparently Mark 's omitt ing to tel l the purpose for which Jesus ' face wascovered led to scr ibal omission of that element. Or Matthew's omission ofthe covering may have led to scribal omission in Mark of the face as well asof the covering. Or both of these factors may have been at work.4 6

In con t ras t to S t ree ter, Gundry sugges ts tha t Mat thew omi ts thebl indfolding because he is making an al lusion to Isa 50:6 , which doesnot ment ion bl indfolding.

Whether one accep ts Taylor ' s o r Gundry ' s analyses , o r some o therestimation, one is left with the realization that how one evaluates thetextual var iants in th is passage in Mark has direct bear ing on whatone th inks regarding the indirect act ions of Jesus. In other words,one ' s dec i s ion on the o r ig ina l word ing o f the t ex t de te rmineswhether one is able to plausibly argue that Jesus' being spat upon andhis being bl indfolded were actual indirect act ions performed on Jesusand recorded in the earl iest Gospel sources.

5 . T H E CO N CO MI TA N T A CT I O N S O F J E S U S ( L E V E L 3 )

Concomitant act ions (Level 3) are those that accompany those ofJesus. Whereas they are less important in terms of Histor ical Jesusresearch into what Jesus may or may not have himself actually done,they are important for the context in which Jesus acted, and there areexamples with var iants that meri t d iscussion.

Mark 10:49 (193) . This example of morphological al terat ion in theconcomi tan t ac t ions o f Jesus i s i n t e res t ing f rom a number o fstandpoints, not least in simply establishing what is or is not an actionor a word of Jesus. First , the textual witnesses that support the twomajor readings are relat ively close in terms of qual i ty. The Nest le-A l a n d2 7 text has the reading και σ τα ? ό Ίη σ ου ς ε ΐπ β ν φ ω ν ή σ α τβαυτόν ("And standing Jesus said, 'Call him '") , which is at tested by Β C L Δ Ψ 579 8 92 1241 1424 24 27 . Th e var ian t fou nd in theappara tus o f the Nes t l e -Aland2 7 has the witn esses a d w θ /1 ) • 13M ajor i ty text , and reads και σ τα ? ό Ίη σ ους· ε ίπ β ν α υτόν φ ω νήθ η ναι("And standing Jesus said for h im to be cal led") . The difference here

4 5

G u n d r y, Mark, 918.4 6 G u n d r y, Mark, 918.



is between reported direct and indirect speech of Jesus. The parallelsin Matt 20:32 and Luke 18:40 contain a descr ipt ion of Jesus cal l ingthe blind men (in Matthew) or of his ordering the man to be broughtto him ( in Luke) .4 7 I f t he r ead ing se l ec ted by Nes t l e -Aland2 7 isaccep ted , then the words φ ω νήσ α τβ α ύτόν should be inc luded am on gthe words of Jesus and evaluated as such. But if , instead, the variantread ing i s adopted , then the pass ive aor i s t in f in i t ive wi th theaccusat ive αυτόν act ing as grammatical subject should be read, andthe passage in terpreted as an act ion of Jesus.4 8 One of the reasonst h a t N e s t l e - A l a n d2 7 selec ted its read ing for M ark 10:49 (d irect

speech) may have been that select ing the al ternate reading wouldbring the Markan text more in l ine with Matthew and Luke. Theirobserving the text-cri t ical canon of dissimilari ty may thus have led tothe accep tan ce of φ ω νήσ α τβ α ύτόν. Ho wev er, in a d i fferen t verse inMark (Mark 1:39 [16]) , where there are two readings with s imilarexternal witnesses as 10:49,49 Elliott argues that:

I f the cr i ter ion of au thor ' s s ty le takes precedence over the ru le ofdissimilarity as I believe it should, then ήν at Mark 1:39 should be printedas or ig inal—not ήλθεν .5 0

As Elliott r ightly points out, there are a number of factors to weighin determin ing what tex t should be read . These inc lude what herefers to as elements of the "author 's s ty le ," as wel l as o ther, largerfeatures of the text , such as the f low of thought within and betweenper icopes .

The kind of indirect speech found in the variant of Mark 10:49 isrelatively rare in the Gospels,5 1 where the verb that would have been

4 7 Tay lor note s how in M ark and Lu ke "the direct speech is om itted and thefacts br ief ly summarized ," sugges t ing that bo th Gospels are ton ing down Mark 's"v iv id p ic ture" (Gospel According to St. Mark, 448-49) .

4 8 On ind irect d isco urse in the Ne w Te stam ent , see Por ter, Idioms of the

Greek New Testament, 268 -75 , esp . 27 0-7 1 on the use of the infi niti ve to reportindirect speech.

4 9 N e s t l e - A l a n d2 7 h a s κα ί ή λ θ ε ν κ η ρύ σ σω ν ( " A n d h e cam e p r each in g " ) ,attested by B L Q 892 2427 , but A C D W /1 • 1 3 33 Majority text read κ α ί ή νκηρ ύσ σ ω ν ("A nd he was preac hing "), in line with the parallel in Lu ke 4:44 .

5 0 J. K. Elliott, "T he Re leva nce of Tex tual Criticism to the Syn optic P rob lem ,"in Essays and Studies in New Testament Textual Cr i t ic ism (EFN 3; Cordoba:Edic iones El Alm end ro, 1992) 154.

5 1

See M att 16:12; 20:2 3; M ark 5:43; 8:7; 12:18; Lu ke 19:15; 20:7 ; 23:2 ;24:23 .



used in direct speech is p laced in the inf in i t ive mood.5 2 There aretw o oth er ex am pl es of this kin d in M ar k: (1) 5:4 3, κα ι είπ ε ν δο θή να ια ύ τη φ α γε ίν ("And he sa id for something to be giv en to he r to ea t")

and (2) 8:7, e lπ εν και τα ύ τα π α ρ α τιθένα ι ("H e said also thes e thin gsto place") . Tentat ive reconstruct ions of each saying could conceiva-b ly use an imp era t ive fo rm : δό τε α ύ τή ν φ α γε ίν ("G ive her some-thing to eat") and π α ρ α τίθετε τα ύ τα ("Place these th ings") .

The d i rec t -speech form of th i s cons t ruct ion , repor t ing the wordsof Jesus in Mark, is much more common (we have noted nearly 40occurrences in a quick count) . On this basis , in ternal cr i ter ia would

seem to suppor t the Nest le-Aland2 7

reading. However, i t is necessaryto con s ide r how the two read in gs f i t wi th in the per icop e (M ark10 :46 -52 ) . The charac te r s found in the pa rag raph a re Jesus ,Bart imaeus ( the bl ind man), the disciples and a great crowd (οχλουικανού) . The disciples and the crowd are clear ly minor characters ,and nei ther is ment ioned by means of grammatical ized reference (anexpl ic i t word group) o r th rough anaphor ic reference ( the use of a

p ro no un to po in t back to a p rev ious g ra m m at ica l i za t ion o f thereferent) af ter their in t roduct ion in v. 46. The one except ion is theambiguous "many" (πολλοί) in v. 48, who order the bl ind man to bes i l en t . Jesus and Bar t imaeus , on the o ther hand , a re f r equen treferen ts wi th in the paragraph .5 3 Th is obs ervat io n has a be ar in g onthe textual var iants under considerat ion. The text as i t reads inN e s t l e - A l a n d2 7 h a s a s eco n d - p e r s o n p l u r a l i mp e r a t i v e f o r m

( φ ω νή σ α τε ) . T h e read in g in A D W Θ / ' ) , 13 M a j o r it y t ex t ( α ύ τ ό νφ ω νη θη να ι) p laces wh at was said in a dep end ent clause, and thus in amuch less p rominent pos i t ion . In genera l , ind i rec t speech can beconsidered as less prominent than direct speech. If the reading withthe imperat ive is accepted, then a minor character group is g ivenprominence ( the referent of the second-person plural is not clear ; isi t the disciples , the crowd, or both?) . On the other hand, i f theinf in i t ive cons t ruct ion i s accep ted , then " they" remain as minorcharacters within the discourse. On the basis of this consideration ofthe discourse features of the pericope and in the l ight of the evenness

5 2 Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 270.5 3 Bartim aeus: Gram ma ticalized reference [3 t imes] vv. 46, 50, 51; An aph oric

reference [6 t imes] vv. 48 (2 t imes) , 50, 51 (2 t imes) , 52. Jesus: Grammaticalized

reference [9 t imes] vv. 47 (4 t imes) , 48, 49, 50, 51, 52; Anaphoric reference [4times] vv. 46 (2 times), 51, 52.





τη ν δό ξα ν α ύ του ) . L uk e ' s po r t r aya l o f the d i sc ip les then revea l sthei r impie ty and s lo th—Jesus i s p ray ing (v. 29) , bu t they ares leep ing and do no t see h is t ransformat ion , un t i l the f igures tha t

appear with Jesus are about to leave (v. 33) . Matthew's and Mark 'saccounts , on the other hand, indicate that Jesus was "changed beforethem" (Matt 17:2; Mark 9:2) . This is a more neutral p icture of thedisciples . I f the var iant , "while they were praying," is accepted, thenit presents a much more posit ive, pious view of the disciples.

Taylor d ismisses the reading in Mark 9:2 as s imply an assimilat ionto Lu ke 9 :28 , wh ich is "L u k e ' s in terpre ta t ive ad d i t io n" to M ar k ' s

re fe ren ce to so l itude ( κ α τ ' ιδ ία ν μ ό νο υ? ) .5 6

Meier sugges ts tha tMark may have made an addi t ion to the t rad i t ional t ransf igura t ionstory by placing "his favori te t r io of d isciples , Peter, James, andJohn" a t th i s "secre t ep iphany."5 7 He a l so d iscusses the embarrass-ment for the ear ly Church caused by Jesus ' saying in Mark 9:1 justbefore the t ransf igurat ion account , "Truly I say to you that there arecertain ones standing here who will surely not taste death unti l they

might see the Kingdom of God come in a state of power." He states:M ark mo st l ikely intend ed his readers to see the prophe cy fulf i l le d, at leastpartial ly, in the transf iguration story. Peter, James, and John f i t perfectlythe design ation of "som e of those standin g he re " . . . M ark can so lve thepr ob lem of the non -fu lf i l lm en t of 9 :1 by p lacing i t jus t befo re thetransfiguration, which is made into its (at least partial) fulfillment.5 8

If th is is the case, then Mark would apparent ly want to port ray the

dis cip les in a po sit ive l ight, give n that they are the fu lfi l lm en t of th eprophecy. In terest ingly, th is does not seem to be a concern of Luke,whose accoun t o f the t r ans f igu ra t ion a l so fo l lows the p rophecyconcern ing the k ingdom (Luke 9 :27) . I s th i s perhaps because Lukehas modi f ied the say ing by removing έρχομαι? He s imply has " theywill cert ainly not taste death έω ς- α ν ϊδω σ ιν τη ν β α σ ιλ εία ν του θβοΰ( 'un t i l they might see the k ingdom of God ' ) . " By removing reference

to the "coming of the kingdom of God," the saying becomes less ofan em ba r ra ss m en t fo r Lu ke , who does no t need to po r t r ay thedisciples in a more posit ive and pious l ight.

5 6 Tay lo r, Gospel According to St. Ma rk, 389.5 7 Meie r, Marginal Jew, 2 .778.5 8 Meie r, Ma rginal Jew , 2 .342. On the cr i ter ion of embarrassment, see J . P.

M e i e r , A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. I. The Roots of theProblem and the Person (A BR L; New York: Do ubled ay, 1991) 168-71.



T he im pl ic a t io ns o f th i s se t o f va r i an t s fo r au the n t i c a t in g thediscurs ive act ions of Jesus appear to be several . One could wel l arguethat the dev elo pm en t of th is se t of var ia nts poin ts to L u k e s ac t ion

actual ly represent ing the ear l ies t account of the ac t ions , i f not theor ig inal occurrence, in which the d isc ip les are inat tent ive and as leep.M a r k s a n d M a t t h e w s a c c o u n t s o m i t r e f e r e n c e t o t h e d i s c i p l e ss lee ping , per hap s for tw o reasons. As noted ab ove , one mig ht wel l bebest expla ined in re la t ion to the cr i ter ion of embarrassment , in whichthe i r s lo th fu lness i s seen to be ou t o f keep ing wi th l a t e r Churchat tempts to d isplay the d isc ip les in a more posi t ive l ight . The o ther

reason migh t be because o f the need to p resen t the t r ansf igura t ionacc o u n t a s a ( pa r t i a l) f u l f i l l m en t o f t he p r o ph ecy co n ce r n i n g t hecoming of the k ingdom. In any event , the textual var iants , especia l lyin the Markan account , he lp to r a i se impor tan t ques t ions r egard ingthis Synopt ic account .

7 . C O N C L U S I O N

As in our previous paper on textual var iants in the words of Jesus ,s tudy o f the t ex tua l va r i an t s in the ac t ions o f Jesus pushes theHis to r i ca l Jesus scho la r to pay par t i cu la r a t t en t ion to the exac tword ing o f the Greek t ex t as a means o f he lp ing to eva lua te theauthentici ty of the specif ic act ions of Jesus. I f one is content to speakin re la t ively vague and imprecise ways about the k inds of th ings thatJesus may or may not have done, s tudy of the textual var iants in the

S y n o p t i c G o s p e l a c c o u n t s m a y h a v e l e ss a p p a r e n t i m m e d i a c y.Wi thou t assess ing the t ex tua l va r i an t s , one may be ab le to conc ludethat Jesus d id , or d id not , do something such as t ravel to Jerusalem.This has some mer i t , bu t can on ly func t ion to the ex ten t o f thec r i t e r i a d e v e l o p e d f o r s u c h a p u r p o s e . O u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n h a suncovered that there i s a surpr is ing lack of even def in i t ion of what i tmeans to speak of an act ion of Jesus. As a resul t , to aid those who are

in teres ted in a more speci f ic analysis and assessment , in conjunct ionwi th the major types o f t ex tua l va r i an t s , we have d i ff e ren t i a t ed fourmajor types of ac t ions and thei r re la t ions to the ac t ions of Jesus as ap r i m ar y f i gu r e i n t he Gospe l a ccoun t s . By u s i ng t h i s f o u r - f o l dd i ff e ren t i a t ion o f ve rba l p rocesses , we have been ab le to d i scuss inmore spec i f i c t e rms ac t ions where Jesus i s the agen t o r ins t iga to r,ac t ion s w he re Jes us is the rec ip ien t , ac t ions that occ ur co nc om itan t ly

wi th the act ions of Jesus , and act ions of a d iscurs ive type, which se t



the temporal and locat ive sphere for o ther ac t ions . These cr i ter ia , webel ieve , could form the basis for fu ture d iscussion of the ac t ions ofJesus , apar t f rom t reatment of textual var iants . We have a lso noted

tha t many of the var i an t s r egard ing the ac t ions o f Jesus invo lveSy no pt ic para l le ls , and hen ce ra ise fur th er que st ions rega rdin g text -cr i t ica l cr i ter ia for eva luat in g such va r iants . In our s tudy, w e ha vere f r a in ed f ro m conc lud ing fo r each o f the exa m ples abo ve wh ethe rthe act ion depicted is or is not authentic, but have instead tr ied todevelop cr i ter ia in relat ion to textual var iants that need to be takeninto account in future Histor ical Jesus research.



A P P E N D I X

1 Examples of Textual Variants in the Direct Activities of Jesus

(a) Addi t ion/Inser t ion

Vs.(Huck No.)

R e a d i n g W i t n e s s e s

6:31

(112)

κα ί λ έγει α ύ το ΐ?

"And he said to them"

None listed in

Nest leAland2 7

καί λέγει, αύτοΐ? ό Ίησ οΰ ?"And Jesus said to them"

D θ 28 565700 2542

14:22

(236)καί έσθιόντω ν αύτώ ν λαβώ ν άρτον"And while they were eating, taking bread"

B D W f 3565 2427

καί έσθιόντω ν αύτώ ν λαβώ ν δ Ίησ οΰ? τόν

άρτον"And while they were eating, taking the breadJesus"

Σ

καί έσθιόντω ν αύτώ ν λαβώ ν δ Ίησ οΰ ?άρτον"And while they were eating, taking the breadJesus"

f ' M j

(b ) Subt rac t ion /Omiss ion

Vs.(Huck No.)

R e a d i n g Wi t n e s s e s

2:19

(54)καί εια ύτοΐ? ό Ίησ οΰ?"And Jesus said to them"

None listed in

Nest leAland2 7

και ε ιαύ τοΐ?

"And he said to them"

D W 28 1424



(c) Lexical Di fferen t ia t ion /Replacement

V s .

( H u c k N o . )


8:22

(121)έξήνεγκεν αυτόν έ ξ ω της· κώ μης•"And they carried him out of the village"

Β C L Δ θ 33

579 892 2427

έξήγα γεν αυ τόν έξω της· κώ μη ?"And they led him out of the village"

A D W f i •1 3 2427

Mj

(d) M orp ho log ical A lterat ion

V s .

( H u c k N o . )


6:48

(113)κα ι ίδω ν αυτού?"And seeing them"

Β D L W Δ θ

579 892 1241

1424 2427

καΐ α δ 6 ν α ύ το ύ?"And he saw them"

£ 4 5 A f i , 3 3 3 M j

(e) Syntact ical Word Order

V s .

( H u c k N o . )


6:2

(108)ήρξατο δίδασκαν è τη σ υναγω γή"He began to teach in the synagogue"

Β C D L Δ (θ )

33 579 892

ήρξα το έν τη σ υναγω γή δίδα σ κα ν

"He began in the synagogue to teach"

5p45vid A W 0126

f l , 3

M j

6:5(108)

καΙ ούκ έδύ να το έκ ά ποιήσ αι. ο ύδεμία νδύναμιν"And he was not able there to do nothingmiraculous"

Β C L Δ θ f

892 2427 2542

καΙ ούκ έδύνατο έκά ούδεμίαν δύναμινποιήσ αι"A nd he was not able there nothing miraculou sto do"

A f 3 33 M j

καΙ ούκ έδύνατο έκά ούδεμίαν ποιήσαιδύναμιν"And he was not able there nothing to domiraculous"

D 565 700



2. Exam ples of Textual Variants in the Indirect A ctivities of Jesus


V s .

( H u c k N o . )


14:53

(241)καί συν έρχο ντα ι"And they came together"

D L W Δ 0 f ' 3

565 700 892

2542

κα ί σ υ νέρ χο ντα ι α ύτω"And they came together to him"

Α Β Φ 2 42 7 M j

καί συνέρχοντα ι πρός• αύτόν"And they came together towards him"

C

κ αί σ υ νέρ χο ντα ι α ύ το ϋ"And they came together with him"

1


V s .

( H u c k N o . )

R e a d i n gW i t n e s s e s

15:20

(247)και έξάγου σ ιν αύτόν ϊνα σταυρώ σω σιναύτόν"And they led him out in order that they mightcrucify him"

None listed inNest leAland2 7

καί έξά γουσ ιν αύτόν ' ίνα σταυρώ σ ω σιν"And they led him out in order that they mightcrucify"

D f1 28 700

1424 /844




V s .

( H u c k N o . )


15:1 (2 42 ) δήσ αντες τον Ί ήσ ουν άπ ή νεγκα ν καίπα ρέδω κα ν ΤΤιΧ άτω"Binding Jesus they carried him away andhanded him over to Pilate"


δή σ α ντες τόν Ί ήσ ουν άπ ή γα γον καίπαρέδω καν Π ιλάτω"Binding Jesus they led him away and handedhim over to Pilate"

C D W θ f• 565

700 892 1424

2542

15:24

(249)κα ί έστα ύρω σα ν α ύτό ν"And they crucified him"

None listed in

Nest leAland2 7

κα ί έφύΧ α σσον α ύτό ν"And they were guarding him"

D





9:25

(126)

έπετίμ ησ εν τώ πνεύμα τι τώ άκαθάρτω"He ordered the unclean spirit"

None listed in

Nest leAland2 7

έπετίμ η σ εν τω πνεύμ α τι"He ordered the spirit"

?p45 w fi


V s .

( H u c k N o . )


12:41(212)

κα ί καθισα? κα τέναντι του γαζοφ υλακίου"And sitting opposite the temple offering box"


καί καθισας απ έναντι του γαζοφ υλακίου"And sitting before the temple offering box"

Β Ψ 33 579 1424

2427

(d) Syntact ical Word Order

V s .

( H u c k N o . )


4:1 (90) ώ σ τε αύτόν εις πλο ιον έμ β ά ντα καθησ θαιέν τη θαλασσή"so that he in a boat stepped to sit on the sea"

B * C L © 3 3565 892 1241

1424 2427

ώ σ τε αύτόν ει? τό πλο ιον έμ β ά ντακαθησθαι έν τη θαλάσσ η"so that he in the boat stepped to sit on the sea"

B2 D W Δ

ώ σ τε α ύτόν έμ β ά ντα εί? τό πλο ίο ν

καθησθαι έν τη θαλάσση"so that he stepped in the boat to sit on the sea"

A Pl3> Mj

ώ σ τε α ύτόν έμ β ά ντα εις πλο ίον καθη σθα ι

έν τη θαλάσση"so that he stepped in a boat to sit on the sea"

K f1 2542



4 Examples of Textual Variants in the Discursive Activities of Jesus


V s .

( H u c k N o . )


6:47

(113)καΙ ό ψ ία ς γενομ ένη? η τό πλ οιν èvμέσω τη? θαλάσση?"And as evening was coming, and the boat wasin the middle of the sea"

None listed in

Nest leAland2 7

καΙ όψ ία? γενομ ένη? ηπ άλ αι τό πλο ιν ένμέσω τη? θαλάσση?"A nd as even ing was com ing, and the boat wasalready in the middle of the sea"

?4 5

, D, fl , 28,2542


V s .H u c k N o . )


6:48

(113)περι τετά ρτην φ υλακην τη ? νυκτό?"Around the fourth watch of the night"

None listed in

Nest leAland2 7

περί τετάρ την φυλακην"Around the fourth watch"

£ 5

10:46(193)

και έρχονται εί? ' Ιεριχώ"And they came into Jerico"


(omitted) B *




V s .

( H u c k N o . )


8:22

(121)καί έρχο ντα ι Îç Β ηθσ αίδάν"And they came into Bethsaida"


καί έρχοντα ι ε ί? Β ηθανινάν"And they came into Bethany"

D 1424

10:46(193)

καί έκπορευομένου αύτοΰ άπό Ίερχώ καίτώ ν μα θητώ ν αύτοΰ"And he was going out from Jericho and hisdisciples"


καί έκπο ρευομένου αύ τοΰ εκείθεν μετά τώ νμα θητώ ν αύτοΰ"And he was going out from there with hisdisciples"

D (Θ 700)

15:25(249)

ηδέ ώ ρα τρ ίτη"And it was the third hour"


ηδε ώ ρα έκτη"And it was the sixth hour"

θ

(d) Syntact ical Word Order

V s .

( H u c k N o . )


11:13(199)

δ γά ρ κα ιρός ούκ ησ ύκω ν"For the season was not of figs"

B C LA Ψ

892 2427

ού γάρ ηκαιρός· σ ύκω ν"For it was not a season of figs"

A C2 (D W) θ0188 Ρ». 3 33

Mi





P RT T W O

U T H E N T I C T I N G T H E C T I V I T IE S O F J E S U S





A P P O I N T E D D E E D , A P P O I N T E D D O E R

JESUS AND THE SCRIPTURES*

Ben F. Meyer

Of the many indices to Jesus ' consciousness of his mission Israel , three kinds are especial ly reveal ing: his ident if icat ion

himself and his disciples as eschatological ant i types of Israel , kings and prophets; his allusion to divinely appointed eschatolog"measures" (of t ime, of evi l , of revelat ion) being fulf i l led to brim: and his pointing, as to signs of the times, to the enactmenthis own act ivi t ies , of God's promise of salvat ion for the end-t iW e beg in our ef fo r t of ref le ct ion with the ob ser va t ion that ththree facets of the consciousness of Jesus exhibit a point of congence: a full awareness of being charged with the climactic and fmission to Israel as promised and previewed in the Scriptures.

Second, we shal l independently ( i.e . with out de pe nd en ce on theforegoing) establ ish this same conclusion by a cumulat ive and cvergent argument drawing on f ive data in the Gospel narrat ives , historicity of which has won almost universal agreement. These Jesus ' proclamation that the reign of God was at hand; the fact tJesus spoke and acted "with authority"; that he was widely knownand w as a w on de r wo rker ; tha t he "c lea ns ed "— or m ou nte ddemonstrat ion at—the Jerusalem Temple; and that he died crucifcondemned by the Romans as "the king of the Jews." From theseyet disparate and unelucidated data I propose to argue to the mcurrents of the Gospels ' Chris tology. All the themes belongingthese main currents , according to the argument , der ived from Jeand ref lected his grasp of the Scriptures as bearing on his omission.

The form of the argument is as fol lows: the above-mentioned dof which the his tor ici ty is al l but universal ly accepted, es tablJesus ' consciousness of being charged wi th God 's "cl imact ic adefini t ive" mission to Israel in view of the imminent consumma

* Th e pres ent study appe ared in an earlier for m in W . R. Fa rm er (ed.), Crisisin Christology: Essays in Quest of Resolution (Livon ia: Do ve, 1995) 311 -32.



of history, or the reign of God. But to speak of a climactic anddefinitive mission in the context of imminent consumm ation ofhistory is to imply the imminent consummation of fulfillment of thewhole of eschatological promise and prophecy. I t fo llo w s that w eought posi t ively to expect to f ind on Jesus ' par t not onlyeschato logical consciousness , but on marked by the awareness ofpresent fulfillment, a ph en om en on w ithou t parallel in anc ient Israe1

Crucial to the argument is the ascer tainment that , l ike his temporaries , Jesus understood the great soter iological themes oScr ip tures as prophet ic , that i s , as awai t ing fu l f i l lment f rommoment at which the end-t ime would break out . This is whyshould posi t ively expect the bearer of God's cl imact ic and definmission to focus on and to coordinate these themes.

The sheer sweep and power of the argument—from the conscness of an eschatological mission, through the necessity of allSc riptu res to co m e to fu lfi l lm en t, to the m ain curre nts of the m enology or Chris tology of the Gospels—invite us to press i t fo

validity, i .e. to test the sufficiency of its premises and the cogenits logic. Do the Gospels in fact exhibit the requisite data? Do confirm that Jesus, l ike others who looked for the eschatoloconsummation, read the Scriptures as prophecy await ing i ts moof convergent fu l f i l lment? Is there any p laus ib le escape f romargument?

Final ly, this argument evokes an antecedent expectat ion that

profusion, the posi t ive explosion, of chris tological speech fol lo

1 On wheth er the realized elem ent in the esch atolog y of Jesus and of eaChristianity has any true parallel in ancient Judaism, see D. C. Allison, Jr TheEnd of the Ages H as Come: An Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection ofJesus (Philad elphia: Fortress , 1985; repr. Studies of the Ne w Tes tam ent anWorld; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987) 91-92. Here All ison signif icantly nuthe account of "realized eschatology in D. E. Aune, The Cultic Setting of RealizedEschatology in Early Christianity (N ov T Su p 28; Le iden : Brill , 1967). But des pithis clarity on the main issues, Allison himself has been led to suppose that T. Job39:9-40:6 might offer a true parallel to the realized eschatology of the resurof Jesus. In presenting the "resurrect ion" of Job 's chi ldren, however the wrthe testament never steps out of the narrative world of Job into that shared band reader. This does not hold for New Testament texts on the resurrect iJes us, as 1 C or 15:3-8 une quiv oca lly s how s by i ts accen t on avai lab le wi tnesses to whom the r i sen Chr is t had appeared . Moreover, th is d i ffegrounds another: the impact attributed to Jesus' resurrection vs. the total limpact of the "resurrection" of Job's children.



on "the Easter experience of the disciples" wil l have been rooted inJesus ' own se l f -unders tand ing . We shal l accord ing ly conclude byenter taining the quest ion of whether th is expectat ion is confirmed.

T H RE E S O RT S O F I N D I CE S

TO J E S U S ' C O N S C I O U S N E S S O F H IS M I S S I O N

Three words—the Temple r idd le (Mark 14 :58 = Mat t 26 :61 =John 2:19; cf. Mark 15:29 = Matt 27:40; Acts 6:14), the response toAnt ipas (Luke 13 :32) , and the Jonah say ing in response to thedemand for a s ign (Matt 12:39 = Luke 11:29; cf . Mark 8:12; Matt16:4)—share a set of sharply profi led trai ts that reflect the Jesus ofhistory: f irst , a context of clash with authoritat ive or el i te forces inIsrael ; second, the "three-days" motif , which evokes ( in consciouslyen igmat ic fash ion) the d iv ine governance of the l i fe and fa te o fJ e s u s ;2 th i rd , a consequent and unmis takable no te o f per fec t conf i -dence. Jesus clear ly regarded the looming cr is is (or eschatologicalordeal) in the l ight of i ts subjection to God's royal sovereignty.

Two of these sayings present " types" of salvat ion: the sanctuary(Greek : ναός ; He brew : ; Ar am aic : ) o f the Te m ple i spresented as a type of the messianic community of salvat ion, t rans-figured in the reign of God.3 Jonah, saved from the sea-monster, i spresented as a type of one raised from the dead, returning (at thegreat consummat ion , the say of " the [son of ] Man") to confoundthose who pressed Jesus for a "sign." There would be no sign but that

o n e 4 Both sayings thus belong to the ser ies of words present ingJesus and his disciples as eschatological anti types of familiar biblicalf igures: Moses (Matt 5 :17, 21-48; cf . John 6:14; 7 :40) , David (Mark12:35-37 = Mat t 22 :41-46 = Luke 20 :41-44; Mark 2 :25-26 = Mat t12:3-4 = Lu ke 6:3-4) , So lom on (M att 12:42 = L uk e 11:31) , El isha(Mark 6:35-44 = Matt 14:15-21 = Luke 9:12-17) , Isaiah (Mark 4:12= Matt 13:13; Luke 8:10) , the Servant of the Lord (Mark 10:45 =

Matt 20:28; Mark 14:24 = Matt 26:28; Luke 22:20; John 6:51) , the

2 J . Jerem ias , "Die Drei-Tag e-W orte der Evan gel ien ," in G. Jeremias , H. -W.Kuhn, and H. Stegemann (eds . ) , Tradition und Glaube (K. G. Kuh n Fes tsch rif t ;Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 221-29, here 227.

3 Jerem ias, "Die Dre i-Tag e-W orte"; B. F. M eyer, "Th e ' Inside ' of the JesEvent ," in Meyer, Critical Realism and the New Testament (All ison Park :

Pickwick, 1989) 157-72.4 J . Jeremias, " Ίω ν ά ς ," T NT 3 (1965 ) 406-10.





L uk e 1 1:49 -51). Fil l up, then, the m ea su re of yo ur fa the rs (M23:32), spoken to persons already set on the death of Jesus (M21:45-46), is a bit terly ironic summons to bring to completion wthis prospective crime the last wave of evil allotted to history.

By contrast , the final measure of revelation allotted to Israel bestowed, now at last , through the agency of Jesus. "Do not ththat I have come to annul the Law [or the prophets]; I have come, to annul but to complete" (Matt 5:17).8 This motif of the eschatol-ogical complet ion of God's revelat ion is carr ied through in tfol lowing ant i theses (cf . Matt 5:21-22, 27-28, 33-34, 38-39, 43-

as well as in the accounts of Jesus' teaching in general, e.g. in move, f rom Moses ' provis ional legis lat ion on divorce (Deuterono24) to the eschatological restoration of the idea of paradise (G2:24) , enacted anew from the already inaugurated restorat ion Israel (Matt 19:3-9 = Mark 10:2-10). In short , Jesus here presehimself as the prophet l ike Moses, br inging to Israel the f inmeasure of revealed truth.

Third and last , when John in prison sent the question to Jesu"Are you he who is to come [Ps 118:26], or shall we look fanother?" Jesus allowed his actions to speak for him; in the urgstaccato of two-beat rhythm, he answered: Go and tell John what hear and see:

blind men see,cripples walk,

lepers are cleansed,deaf persons hear,dead persons are raised,and good news is broken to the poor(Matt 11:5 = Luke 7:22-23)

Jesus is saying that his own public activity in Israel must be readthe superabu nda nt fu lf i l lmen t of eschatological p rom ises (Isa 35:29:18-19; 61:1) .9 He had come as the messianic consolation of Israe(Isa 40:1; Tg. Isa 33:20). Like the answer to the High Priest in Sanhédrin hearing (Matt 26:64; cf . Luke 22:70) , Jesus responseaverse to claims ( in manner) , while ent i rely aff i rmative ( in sustance).

8 J . Jerem ias, New Testament Theology: I. The Proclamation of Jesus (NewYork: Scribner 's, 1971) 82-85.

9

"S up era bu nd an t," especially inasm uch as the Isaianic texts on which Jedrew do not include reference to raising the dead.



I t seems to me that these th ree phenomena—sel f - iden t i f ica t ion aseschatological ant i type, the claim that in h im and his mission thed iv ine measures ass igned to the Eschaton were being brought tocompletion, and, f inally, the specific invitat ion to interpret his publicact iv i ty as the ful f i l lm en t of eschato logical pro m ise and pr op he cy —are inexpl icable except as at test ing a unique consciousness: that ofmedia t ing God 's las t , c l imact ic v is i ta t ion of h is people . (We arelooking back from two mil lennia later ; th is should not d is t ract usinto supposing that the Jesus of the public ministry envisioned a longhis to ry s t i l l to come. )1 0 The his tor ici ty of the texts is sol id ly

probable and their central meaning appears to be perfectly clear. Lethim who has ears hear. But since the music of these texts apparentlyfalls outside the auditory range of many professional l isteners, I shallp ro po se a d is t inc t and indep end ent con s idera t ion of tex ts equ al lyin te l l ig ib le and st il l m ore widely ack no w led ge d to be h is to r ica l ,namely, the five data l isted in the introduction to this essay.

D I D J E S U S A N N O U N C E T H E I M M I N E N T E N D O F H I S TO RY ?

We take i t that scholarship has copiously established the historici tyof the proclamation of Jesus. The one relevant issue that has notfo un d un iv ersa l agree m en t bears on i ts esch ato lo g ica l cha racte r.When Jesus spoke of the imminence of the re ign of God (Greek ;β α σ ιλ εία τοί) Θ 60υ; A ram aic: ] ) , wa s th is m ean t tos ign i fy the imminence of the end of h is to ry? S tar t ing a hundredyear s ago wi th Johannes Weiss , t h i s ques t ion has pe r iod ica l lyappeared to have been set t led in the aff i rmat ive—only to be upset byso m e new eff or t of revisionist scholarsh ip .

In 1935 C. H. Dodd offered a br i l l iant reconstruct ion of Jesus 'scenario of the future, which included an aff i rmat ion of the immi-nent end of history.1 1 But Dodd fol lowed his reconstruct ion with ah i s to r i co -he rm en eu t i ca l ac cou n t o f wh a t it f i na l ly m ean t . Th e

acco un t , un der the nam e real ized esch ato log y, lef t nothin g st il l tobe expected in the future, whether by Jesus or by the bel iever today.( In th i s Dodd was fo l lowed by T. F. Glasson1 2 and J. A. T.

1 0 B. F. M eye r, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press , 1979) 202-208.1 1 C. H. Dod d, The Parables of the Kingdom (Lon don: Nisbet, 1935) 34-1 10.1 2 T. F. Gla sson , The Second Advent The Origin of the New Testament

Doctrine (Lo ndo n: Ep wo rth, 1945; 3rd ed. , 1963). See also idem , Sc hw ei tz er 'sInf lu enc e: Bles sing or Ba ne ? in B. D. Chilton (ed.) , The Kingdom of God in the



R o b i n s o n ,1 3 who worked out this view with such consistency that i tsla tent defects became patent . )

Meant ime , in an a r t i c l e l i t t l e no t i ced ( i t appeared dur ing the

Sec on d W or ld W ar in a journ a l tha t cease d pub l i ca t ion b efo re thewa r wa s over ) , Joac h im Je rem ias o ffe red a pos i t ive apprec ia t ion o fDodd 's h is tor ica l reconst ruct ion , adding a number of cor rect ions andr e f i n em en t s , and d r opp i ng Dod d ' s unh e l p f u l a t t em p t t o f r ee Je susfrom the l iabi l i ty of a mythical view of the future.1 4

In the post -War per iod, exis tent ia l i s t kerygma theology a lso had i t ssay. E rns t Käsemann a t t empted , l ike Dodd , to save Jesus f rom the

luggage o f apoca lyp t i c expec ta t ions , bu t fo rgo ing Dodd ' s l abor iousind irec t ion . W itho ut f linching at the ne ces sary l i terary and histor ic alsurg ery on the G osp els , K äse m an n di rect ly a t t r ibuted to the h is tor i -ca l Jesus an exclusively rea l ized eschatology.1 5

Yet ano ther r escue a t t empt was mounted by George B. Ca i rd .1 6

Caird d id not contest that Jesus spoke the language of apocalypt iceschatology. The i ssue was whether he meant th is language l i tera l ly

or metaphor ica l ly. Accord ing to Ca i rd , Jesus expec ted a metaphor i -cal end of the world. On the l i teral plane this corresponded to theend of the cur rent era in human his tory. (Discip les of Cai rd todayinc lude Marc us Borg and N. Th om as W r igh t .)1 7

Seve ral of these effo r ts to in terpre t the proc lam at ion of Jesu s c am eunder c r i t i ca l r ev iew in 1985 by Dale C. Al l i son , J r. , i n a

Teaching of Jesus ( IRT 5; Lon don: SPC K; Phi ladelphia : For t ress , 1984) 107-20.1 3 J . A. T. Ro b inson , Jesus and His Com ing (2nd ed . , Ph i l ade lph ia : W es t -

minster, 1979).1 4 J . J e rem ias , Eine neue Schau de r Zuk unf t sa ussag en Jesu ,TBI 20 (1941)

216 22.

1 5 Ε . Käsem ann , Sä tze he il igen Rech tes im Neuen Tes tam en t , Die An fäng echr is t l icher Th eolog ie , and Zu m Th em a der urchr is tl ichen Ap okaly pt ik , in Käse -m a n n , Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (2 vo l s ., Gö t t ingen : Vand enh oeck

& Ruprec h t , 1965) 2 .69-131 ; e t : Sen ten ces o f Ho ly Law in the New Te s tam en t ,Th e Be ginn ings of Chr is t ian Th eo log y, and On the Sub jec t of Pr im i t ive Ch r is -

t ian Apo ca lyp t i c , in Käsem ann , New Testam ent Questions of Today (Phi ladelphia :For t ress , 1969) 66-137.

1 6 G. B. Caird , Jesus and the Jewish Nation (Lo ndo n: Ath lone , 1965) ; idem ,The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philade lphia: W estm inster, 1980).

1 7 M . J . B o rg , Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus ( S B E C5; New York and Toronto: Mel len , 1984) ; idem, Jesus: A New Vision (San Fran-

c isco: Harper & Row, 1987) ; Ν . T. Wr igh t , The New Testament and the People ofGod (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 332-34.



m on o gr aph based on an ea r l i e r do c t o r a l d i s se r t a t i on .1 8 A l l i sonconclusively showed that many of them ( those especia l ly of Glasson,Robinson , and Ca i rd ) were unsa lvageab le . His accoun t ( though hew as appa ren t ly u naw are o f th is ) w as l a rge ly a r epr i se o f Joa ch imJe re m ia s ' s 1941 recon s t ruc t ion o f Jesu s ' scen ar io fo r the end - t ime .Ind eed , Je re m ia s ' s b r ie f p rese n ta t ion w as in ce r t a in de ta i l s m or ee x a c t ,1 9 t h o u g h A l l i s o n ' s m o n o g r a p h p r o v i d e d a f u l l n e s s o ft rea tment—in the f raming of the quest ion , the survey of the Gospelsources , and the r eper to ry o f r e l evan t in te r t es t amenta l and o therJew ish l i t e ra tu re— tha t f a r su rpa ssed the r each o f Je re m ias ' s shor t

r ev i ew- a r t i c l e .Hav i n g r ecen t l y t aken up an ew t he q ues t i on o f J e sus ' f u t u r e

s c e n a r i o ,2 0 I shal l not review the ent ire quest ion here. Let i t suff iceto say that Johannes Weiss was r ight at least about Jesus ' expectat ionof the imminent end of the wor ld . Just pr ior to Jesus , the Bapt is tpro cla im ed the imm inen ce of the last jud gm en t . Just af ter Jesus , Paulr epea t ed l y i nd i ca t ed h i s hope an d exp ec t a t i on o f t he i m m i n en t

parousia of the Lord . In the in ter im between the Bapt is t and Paul ,Jes us aff i rm ed that the las t jud gm en t , for w hich the men of N ine vehand the Queen of the South were to be ra ised f rom the dead, was onthe br ink.2 1

What Weiss and Schwei tze r missed , and what Dodd caugh t , wasthe present real izat ion in Jesus ' own t ime of at least par t of Israel ' sher i t age o f escha to log ica l p romise and p rophecy. To th i s shou ld be

added the nascen t Chr i s t i an communi ty ' s unambiguous a ff i rmat ion o f

1 8 Se e n. 1 abo ve.1 9 In h is nu me rou s h is tor ica l -Jes us s tudies Jere mia s repea tedly aff i rm ed tha t

Jesu s unders to od h is com ing suff er in g to inaugura te the escha to logica l o rdeal . Th emetaphor Jeremias used in Neutestamentliche Theologie: I. Die Verkündigung Jesu(Göt t ingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprech t , 1971) 231 , was tha t h i s su ffe r ing wouldcons t i tu te der Auftakt ( the f irst sylla ble, f irst beat , op en ing ph rase , pre lud e) of the

esch ato log ica l ordeal . Th e choic e of the te rm pre lude in the Engl ish t rans la t ion ,however, l ed Al l i son The End of the Ages, 118) (a) to sup pos e tha t in Jer em ia s 'sreco nst ru c t ion Jesu s took h is own s uf fer ing to prec ede , but not to be lo ng to , theordeal; and (b) to f ind fault with Jeremias 's fai lure to prove the view thus mistaken-ly at tr ibuted to him. (For his own part , All ison [The End of the Ages, 117-28] tookthe t r ibula t ion to be a l ready underway dur ing Jesus ' minis t ry.) See how some ofthe most relevant texts (e .g. Matt 26:18; Luke 12:49; 13:33; John 12:19; 16:16) areread in Je remias , Dre i -Tag e-W or te and New Testament Theology, 127-41.

2 0 Β . F. M eyer, Jesu s ' Scenar io of the Future ,DRev 109 ( 99 ) -15.

2 1 See , e .g . , Allison, The End of the Ages 111 n. 40.



the era o f fu l f i l lment as hav ing already arrived. Bo th in Je su shimself and in the Easter community of h is fo l lowers there were twofacets of the eschatological consciousness: f i rs t , a consciousness ofesch a to lo g ica l p ro m ise /p ro phe cy a l r eady fu l f i l l ed ; secon d , theco m p l em en t a r y co n sc i o u sn es s o f p r o m i se / p r o p h ecy s ti ll t o b efu l f i l l ed . To ge th er these f ace t s o f escha to log ica l con sc io usn esscommend, as the most usefu l te rminolog ica l rubr ic bo th for theview s of Jesu s and for those of the post-E aster Ch urch , esch atolo gyinaugurated and in process of real izat ion.

F O U R M O R E D ATA A C K N O W L E D G E D TO B E C E RTA I N LY H I S TO R I C A L

No one doubts the historici ty of Jesus' proclamation of the reign ofGod. Similar ly, the his tor ici ty of the fol lowing is secure: (1) Jesusimp resse d his con tem por ar ies of one wh o spok e and acted as havin gau t h o r i t y ( Gr eek : ώ ς έ ξ ο υ σ ία ν έ' χω ν ; Aram aic : ; cf . Mark1:22 = Matt 7 :29 = Luke 4:22; Mark 1:27 = Luke 4:26) . What sor to f au thor i ty? Not , emphat ica l ly, the au thor i ty o f the p rofess ionalt rained theologian (Mark 11:28 = Matt 21:23 = Luke 20:2) ; ratherthat o f a char i smat ic wie ld ing supernatura l power over demons , apower that he could and did sovereignly t ransmit to h is d isciples(Mark 3:15 = Matt 10:1; Mark 6:7 = Luke 9:1). More, Jesus acted asone bearing the authori ty to remit s ins (Mark 2:10 = Matt 9 :5 =Luke 5:24)—in short , l ike the plenipotent iary of a new economy ofsa lvat ion .2 2

(2) Once, when some Pharisees del ivered a threat against Jesus 'l i f e , a l l eg ed l y f r o m An t i p a s , J e su s co o l l y r e sp o n d ed w i t h amemorable word on h is invulnerab i l i ty un t i l the moment o f God 'schoosing, when he would indeed be subject to the onslaught of Satan:

Behold, I dr ive out demonsand perform curestoday and tomorrow,

and on the third day I complete my course.(Luke 13:32)

Since the th ree-days mot i f connotes God 's sovere ign ly appoin tedpla n, the sen se of the text is: (T ell that fo x that) I ca nn ot be to uc he dunt i l the divine ly app ointed t ime. Qu ite inciden tal ly, ho w ev er, the

2 2 A point m ad e cogen tly by Ν . T. W right in an unp ublish ed pap er prese nted

at a M cM aste r Univers i ty seminar (14 De cem ber 1989) on herm eneu t ics and thehistorical Jesus.





έ ξο υ σ ία / r m ) (Mark 11:27-33 = Matt 21:23-27 = Luke 20:1-8); i tmust rather have been the demand for a s ign, as John presents i t(John 2:18-19) . But whatever the precise source of th is word, i t i sclear that in Je su s ' r iddl ing ans we r (som e l ike: De stro y th is sane-tuar y and a fte r three da ys I will build i t ; cf . Joh n 2:1 9 and M ark14:58 ), the au th or ity wa s that of the son of D av id/s on of G od (2S am 7 :12 ; 1 C hr 17:12-1 3; Ps 2:7; 110:3; 4QF10r ) commiss ionedto bui ld G o d 's hou se (2 Sam 7:1 3-1 4; 1 C hr 17:12-13; Hag 1:1-2;2:20 -23 ; Zec h 6:12- 13) . Inasm uch as G o d 's ho us e in texts such asthese was open to s ignifying God 's eschatological ly restored people

(έκκΧ η σ ία ^Π β/Γ Π Γ ) , and s ince th is i s p rec ise ly the sense of the newsanctuary in Jesus ' word, the cleansing i tsel f as wel l as th is word(which , in the presen t hypothes is , immedia te ly fo l lowed on thecleansing) showed that Jesus understood the restorat ion of Israel tobelong to his mission—indeed, as i ts central task.2 7

(4) In the l ight of the above ascer tainments , the titulus on th ecross , the k ing of the Je w s (ό βα σ ιλβύ ς· τώ ν Ιο υ δ α ίω ν) , m ake s

excel lent h is tor ical sense. In the passion story the key rel ig iousquestion (as shown by Mark 14:61 = Matt 26:63; cf. Luke 22:67) hadbeen whether Jesus would acknowledge h is c la im, up t i l l nowexclusively implici t in the publ ic forum, to be the appointed agent( the Messiah) of the appointed eschatological act ( the restorat ion ofIsrael) . When the Sanhedris ts presented th is quest ion to Pi late , theygave i t a poli t ical twist . The titulus doubt less a product of Pi late 's

own malicious irony, is a solid index to the crime of which Jesus wasaccused : p re tens ion to royal dominion . The titulus bes ides beingwell at tested (Mark 15:26 = Matt 27:37 = Luke 23:39 = John 19:19),in ter locks eas i ly wi th the o ther da ta on the Sanhedr in ' s e ffor t tobring about the suppression of Jesus.

Our purpose is not to deal on i ts own merits with each of the fivedata adduced here; i t is rather to point to the fact that , taken collec-

t ively, they converge on Jesus' consciousness of being the bearer of adivinely appointed, cl imact ic and def ini t ive, mission to Israel . Onceaga in , cons ider these da ta cumula t ive ly : ( a ) He p roc la ims theimminence of the divine saving act celebrated in the prophets as the

2 7 H en ce the thesis (in M eye r, Th e 'Ins ide ' of the Jesu s Ev en t, 169) that topredicate 'Messiah' of Jesus in the sense he himself intended is to grasp the ' inside'

of the Jesus event as the single task of re-creating Israel—and the nations byassim ilation to Israel— in fulfillm ent of the Sc riptures .



eschatological restorat ion of God 's people, (b) But he does not justannounce i t . His publ ic performance, including teaching and wonderwork ing , s t r ikes h is con temporar ies as maximal ly au thor i ta t ive , theau tho r i ty de r iv ing d i rec t ly f rom God . ( c ) When th rea tened byAnt ipas—just as when ques t ioned by the Bapt i s t—his response po in tsto his career as wonder worker: i t accords with the divine plan andproceeds under i t s p ro tec t ion (Luke 13 :32) and i t fu l f i l l s thepromises of the Scriptures (Matt 11:5 = Luke 7:22-23) . (d) When

reig n of G o d is taken in the sen se that Jes us intend ed, na m ely , asGo d ' s d e f i n i t i v e ac t o f s a l v a t i o n ,2 8 i t s co r re la tes inc lud e n ew

covenan t , new sanc tuary, new cu l t .2 9 The thrust of the symbolicaction at the Temple accordingly appears to intend the end of the old(Mosaic) d ispensat ion and to in t imate some new, impl ic i t ly mes-s ian ic , d i spensat ion , (e) The las t wisp of remain ing ambigui ty i sdissipated by the titulus on the cross. T he con clus ion that w e f in dimposed on us (again , not f rom these f ive data taken singly but f romthe five taken cumulatively and collectively) is that Jesus did indeed

think of h imself as cal led to a cl imact ic and def ini t ive mission toIsrael .

T H E S C R I P T U R E S M U S T B E F U L F I L L E D

Many years ago John Downing , in an ar t ic le on Jesus andm a r t y r d o m ,3 0 o ff ere d an appa ren t ly i r refu tab le obs ervat io n : Jesus ,by his proclamation of the imminent coming of the reign of God,impl ic i t ly def ined h imsel f as God 's las t vo ice , the las t p rophet icenv oy to I s rae l . He was the last p ro ph et , a rgued Do wn ing , fo rmen ' s r eac t ions to h im and to h i s p reach ing de te rmined the i reschatological dest iny (Luke xi i .8 and par. ) .31 Or, in the expressionof A m os Wilde r, Jes us ' ro le wa s tha t o f m edia to r o f G o d 's f ina l

2 8 Th e case was mad e by G. Da lman (The Words of Jesus [Edin burg h: T. &

T. Clark, 1902] 96-101), who differentiated this f rom other senses of the phrase inancient Judaism.

2 9 S ee J . Beh m , δ ια θ ή κ η , TDNT 2 (19 64 ) 124-34, esp . 128, 132-3 3;Je remias , Die Abendm ahlsworte Jesu (Göt t ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht , 1960)217 -18: the (new ) cov enan t i s Ko rre la tbe gr i ff zu βασιλεία τοΰ ούρανοΰ ; ET: TheEucharistie Wo rds of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1966) 226. But what holds fornew covenant holds for new sanctuary and new cult . On the new Temple/sanctuary,see E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Lon don : SC M Press, 1985) 77-90 .

3 0 J . Dow ning , Jesus and M ar ty rdom ,JT S 14 (196 3) 279-93.

3 1 Do wn ing , Jesus and M ar tyrd om , 286-87 .



controversy with his people.3 2

K eep ing in min d th is mo tif of last env oy, last pr op he t (w hichJesus himself made thematic and emphat ic by his warnings to the

crowds that t ime was running out, that the great judgment was on thebrink) , we should perhaps br ing i t in to relat ion with the bibl icalconception of God's word and of his f ideli ty to his word.

YHWH could be counted on. Thus, when Joshua 's work was done,the narrator of his story writes:

So YHWH gave unto Israel all the landthat he swore to give unto their fathers,

and they possessed i t and inhabited i t ;and YHWH gave them rest round aboutaccording to al l that he swore unto their fathers;and there stood not one of their enemies against them;YHWH delivered all their enemies into their hand.There fai led not aught of al l the good thingsthat YHWH had spoken unto the house of Israel .Al l came to pass .

( Josh 21:42-43; Engl i sh : 21:42-45)

T he key w or d is al l . YH W H gav e Israel all the land he hadpromised, and he gave them rest according to al l he had sworn. Ofal l their enemies not one withstood them; YHWH del ivered them al linto their hands. Of all the good things that he had said, not onefailed . In a wo rd, : al l cam e to pass.

This passage is not only repeated again and again in fragmentary

fashion in the texts that fo l low in the book of Joshua; i t a lsoep i tom izes the bibl ical them e of YH W H's np J15/r ighteousness andhis rm?3jK/fide1ity, motifs endlessly recurrent in the Scriptures. Weare moreover in the presence of a massive index to the way in whichIsrael would come to understand promise and prophecy for the end-t ime. The whole of i t , a l l wi thout except ion, would come to pass.That specifically included the salvation of the nations by assimilation

to eschatologically restored Israel .The background to new deve lopmen t s in the r ead ing o f the

Scriptures might be sketched in a few st rokes. The t raumatic eventsof the sixth century—the loss of king and aristocracy in 597, the farmore v io len t and severe losses in the cap ture o f Jerusalem and

3 2 A. N. W i lder, Es cha to lo gy and the Sp ee ch -M od es of the G os pe l , in E.

Dink i e r ( ed . ) , Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesga be an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80Geburtstag (Tü b ing en : M oh r [S iebeck] , 1964) 19-30 , he re 29 .



dest ruct ion of the Temple in 587, another depor ta t ion in 582; re turnf o l l o w ed by d i s i l l u s i on m en t ; r i f t s and f ac t i o n s in t h e Ju d e anres to ra t ion—are d iver se ly r e f l ec ted in the new founda t ions l a id by

prophecy (Tr i to - I sa iah and Deute ro-Zechar iah) and by the r e fo rmsof Ezra and Nehemiah . The t rue r es to ra t ion o f I s r ae l became alead ing theme and an ongo ing , con ten t ious i s sue . The t r anscenden tt e rms in to which Tr i to - I sa iah and Deute ro-Zechar iah t r ansposed ther e s t o r a t i on t he m e opene d the e r a o f p r o t o - apo ca l yp t i c , r em o t e l yprepar ing the scene for new forms of fa i th- l i tera ture .

The Macedonian conques t o f the Eas t s imi la r ly ins t iga ted new

developments in the way indentured Israel envisaged the sa lvat ion ofthe nat ion . The probably inf lux f rom the eastern Diaspora of mant icwise men (not the representa t ives of proverbia l wisdom such as wefind in Ben Sira) may well explain the or igins and sal ient features ofthe book of Danie l .3 3

In Qumran we f ind a systemat ic way of reading the Scr ip tures , onefac e t o f w hic h i s the spe c i f i c a t io n o f the (p ro ph e t i c ) m ea n i ng

(pešer), w hich focu ses on the co m m un i ty, i ts o r ig ins , s t a tus , anddest iny. The bib l ica l books par t ly re ta in thei r or ig inal sense , but bythe t ime of Jesus they ( the prophets in par t icular ) were read aspo in t ing to w ard de f in i t ive fu l f i l lm en t a t the ou tb rea k o f the end -t ime. Qumran furnishes the fu l les t data on th is ;3 4 but we f ind i t alsoi n i n t e r t e s t am en t a l l i t e r a t u r e ,3 5 i n t h e Ta rgum s ,3 6 and in John theBa ptist (e .g. Joh n 1:23 on Isa 40 :3; cf . M ark 1:3 = Ma tt 3:4 = L uk e

3:4) .

3 3 J . J . Co ll ins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (H SM 16; M is -soula : Scholars Press , 1977) 56-57.

3 4 Th o u g h th e r e a r e n u m e r o u s g o o d g e n e r a l e x p o s i t i o n s ( e.g . O . Be t z ,Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qum ransekte [ W UN T 6 ; Tü b i n g e n : M o h r(S iebe ck) , I960] ; M . P. Ho rgan , Pesharim: Qum ran Interpretation of B iblicalBooks [C BQ M S 8; W ash ing ton : Ca tho l i c Bib l i ca l Asso c ia t ion , 1979] ) , to under-

stand concretely the Essenes ' s tyle of interpreting, special s tudies of individual tests(e .g . W. H. Brownlee , The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk [ S BL M S 2 4 ; Mi s s o u l a :Scholars Press , 1979]) a re indispensable .

3 5 See J . Ba r ton , Oracles of God ( Ox ford : Ox ford Un ivers i ty Press , 1986) ; C.Row land , Th e In te r-Tes tamen ta l Li t e ra tu re , in J . Rog erson , C. Ro wlan d , and B.L i n d a r d s ( e d s . ) , The History of Christian Theology: II. The Use of the Bible(Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1988) 153-225.

3 6 In the prese nt con text , see esp. B. Ch il ton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible:

Jesus Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (GN S 8; W i lming ton : G laz ie r,1984); and idem, The Isaiah Targum (ArBib ; W ilmingto n: Glaz ier, 1987).



Paul , looking back, wo uld say, W ha tev er prom ises Go d has ma de,thei r Y es i s in h im (2 C or 1 :2). S im i lar ly, Jesu s h im sel f , repu di-a t ing the charge of annul l ing the Scr ip tures , c la imed ra ther to br ingthem to com ple t ion and fu l f i l lm en t (Mat t 5 :17 = Luke 16 :17 ; Mat t11:5 = Luke 7:22) .

I n t he i n t r oduc t i on t o t h i s e s say we sk e t ched an a rgum en tac co rd ing to w hic h a co ns cio us ne ss l ike that of Jesu s , i.e . of on ech arg ed wi th a c l im ac t i c and def in i t ive miss ion to G o d ' s peo p le ,sho u ld l ead us to expe c t to f ind in h im a ph en om en on o th erw iseunexampled in ancient I srael : the convic t ion that God 's promises for

t h e en d - t i m e were a lready being fulfilled.37 No w we ma y be m orespec i f i c . We shou ld expec t to f ind tha t , a s t ime passed and thefu l f i l lm en t o f the wh ole - to -b e- fu l f i l l ed wa s inaugu ra ted and u nde r-way, Jesus should somehow indicate (a) that some of th is whole- to-be - fu l f i l l e d had no w, a l r eady , foun d fu l f i l lm ent ; (b ) tha t som e of itw as now f ind ing fu l f i l lm en t ( i .e . dur in g h is pub l ic care er ) ; (c) thatso m e of it w as abo ut to f in d fu l f i l lm en t ; and (d) that , s ince th e

prominen t , pe rhaps dominan t , end- t ime scenar io ( e .g . Dan 12 :1-2)posi ts a dist inct ion between the great aff l ict ion and i ts cessat ion (e.g.wi th the resur rect ion of the dead) , a l l the res t , i .e . whatever ofprophecy remains s t i l l outs tanding ( including the very resolut ion ofthe ord eal ) wou ld f ind fu l f i l lm en t w hen the miss ion of Jesu s w ou ldbe cro w ne d by the adve nt of G o d ' s re ig n.

In point of fact , we f ind among the data of the Gospel story the

fu l l conf i rmat ion o f th i s mul t ip le expec ta t ion , ( a ) Af te r Ant ipas 'execution of the Baptist , we learn that in Jesus ' view God had alreadyfu l f i l l ed the E l i j ah p rom ise /p ro phe cy (Ma i 3 :23-24 ; Eng l i sh : 4 :5 -6 ;Sir 48:10) in the mission of John, (b) Earl ier, by way of answer tothe Bap t i s t ' s query, Jesus po in ted to h i s own career o f wonderwork ing and p roc la iming as b r ing ing p rophe t i c o rac les o f sa lva t ionto fu l f i l l m en t here and now . (c) Ag ain , he ins t ructed the inner c i rc le

of h is d isc ip les that he was dest ined by prophet ic necessi ty to berepudiated and ki l led ( in accord with the role of the Servant of the

3 7 Ch i l ton (God in Strength: Jesus Announcem ent of the Kingdom [ S N T U ;Fre is tad t : P löchl , 1979; repr. Bi bS em 8; Sh eff ie ld : JS O T Press , 1987] ; idem , AGalilean Rabbi, 148-98) has ob serv ed tha t Jesu s pro cla im s as fu l f i l le d wh at isant ic ipa ted in the Aramaic paraphrase of Isa iah ( to which the la ter Isa iah Targumgives wi tness ) . The A ram aic ' s the k ingdom of your God is r evea led (c f . Tg. Isa

52 :7 : ) in the lan gu age of Jes us be co m es the kin gd om ofGo d has co m e (Ma rk 1:15: ήγγικεν ή βασιλεία του θεοΰ .





faced immedia te ly wi th p rophecies and promises which , p rec ise ly a tthat last m om en t , cal led inescap ably fo r fu l f i l lm ent .

How might we form an idea of what , in the Scriptures, Jesus took

to be so ter io log ica l ly s ign i f ican t , to ca ll fo r fu l f i l lm en t? Th e c luesmust be sought in the Gospel texts. After an init ial period of publicactivity as the ally of the Baptist unti l the lat ter 's arrest (John 3:22-26 ) ,4 0 Jesus inaugurated his own independent publ ic career in Gal i lee(Mark 1:14 = Matt 4 :12 = Luke 4:14) with the publ ic proclamation,made especia l ly in synagogues bu t a l so ou t -of -doors : "The re ign ofG o d is at h an d /h as a rr iv ed " (Gr ee k: ήγγι.κβι·ή βασιλεία του θβου/

A r a m a i c : ) . To man y wh o h ea r d it, t h e sewords surely recal led the Qaddiš p r ay e r ( : "m ay heal low his reign to reign . . . ") reci ted w eek ly in the Sy na go gu e andjust as surely evoked the news of salvat ion epi tomized in the cry

, "y ou r Go d re igns " ( I sa 52 :7) . Th is acco rd in g ly sug-ges ts that Jes us spo ke in the voic e of the Isaianic / eύ a γ γ e λ ι C -0p6v0s —a f igure in terpre ted a t Qumran in "mess ian ic" terms: "onean o i n t ed w i t h t h e S p i r i t " ( l l QM el ch 2 : 1 8 ) .4 1 In Isaiah, then, Jesusfound bo th h is career as p rocla imer o f sa lvat ion and the essen t ia lburden of h is p roclamat ion .

Though, as i t happens, we have no confirmatory textual index, i t i shighly probable that , l ike his contemporar ies , Jesus took the promiseof a prophet l ike Moses (Deut 15:15, 18) to await i ts fulfi l lment inthe en d- t im e— an d concre te ly to f ind th is fu l f i l l m ent in h is ow n act

of br inging to complet ion the last measure, the ful lness , of revealedtruth (Matt 5 :17) .It is quite out of the question that Jesus should not have been aware

of the many st rands of b ibl ical t radi t ion promising a new David orson of David appointed to mediate God 's act of restor ing his people.Let i t su ff ic e to ref er to the ridd le of the ne w sa nctu ary (M ark 14:58= Matt 26:61 = John 2:19) with i ts b ibl ical antecedents on the oneapp oin ted to bu i ld Go d ' s house (2 Sam 7 :1 2-13; cf . 1 Ch r 12 :13-14;Hag 2 :20-23; Zech 6 :12-13) . There are , o f course , many o ther tex tsthat show Jesus ' ho ld on mot i fs o f royal mess ian ism (e .g . the

4 0 On Jesus as "bap t izer," see M eyer, Aims of Jesus 122-24.4 1 J . A. F i tzm yer, "Fu r ther Light on M elch ized ek f ro m Qu m ran C av e 11 ,"

JB L 86 (1967) 25-41; repr. in Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Backgroun d of the

New Testament (Londo n : Ge off r ey Ch apm an , 1971 ; r ep r. SB LS BS 5 ; M issou la :Scholars Press , 1974) 245-67 .



Caesa r ea P h i l i pp i s cene ;4 2 the royal ent ry in to Jerusalem;4 3 r ep ea t eduse o f shepherd imagery) .4 4

So far as the I sa ianic Servant passages are concerned, we f ind a t

l eas t tw o p ieces o f ev id enc e fo r Je su s ' aw are ne ss espec ia l ly o f thelas t , great passage as soter io logical ly s igni f icant prophecy. These twocrucia l texts are Mark 10:45 = Mat t 20:28 ( the ransom word, whichspec i f i es the ben ef ic ia r i es o f the r anso m as m an y [c f. I sa 52 :14-1 5 ;5 3 : 1 1 - 1 2 ] , and f o r wh i ch P e t e r S t u h l m ach e r h a s p r o v i d e d b o t h as t r ik ing exegesis and a persuasive argument in favor of h is tor ic i ty) ,4 5

and Mark 14:24 = Mat t 26:28 ( the word over the cup, which br ings

toge ther two mot i f s o f I sa iah 53 : the pou r ing ou t o f the Se rv an t ' sl i fe [ Isa 53 :12 ] and , aga in, the m an y ) .

The two most s ign i f i can t ind ices to Jesus ' keen awareness o f thegreat apocalypt ic scene of Danie l 7 are , f i r s t , h is references to thethro nes fo r the cour t of ju dg m en t (Da n 7:9-10) in M at t 19:28 = L uk e22 :29 and , sec on d, the l i tt le f lo ck say ing in L uk e 12:32, w he re themot i f o f t r ansfe r r ing to the d i sc ip les a share in roya l domin ion i s

d e r i v e d f r o m D a n 7 : 2 7 .4 6

We migh t add tha t the Lukan fo rm ofJe su s ' w o r d s in t he S an héd r i n scene ( L u ke 22 : 6 9 ) , wh i ch t akesnothing f rom Daniel 7 except the term Son of man, i s probably pr iorto the para l le ls in Mark and Mat thew and probably authent ic .4 7

Our conclusion i s that Jesus , in the consciousness of e lec t ion to ac l imac t i c and def in i t ive miss ion to I s r ae l , sough t and found in the

4 2 M e y e r , Aims of Jesus, 185-97.4 3 M e y e r , Aims of Jesus, 168-7 0, 199.4 4 On me ss ianic sheph erd imag ery, see Ezek 34:23-2 4; 37:24; Ze ch 13:7-9; c f .

12:10; 13:1-6 . On she ph erd imag ery in the Go spe ls , see G. Da lm an , Ar bei t undSit te in Paläst ina vi , BFCT2A\ (1939) 249-5 0 , 253-55 .

4 5 P. S t u h l ma c h e r, Ex i s t e n z s t e l l v e r t r e t u n g f ü r d i e Vi e l e n : M k 1 0 ,4 5 ( Mt20 ,28 ) , in R. Alb er tz e t a l . (eds) , Werd en und Wirken des Alten Testaments (C.W es te r ma nn Fe s t sch r i f t ; Gö t t ingen : Vand enhoe ck & Ruprech t , 1980) 412 -27 ; r ep r.

i n S t u h l ma c h e r, Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit. Aufsätze zur biblischenTheologie ( Gö t t i n g e n : Va n d e n h o e c k & Ru p r e c h t , 19 8 1) 2 7 - 4 2 ; e t : Vi c a r i o u s l yGiv ing His Li fe fo r M any, Mark 10 :45 (Mat t . 20 :28) , in S tuh lm acher, Reconcilia-tion, Law, and Righteousness (Ph i ladelp hia : For t res s , 1986) 16-29.

4 6 O. Be tz , Jesus und das Danielbuch: II. Die Me nschensohnw orte Jesu un ddie Zukunftserwartung des Paulus (Daniel 7,13-14) ( AN TJ 6 .2 ; F r a n k f u r t a mMain: Lang, 1985) . On the two texts adduced, see Jeremias , New Testament Theol-ogy, 20 5 n. 4, 265.

4 7 B . F. M eye r, H ow Jesus Ch arg ed La ngu age wi th M ean ing : A S tudy inRh e t o r i c , SR 19 (199 0) 273- 85, here 285, wi th n. 32 .





personal convic t ion of e lec t ion . He was a man wi th a miss ion; themission bore on and belonged to the c l imact ic and def in i t ive savingac t o f God . Jesus accord ing ly found h imse l f ca l l ed to func t ion as

G o d ' s ( i n t i m a t e l y i n s t r um en t a l ) ag en t w i t h r e spe c t t o wh a t t heScr ip tu res def ined as the f ina l r es to ra t ion o f I s r ae l , comprehend ing(by assimilat ion to Israel) the salvat ion of the nat ions. Second, to thiswe added the observat ion that Jesus could not have fa i led to expectthat the sum to ta l of scr ip tura l promise and prophecy was bound byd iv ine n ecess i ty to co m e to fu l f i l lm en t in con nec t ion w i th h is ow nmiss ion . Th i rd , we consequen t ly found our se lves in the pos i t ion o f

being able to ar t icula te a se t of s igni f icant ant ic ipat ions: that theaccount s o f Jesus shou ld y ie ld ev idence ( a ) o f escha to logy inaugu-rated and in process of real izat ion; (b) of eschatology in accord withthe schema of cr i s i s to be fo l lowed by resolut ion (Dan 12:1-2; cf .I sa iah 53) and hen ce of som e e leme nts of fu l f i l lm en t po stpo ne d unt ilthe moment of resolut ion; (c) on Jesus ' par t , of some ref lec t ion onand co r r e l a t i on o f such so t e r i o l og i ca l t hem es ( i n t e r p r e t ed a s

prophecy) as the hera ld of sa lvat ion , the awai ted prophet , the royalMessiah, the Servant of the Lord, and the one l ike a man in Daniel 7;(d) on the d isc ip les ' par t , of the probably f ragmentary, only par t lythemat ic , and g radua l ly deve lop ing knowledge o r r ea l i za t ion o f thee s c h a t o l o g i c a l r o l e s o f J e s u s . F o u r t h , w e f o u n d t h a t t h e s eant ic ipat ions were sol id ly met by the data of the Gospels . F i f th , weconcluded that Jesus h imsel f had been the pr incipal source of the

ear l ies t pos t -Eas te r me ss iano logy /C hr i s to logy.We should add that in this reconstruct ion Jesus is seen as intent on

l istening to the Scriptures for the or ientat ion of his l i fe and mission.We do no t , however, f ind in h im one cons tan t ly and r es t l ess lyengaged in ad jus tments , r ev i s ions , changes o f hear t and mind . Thepauc i ty o f mess ian ic se l f - r eve la t ion accorded on the par t o f Jesusn e i t he r w i t h s i m p l e i gno r an ce no r w i t h an y sup posed sense o f

p e r so n a l o r d i na r i ne s s , bu t w i t h an econo m y o f r eve l a t i on t ha twi thheld the secre t of h is person and dest iny out of rea l i sm andwisdom respec t ing h i s l i s t ener s . Hence the spec ia l impor tance tha taccrues to the esoter ic t radi t ions in the Gospels . I t should be addedtha t the d i sc ip les were ne i ther swi f t nor def t in cons t ru ing thein tent ions and paradoxical se l f -d isc losures of Jesus . The condi t ions ofthe possib i l i ty of accurate comprehension were not g iven except wi ththe so -ca l l ed Eas te r exper ience . Bu t wha t th i s exper ience genera tedin the d isc ip les was not the ce lebrat ion of new, previously unknown



mess ian ic and so te r io log ica l themes . ll h ad been r ep ea t ed l y a d um -brated , i f not made themat ic , by Jesus .

C O N C L U S I O N

We have o ffe red the r eader an exper iment , a mode o f inves t iga t ion(moving f rom heur is t ic ant ic ipat ions to the in terpre ta t ion of the data)h i t h e r t o l i t t l e u sed i n b i b l i c a l c r i t i c i sm ,5 1 t ho ug h i t has be ensuccess fu l ly b rought to bear on o ther f i e lds .5 2 I t s pr incipa l ad va nta geis that the or ienta t ion of the invest igat ion , made expl ic i t f rom thestar t , der ives less f rom the undiscussed preferences of the invest iga-

tor (which in some measure are a lways present , a lbei t most var iouslyin how, f rom scholar to scholar, they re la te to the pur i ty of thed e s i r e t o k n o w ) b u t f r o m a g r a s p o f p r o c e d u r e s s p o n t a n e o u s l yop e r a t i ve in anc i en t Jud a i sm . T h e o r i en t a t i o n i n qu es t i o n he r ede r i ve s f r om t he m anne r i n wh i ch Je sus and h i s co n t em po r a r i e stypical ly read the Scr ip tures .

We moved (a ) f rom the ev idence o f Jesus ' conv ic t ion o f pe r sona l

e l ec t i o n t o a m i s s i on bea r i ng o n God ' s c l i m ac t i c s av i ng ac t ( b )th rough the Scr ip tu res , r ead as p rophecy r ese rved fo r escha to log ica lfu l f i l lment , ( c ) to the an t i c ipa t ion , and its satisfaction, of a m an y-sided, scr ip tura l ly prophesied ro le and dest iny. To the chosen one theScr ip tu res r evea led in advance the sav ing miss ion and i t s beare r—deed and doer al ike in al l their var iety.

Am o n g t he l i m i t s o f t h i s p r ocedu r e t wo a r e n o t ewor t hy : i t s

sch em a t i c cha r a c t e r and i ts e s sen t i a l i n com pl e t e ness v i s - à - v i s t hereal i ty of Jesus and his miss ion. (Where do we f ind in the Scr ip turesso m uc h as a h in t o f Je su s ' in i t i a t ives tow ard no to r io us s in ne r s?Where do they fo re te l l h i s heavy accen t on fo rg iveness and there jec t ion o f r esen tment and vengeance?) I t s two main s t r eng ths a realso notewor thy: the or ient ing pr incip le of the inqui ry i s a se t ofver i f i ab le obse rva t ions abou t an t iqu i ty which mark ed ly d im in i sh tha t

eve r w iden ing gap be tw een our se lves and the supp os i t ions ope ra t ivein anc ien t Juda i sm bu t no t among us . Of these we t end to be

5 1 An excep t ion ( though perhap s not an a l togethe r succ essfu l one) i s the col la-bora t ion of W. Thi is ing and K. Rahner, New Christology ( Ne w Yo r k : S e a b u r y,1980) .

5 2 An ex am ple is the arg um ent f ro m hum an prob lem to heur is t ic spec i f ica t ion

of the d iv ine so lu t ion in B. Lonergan, Insight ( N e w Yo r k : L o n g m a n s , G r e e n ,1958) 687-730 .









f r o m N aza r e t h , son o f Jo sep h ( 1 : 4 5 ) ,6 and Na t han ae l a sk s , C anany th ing good co m e ou t o f N aza re th? (1 :46) . Bu t Jesus neve r com esto Nazare th in the Gospe l o f John . The ques t ion o f h i s an teceden t s

com es u p no t i n Naza r e t h , bu t Cap e r n aum .7 I n te rp re te r s , the re fo re ,

have r a ther cons i s t en t ly t r ans la ted èv r r j ίδ ια π α τρ ίδ ι in Jo hn 4 :4 4not " in h is home town," bu t " in h is own count ry," whether under-stood as Gal i lee or Judea. .8 They have fur ther assumed that the keyto understanding the text is the precise identification of the πατρίς· .Is the country Gal i lee, Judea, or some other region? If Gal i lee,9 howdo es the say ing p ro v id e a r eason fo r go ing the re? Wa s J esu s

del iberately looking for a p lace where he would have "no honor"? Ifso , h i s hopes seem to have been d isappoin ted , fo r the nar ra torimmedia te ly ment ions tha t when he ar r ived " the Gal i leans welcomedh i m " ( v. 4 5 ) .l The saying is more natural ly understood as explainingwhy Jesus would avoid a place or leave i t than why he would seek i tout. Yet if he meant Judea,11 why is the saying quoted at 4:44 instead

6 Fo r "son of Jo se ph ," cf . Lu ke 4 :2 2 (a lso M att 13 :55 , " th e son of thecarpenter") .

7 W ithin a dialog said to take place wh ile Jesu s w as "teac hing in sy na go gu e atCapernaum" (6 :59) , a group ident i f ied as " the Jews" (01 Ιουδαίοι) asks, "Is thisnot Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" (6:42) .

8 Th is is the case with mo st En glish versio ns, wh ich tend to trans late πα τρίς•as "home town" in the synoptics, but "country" in John 4:44. Rudolf Bultmann isquite em ph atic on the point: "Π ατρίς v. 44 of course means ' fatherland ' and not

' h o m e - t o w n ' " (T h e Gospel of John: A Commentary [Phi ladelphia : W estm inste r,1971] 204) .

9 Th is is the m ajority view . See, e.g . R. E. Br ow n, The Gospel according toJohn I XII (AB 29; Gard en Ci ty : Do ubled ay, 1966) 187; R. Sch nac ken burg , TheGospel according to John (New Y ork: Cro ssro ad, 1982) 1 .462; D. A. C arso n, TheGospel According to St. John (Gran d Rap ids : Ee rdm ans , 1991) 235 -36 ; E .H a e n c h e n , John 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1 6(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 234. These authors appeal s imply to the

fac t that Jesu s in the Gosp el of Jo hn is a Ga lilean ( 1:45; 6:42 ; 7:41, 52).1 0 John W esle y solved the prob lem with the co m m en t, "H e went into Galilee

—that is , in to the Country of Galilee; bu t not to Nazareth. It wa s at that tow n onlythat he had no Honour. Th erefo re he went to o ther tow ns" (E xp lana to ry N o te supon the New Testament [Londo n: W ill iam Bo wy er, 1755] 234) .

1 1 Th is v iew that Joh n mean s Jud ea (or Jer usa lem ) is as o ld as Or ig en ,Commentary on John 13.372 ( translated by Ro nal d E. He ine , in Fathers of theChurch 89 [W ash ingto n: Ca thol ic Un ivers i ty of A me r ica , 1993] 148). A m on g

moderns , see B. F. Wes tco t t , The Gospel according to John ( G r an d Rap id s :Eerdmans , 1950) 77-78 .



of at 4 :3 , wh en h e f i rs t lef t Ju de a for G al i lee ? An d ev en the n, th ereason for h is departure was not that he found no honor in Judea, butthat he found so much honor i t was an embarrassment to h im (cf .

3 :26; 4 :1-3) . Nor, despi te the immediate context , can the πατρίς · beSamar ia . Even though h is enemies wi l l l a ter denounce h im as aSamar i tan (8 :48) , the c lear p resumpt ion th roughout Jesus ' encounterwith the Samari tan woman is that she is a Samari tan and he a Jew(4:9, 19, 22).

Th e dif f icu l t ies beset t ing every specif ic iden t i f icat ion of the πα τρίςraise the in tr iguing possibi l i ty that the in terpretat ion of John 4:44

may no t depend on such an iden t i f ica t ion a t a l l . Rudol f Bul tmanndrops an unintent ional clue to th is effect in h is commentary on thepassage . In l i s t ing var ious in terpre ta t ions , he ment ions in pass ingthose of Alf red Loisy and Emmanuel Hirsch :

Loisy thinks that Samaria, because i t was part of Palestine, was also Jesus 'πατρίς ; since he had found no honour there, he must now leave on the prin-ciple stated in v. 44 Sim ilar ly, H irsch (w ho takes v. 44 as a gloss, as do

others): Jesus leaves Samaria so quickly lest it become a πατρίς for him.1 2

Bul tmann ' s " s imi l a r ly" concea l s a s ign i f i can t d i ff e rence be tweenthe two in t e rp re t a t ions . Whi le Lo i sy iden t i f i e s the π α τρ ίς- w ithSamaria, Hirsch makes no specif ic ident i f icat ion at al l . The relevantpassage in Hirsch 's work bears th is out :13

Der Sinn dieses Zusatzes kann dann bloss sein, die Kü r z e d e s Ve r we i l e n sbe i den Samar i t e rn zu begründen . Je sus b l i eb n ich t so lange , dass d ie

S a ma r i t e r s t a d t s e i n e πατρίς wurde, weil ein Prophet nichts gilt da, wo ereine Heimat hat oder zu haben versucht. Das Wort s ieht das Wandern undnicht lange bleiben also dem Propheten g e mä s s a n .1 4

Hirsch ' s in te rp re ta t ion i s by no means dependen t on h i s judgmentthat v. 44 is a redactor 's gloss. His appeal is simply to the not ion thatJesus was r egarded a t some s tage o f the t r ad i t ion as an i t ine ran t

1 2 B u l t m a n n , John 205.1 3 Cau t ion i s obv iou s ly necessa ry in dea l ing wi th G erm an theo log ian s f r om

the Nazi e ra (such as Hirsch , or even Bul tmann) on the subjec t of Jesus ' Jewishroo t s . Ye t we a re dea l ing he re wi th a k ind o f two-edged sword : wha teve r Jesus 'πατρίς · may have been , i t was a p lace where he had "no honor." I t i s bes t ,the refo re, to take H irs ch 's propo sal at fac e value and ju dg e i t on i ts merits , a sidefrom political issues.

1 4 E . Hirsc h , Studien zum vierten Evangelium ( Tü b i n g e n : M o h r [ S i e b e c k ] ,1936) 55.



prophet . Such a prophet who stays in a town more than two daysw ear s out his w elc om e. In ef fe ct he ma ke s the tow n his πα τρίς, andhas no honor there. Instead of serving to explain why Jesus was

rejected in his actual home town, i t becomes in John the explanationof why he kept moving instead of sett l ing down in one place. On thisin terpre ta t ion , πατρίς is a town or village in John 4:44, just as in thesynoptics, not a whole region such as Judea or Gali lee. But i t is anyvillage, not a part icular one. The question in the immediate context ishow long Jesus will remain in the Samaritan vil lage of Sychar (4:5),but under o ther ci rcumstances i t might have been Bethany or Cana

or Capernaum. The point is s imply to reinforce the not ion that Jesus 'ministry was an i t inerant one.

Read in this light, John 4:44 recalls the principle laid down in thesecond-century in the Didache: "L et every apo stle w ho co m es to yoube received as the Lord, but he shall stay only one day or if neces-sary a second as well; but if he stays three days, he is a false prophet"Did. 11:4-5). Th ese instru ction s be lon g to wh at the wr iter calls the

"behavior o f the Lord" (τους τρόπους κυρίου, lit . "the ways of theL o r d , " Did. 11:8) , a phr ase sug gest in g a t radi t ion about Je su s ' ow npractice during his ministry. I t is natural to ask whether or not thiswas consistent ly Jesus ' pract ice in the Gospel of John. Many com-m enta to rs have po in ted ou t a s ix -day sequen ce in John 1 :1 9-2 :11 ,and one could make a case that Jesus spent four days in "Bethanybeyond Jo rdan" (1 :28 ) , t he sequence be ing punc tua ted by the

repeated phrase, "the next day" in 1:29, 35, and 43. But Jesus did notappear on the scene unti l the second day (v. 29), and on the fourth"decided to leave for Gal i lee" (v. 43) . When he arr ived at the Canawedding, i t was said to be "the third day" (2:1), not the sixth, andafter the wedding Jesus moved on with his d isciples and relat ives toCapernaum, where he remained "no t many days" (2 :12) . Later heremained a t the same "Bethany beyond Jordan" for an undeterminedperiod of t ime (10:40) , and when he learned that h is f r iend Lazaruswas s ick he "remained two days in the place where he was" (11:6) .Similarly, we are told that he stayed "two days" with the Samaritansat Sychar (4:40), and after the two days left for Gali lee (4:43). Thefeast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem was a seven-day feast , but Jesus didnot arrive at the Temple unti l "i t was already the middle of the feast"(7 :14) .

I t appears that t ime designat ions in th is Gospel , when they areprecise do tend to agree with the tradit ion about i t inerant prophets



found in the Didache. Oth er t ime in tervals are lef t inde term inate ,pe rhaps de l ibe ra t e ly,1 5 but nothing in the Gospel f lat ly violates thatt rad i t ion—un t i l Jesu s com es to Jerusa lem He arr ives in Beth any (not

"b ey o n d Jo r d an , bu t near Jerusalem) "s ix days before Passover"(12:1) , and proceeds from there, af ter h is anoint ing by Mary, in toJe r u sa l em ( 1 2 : 1 2 - 1 9 ) , wh e r e h e r em a i n s u n t il h i s d ea t h an dresurrec t ion . For th i s reason , those in terpre ters who have arguedthat in the f inal analysis Jesus ' πατρίς is specifically the city ofJerusalem have a po in t wor thy of cons idera t ion .1 6 Jerusalem is pre-eminent ly the place where Jesus has "no honor," or rather where the

honor he does have proves false. The form of the parenthet ical asidein John 4:44 is not iceably s imilar to that of another such commentmade by the nar ra tor in connect ion wi th Jesus ' f i r s t v i s i t toJerusalem (2:24-25) . This can be shown as fol lows:

John 2:24-25: Bu t Jesu s hims elf [αυτό? 8è Ιησούς ] did not entrust himselfto them because he knew all things, and because he had no need for anyoneto testify about human beings [περ ί τοΰ άνθρω που] , fo r he h imse lf knew

[αυτός γά ρ έγ ίνω σ κεν] what was in humans [έν τω άνθρώ πω ] .John 4:44 . For Jesus himself testif ied1 7 [αύτός· γα ρ Ίησ ους• έμα ρτύρ η σ εν]that a prophet has no honor in his home town.

The a lmost fo rmula ic s imi lar i ty sugges ts tha t the same nar ra tor(probably the Gospel wri ter) is at work in both places. The narratorreminds us in the first instance that Jesus did not trust the people ofJerusalem, o r in fac t human beings genera l ly,1 8 and in the second

that Jes us had actually said som ethin g to that ef fe ct . T he im plica tionof Jesus ' remark is that he chose for h imself an i t inerant minist ry,with no "home town" in this world. This, the narrator tel ls is , is why

1 5 No t only 2:12; 7:14; and 10:40, but 3:22, when Jesus "re m ain ed " with hisdisciples somewhere in Judea and baptized, and 11:54, when he "remained" withthem at a place called Ephraim for an unspecified length of time.

1 6 See , e .g . E. C. Ho skyn s , The Fourth Gospel (Lon don: Faber and Fabe r,1947) 260-61; and J . Willemse, "La Patr ie de J é sus se lon Sa in t Jean , TS 11(1964-65) 349-64 .

1 7 Or had tes t i f ied . Not ice tha t έμαρτύρησεν in 4:44 is aorist, in contrast tothe im per fect s έπ ίσ τευ εν ("entru sted ") in 2:24 and έγίνω σ κ εν ("kne w" ) in 2:25.This rendering would imply that the narrator understood Jesus ' comment about theprophet without honor to have preceded his departure from Samaria in chap. 4.

1 8 Cf . 5:41-42 , wh ere Jesu s reinforc es the point of 2:24 -25 in his ow n w ords:

" I do not receive g lory f rom human beings [πα ρά ανθρώ πω ν] , and wh at ' s more Ikno w yo u [άλλα έγνω κα υμάς·], that you do not have the love of Go d in yo u. "



he lef t Sy cha r in Sam ar ia af ter on ly two day s— des pi te the Sa m ar i -tans ' fai th (vv. 41-42)—and moved on to Cana in Gal i lee (4:43-46) .

The larger Johannine set t ing of the pr inciple that "A prophet has

no honor in h i s home town" (προφήτης έν τη ιδία π α τρ ίδ ι τιμ ή νούκ 6χ6ι) is of course the notice that Jesus "came to his own [eis ταίδια], 1 9 and h is own people [ 1 ίδ ιο ι] did not re cei ve h im " (1: 11 ).Implici t ly, the accent is at f i rs t on Jesus ' reject ion by his πατρίς —and by the wor ld2 0—but because Jesus knows the end f rom thebeginn ing (2 :24-25) th i s theme qu ick ly g ives way to Jesus ' re jec t ionof h is π α τρ ίς · in fa vo r of an i t ineran t min ist ry . "H is ow n " are no

longer the people of the world , but "his own who are in the world"(τους ίδίους τους- έν τω κό σ μ ω , 13:1), that is , his disciples.2 1 M o r e -over, God is "his own Father" (πατέρα ίδιον, 5 :18) , and Jesus seeksnot "his own glory" (τήν δόξαν τήν ιδίαν) , but that of h is Father(7:1 8; cf . 8 :50 , 54) . Jesu s "ho no rs " his Fath er (τ ιμ ώ , 8 :49) , and h isFath er, in turn , has com m it ted "al l ju d gm en t" in to his han ds, "so thata ll mig ht ho no r [ τ ιμ ώ σ ι] the Son jus t as they ho no r the Fa ther.

W ho ev er d oes no t hon or [ό μ ή τ ιμ ώ ν] the Son does no t ho no r theFather who sent h im" (5:23) . Jesus in the Gospel of John is not apoor beggar looking for "honor" in the wor ld and f ind ing none, bu ta S t ranger who knows where he comes f rom and where he i s go ing(8:14) . In a way he is the model for the wel l -known ancient port rai tof bel ieving Chris t ians as those who "dwell in their own father lands[πατρ ίδας . . . ίδ ία ς ], but as if sojourners in them; they share allth ings as ci t izens, and suffer al l th ings as s t rangers . Every foreigncountry is their father land [ πά σ α ξένη πα τρίς ], and every fatherlandis a foreign country [π ά σ α πα τρίς ξένη] . "2 2

Luke 4:24 and Gospel of Thomas §31

The tension in John 's Gospel between the reject ion of Jesus by hisπ α τ ρ ί ς 1 : 1 1 ) ) a nd h is o w n c o n sc io u s r ej ec ti on of any πατρίς in

1 9 Ac cord ing to the RS V, "h is own ho m e" (see 16:32 , wh ere Jesus te l ls h isdisciples that they will be scattered "each to his own home," and 19:27, where thebeloved disciple takes Jesus ' mother " to his own home") .

2 0 See 1:10: "H e wa s in the wo rld, and the wo rld w as ma de throug h him, andyet the world did not know him."

2 1 Cf . "h is ow n shee p" (τα 'ίδια π ρ ό β α τα, 10:3, and vv. 4, 12. A lso 15:19: "Ifyou w er e of the worl d, the wo rld wo uld lo ve its ow n [τό ίδιο ν], bu t be ca us e y ou

are not of the wor ld, but I ha ve chos en you out of the wo rld, the world h ates yo u. "22 Epistle to Diognetus 5.5 (Loeb edit ion of Apostolic Fathers 2.35 9-61 ).



world (4:44) f inds a paral lel , perhaps unexpectedly, in the Gospel ofL u k e . Af t e r r ead i n g f r o m I sa i ah 6 1 : 1 - 2 in t h e sy n a g o g u e a tNazare th , and conclud ing tha t "Today th is scr ip ture i s fu l f i l l ed inyour ears" (Luke 4:17-21) , Jesus chal lenges the ci t izens of the townby almost l i teral ly put t ing words in their mouth: "Doubt less you wil lquo te to m e th is p rov erb : 'Do ctor , heal yourse l f W ha teve r we h aveheard done in Capernaum, do a l so here in your home town '" (v 23) .Then Jesus gives his answer: "Truly, I say to you that no prophet isaccep tab le in h is home town" (v 24) .2 3 Here i t is a question of aprophet be ing "accep tab le" (δεκτός) , rather than of f inding "honor"

(τ ιμή) in h is home town. But "acceptable" to whom? Perhaps becauseof the para l le l passages in the o ther Gospels , commenta tors havecustomar i ly taken i t as accep tab le to the home town, or the peoplewho l ive there. The usage of δεκτός-, however, in the New Testamentand ancien t l i t e ra ture genera l ly does no t bear th i s ou t , as Bauer ' slex icon tac i t ly admi ts : "on ly here o f human recogni t ion , e l sewherea l w a y s o f r e c o g n i t i o n b y G o d . "2 4 I t i s clear ly a mat ter of

"recogni t ion by God" in the immedia te ly-preced ing Scr ip ture quota-t ion, where Jesus announces his in tent ion "to proclaim the acceptable[δέκτον] year of the Lord" (4:19) , and the burden of proof is onthose who would read i t merely as human recogni t ion in 4:24.

That the Lukan form of the saying about the prophet is not Luke'screat ion is evident f rom the Gospel of Thomas §31: "Je su s said: N oprophet is acceptable in h is v i l lage; no doctor heals those who know

h i m "2 5 (or, in the Gree k of PO xy 1.6: λ έγ ει Ί(η σ οΰ )ς• ούκ è a t l v

δ εκ τό ? π ρ ο φ ή της - έν τή π ( α τ ) ρ ίδ ι α ύ τ [ο ]υ , ού δέ ια τρό ς- π ο ιε ίθερ α π ε ία ς- εις- τους- γε ινώ σ κ ο ντα ς- α ύ τό[ ν] ) .2 6 This form of the

2 3 Th is tran sla tion rea ds ούδείς as an ad ject ive modify ing "prophet . " Anotherpossible translation takes ουδείς· as a pro no un : "N o one is acc ep tab le as a pro ph etin h is home town" (see BAGD 591-92) .

2 4 B A G D 174. Cf . a lso J . No l land , Luke 1-9:20 (W BC 35 a ; Da l las : W ord ,1989) 200.

2 5 M ost scholars now agree that the Thomas saying s are generally indep ende ntof the canon ical Go spels . A l though a case could be m ade here for dep end enc e onLuke, i t would imply rather cumbersome editor ial work on Luke by the compilersof the sayings mater ial . More l ikely, the two pronouncements about the doctor andthe proph et we re l inked in a pre-Luk an saying s collection now partially represen tedin the Oxyrhynchus Papyri and the Gospel of Thom as.

2 6 For the text, see K. Ala nd, Synopsis Quattuor Evengeliorum (S tu t tgar t :Deutsche Bibelgesel lschaf t , 1995) 50 ; and E. Klos termann (ed . ) , Apocrypha II



pronouncement is in two parts , one about a prophet and one about adoctor. The lat ter sounds l ike an appropriate reply to the words ofLu ke 4 :23a , "Docto r, heal yourse l f "2 7 T h e acco mp an y i n g d eman d ,"Whatever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in yourho m e tow n" (v. 23b ) m ade it c lear that "H eal yo u rs el f ' real ly m ean t"Heal those who are closest to you (i .e. heal us)." In Luke 4:24 Jesuschanges the image f rom doctor to p rophet , whi le in Thomas bo thim ag es — w e can hard ly ca l l them m etapho rs , fo r Jesus is literallyboth healer and prophet—are a t work s imul taneously. The under-standing of δέκτο? appears to be the same in these texts as in Luke.

Just as "No doctor heals those who know him" sounds more l ike astated policy of doctors than of patients, so "No prophet is acceptablein his home town" should be read not as a complaint but as the statedpol icy of an i t inerant prophet . I f prophecy is an i t inerant cal l ing,then no prophet acceptable to God ( that is, no true prophet) stayshome.

In Luke 4 , th is pr inciple is borne out by the example of two

prophets who were also healers: El i jah , who was sent not to the"m any w ido w s in Israel ," but to "a wido w at Zare phath in S id on "( v v.25-26) , and El isha, who cleansed Naaman the Syrian instead of the"many lepers in Israel" (v. 27). Both went to foreigners on their ownini t iat ive, not because they were f i rs t rejected in their "home town"or "nat ive country." Jesus too has his own agenda, not one determin-ed by the response of this place or that . Though he is in fact rejected

in Luke (and almost kil led) by the cit izens of Nazareth (vv. 28-30),his is the action, theirs the reaction. He moves on to Capernaum, asan i t ineran t p rophet should ,2 8 and after casting out a demon in the

Evangelien (Berlin: de Gru yter, 1929) 19.2 7 A diffe ren t but equally appropriate reply to such a dem and can be fou nd in

another context in the canonical Gospel tradit ion: "Not those who are well have

need of a doctor, but those who are sick" (Matt 9:12 = Mark 2:17 = Luke 5:31).2 8 Th e tension in Luk e betwe en the notion that Jesus visi ted C ap ern au m first

and then Nazareth (based on the words Jesus a t t r ibu tes to the townspeople ofNazareth , 4 :23) , and the not ion that he went f i r s t to Nazareth and then toCapernaum (based on Luke's actual narrative sequence) is well known. It is usuallyattr ibuted to Luke's tacit acknowledgment of the Markan narrative, in which Jesusreac hes Ca pe rna um already in cha p. 1 and Na zareth not unti l cha p. 6 . As L u ke 'snarrative stands, the summary reference in 4:14-15 to a teaching ministry in the

synagogues of Galilee allows for an ear lier visi t to Capernaum without mentioningit explicitly.



synagogue and per fo rming o ther exo rc i sms and hea l ings (4 :31 -42 )bids farewel l to that town too: "I must proclaim the gospel of thekingdom of God to the other towns also, because for this I was sent"(v. 43 ) . Wi th th i s , he con t inues "mak ing p roc lamat ion in thesynagogues of Judea" (v. 44) . The scope of Jesus ' minist ry is thewhole o f Jewish Pales t ine ,2 9 but as Luke's Gospel unfolds i t becomesapparent that h is goal is Jerusalem. "As the days drew near for h imto be taken up," Luke tel ls us, "he set his face to go [του πορεύεσθαι]to Jerusalem" (9:51, and note the repet i t ion of πορεύεσθαι , "go," invv. 52-53, 56, 57). Later, when some Pharisees urge him to "Get outand go on f rom here [πορεύου εντεύθεν] , fo r Herod wants to k i l ly ou " (13:31 ) , he repl ies , "G o and tell that fox , 'Lo ok , I dr iv e ou tde m on s and accomp l ish heal ings today and tom orrow [σ ή μ ερον κα ία ύρ ιο ν], and on the third day I am fin ish ed ' [τη τρ ίτη τελ ειο ύ μ α ι] "(v. 32 ) . Then he con t inues , sound ing redundan t : "Never the less[π λή ν], I m ust [δεΐ μ ε] go on my way toda y and tom or ro w an d thenext day [σ ή μ ερον καί α ύρ ιον καί τη έχο μ ένη π ο ρ εύεσ θα ι], fo r it is

not possible that a prophet should be kil led outside of Jerusalem" (v.33) . This saying in turn occasions the lament , "Jerusalem, Jerusalem,she w ho kil ls the pro ph ets and ston es tho se w ho are sent to her H owoften I wanted to gather your children in the way a hen gathers herbroo d un der her win gs, and you wou ld not See, you r ho use is lef t toyou. And I tell you , you will not see me until the time when you say'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord '" (vv 34-35; cf .

Mat t 23 :37-39) .Jesus ' response to the Phar i sees ' warn ing re inforces h is ro le as

i t inerant prophet, but only if vv. 32 and 33 are read together. To acasual modern reader, v. 33 may appear to be merely a repeti t ion ofv. 32, but it is not. Verse 32 by itself is simply Jesus' way of tellingthe Pharisees, "I ' l l go when I 'm good and ready." He has his ownagenda of exorcism and healing, and will not have his hand forced by

H er o d ' s th rea ts . Th e ex cha ng e recal l s a s imi lar wa rn in g f ro m h isown disciples in John 11:8, expressing surprise that he would return

2 9 This is indicated by the str iking "Ju dea " (corrected in som e ma nus cripts to"Galilee") in v. 44. "Judea" is probably meant not in contrast to Galilee ( the focusof 4:14-15), but as a wider designation for all of Palestine (see Nolland, Luke 216,who cites Luke 1:5; 6:17; 7:17; 23:5; and the book of Acts generally) . Luke 4:44,

therefore , s ignals an expansion or widening of Jesus ' hor izons as an i t ineran tprophet, even though much that follows still takes place in Galilee.



to Judea: "Rabbi , just now the Judeans were t ry ing to s tone you, andyou a re go ing the re aga in?" "Are the re no t twe lve hours o fdayl ight?" he repl ied. "If anyone walks in the dayt ime, he does notstumble, because he sees the l ight of this world. But if anyone walksat nig ht, he stum ble s, becau se the l ight is not with hi m " (John 11:9-10). The point of both replies is that Jesus is not in danger until his"hour," or appointed t ime of death, has come. Until then, he is invul-nerable (see John 7:30; 8 :20; and cf . 8 :59; 10:39; and Luke 4:30) .Jesus will not go on his way simply because the Pharisees tel l him heis in danger. Yet, as v. 33 reminds us, he goes nonetheless. Th e con-

junct ion πλην ("and yet ," or "nonetheless") should be given i ts fu l lforce. Jesus does precisely what the Pharisees urge him to do (v 33),but only after making i t very clear that he is doing i t on his owninit iat ive and not theirs (v. 32). They tel l him to "go" (πορεύου, v.31), and in reply he defiantly tel ls them in turn, "Go [πορευθέντε?]and tel l that fox , 'Loo k, I dr ive out de m on s and accom plish hea l ing stoday an d tom orr ow , and on the th ird day I am f in is h ed " ' (v. 32) .

But then he announces his own intent ion to "go" [πορεύεσθαι] af terall — no t at their req uest but out of divin e necess ity: "I mus t [δει μ ε]go on my way today and tomorrow and the next day, for i t is notpossible that a prophet should be kil led outside of Jerusalem" (v. 33).He does what he is urged to do, but not because of the urg ing . A s ani t ineran t p rophet , he moves accord ing to God 's p lan , and no oneelse ' s .3 0

Conclusions: Did Luke and John Get It Right?

The ev idence of John 4 :44 and Luke 4 :24 sugges ts tha t bo thGospels use the saying about a prophet not being "acceptable" or nothaving "honor" in his home town to dramatize Jesus ' cal l ing as an

3 0 The incident recal ls two o thers in Jo hn 's Gos pel where Jesus is asked

(implicit ly or explicit ly) to do something, seems at f irs t to refuse, but then, af terestablishing his independence of all human agendas, accedes to the request . Thef i r s t was h is mother ' s comment a t the Cana wedding that "They have no wine"(John 2:3), to which Jesus first replied, "What has that to do with me? My hour hasnot yet come?" (v 4), but to which he then responded with his first miracle (vv. 5-11). The second was his brothers' advice in Galilee before the Feast of Tabernaclesto "Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples too may see the works youare doin g . . . . as long as you are doing these things, show yourself to the w or ld"

(John 7:3-4) . Again Jesus f irs t refused (vv. 6-9) , but then went af ter al l , "notpublicly but in secret" (v. 10).



i t ineran t p rophet . They do so independent ly, however, and in veryd i fferen t ways . In th i s respect , they s tand apar t f rom Mark andMatthew, who read the saying simply as Jesus' reaction to hosti l i ty inhis home town and immediate family on one occasion. Luke retainsMark 's connect ion to the l i teral home town and makes i t even moreexpl ici t ly Nazareth , but also makes the t radi t ional proverb program-mat ic fo r the whole o f Jesus ' min is t ry. The Gospel of Thomasprovides evidence, f irst , that the Lukan form of the saying circulatedmore widely than Luke and is probably older than Luke, and second,that i t i s not necessar i ly l inked to Nazareth . John 's Gospel confirmsthis by inser t ing a s l ight ly different form of the proverb in to i tsaccount o f Jesus ' depar tu re f rom the v i l lage of Sychar in Samar iaaf ter a two-day visi t . Luke, in i ts own very different set t ing, pre-serves a recol lect ion that the i t inerant nature of Jesus ' minist ry wasas much a problem for the people of an unnamed Samari tan vi l lageas for the pe op le of Naza reth . Ju st af te r Jes us "set h is fac e to go[π ορ εύεσ θα ι] to Jer usa lem " (Lu ke 9:51) , he "sent m esse nge rs [presu-

mably h is d isc ip les] before h is face , and they went [πορευθέντε?]and entered a vil lage of the Samaritans, so as to prepare for him" (v.52) .31 But Luke quickly adds, "they did not receive him, because hisface was headed [πορευόμενον] fo r Jerusalem" (v. 53) . Af ter Jesus 'rebuked his d isciples for want ing to cal l down f i re f rom heaven onthese Samar i tans , " they went on [έπορεύθησαν] to ano ther v i l lage"(v. 56)—but whether in Samaria, Judea, or Gal i lee we are not to ld

The independent tes t imony of Luke (wi th the suppor t o f theThomas t radi t ion) and of Jo h n 's Gosp el is that Jesus did not m erelyquote a fami l iar p roverb about p rophets be ing unwelcome a t home,but that he t ransformed i t in to a guiding pr inciple for h is minist ry.The proverb ' s s ign i f icance for h im was by no means l imi ted to aspec i f i c inc iden t in Nazare th . Though wide ly known as " theN a z a r e n e " ( ei th e r ό Ν α ζα ρ η ν ό ?3 2 o r ό Ν αζω ρα ΐο ς1 3 3) , Jesus never

3 1 Cf . 10:1: "A fte r this , the Lord app ointe d seve nty [ two] othe rs, and sentthem two by two before his face, to every town and place where he was going tocome."

3 2 M ark 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6 ; Lu ke 4:3 4; 24: 19.3 3 M atth ew 2:23 ; 26:7 1; Lu ke 18:37; Joh n 18 :5,7 ; 19:19; Ac ts 2:22 ; 3:6; 4:1 0;

6:14; 22:8; 26:9. Jesus 's followers, accordingly, were known by their enemies as a" sec t o f the Naz arenes" ( i. e. τώ ν Ν α£ω ραίω ν α ίρέσ εω ? , Ac ts 24 :5 ). Ν αζω ρα ίο? ,

with i ts play on both "Nazareth" and "nazir i te" ( in the sense of one who, l ikeSamson, took vows of holiness), may well have been first used ironically by Jesus'



appl ied tha t te rm to h imsel f dur ing h is min is t ry, and on ly onceassented to i ts use by others .3 4 Rather, he was an i t inerant prophetwho cal led no town or v i l lage his home.

This is not , of course, a s tar t l ing conclusion. The saying, "Foxeshave holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of manhas nowhere to lay his head" (Matt 8 :20 = Luke 9:58) is wel l knownand widely accepted as authent ic .3 5 But the saying about the prophetin Luke and John test if ies to greater intentionali ty on Jesus' part . I t isnot a mat ter of "Poor Jesus, he had no home," but of a consciouspurpose in his l i fe to keep moving from vi l lage to vi l lage through

Gali lee, Samaria, and Judea toward the ci ty where al l t rue prophetscome to grief (Luke 13:33). Echoes of that intention are, as we haveseen, present even in John, who has Jesus coming to Jerusalem notonce but four t imes (in chaps. 2, 5, 7, and 12). In short , the JesusSeminar was r igh t : John 4 :44 should be pr in ted in p ink . I amtempted to be playful , and say "That 's a s tar t . Now let ' s look again atthe oth er 8 78 ve rses in Jo hn ," but I wi l l resis t that . Th e poin t is

ra ther tha t the Jesus Seminar seems to have come to the r igh tdec is ion fo r the wr on g rea so n— no t tha t " the s im ple pro ver b w asplausible in the context of Jesus' activity and the rejection of him inh i s own v i l l age , "3 6 bu t tha t Jesus h imse l f t r ans fo rmed a s imp lepro ve rb in to som eth in g qu i te d i ff eren t , the m arch ing orde rs of h isown prophet ic miss ion .

Th is is wh ere the issue is jo in ed . W as it Jesu s him self , or w as the

t rans fo rmat ion o f the p roverb the work o f the ea r ly chu rch?Cer ta in ly Luke knows of p rophets who were no t i t ineran t as Jesuswas, but who seem to have been "stat ioned," at least for a t ime, inpar t icu lar congregat ions . Thei r ro les inc luded being emissar ies au th-

enemies, and only later taken up (as in the book of Acts) by his own followers.3 4 In John 18:4, Jesu s asked the soldie rs wh o had co m e to arrest him , "W ho

are you lo okin g for? " Th ey replied, "Je sus the N az are ne ," and he said, "I am he "(έγώ είμ ι, v. 5; cf . vv. 7-8) . Th e term " N az are ne " (Ν α£ω ραίος· here) is their te rm,not h is , and the d is t inctive Johan nine s ign if ican ce of έγώ ε ίμ ι is we l l -know n (seeJohn 8:24, 28, 59; 13:19) . The risen Jesu s , ho we ver , in the seco nd of Pa ul ' saccounts of his Damascus road experience, does tell Paul, "I am Jesus the Nazarene(aga in Ν α ^ω ρα ιο? ) , w hom you a re per sec u t ing" (Acts 22 :8 ) . In each in s tance ,Jesus (whether ear th ly or r isen) seems to be represented as accommodat ing h isspeech to the vocabulary and the expectations of his (unbelieving) hearers.

3 5 See Fun k and Hoo ver, The Five Gospels, 160-61, 316 -17.3 6 Funk and Hoo ver, The Five Gospels, 491 (see abo ve , n. 3).



or ized to de l ive r m essa ges f ro m Je ru sa lem to s i st e r co ng reg a t io ns —A ga b u s and o t he r s to An t i och ( Ac t s 11 : 27) , A ga b u s t o Ca esa r ea(21 :10 ) , and S i l as and Ju da s Ba r sa bb as to A nt io ch (A ct s 15 :22 ,3 2 ) 3 7 — a n d app o i n t i ng m i s s i on a r i e s f r o m t he ir n um b er t o p r o c l a i mthe Chr is t ian gospel where i t had not yet gone—that i s , the several

p r o p he t s and t eac he r s a t An t i o ch t h r ou g h wh o m t h e Ho l y S p i r i tspoke exp l i c i t ly abou t Pau l and Barnabas (Act s 13 :1 ) . Bu t Lukeknows of no i t inerant Chr is t ian prophets in qui te the sense impl iedby Lu ke 4 :24 ( ac ce p ta b le to G od prec i se ly be ca us e they d id no ts tay in one p lace) , or even in the sense of John 4:44 (because they

re fused to s t ay anywhere longer than two days) . Luke and John a rewi l l ing to a t t r ibute such a l i fes ty le to Jesus , but unwi l l ing to make i tex em p l a r y f o r a ll ( pe r ha ps n o t f o r an y ) Ch r i s t i an p r o p h e t s o rmiss ionar ies . Even though Jesus t e l l s h i s d i sc ip les in John ' s Gospe l ,

A s the Fa the r has sent me , so I send yo u (John 20:2 1; cf . 17:18) ,and warns them of ha t r ed and r e jec t ion in the wor ld ( John 15 :18-16:3) , there i s no evidence that the Johannine communi ty was in any

way an i t inerant or t ransient communi ty. On the cont rary, what l i t t leev idence the so -ca l l ed Johann ine wr i t ings do p rov ide po in t s r a thertow ard a susp ic ion o f i t ine ran t t eache r s . I f any one co m es to yo u ,the El de r w r i tes , an d do es not br ing th is tea ch ing , do not rec eiv eh i m i n to you r house or s ay ' W e l c om e , ' f o r wh oeve r s ays ' W e l c om e 'to such a pe rson sha res in his evi l de ed s (2 Joh n 10-11) .3 8

As we have seen, only the Didache see m s to ref lec t the pra ct ice of

Jesus impl ied by John 4 :44 and Luke 4 :24 . Even here , the per sonw ho co m es and is t o be r ece i ved a s t he L o r d is an ' ap o s t l e

3 7 Th ese , Da v id Au ne no tes , a re the on ly N T exa m ples o f t r ips t aken byprop he t s fo r the spec i f i c pu rp ose o f exe rc i s ing the ir p rophe t i c g i f t s (Pr o p h e c y i nEarly Christianity and the ncient Mediterranean World [Grand Rap ids : Ee rd ma ns ,1983] 212) .

3 8 M os t o f the o the r ev id enc e f rom 1, 2 , and 3 John i s am big uo us . 1 John2 :19 , fo r ex am ple , cou ld re fe r to tho se wh o wen t ou t f r om us a s i t ine ran tmiss iona r ie s who p roved to be fa l se , bu t more l ike ly re fe r s to sch i sm wi th in aJoh ann ine congreg a t ion . S imi la r ly, the fa l se p rophe t s who have gone ou t in to thew or ld (1 Joh n 4 :1) cou ld be i t inerant fa l se pro ph ets , but a re jus t as like ly fa lseprophets pure and s imple ( the same is t rue in 2 John 7) . On the posi t ive s ide , the

bro the r s to wh om the Elde r r e fe r s in 3 John , to wh om G aius show ed hosp t i ta l i ty(vv. 5-8) whi le D iotrep hes d id not (v. 10) , could be i t inerant prop hets or tea che rs ,

but could jus t as eas i ly be emissar ies f rom the Elder 's congregat ion s imi lar to theemissar ies f rom Jerusa lem we meet in the book of Acts .





i f he wants to set t le among you, being a craf tsman, let him work andea t . I f he has no c ra f t , p rov ide fo r h im accord ing to your under-standing, so that no one wil l l ive in idleness with you as a Christ ian.I f he refus es , he is m ak ing t raff ic of Chr is t . Bew are of su ch (12:3-5) . W he n they go on to s ta te that eve ry t rue pro ph et wh o w an ts toset t le am on g you is w or th y of h is fo od (13:1) , they are not rea l lysay ing any th ing new. Whether one i s spec i f i ca l ly a p rophe t , o r at raveler in a more general sense , the ru le about s taying only twodays is not a hard and fast one. If one has a serious desire to give upi t inerancy, se t t le down in the communi ty, and become a cont r ibut ing

m em be r, every e ffo r t i s m ad e to hon or that desi re .In short , the evidence of the idache is that w hi le Je su s ' say ing

about prophets seems to have been adapted t o the Chr i s t i an com m u-nit ies in vie w the re, it did not or igin ate in such co m m un it ie s. N or isi t l ike ly that the communi t ies supposedly represented in the so-cal led

Q m a t e r i a l co m m on t o M a t t hew an d L u ke a r e r e spo n s i b l e f o rt r an sfo rm ing a f ami l i a r p rove rb in to a jus t i f i c a t ion o f the i t ine ran t

l i f es ty le . A l thoug h a num ber o f say ings co m m on ly ass igned to Qdo cal l hearers to such a l i fes ty le (Mat t 8 :18-22 = Luke 9:57-62, forex am ple ) , th is k ind of ma ter ia l is no m ore chara cter i s t ic of Q thanof o ther Go spe l t radi t ions . In M ark, for ex am ple , Jesu s sends out h isd i sc ip les and t e ll s them , W he ne ve r you en te r a hou se , st ay the reunti l you go out , and whatever place does not receive you or l isten toyou, go out f rom there and shake off the dust that is under your feet ,

as a w i tness to the m (M ark 6:10-11; cf . M at t 10:11-14; Lu ke 9 :4-5 ,10:5-12) . Jesus ' d isc ip les are i t inerant dur ing h is minis t ry, but thei rw an de r ing s are not a im less: W he n they per secu te you in th is c i ty ,he co nc lud es in M at th ew , f le e to the next , for t ru ly I say to you ,you wil l not complete the ci t ies of Israel unt i l the Son of man hasc o m e (M at t 10:23) . Je su s ' ow n m arc hing orde rs are thei rs as w el l ,and the ir goal no less than his, is Jer usa lem (cf . M att 23:34 , w ith vv .

35-39) .Th e pos t - r esur rec t ion c hurch es were d i ff e re n t . So f a r as we kn ow ,

they were not sustained by i t inerant prophets, and their goal was notJe rusa lem. Yet they p rese rved and handed down Gospe l t r ad i t ionsabout i t inerancy even when these d id not coincide wi th how theyac tua l ly func t ioned as communi t i es . They seem to have main ta ined acont inui ty of in terpre ta t ion but not of pract ice . As for the speci f ic

say ing abo ut pro ph ets in thei r ho m e tow n, it i s not fo un d in Q(unless the Thomas t radi t ion can so m eh ow be t raced to Q ) , but







B E H I N D T H E T E M P TAT I O N S O F J E S U S

Q 4 : 1 - 13 A N D MA RK 1 :1 2 -13

Dale C. All ison, Jr.

Matt 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 tel l a story in which Jesus is thr icetempted by the devi l . The two accounts are so c lose that a common

origin within Q is, for those of us who accept the existence of thatsource , assured. There i s a lso a temptat ion nar ra t ive in Mark 1:12-13 . Th i s , by compar i son , i s much shor te r and in o ther r espec t sdi fferent . Here we fa i l to read about mul t ip ly ing s tones in to bread,or about obta in ing the k ingdoms of the wor ld , or about leaping offthe pinnacle of the temple. How are the two accounts related?

One possibi l i ty is that the cryptic Mark 1:12-13 is an abbreviat ionof the sto ry mo re f a i th fu l ly p res e rv ed in Q.1 A second is that Qof fe rs us an exp ans ion of the s tory that Mark re ta ined in tact .2 G i v enhow hard i t i s to see how one might have reduced Q 4:1-13 to thevery d i f f e re n t M ark 1 :12-13 or ex pa nd ed the l a t te r to c re a te theformer, the most l ikely a l ternat ive i s a th i rd , namely, that both ofour s tor ies are independent and so grew out of something not qui tel ike e i ther one.3 I t is the purpose of this essay to explore this lastpossib i l i ty and then to consider the impl icat ions for s tudy of thehistor ical Jesus.

1 So e .g . J . Lam brec h t , M ark 1 .1 -15 : M arkan Redac t ion o f Q? ,NTS 38(1992) 376-78 (defending the thes is tha t Mark knew and used Q) . Compare A. B.Lo rd , Th e Go spels as Oral Tradi t ional Li tera ture , in W . O. W alker , J r. (ed .) , TheRelationships among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue (San Antonio: Tr in-

i ty Univers i ty Press , 1978) 63 . For objec t ions see J . B. Gibson, The Temp tations

of Jesus in Early Christianity ( JSN TSu p 112 ; Sheff i e ld : Sheff i e ld Aca dem ic P ress ,1995) 38-40.

2 See R. E . Brow n, New T estament Essays (Ga rden Ci ty : D oub led ay, 1968)263-64 . W. Wi lkens ( Die Versuchung Jesu nach Mat thäus , NTS 28 [1982] 479-89) argues that Matthew created his temptation story from Markan materials and thatLuke then fo l lowed Mat thew.

3 So a l so J . Du pon t , Les tentations de Jésus au désert (S tNe o t 4 ; Bru ges :De sc lé e de Br ouw er, 1968) 80-97 . Th ese pages inc lude a r ev iew o f scho la r lyop in ions .





he was fed by angels9 or (according to another tradit ion) ate the foodof angels , manna.1 0 But af ter succumbing to the temptat ion of theserpent he was cast out ( the verb is έξέβαλβν in Gen 3:24 LXX).

This sequence of events is turned upside down in Mark. Jesus isf i rs t cast out . Then he is tempted. Then he gains companionship withthe an imal s1 1 and the service of angels (which probably includes

Gen 1:29-30 to mean, in accord with much ancient thought, that human beings andanimals were or iginally vegetar ians (contrast Gen 9:3) . Thus Isa 11:7 and 65:25(the lion will eat straw) mark a return to paradise. In Jewish legend Adam actuallyhas intercourse with the various beasts before Eve is given to him.

8 Adam and Eve 13:3-15:3 ( the ange ls wo rship Ada m ); 21 :1-3 ( the ange lsassist Eve even af ter the fall) ; 22:1-2 (M ichael teac hes A dam how to farm ); 33:1 -3( two angels guard Adam and Eve) ; Apoc. Mos. 29:1 -6, 14 (ange ls interce de forAdam after the fall) ; Apoc. Sed. 5 :2 ( the angels worship Adam).

9 Abot R. Nat. A §1: A da m wa s reclining in the Ga rden of Ed en and theminister ing angels s tood before him, roasting meat for him and cooling wine for

h im .10 Adam and Eve 4:2: An d Ad am said to Eve, 'Th e Lord appo rtione d this fo r

animals and beasts to eat, but for us there used to be the food of angels. '1 1 See the apo cryp hal acc oun ts in Gos. Ps.-Matt. 19 and 35 (A N F 8.37 6,

381). For the eschatological taming of animals, see Isa 11:6-9; 65:25; Hos 2:18;Phi lo , De praem. 85-9 0; Lu ke 10:19; 2 Bar. 73 :6 ; Sib. Or. 3 :788-95; Papias inI r enaeus , Adv. haer. 5 .33.3-4. Late rabbinic texts in Str-B 4/2.964-65. For fulld iscuss ion , see Ba uckh am , W ild An imals , 3 -21 , and E. Fascher, Jesus und d ie

Tie r re , TLZ 90 (1965) 561-70 . There are a lso Roman paral le ls—see Horace 's16th Epode and Virg i l ' s Fourth Ecloge—as well as para llels fr om the histo ry ofrelig ion s in gen eral. For Islamic parallels, see A. Je ffe ry, Th e Desc ent of Je su s inM uha m m ada n Eschato logy, in S . E. Johnson (ed . ), The Joy of Study (New York:Macmillan, 1951) 111-12. Although Bauckham mutes Mark 's Adam christology atthe expense of a David christology, he does effectively dispose of the proposals thatthe wild animals are simply part of the wilderness setting or allies of Satan (an ideacommon with the church Fathers) .

The theme of taming the wild beasts (note already Job 5:22-23) also appears inearly Christ ian stor ies about monks and ascetics, where i t is sometimes understoodas a return to paradise; see e.g . Sulpicius Severus, Dial. 1.13 (this co nc er ns anunnamed monk who, although he l ives in the desert , has a garden with much waterand a tame l ion) , and PG 65 .380D-381A (Apophthegmata Patrum, Ab ba Paul ,wh ere Paul of the The baid, wh o can handle snakes, says, I f som eon e has obtainedpurity, everything is in submission to him, as i t was to Adam, when he was inparad ise before he t ransgressed the commandment ) . For d iscuss ion see P. Nagel ,

Die Motivierung der Askese in der alten Kirche und der Ursprung des Mönchtums(TU 95; Ber l in : Akademie-Ver lag , 1966) 55-62.



bein g fed by them , as in 1 Kg s 19:5-8):12

Jesus

expulsiontemptationparadise

Adam

paradise ^temptationexpulsion

Another way to depict the contrast between the two stor ies is interms of results:

If T. Levi 18:10 pro ph esies that the M essiah w ill op en the gates ofEden and remove the sword that has guarded i t s ince Adam and Evefel l , then in Mark 1:12-13, Jesus, by his v ictory over Satan, seesparad ise res to red around h im.1 3 Such a reading is all the more likelygiven that , in the immediately preceding pericope, the descent of theHoly Spir i t as a dove over the waters is in tended to recal l thecreat ion account of Gen 1:1-2 .1 4 Moreover, Chr is t ian bap t i sm was ,f rom a very ear ly t ime, associa ted wi th recovery of the Adamicimage ,1 5 so the association of Jesus' baptism with paradisiacal themes

1 2 C o m p a r e Abot R. Nat. A § (as qu oted in n. 9). M a rk 's claus e is, an d theangels served (διη κό νουν) him . B A G D , s .v. , g ives the f irs t m ea nin g of verb asw ait on so m eo ne at tab le, and this is the sense it ha s jus t a fe w verse s later, in

M ark 1 :31 , wh ere Pe ter ' s mo ther- in- law ser ve s Jesus and the d isc ip les . See

fur ther E. Best , The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology(SN TS M S 2; Cam br idge: U nivers ity Press , 1965) 9-10 .

1 3 W he the r M ar k 's for ty da ys is par t of his Ad am typolog y is unclea r. Jub.3:9 relates that Adam was placed in Eden for ty days af ter he was created, and inAdam and Eve 6 :1 , 3 , Adam does penance for for ty days. Is this a coincidence, orwas this period of time firmly associated with the Adam legends?

1 4 See my ar ticle, Th e Ba ptism of Jesus and a N ew Dead Sea Scro ll ,BAR18 (1992) 489-95.

1 5 A. M eek s , Th e Ima ge of the An drog yne : So m e Use s of a Sym bol in

Earliest Christ ianity, HR 13 (19 74) 165-208 .

Adam succumbs to temptation

no longer are the beasts w ith Ad amno longer do the angels serve Adamno longer does Adam have the food of angels

Jesus overcomes temptation

• the beasts are with Jesus• the angels serve Jesus• Jesus has the food of angels

would be natural .



If the Jesus of Mark 1:12-13 undoes the work of Adam, then oneinev i t ab ly r eminded o f Pau l ' s ch r i s to logy, i n wh ich Adamdiso bed ienc e and i ts a t tendant effe cts are cont ras ted w i th Je suob edie nce and i ts at tendant effe cts (Ro m 5:12 -21; 1 Co r 15:21-45-49) . Indeed, one wonders , given the other intr iguing connect ibetween Mark and Paul ,1 6 whether Mark 1 :12-13 was composedunder Paul 's inf luence.

Q holds something very d i fferent . Here Jesus i s impl ici t lcompared and contrasted not with Adam but with Israel in twilderness . Q 4:3 quotes LXX Deut 8:3 ( And he aff l icted you,

he made you famished, and he fed you with manna, which yofathers knew not, in order to teach you that man shall not live bread alone, but that man shall l ive by everything that proceeds frthe mouth of God ) . Q 4:12 quotes LXX Deut 6:16 ( You shall ntempt the Lord your God, as you tempted him in the temptation Massah] ) . And Q 4:7 quotes LXX Deut 6:13 ( You shal l fear tLord your God, and him only shall you serve ) . Q offers us a h

gadic tale in which, as Tertull ian, De bapt. 20, already rec ogn ized ,Jesus repeats Israel 's history in the desert:

The temptations of Israel and Jesus

forty years/days in wilderness (Exod 16:35; Q 4:2)temptation by hunger (Exod 16:2-8; Q 4:2-3)temp tation to put God to the test (Exo d 17:1-3; Q 4 :9-12 )temptation to idolatry (Exodus 32; Q 4:5-8)1 7

Who f i r s t fo rmula ted Q ' s t empta t ion nar ra t ive? Accord ing common opinion, Q opened with f ive sect ions which, f rom T. Manson on, have often been reckoned a larger l i terary unit:1 8

the Proclamation of John the Baptist, Q 3:7-9, 16-17the Temptations of Jesus, Q 4:1-13the Sermon on the Plain, Q 6:20-49the Centurion's Servant, Q 7:1-10

John and Jesus, Q 7:18-35

1 6 K. Rom aniuk, Le Problème des Paul in ismes dans l 'Évan gi le de M arNTS 23 (1977 ) 266-74.

1 7 See fur ther B. Gerh ardsson, The Testing of God's Son (Matt 4:1-11Par.) (C on B N T 2.1; Lun d: Gle eru p, 1966). No te also the pop ular yet instrucwork of A. Farrer, The Triple Victory: Christ's Temp tation according to St.

Matthew (Ca mb ridge : Co wle y, 1990).1 8 T. W. M anson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1949) 5.



We seem to have here a large chiasmus. The opening and closinguni ts concern John the Bapt is t and have much in common, as can beseen at a glance:

Q 3:7-9 16-17 Q 7:18-35

John spea ks abou t Jesus Jesus speak s about JohnJohn fore see s an Jesu s claim s to beeschatolog ical figure the eschatological figurewh o is com ing (3:16) . wh o is com ing (7:19-23)John speaks to the cro w ds Jesus spea ks to the cro w dsand addresses them as yo u and addresses them as yo u

(3:7) (7:24)John spea ks of Go d Jesus spea ks of wis do mraising up being justifie d bychild ren to Ab raham (3:8) her child ren (7:35)

Q 7:18-35 was deliberately designed to recall 3:7-9 + 16-17.Q 4 :1-13 and 7 :1-10 l ikewise belong together.1 9 They offer the

only extended narrat ives in Q2 0 and i ts only real d ialogues. Every-

where else we meet only sayings, al though occasionally these do havea narrat ive set t ing. So the two sect ions correspond formally. Theirco nte nts , fu rth er m or e, are also sim ilar. In both a fig ur e of auth orityasks Jesus to make use of h is supernatural powers. While in 4 :1-13Satan wants him to multiply bread and throw himself off the temple,in 7:1-10 the centur ion wants h im to heal h is son or servant . Thedifference is that whereas the requests of the former are i l legi t imate,the r eq ue st of the latter, is no t.

What then of the center of Q 3-7, namely, the sermon on the plain,Q 6:20-49? While th is has been out l ined in several ways, i t seemspla in enough that the beg inn ing and end correspond . The sermonop ens with blessing s: Ble ssed are you poor, e tc . (6 :20-2 3) . I t end swith a warning, with the parable about the person who hears anddoes not do and so is l ikened to a house which the s torm destroys(6:47-4 9) . Th us , in the wo rds of C. M . Tu cket t , the wh ole serm onmay be seen as dominated by a grand inclusio, set t ing the w ho leunder the rubric of eschatological promises and warning . . . .2 '

1 9 C f . Ε . S ev en ich - Bax , Israels Kon frontation mit den letzten Boten derWeisheit: Form, Funktion und Interdependenz der Weisheitselemente in derLogienquelle (Alten berge : Oro s, 1993) 265 -67.

2 0 Th e only other narrative is the very brief and hardly com para ble 11:14.2 1

C. M. Tu cke tt , Th e Son of M an in Q , in M . C. De Bo er (ed.) , FromJesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honou r of



One is , accordingly, encouraged to th ink that Q's f i rs t f ive uni tswere arranged in a large chiasmus in which each correlat ion was apair of opposi tes:2 2

A John speaks to the crowds about the coming oneΒ A figu re of authority asks for a miracle that Jesu s refus es

C BlessingsMain body of sermon

C' WarningsB' A figure in authority asks for a miracle Jesus that grants

A' The coming one speaks to the crowds about John

If this is the right analysis, one must ask to what extent 4:1-13, theQ temptation story, was redacted in order to make i t balance 7:1-10,the heal ing of the centur ian 's son/servant .2 3 We know from the closeparallel to the lat ter in John 4:46-54 that the story of the healing ofthe centurion's son or servant must have come to Q pretty much as i tis .2 4 But we have no such assurance with regard to Q's temptat ionnarrat ive. Maybe a desire to supply a counterpart to 7 :1-10 was one

of the factors that turned a pre-Q temptat ion s tory in to an extendednarrat ive with a d ialogue having as i ts subject Jesus ' abi l i ty to domiracles .

BE H I N D MA RK A N D Q

However that may be, i f one sets Mark 's account beside the recon-structed text of Q,2 5 the fol lowing motifs are shared:

• The Spirit as initiator of the experience

Marinus de Jonge (JS NT Su p 84; She ff ield: Ac adem ic Press, 1993) 206.2 2 For more details and for the use of ch ias m us els ew he re in Q, see the first

chapter of my book, The Jesus Tradition in Q (Val ley Fo rge: Tr in i ty Pres sInternational, 1997).

2 3 On o ther groun ds Poko rny ( In ten t ion , 125-26) sugge sts a redact ional

origin for Q 4:1-13; and A. Lindemann ( Die Versuchungsgeschichte Jesu nach derLog ienqu el le und das Vateru nser, in D. -A. Koch, G. Sel l in , and A. L inde ma nn[eds.] , Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im frühen Christentum:Beiträge zur Verkündigung Jesu und zum Kerygma der Kirche [Gü te r s loh : Mohn ,1989] 91-100) argues further that the Q temptation story may be a part ial exposit ionof Q ' s Lord ' s P raye r.

2 4 For John 4 :4 6-5 4 as an ind epe nd ent vers ion of the s tory in Q, see U.We g n e r , Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum ( W U N T 2 .1 4 ; Tü b i n g e n : M o h r [ S i e-

beck], 1985) 18-74.2 5 Th rou gho ut this essay I shall use the text of the International Q Project .



• Location in the wilderness• Temptation by devil (so Mark) or Satan (so Q)• Forty days

• Fas t ing and/or food f rom angels2 6

• Angels as servants

One guesses tha t somewhere beh ind Mark and Q was an Ur- t ex tthat conta ined a t leas t what our present nar ra t ives have in common.Al though th i s hypo the t i ca l Ur- t ex t canno t be r econs t ruc ted , i t i swor th specu la t ing on one po in t . Only two f igures in the HebrewBib le f as t fo r fo r ty days—Moses on S ina i (Exod 24 :18) and E l i j ah

on h i s way to Horeb (1 Kgs 19 :8 ) . Many, when comment ing onJesus ' temptat ions , have been reminded e i ther of one or of both oft he se expe r i ences .2 7 The fasts of Moses and Eli jah also took place inthe w i lder nes s , which fu r the r b r ings the syno pt i c s to r i es in to l inewi th them. But the presence of angels as servants makes us th ink ofEl i jah ' s exper ience as opposed to that of Moses . For nothing s imi lari s found in the Pen ta teuch .2 8 In 1 K ing s 19, by con tra st , El i ja h is

tw ice giv en foo d by an ange l (vv. 6- 8) — a str iking fac t if the an ge lsse rv ed is taken to refe r to the ang els fee din g Jesu s.

All this raises the tantalizing possibili ty that an early version of thetemptat ion narrat ive presented Jesus not as the new Israel or the lastAdam but as an eschatological prophet l ike El i jah . In l ine wi th th ishypothesis , severa l por t ions of the Jesus t radi t ion preserve episodesin which Jesus is l ike Eli jah.2 9 Fur thermore , because Chr i s t i ans came

2 6 In M ark the ser vice of the an ge ls im pl ie s Je su s ' fas t in g; see n . 12 .Moreover, s ince i t i s the angels who feed Jesus , and s ince manna was spoken of asthe brea d of ang els (Ps 75:28; 2 Esd r 1:19; W is 16:20), M ar k' s text ma y en visa ge

Jesus be ing fed manna. This i s so s t r ik ing because manna is what Is rae l a te in thewilderness , and Q's text has in i t s background Israe l ' s hunger dur ing the exodus .

2 7 E .g . I r enaeu s , Adv. haer. 5 .2 1 .2 ; Eu s e b i u s , Dem. ev. 3 .2 ; Ch r y s o s t o m,Horn, on Matt. 13 :2 ; Aug us t ine , Serm. 2 5 2 .11 ; Ep. 55 .28 ; Ca lv in , Inst. 4 .1 2 .2 0 ;

Ba u c k h a m , W i l d An i m a l s , 8 . S e e f u r t h e r K . - P. Ko p p e n , Die Auslegung derVersuchungsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Alten Kirche(BGBE4; Tüb ingen : Mohr [S iebeck] , 1961) 15-23 .

2 8 La te r Jew ish t r ad i t ion does , how ever , pu t ange l s on S ina i wi th M os es(compare Gal 3 :19) , and the Samari tan text , Memar Marqah 4 :6 , has M os es ea t ingthe bread of angels.

2 9 Se e e.g. M ark 1:16-20 ( this is m ode lled upon 1 Kg s 19:19-21, wh ere Eli jahcal ls El isha) ; 6 :15 and 8 :28 (some people say Jesus is El i jah) ; Luke 4 :25-26 (Jesus

compares h is own s i tua t ion to tha t of El i jah) ; 7 :11-17 ( the resurrec t ion of thew id ow 's son at Nain reca l ls El i jah 's mirac le in 1 Kgs 17:17-24) ; 9 :61-6 2 (com pare



to ide n t i f y Joh n the Bap t i s t a s the m ess en ge r o f M ai 4 :5 - 6 , suchpara l l e l i sm tended to d i s in tegra te as t ime moved on .3 0 Is this whathappened wi th the t empta t ion s to ry? Did an E l i j ah typo logy become

an Israel typology in one par t of the t radi t ion and an Adam typologyin another?

S o m e suppo r t f o r t h is con j ec t u r e m ay be d r aw n f r o m M at t h ew ' sredac t iona l ac t iv i ty. When the F i r s t Evange l i s t r edac ted Q 4 :1 -13 heglossed i t s I srael typology wi th h is own Moses typology.3 1 Further, i td id no t r equ i re much rework ing to ach ieve th i s—jus t a f ew add i t ionshere and there .3 2 This mat ters because the s tory of El i jah in 1 Kings

19 i s i t se l f a col lec t ion of in ter textual echoes: i t i s model led ont r ad i t i o n s abou t Moses on S i na i .3 3 So i f an ear ly version of thetem pta t ion nar ra t ive of Jes us— w ha t I hav e ca l l ed the U r- t ex t— dre wup on 1 K ing s 19 and dep ic te d Jes us as be ing l ike El i ja h , i t on lymakes sense that a descendant of that Ur- text could easi ly have beent u r ned i n t o a Moses t ypo l ogy— f or t he e l em en t s t h a t r eca l l ed t hes to ry o f E l i j ah and Horeb cou ld equa l ly have r eca l l ed Moses and

Sinai.

T H E T E M P TAT I O N S A N D J E S U S O F N A Z A R E T H

But what , i f anything, does a l l th is have to do wi th Jesus ofN az are th? Ac co rdin g to E . P. Sa nde rs , I t is rea son ab le to th ink thatJesus r ea l ly d id f as t and p ray before beg inn ing h i s ac t ive min i s t ryand that he w as subje ct to tem pta t ion . T he safe st co nc lus ion i s thatt he sy n op t i c gospe l s , e spec i a l l y Ma t t hew an d L u ke , a r e ' m y t ho l -o g i c a l ' e l a b o r a t i o n s b a s e d o n f a c t . 3 4 Is Sanders r ight , or is his

1 Kg s 19:19-21) . For per t inen t texts f r om Joh n, see J . L. M artyn , W e have fou ndEl i j ah , in R. Ha me r ton -K e l ly and R. Sc ro ggs (eds . ) , Jews, Greeks and Chris-tians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (SJ LA 21; Leid en: Bril l , 1976) 180 -219.

3 0 See M arty n, W e have fou nd El i ja h ; and P. Katz , Jes us a ls Vo r läu fer desChr i s tus : M ögl iche Hinw eise in den Evange l i en au f El ia a ls den 'T yp os ' Je s u ,TL52 (1996 ) 225-3 5. Th e la t te r f inds an El i jah typology in M ar k 's tempta t ion narra t ive .

3 1 D. C. Al l iso n, J r. , The New M oses: A Matthean Typology ( M i n n e a p o l i s :For t ress , 1993) 165-72.

3 2 See Al l i son , The New Moses.3 3 See Al l is on, J r. , The New Moses, 39-4 5. T he para l le ls , so ma ny of whic h

are obvious , a re a l ready ca ta logued in Pesiq. R. 4 .2.3 4

E . P. Sand ers , The Historical Figure of Jesus (Lo ndo n : Pen gu in , 1993)117.



eva lua t ion over ly sangu ine?3 5

T he acco u n t s o f J e su s ' b ap t i sm p r o ve t h a t an ev en t w i de l yreg ard ed as h i s to r i ca l can be em be l l i sh ed by m yth o lo g ic a l m ot i f s .

P e r h ap s it i s t he sam e wi t h t he t em p t a t i o n acc o u n t s . Ce r t a i n l yre l ig ious peop le have somet imes gone in to sec lus ion and in te rp re tedthei r exper iences in sol i tude as combat wi th evi l sp i r i t s . One needt h i n k o n l y o f A n t h o n y o f E g y p t a n d o t h e r e a r l y C h r i s t i a nm o n a s t i c s .3 6 And ye t we can hard ly be encouraged by what we havefound so f a r—a Q tex t wi th an I s r ae l typo logy, a Markan t ex t wi than Ad am chr i s to logy , and a hypo the t i ca l Ur- t ex t in wh ich Jesus w as

pe r h ap s an e scha t o l og i ca l p r oph e t l i ke E l i j ah . I n each ca se wesee m i ng l y ha ve t o do w i t h p o s t - E a s t e r ch r i s t o l o g i e s , n o t l i t e r a lrepor ts of an h is tor ica l exper ience , nor even wi th symbol ic accountsof such an exper ience .3 7 T. W. Manson ' s con ten t ion tha t our s to rygoe s back to Jesu s h im se l f , tha t it w as a par ab o l i c nar ra t ive fo r mfor the ins t ruct ion of h is d isc ip les , 3 8 ha rd ly appear s to agree wi ththe evidence.

T h e r e i s a f u r t h e r d i f f i cu l t y in ou r wa y. A l t h oug h co m m en t a t o r son the synopt i cs o f t en neg lec t to ment ion i t , f i c t i t ious nar ra t ives

3 5 Fo r a p lau s ib le a t t empt to exp la in the t emp ta t ion t r ad i t ions wi th ou t anyreference to an event in the l i fe of Jesus , see D. F. S t rauss , The Life of JesusCritically Examined (Phi ladelphia : For t ress , 1972) 259 -63.

3 6 I t i s a lso in tere s t ing tha t , acc ord ing to M. Dod s ( in J . H as t ing s [ed .] , ADictionary of Christ and the Gospels [2 vols . , Ed inb urg h: T. & T. Cla rk , 1908]s .v. , Te m pta t ion ( in the W ildern ess) ) there i s an o ld Pers ian cus to m of re t i r ing toa dese r t p lace , fas t in g for for ty day s , and fear le ss ly fa c in g the j in ns tha t take thefo rm s o f l ion , t ige r, and d rago n— al l f o r the pur po se of ga in ing po w er o ve rde m on s. D o ds ' au thor i ty for th is is a pap er by E. Be van in Transactions of theSociety of Historical Theology 1901-190 2, which I have not seen .

3 7 Bu t see the in terpre ta t ion of J . Jer em ias , New Testament Theology ( N e wYo rk: Scr ibn er 's , 1971) 68-75 . So m e of the church fa thers we re per sua ded tha t the

s t o r y in M a t t h e w a n d Lu k e r e c o r d s v i s i o n a r y e v e n t s . S e e V. Ke s i c h , Th eAn t ioch ean s and the Tem pta t ion S to ry, in F. L . Cro ss ( ed . ) , Studia P atristica 7(TU 92 ; Ber l in : Ak adam ie -V er lag , 1966) 496- 502 . Or igen De prin. 4 .3 .1) a l readyobserved that there is no earthly place from which al l the kingdoms of the world canbe seen at once.

3 8 T. W . M a n s o n , The Servant-Messiah: A Study of the Public Ministry ofJesus (C am br idg e : Un ive rs i ty P ress , 1953) 55 . Co mp are the recen t jud gm en t of R.H. Ste in , Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Do wn ers Gro ve : In te r-

Va rs i ty, 1996) 103 : we have he re a p iece o f sp i r i tua l au tob iog rap hy . So tooea r l i e r Dupon t , Tentations, 97-100.





have considered th is an a l lus ion to the episode recorded in Mat t 4 :1-11 par. Ac co rdin g to C. J . C ad ou x, I t is d i f f ic ul t to see w ha t e lseth is v ic tory [ refer red to in Mark 3:27] could have been but h issuccessful res is tance to the Temptat ion that beset h im in the wi lder-ness shor t ly af ter h is bapt ism. 4 5 This might be cor rect .

Re gre t t ab ly, how eve r, one kn ow s no wa y of dem on s t ra t in g th i s .The t ru th i s that Mark 3:27 may not even refer to a def in i te exper i -ence . Jesus might , for a l l we know, have u t tered Mark 3:27 whi leref lect ing upon his ministry in i ts ent irety. That is , he may no morehave been a l luding to a par t icular event than when he sa id he had

come not to br ing peace to the ear th but a sword (Q 12:51-53) . Eveni f one were to suspect o therwise , our text remains a parable devoidof concrete deta i l . Cer ta in ly there i s no need to connect i t wi th theAdam typology in Mark or the I srael typology in Q. In o ther words,Mark 3 :27 does no t conf i rm tha t the canon ica l t empta t ion account sprese rve h i s to r i ca l memor ies , d immed or o therwise .

The second saying i s Luke 10:18, where Jesus declares that he saw

Satan fa l l l ike l ightning f rom heaven.4 6

This logion, which probablyassumes the ident i ty of stars with angels,4 7 once no doubt c i rcula tedapart f rom i ts present context , and i t too may or iginal ly have been af igura t ive way o f r e fe r r ing to a per sona l v ic to ry Jesus had whi lewrest l ing wi th Satan in the wi lderness . Cadoux a t leas t thought thatth is verse might hark back to Jesus ' temptat ion in the wi lderness .4 8

One problem with this proposal is that Luke 10:18 does not clear ly

at t r ibute Sa ta n ' s fa l l to Jes us ' ow n act ions: Jesu s sees som eth ing buthe does not c la im to have been i t s cause . Moreover, Joel Marcus hasrece nt ly ma de the in t r iguing arg um ent , wh ich is wo r th c on side r ing ,tha t the o r ig ina l Sitz im Leben o f Lu ke 10 :18 w as no t Je su s '

4 5 C . J . Ca d o u x , The Historic Mission of Jesus ( Ne w Yo r k : Ha r p e r &Brothers , 1941) 66 . So too H. B. Swete , Comm entary on Mark ( Lo n d o n : Ma c mi l -

lan , 1913) 67; J . Jeremias , New Testament Theology ( Ne w Yo r k : S c r i b n e r ' s ,9 ) 72-73; J . W. Miller, Jesus at Thirty: A Psychological and Historical Portrait

(Minneapol is : For t ress , 1997) 57; and N. T. Wright , Jesus and the Victory of G od(M inneap o l i s : For t re ss , 1996) 457-4 9 . Bes t The Temptation and the Passion, 7 -15) argues that Mark 3:27, on the level of Markan redaction, refers back to 1:12-13.

4 6 On th i s, see e sp . U. B. M ül le r, Vis ion und Bo tscha f t : Er wä gun gen zu rp rophe t i schen S t ruk tu r de r Verkünd igung Jesus , ZTK 74 (1977 ) 416 -48.

4 7 Par t icu lar ly in teres t ing for com par ison is T. Sol. 20 :16-17 , where fa l l ing

stars are identif ied with demons.4 8 C a d o u x , Historic Mission, 66.



temptat ion in the wi lderness but h is bapt ism in the Jordan.4 9 Th i smight very well be the r ight guess. Maybe in the Jordan Jesus had avis ion which persuaded him that Satan had been deposed, that the

t ime of eschatological sa lvat ion had ar r ived.But i t i s eq ua l ly po ssib le that Lu ke 10:18 wa s not in i t ia l ly a

declarat ion of victory but a cal l to arms. When Satan or demons fal lf rom heaven in 1 Enoch 86; Adam and Eve 16:1-3; R ev ela t io n 12;and T. Sol. 20 : 16 - 17 ,5 0 they do not tumble to ut ter defeat . Rather dothey come down f rom heaven to do bat t le wi th human beings or toha rm the m in som e way . H enc e, if one se ts as ide as sec on dar y the

Lukan context in which i t i s now found, one can envisage Luke 10:18as being, on Jesus ' l ips an announcement that the las t t imes havecome: Satan has fa l len f rom the skies and i s now amongst us to doescha to log ica l ba t t l e .5 1 The meaning would then be c lose to Sib. Or.8:190-92, where the fa l l ing of the s tars and the ar r ival of a greatco m et betoke n not the end of the evi l but the beg inning of im pe nd -ing toi l , war, and slaughter. 5 2

Yet th is in terpre ta t ion of Luke 10:18 remains as hypothet ica l asthe o ther s . I t canno t be conf i rmed or d i sconf i rmed . Al l we canconclude i s that the possib i l i ty of in terpre ta t ions o ther than that ofCadoux means that Luke 10:18 can hardly be cal led upon as f i rmsup por t fo r a h is tor ica l episod e behind Q 4:1-13 or M ark 1:12-13.

Having come to this skeptical resul t i t might seem that we can gono fur ther. Yet more is to be said. For even if we are incl ined todeny that Jesus , near the beginning of h is minis t ry, went in to thewi lderness and there underwent a t ime of tes t ing , th is need not meanthat the temptat ion texts tel l us nothing at al l about him. Nils Dahlonce observed that uncer ta in ty about the h is tor ic i ty of an individualw ord or ep isod e is not cr ipp l ing for l i fe of Jesu s rese arc h, fo r thefact that the word or occurrence found a p lace wi th in the t radi t ion

4 9

J . M arcus , Je su s ' Bap t i sma l Vis ion , NTS 41 (1995) 512-21.5 0 C om pa re a lso 4 Ezra 5 :5 : and the s tars shal l fa l l may m ean tha t evi lpowers wil l descend and add to the chaos of the lat ter days.

5 1 Such a propo sal could be har m oniz ed wi th M arc us ' sugg est ion tha t Lu ke10:18 was uttered in connection with Jesus ' baptism.

5 2 Co m par e a l so the passage f rom the Bundahishn quo ted in R. C. Za ehn er,The Teachings of the Magi: A Com pendium of Zoroastrian Beliefs (New York :M ac m illa n, 1956) 148 ( A nd Gö chih r, the serp ent in the hea ven ly spher e, wil l fal l

fr om the sum m it of the Mo on to the earth , and the earth w ill suf fe r pain l ike u ntothe pain a sheep feels when a wolf rends out i ts wool ) .





in the expectation that angels will l if t him up. The text assumes thatJesus has the power to perform miracles . This too, i t goes withoutsaying, accords with the rest of the t radi t ion and with the his tor ical

facts behind i t . Jesus was perceived to be a miracle worker, and hemust have shared th is est imate of h imself .5 8 Again one may appeal toQ 11:20, wh ich l inks Jes us suc cess ful m inist ry of ex orc ism with theadv ent o f G o d s eschato log ica l k in gdo m . So once mo re the im pres-s ion gained f rom Q 4 :1-13—in th is case , tha t Jesus was a mirac leworker—coheres wi th our knowledge of the h is to r ica l Jesus .

(3) If Q 4:1-13 assumes that Jesus could do miracles, i t also tel ls us

that he did not do so indiscriminately. When the devil asks him to dogive proof o f h is ab i l i ty, he refuses . This c i rcumstance harmonizeswith what we f ind elsewhere in the synopt ics .5 9 In Q 11:29-30, in asaying widely attr ibuted to Jesus, he says that his generation seeks asign and then adds that i t wil l see nothing other than the sign ofJonah . Whi le the s ta tement i s par t ly en igmat ic—what exact ly i s thesign of Jonah?—its implicat ions appear to be the same as those ofMark 8:11-13: when the Pharisees tempted Jesus to prove himself bysome great mirac le , he den ied the i r reques t (compare Q 12 :54-56;Lu ke 11 :16 ; 17 :20). So Jesu s unw i l l ingness to per for m fo r Satan inQ 4 :1-13 i s matched by h is refusa l to per form miracu lous s igns fo rmore mundane opponen t s .

(4) Mark 1:12 says that the Spiri t drove Jesus into the wilderness.Q 4:1 , al though i t cannot be exact ly reconstructed, must have said

something similar. The point to be made here is that Jesus himselfpr ob ab ly asso cia te d h is wo rk wi th the esc hato log ica l g i f t o f theSpiri t . I t is true that explici t references to the Spiri t are few and farbetween in the words at t r ibuted to Jesus, and also t rue that perhapsnot a single one of these goes back to him.6 0 The ev idence i s , how-ever, sufficient for the inference that he associated his activit ies withthe prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah and indeed thought of himself as the

5 8 Per tine nt texts include Q 7:1-10 , 19-22; 10:9; 11:14-20; M ark 1:2 1-2 8,2 9-31 , 32-34 , 40-45; 2 :1-12; 3 :1-6 , 22 ; 5 :1-20 , 21-43; 6 :30-44 , 47-52; 7 :24-30 , 31-37; 8:2 2-2 6:9 :14 -29 ; 10:46-52; M att 9:27-31; 14:28-33; 26:53; Luk e 13:32; 14:1-6;John 2:1-11; 5:2-9; 9:1-12; 11:28-44. Note that in Mark 3:22 Jesus enemies do notdeny that he does miracles; they question only the source of his power.

5 9 Co m p ar e D u p o n t , Tentations, 113-15.6 0

C. Κ . Barre t t , The Holy Spirit and the ospel Tradition (Londo n : SPC K,1947).



anointed hera ld of I sa iah 61.6 1 Th at hera ld dec lares: T he Spi r i t ofthe Lord i s upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; he has sentme to b r ing good news to the oppressed , to b ind up the b roken

hear ted , to p roc la im l ibe r ty to the cap t ives , and r e lease to thep r i sone r s . . . t o com f o r t a ll wh o m ou r n . If J e sus d i d i n deed t h i n kof h imsel f as the anointed prophet of I sa iah 61, then the temptat ionnarra t ives do not lead us as t ray when they associa te Jesus ' minis t rywith the Spir i t .

(5 ) In Q 4 :1 -13 Jesus quo tes Scr ip tu re more than once . Somescholars would f ind th is out of character. For them almost a l l of the

scr ip tura l c i ta t ions and a l lus ions in the Jesus t radi t ion come f rom thech u r ch . O t he r s o f u s , howeve r, b e l i ev e t h e r e i s go od cause f o rth ink ing tha t Jesus was much concerned wi th the p rophe t i c t r ad i t ionand wi th the in terpre ta t ion of Torah.6 2 If this is the correct point ofv iew, then Q ' s p ic tu re o f Jesus us ing the Pen ta teuch and Psa lms toin terpre t h is ex pe r ien ce w ould be fa i thfu l to h is m em ory : Jesus wa s ap ious man who quo ted f rom the Jewish Bib le .

(6) Q 4:1-13 depic ts Jesus as a man of great fa i th in God. Jesussays that it i s wr i t ten , W or sh ip the Lo rd yo ur G od , and serve on lyh im (Q 4:8 , ci t ing D eut 6:13 ) . He also de cla res that G od is not to betes ted (4 :12) . And when he i s hungry he refuses to obey the devi l byturning s tones in to loaves: Jesus cont inues , despi te h is need, to wai tupon God (4:3-4) . What we see in a l l th is i s a person whose l i fe i sfu l ly en t r us ted to the d iv in i ty. Th i s u t te r de pe nd en ce u pon G od i s

a l so wha t we see th roughout the domin ica l say ings . Jesus goes no tj u s t w i t h o u t a m e n i t i e s b u t w i t h o u t n e c e s s i t i e s — w i t h o u t h o m e ,wi t h o u t f am i l y, w i t hou t wo r k , w i t ho u t m on ey — an d t r u s t s t ha t h i sheavenly Father wi l l take care of h im. He teaches prayer for dai lybread and declares that the God who feeds the b i rds wi l l g ives goodthings to those he loves even more .6 3

(7) In Q 4:5- 7 Satan o ffe rs Jesu s a ll the k in gd om s of the wor ld and

6 1 J . D. G. Du nn , Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious andCharismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the NeTestament (Lo ndo n : SC M Press , 1975) 41-6 7 ; and A. E . Ha rvey , Jesus and theConstraints of History (Phi ladelphia : W estm inster, 1982) 140-53.

6 2 For a tho rou gh ov erv iew , see B. D. Chi l ton and C. A. Ev an s , Jes us andIsr ae l ' s Scr ip t ure s , in B. D. Ch i l ton and C. A. Ev ans (eds .) , Studying the Histori-cal Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (N T TS 19; Le iden : Br i l l ,

1 9 9 4 ) 2 8 1 - 3 3 5 .6 3 E.g . Q 11:3, 9- 13 ; 12:24.



the i r sp le nd or. Jesus r e fu ses . Th i s coh ere s wi th the l ike ly c i r cu m -stance that Jesus , who was cruci f ied as a messianic pre tender, expectedto become king in Jerusalem but wai ted upon God to make him so .6 4

Jo hn 6:15 is pro bab ly accu rate w he n it rec ou nts that Jesu s w i thd reww he n the cro w ds w ere about to co m e and take h im by for ce to m ak eh im k i ng . So when he tu rns do w n the de v i l ' s o ff e r in Q 4 :5 -7 , h i sr e fusa l i s ana logous to a r e fusa l he p robab ly made dur ing h i s pub l i cm i n i s t r y.

(8) Final ly, both Mark and Q tel l us that Jesus spent t ime alone inthe deser t . Q says he a lso fas ted dur ing that t ime, and the idea i s

p ro ba b ly im pl ic i t in M ark . M an y wo uld no dou b t a f f i r m tha t th i sdoes no t accord wi th wha t we know about Jesus . Modern scho la r s ,typical ly on the basis of Mark 2:18-206 5 and Q 7 :31-35 ,6 6 r ou t ine lyasse r t , i n the w ord s o f John Do m in ic Cro ssan , tha t w he rea s Jo hnl ived an apo caly pt ic ascet ic ism . . . Jesus d id jus t the op po si te .6 7 Butt he ea t i n g and d r i n k i n g o f Q 7 : 31 - 3 56 8 t akes up the po lemica ll an g uag e o f J e su s ' adve r sa r i e s6 9 and so can hardly be reckoned anob jec t ive descr ip t ion o f h i s ac t iv i t i e s .7 0 As fo r Mark 2 :18-20 ,7 1 it isnot a b la nk et den ia l of the legi t im acy of a l l fas t ing , fo r the T or ahi t se lf p resc r ibe s f as t in g fo r the day o f a to ne m en t .7 2 T h e p a s s a g eenta i l s only that Jesus , unl ike some others , d id not se t as ide f ixedday s eve ry we ek fo r f as t ing . Th us i t is go ing too f a r to con c lu de

6 4 Th is is a con trove rsial proposit ion wh ich I can not argue in this con text .6 5

A s long as the b r id egr oo m i s wi th them they can no t f a s t . C om pa reGThom. §104 .

6 6 He re the Son of ma n, in contras t to John, has co m e ea t ing and dr ink ing.6 7 J . D. Cro ssan , The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish

Peasant (San Franc isco: Harp erC ol l ins , 1991) 260.6 8 Fo r i ts unity and auth entic i ty, see U. Lu z, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus,

2. Teilband Matt 8-17 ( E K K N T 1.2 ; Ne ukirc hen : Ne ukir che ner , 1990) 184.6 9 On i ts s t e reo typ ica l cha ra c te r, and indeed sc r ip tu ra l bac kgr oun d in Deu t

2 1 : 2 0 , s e e D . Da u b e , Appeasement or Resistance and Other Essays on NewTestament Judaism (Berk eley: Univers i ty of Cal i fo rnia , 1987) 23-26 .

7 0 Th os e w ho ma ke so mu ch of Q 7 :31-35 a lways neg lec t to r em ind us tha tJes us h im self , in Q 17:26-30, uses ea t in g and dr i nk ing wi th a pe jo ra t iv e sen se :

Just as i t was in the [proverbial ly wicked] days of Noah, so too i t wil l be in theday s of the Son of ma n. The y we re ea t ing and dr ink ing, e tc . (c f . a lso Q 12:45) .

7 1 M os t be l i ev e th i s un i t r e s t s upon so m eth ing Jesu s sa id ; c f . C ro ssa n ,Historical Jesus, 259-60 .

7 2

Lev 16 :29-31 ; 23 :32 ; N um 29 :7 - 11 ; c f . Ph i lo , Spec. leg. 2 : 1 9 5 ; m. Yom.8:1



from the pract ice of the disciples in Mark 2:18 that non-fast ing wasfor Jesus a form of l i fe .7 3 The t ru th is that some aspects of Jesus 'be ha vio r and pro clam at ion m er i t the ad je c t ive , asce t ic .7 4 He and

thos e a ro un d h im p rac t i ced a r igo r ous se l f -d en ia l fo r r e l ig iou se n d s .7 5 They chose to fo rsake money and l ive in pover ty.7 6 T h eyelec ted to leave the i r v i l lages and wander about wi thout sandals .7 7

T h ey ab an d o n e d f ami l i e s an d b u s i n e s s .7 8 And some of them, towhom Jesus addressed words of warn ing about the dangers o f thesexual impulse ,7 9 ev iden t ly adopted ce l ibacy, as d id Jesus h imsel f .8 0

So, desp i te h is ce lebra t ion of the presence of the k ingdom, he

ob vio usly l ived som ethin g other than a l i fe of ind ulg enc e. Ra ther, ifh e p r each ed j u d g men t an d ca l l ed p eo p l e t o r ep en t an ce ,8 1 h eembodied repen tance in h is own person (as when he submi t ted toJo h n 's bap t i sm fo r the rem iss ion of s ins , M ark 1 :4) . W e sho uldacco r d i n g l y b e o p en - m i n d ed w h en th e t r ad i t io n , i n c l u d i n g t h e

7 3 J . Beh m, νή σ τ ι? , TDNT A (196 7) 93 2 n. 59.7 4 I ex plo re this topic in my recen t boo k, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian

Prophet (M innea polis: Fortress, 1998).7 5 See e.g . Q 14:11, 27; 17:33; M ark 8:34; 9:43-4 8; GThom §55.7 6 Cf . P. Na gel , Die Mo tivierung der Askese in der alten Kirche und der

Ursprung des Mönchtums (TU 95 ; Ber l in : Ak ade m ie , 1966) 6 -7 . Re levan t t ex t sinc lud e Q 10:4 , 7- 8 ; 12:22-31 ; M ark 10:17-2 7. L uk e 8 :1- 3 ma y be co rre c t inrem em be r in g tha t cer ta in w om en pr ovide d for Jesus and h is d isc ip les out of the i rr e s o u r c e s .

7 7 M ark 1:16-20; Q 9:57 -58; 10:4; etc .7 8 M ark 1:16-20; 2:14 ; 10:28-31; Q 9:59 -60; 12:51-53 ; 14:26.7 9 See e sp . M at t 5 :27 -28 and M ark 9 :43 -48 . For the au the n t i c i ty o f these

complexes , see J . Gn i lka , Das Matthäusevangelium I. Teil (H TK N T 1 .2 ; F re iburg :Herder, 1988) 163-64. On the original application of the lat ter to sexual sins, see W.De mi n g , M a r k 9 .4 2 - 1 0 .1 2 , M a t t h e w 5 .2 7 - 3 2 , a n d b. Nid. 13b: A Firs t Ce ntu ryDi s c u s s i o n o f Ma l e S e x u a l i t y, NTS 36 (199 0) 130-41 ; and K. Nie de rw im m er,Askese und Mysterium: Über Ehe, Ehescheidung und Eheverzicht in den Anfän

des christlichen Glaubens ( F R LA NT 11 3 ; Gö t t i n g e n : Va n d e n h o e c k & Ru p r e c h t ,1975) 29-33. On Mark 12:18-27, which envisages the poss ib i l i ty of human naturewithout the sexual impulse , see W. D. Davies and D. C. Al l ison, J r. , A Critical andExegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (3 vols . , IC C;Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark , 1988, 1991, 1997) 3 .221-34.

8 0 M at t 19:12 is bes t exp la ine d as Je su s ' ow n re tor t to those w ho m oc ke d h iss ingle s ta te ; see J . Bl inz ler, Έ Ισ Ιν ε ΰ ν ο υ χο ι, ZNW 48 (1957) 254 -70 . An d thathe use s the plur al , eu nu ch s, ma y tell us that his w ord s inclu ded som e of his

fo l lowers .8 1 J . Bec ker, Jesus von Nazaret (Berlin: W alter de Gr uyte r, 1966) 58-99 .









more than a mat ter of h is tor ica l content , but one ' s evaluat ion of ado cum en t i n l i t e r a r y t e r m s , and t h e co nseq uen t j udg m en t o f t hegrounds of i ts authori ty, wil l depend to some extent on i ts histor icalaccuracy. In the present paper, I should l ike to represent a redact ion-cr i t ica l and t radi t io n-c r i t ica l app roa ch wh ich is ch aste ne d, but notconver ted , by recent d iscussion. The a t tempt wi l l be made to re la te aredact ion-cr i t ica l wi th a l i terary-cr i t ica l or ienta t ion; the quest ion ofhow such a hear ing inf luences the perceived author i ty of a text l iesouts ide the present purpose .3

Th e pre sent app roac h i s ch aste ne d, in the sense that a s im pl is t ic

pic ture of Mark, as a mechanical compi la t ion of ear l ier uni t s whichare eas i ly d i s t ingu i shed f ro m the E va ng e l i s t ' s theo logy , wi l l bees ch ew ed . If i t i s rea son ab le to speak of M a rk a t a l l , the nam esh o u l d r e f e r to t he do cu m en t a s a w h o l e an d t he p r o ce ss o fgenerat ing meanings which lead to the document , not to the purelyhypothet ical idea of a f inal redactor. And any suggest ion to the effectthat meaning is inherent in redact ion alone, or that history is only to

be d iscovered in t radi t ional mater ia l , should be avoided as s implepr eju dic e . But the prese nt ap pro ac h is a lso not co nv er te d , in thesense tha t , however f i c t ion shou ld be eva lua ted ,4 the Gospels arepalpably not the composi t ions of s ingle authors .5 T he do cum en t s a swe hear them (and we should hea r them as w e read the m , if w e wis ht o co m po r t ou r se l ve s w i t h t he pu r po ses f o r wh i ch t hey w er e

(Oxford: Blackwel l , 1984) , as a readable in t roduct ion to more recent theor ies ofmean ing .

3 A nd is in any cas e taken up in my article, cited in the first note.4 Fict ion has, fo r und ersta nda ble reaso ns, been the espec ial interest of l i terary

cri t ics, some of whom would define historical writ ing as a species of story (J . Barr,S tory and His tory in Bibl ica l Theology, JR 56 [1977 ] 1-17 ). Th at is a m atter fo r

fur the r d iscu ss ion , but qui te bes ide the pur pos e of the present paper. The presen tpoint resides purely in the observation that the Gospels are not the composit ions of

single authors. To at tempt to skir t that reality by using jarg on of an imp lied auth or( see Cu lpepper, Anatomy) s imply show s tha t the para phe rnal ia of mo dern l i te rarytheory should not be applied unreflectively to the study of the Gospels.

5 See Ch i l ton , An evange l ica l and cr i tica l approa ch to the saying s of Jes us ,Themelios 3 (197 8) 78-8 5 . Th e p ro gra m m e of the ea r l i e r a r t i c l e wa s so le lydeveloped in respect of the t radi t ion of Jesus ' sayings . The present contr ibut ion isde s ign ed to co pe wi th narra t ive mater ia l . See A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible:Jesus Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (GN S 7; W i lming ton : G laz ie r,

1984) 71-78 (a lso publ ished by SPCK in London, wi th the subt i t le Jesus owninterpretation of Isaiah).



produced) p robab ly der ive f rom many wi tnesses , r ang ing f rom ora lt r aden t s to p rofess iona l sc r ibes ( see Luke 1 :1 -4) . To th i s ex ten t ,dist inct ions within each Gospel are a par t of i ts l i terary character ; toa t t em p t t o hom ogen i ze such d i s t i n c t i on s i n t he qu es t f o r t h esig ni f ica nc e of the text as it now stan ds m ay do vio le nce to thatc h a r a c t e r .6 In the pre sen t inqu i ry, the term re da ct i on is use d tospeak of those features of Mark 1:21-28 which serve to anchor thestory in we l l -es tabl i shed them es wi th in the Go spel ; t radi t io n i s usedto speak of more unusual features, which do not serve the interests oflarger themes, but ra ther seem to belong to the mater ia l which was

incorporated in to the redact ional whole .These def in i t ions in t roduce qua l i f i ca t ions in to cur ren t usage , bu t

they appea r to be nec essa ry. N orm al ly, redact ion is ascr ib ed to theEv ang el is t , w ho is und ers too d to have been responsible for the theo-log ica l mean ing o f a g iven Gospe l , whi le h i s t r ad i t ion , f r equen t lys ty led as a ke rn e l o f som e sor t , i s he ld to ap pr ox im ate to ahis tor ica l datum. What i s unfor tunate about such a p ic ture i s that i t

m i s l ead s . T he p r ocess o f f r am i ng an en t i r e Go spe l m ay h avereq u i re d the w ork o f m ore than one r ed ac to r , the pu rp os e o fr e d a c t i o n m a y o r m a y n o t h a v e b e e n p r i m a r i l y t h e o l o g i c a l(whatever one may mean by that term) , and the las t person in theprocess need not have been the one most determinat ive of the overal lresul t . The mater ia l incorporated dur ing the course of redact ion , inturn , may be more of theological than of h is tor ica l in teres t . Because

we have only texts before us , wi thout re l iable external evidence ofthe persons and mot ives behind them, a t tent ion should in i t ia l ly be

6 Th e phr ase is tha t of J . Barr, H ear ing the Bib le as Li te ra tu re ,BJRL 5 6(1973) 10-33, 25, and he uses i t in discussing the contribution of Meir Weiss in hissympathetic survey of at tempts to appreciate the Bible from a l i terary point of view.In h is conclus ion , he seems to me a t leas t to approach the very d i ff icul ty here a t

issue (p. 34): T he l i terature is i ts own m ean ing ; w e can not expe ct to ide ntify a setof external reali t ies of which i t is the l inguist ic sign, and nobody approaches otherl i te ra ture s in such a w ay . Th e exte rna l rea l i t ies Ba rr here has in m ind aretheological exegeses of the Bible, but he tentatively applies the attitude of the dictumto Je su s ' bir th and resu rrec tion (p. 16). Th e last cla us e in the qu ota tion is in anycase an exaggera t ion; the approach which Barr ra ther dogmat ica l ly excludes is , forgood o r i l l , common among c la ss ic i s t s . The s t a temen t on the who le i s , a s agenera l iza t ion , only appl icable to modern f ic t ion , and then only because the post -

Enl ightenment tendency has been to expunge the h is tor ica l e lement f rom what i scalled literature, and to de -em ph asi ze the literary elem en t in wh at is called histor y.



directed to the shape of those texts . The considerat ion of a passagewill then begin with seeing how it relates to the Gospel in which it isfound . The passage may be found to cohere wi th the tendencies o fredact ion, and/or to manifest i ts own part icular tendencies .

T H E E X E G E S I S O F RE D A CT I O N

The redact ional emphases of the f i rs t exorcism story in Mark seemevident. I t is presented as the first event in a long day of healing atC ap er na um (vv. 21- 34, inclusiv e) , and the in trod uctor y wo rd s (κα ίείστΓορεύονται 6 l ç Κ α φ α ρνα ού μ ) are typ ical ly M arkan in respect o fdiction (see 5:40) and syntax (see 8:22; 11:15, 21 ? The day of whatwe might ca l l au thor i ta t ive heal ing a t Capernaum8 i s parad igmat ic ;Jesus is to preach elsewhere, just as he does here (v. 38). But whatjust i f icat io n hav e w e for speak ing of autho ri tat ive hea l ing , and fo rl ink ing that to pr eac hin g? Th e jus t i f ic at io n l ies in the r eda ct io na lframework which presents the s tor ies about heal ing in general , andthe exorcism story in par t icular. The entry in to Capernaum is butprel iminary to Jesus ' entry in to the synagogue in order to teach (v.21b-c) . The reference to the Sabbath may seem superf luous, unt i l i ti s remembered that within Mark the Sabbath is of ten the t ime ofcontroversy (see 2:23, 24, 27, 28; 3 :2) , much as the synagogue of tenis the place of controversy (see 3:1; 12:38, 39; 13:9). The t ime andplace are occasions of amazement , just as they later wil l be whenJesu s teache s in h is ho m e count ry (6 :2) . Sa bb ath , sy na go gu e,

tea ch and am az ed are all shared by 1:22 and 6:2 . A ltho ug h theemphases of the two passages are qui te d ifferent , i t i s p lain from

7 Ov erall , th is evalua tion wa s follo we d by the Jesu s Seminar, in a discus-sion based to some extent on my unpublished disser tation, Khristos E piphanes. Aredaction critical study of Mark 1:21-28 (New York: Th e Ge neral The olog icalSeminary, 1974) . See R. W. Funk (ed . ) , The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the

Authentic Deeds of Jesus (San Franc isco: Ha rperC ollins, 1998) 57-59 . Stylis t ical-ly, the appearance of the clause is infelicitous, in that the use of the two impersonalf o r m s , είσ π ορ εύο ντα ι (v. 21 ) and έξεπλ ή σ σ ον το (v. 22 ) , invo lves a chang e insubjects from the disciples to the congregation in the synagogue.

8 See R. Pesc h, Ein Tag vol lmächt igen Wirkens Jesu in Kapharnaum (Mk 1 ,2 1 - 3 4 . 3 5 - 3 9 ) , BibLeb 9 (19 68) 114-2 8 , 177-95 , 26 1-7 7 ; J . G n i lk a , DasEvangelium nach Markus ( E K K N T 2 .1 ; Zü r i c h : Be n z i g e r ; Ne u k i r c h e n - V l u y n :Ne uk i r chen er, 1978) 76 . Bu t the obse rva t ion w as a l reay made by Ε . L o h m ey e r,

Das Evangelium des Markus (Me yK 2 ; Gö t t i n g e n : Va n d e n h o e c k & Ru p r e c h t ,1951) 34.



Markan usage tha t the verbal fo rm έξεττλήσσοντο in the ear l iers to ry by no means sugges ts the response of the congregat ion wasunequ ivoca l ly pos i t ive .9 Those in the synagogue are astounded, andthey correc t ly perceiv e Jesu s ' au th or i ty as d i ffer en t f ro m that o fthe scribes; they (implicitly) will tell the tale of what happened in thesynagogue (v. 28 ) . Bu t the re i s room fo r misunders t and ing , a ssubsequent Markan nar ra t ive wi l l demonst ra te . For now, however,what is establ ished is the authori ty of Jesus ' teaching. That is theredactional category under which the exorcism is introduced. I t is , inthis sense, an instance of heal ing with authori ty (see v. 27) , an

instance of the minist ry which is to be conducted outside Capernaum(v. 38).

I t has f req uen t ly been observ ed that teac hin g in M ark is used tocharacter ize Jesus ' minist ry in such a way that the emphasis fal lsmore on the one who teaches than on the content of h is teaching.1 0

That would appear to be the case in 11:18 (which is reminiscent of1:22) , s ince the paramount issue for the high pr iests and scr ibes

(again , see 1:22) is how to destroy Jesus hi m se lf . Verb al usa ges ofδιδά σ κω wo uld appear to con firm the person al em ph asis which Jes us 'teaching involves within Mark (see 2:13; 6 :6 , 34; 14:49, none ofwhich specify the content of Jesus ' teaching) .1 2 The point seems to berather that Jesus taught habitually (see 10:1, ώς είώ θ ει) a nd that hebecame known in h is teach ing . One must conclude f rom 1 :15 tha tJesus ' message is understood to concern the kingdom of God, but v.

22b-c would appear to focus more on the manner of Jesus ' teaching(ώ ? έξο υ σ ία ν έχω ν και ού χ ώ ς· ο ί γρ α μ μ α τείς) than on its matter.The compar ison wi th the scr ibes inv i tes a t ten t ion , s ince scr ibesfeature prominently in the opposit ion to Jesus (see 2:6; 3:22; 11:18;

9 In 7:37 and 11:18, the verb indic ates a pos it ive resp ons e. But 10:26 isambiguous in this regard.

1 0 See A. M. Am brozic , The Hidden K ingdom: A Redaction-Critical Study of

the References to the Kingdom of God in Mark s Gospel (CB QM S 2 ; W ash ing ton :Ca tho l ic Bib l ical A sso cia t i on , 1972) 84-8 5 . For a fu l le r d isc uss ion of theph en om en on , see R. T. France , M ark and the Tea chin g of Jesu s, in R. T. Fran ceand D . Wenham (eds . ) , Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels(Go spel Pers pective s 1; She ff ield: JS O T Press, 1980) 101-36.

11 Ά πόΧ λυμ ι is a lso the language of conten t ion in 1 :24 , a lbeit in a d iffere n tconnection (see below).

1 2

M ark 12:35-37 is som ethi ng of an exc eptio n, in that an instanc e of teachingis given.



12 :35 , 38 ) .1 3 Commenta tors wi l l , no doubt , ins i s t on t ry ing tod iscover in what p rec ise way Jesus d i ffered f rom the scr ibes .1 4 Ifthey succeed, i t wi l l not be because of any information which Markhere provides: the focus of v. 22 is the uniqueness of Jesus, not theground of the comparison with scr ibes. In contrast with them, Jesus 'authori ty becomes plain; the par t iculars of the contrast are not atissue.

To some extent , th is authori ty is none other than the power toexorcise demons (see v. 27d; 3 :15; 6 :7) .15 But far more to the point ,εξο υ σ ία i s— di rec t ly o r ind i re c t ly— the bas i s on wh ich he ac t s(11:28-29, 33). Verse 27 makes this point evident within the terms ofreference of the p resen t s to ry. To genera l amazement ( see thewording of 9 :10, 15) , Jesus ' teaching is recognized as new, that isnon-scr ibal (v. 22) , because he commands unclean sp i r i t s and i sobey ed . Th e recogni t ion of teach in g prov okes the ques t ion : wh atis th is? It is a prim itive sort of qu estio n, eve n less ap pro pr iate thanthe disc iples ' befu dd led w ho then is th is? at 4 :41 . But these are as

yet early days in the l i terary context of the Gospel. For the moment,the scr ibes con s t i tu te a con t ras t ing grou p , no t an op po si t ion ; th eteaching does not yet occasion scandal. The Sabbath is st i l l kept1 6; thesynagogue is—for the only t ime on th is , the f i rs t reported day ofJesus ' min i s t ry wi th d i sc ip les—the p lace where Jesus ' exousia i sdisclosed without occasioning overt resis tance (see 3:1-6; 6 :1-6) .1 7 Ifthe recognit ion of Jesus is part ial , and couched in terms redolent of

1 3 Bu t see 12:28, 34; scribe s are not me rely en em ies in M ark. See M. J. C oo k,Mark s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (Nov TSu p 51 Leiden: Brill, 1978).

1 4 See E. Haen chen , Der Weg Jesu: Eine Erklärung des Ma rkus Evangeliumsund der kanonischen Parallelen (B erl in: de Gr uy ter, 1966) 86, 87, fo r an instantidentification of the scribes with the later rabbis.

1 5 See J . S tar r, "T he M ean ing of ,Au tho r i ty ' in Mark 1, 22 ," HTR 23 (1930)302-305 ; and R. Re i t zens te in , Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (Le ipz ig :

Teubner, 1927) 363. See a lso the t rans la t ion of J . E. S tee ly, Hellenistic MysteryReligions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance (Pit tsburg h: Pick wic k, 1978).

1 6 I t is of note in this con nec tion that v. 32 has the pop ulac e wait fo r su nd ow n,the end of the Sabbath, before bringing the diseased to Jesus.

1 7 Even a t th is ear ly s tage , how ever, the synag ogue is ca l led "the i r sy nag ogu e"(v. 23) . In tha t the pronoun refers back to the (mere ly impl ic i t ) subjec t ofέξεπλ ή σ σ ο ντο in v. 22, it may be taken to mean Jew ish syna go gu e, as in v. 39.Th e att itude towa rds Judais m is s imilar to wha t is fou nd at 7:3-4. See Ch ilton, A

Generat ive Exegesis of Mark 7 :1-23 ,The Journal of Higher Criticism 3.1 (19 96 )18-37.



future confl ict , a t least for a moment , s tar t ing from a s ingle day inC ap er na um , h is fa m e can go for th un im pe de d (v. 28) , jus t as hehimself can (v. 39).

Wi th in i t s r edac t iona l f r ame (vv. 21 -22 , 27 -28 ) , t he exo rc i smtherefore raises the quest ion of Jesus ' authori ty in an acute way, andon two levels. At the level of the people in the story, whose identi tyis never specif ied , the quest ion concerns both the teaching and theexorc ism: taken together, they are a l together new and s t rangelyeff icacious in the Markan presen ta t ion . Inc ip ien t conf l ic t in no waydimin ishes Jesus ' au thor i ty ; compar ison wi th scr ibal teach ing makes

i t a l l the more apparent . There is a par t ial d isclosure of Jesus 'ident i ty, even to his contemporar ies . At the level of the reader or—more proper ly, g iven the expecta t ions wi th which the document wasco mp o sed — t h e h ea r e r o f t h e Go sp e l , t h e d i s c l o su r e i s mo r ecomplete. He or she knows whom this s tory concerns (1:1) , and howits pr incipal has been designated by God (1:11) . The general out l ineof Je su s ' min is t ry as reco unted in the Go spe l is p ro bab ly a l read y

known to the hearer, so that there is some poignancy in the not yeth a r d en ed r eac t i o n o f t h e co n g r e g a t i o n i n t h e sy n ag o g u e : t h ewatershed presen ted by the cruci f ix ion has no t ye t been passed .Between those in the synagogue in Capernaum and those in Mark ' scongregat ion there i s no t ye t a wor ld of d i fference . The former areamazed (v. 22) , but d isciples can be, as wel l (10:26); the former—allo f t h e m ( α π α ν τ β ς )—are as tounded (v. 27 ) , bu t an even moreemphat ic der ivat ive of the same verb (θα μ βέομ α ι.) is us ed of Je su s inGethsemane (14 :33) and of the women a t the tomb (16 :5) . Before ad iv ine ep iphany, o f whatever sor t , composure ceases to be a v i r tue ;the at t i tude of those in the synagogue is qui te appropriate , g iven thenew teach ing and heal ing1 8 au thor i ty wh ich con fro n ts them . W ith inthe Markan style of presentat ion, Jesus is d isclosed as wielding ad iv ine bu t confus ing au thor i ty, bo th to h is con temporar ies and toMark 's hearers . The lat ter enjoy a posi t ion of pr iv i lege as comparedto the former, but i t i s the relat ive pr ivi lege of knowledge, not aninal ienable possession. Those who hear the Gospel know more of thestory, and yet—in the end—awe such as is shown in the synagogue is

1 8 Th at the ex orc ism is seen with in the conte x t of heal in g , w ha tev er i tsd is t inct ive e lements , i s sugges ted by i ts associa t ion with vv. 29-34a. See D.-A.

K o c h , Die Bedeutung der Wun dererzählungen für die Christologie des Ma rkusevangeliums (Be rl in: de G ruy ter, 1975).



the on ly appropr ia te response , p rov is ional though i t may be .1 9 TheGo spel repr esen ts the d is tu rb ing new teach in g wi th au tho r i ty (v.27 , co ns t ru ed in a m an ne r d i f f e r en t f r o m tha t o f the Re v i se dS tandard Vers ion ) wh ich cha l l enges o rd inary expec ta t ions o f howGod operates .

The Markan presen ta t ion therefore inv i tes us , in our p r iv i legedposi t ion as hearers (even as hearers who happen to be reading) , topar t ic ipate in the response of Jesus ' con temporar ies , and thereby tolearn and develop our own att i tude. But there is also a third level atwhich the Markan presen ta t ion seeks to d isc lose the au thor i ty o f

Jesus. Within the body of the exorcism story (vv. 23-26) , one or twostr ik ing features, which are coherent with the tendencies of Markanredact ion, are evident . The f i rs t oddi ty is the immediate usage by thed e m o n2 0 in v. 24 a- b of the first per son p lural , w ha t ha ve we to dowith you . . . ha ve you com e to destroy u s? In v. 24c, how ev er, thede m on says, ' 7 kn ow w ho you are (οΐδά a e τις el) , and is addressedby Jesus in the s ingular of the second person aoris t imperat ive in v.

2 5 b (φ ιμ ώ θη τ ι κα ι εξ6λθ6 α ύτο ΰ ) . Th e p lura l i ty o f the de m on smight have been an original feature of this story, as in that of theGerasene demoniac (Mark 5 :1-20) , bu t the nar ra t ive as we have i t(vv. 23, 26) as well as some of the direct discourse of the demon (v.24c) and of Jesus (v. 25b) , te l ls somewhat against th is possibi l i ty.The plural usage seems rather more to belong to the Markan scheme,accord ing to which demons or unclean sp i r i t s a re regu lar ly refer red

to in the plural when they are spoken of in relation to Jesus (see1 :34 , 39 ; 3 :11-12) . The usage , o f course , in ter rup ts the nar ra t ivef low of the passage, which requires only a s ingle demon; but withinMark as a whole , symmetry wi th 5 :1-20 , and some a l lus ion to the

1 9 Give n that the am azem ent/aston ishm ent of Jesu s ' contem poraries can lead toscandal, there is perhaps a cer tain suggestion that awe is no guarantee that one hasunderstood correctly. It is a necessary, but in itself insufficient, response.

2 0 A t first, it is not app are nt whe the r it is the unc lean spirit or the de m on iac thatis speaking, although the masculine participle makes it appear the voice is the man's(see R. G. Bratcher and E. A. Nida, A Translator s Handb ook of the Gospel ofMark [Le ide n: Brill, 1 961] 49) . Bu t v. 25 m ak es it cle ar that Je su s thin ks he isaddress ing the demon in the s tory. The ambigui ty should not be pressed fors ign if icance, however. Possess ion involved the contro l o f the boy by an a l ienspirit, at least in the understanding of those who told stories such as this. See F.A n n e n , D i e D ä m o n e n a u s t r e i b u n g e n J e s u in d e n s y n o p t i s c h e n E v a n g e l i e n , "Theologische Berichte 5 (19 76 ) 107-46, esp . 108.



specia l knowledge of demons in genera l , i s ach ieved . The presen ts to ry i s the most speci f ic ins tance of what the la ter, summarypassages in t imate: the knowledge of the demons (1:34) that Jesus is

God 's son (3 :11) . To those who know the pat tern of the Gospel , aspecial d isclo sure of Jes us ' authori ty is here of fer ed . T he y wil l kn owthat the d em o n 's (or de m o ns ' ) ident i f icat ion of Jesus as the ho ly o neof G o d (v. 24 d) is insig htful , but par t ial. Th e de m on s in M ark serveto ke ep Jesu s ' d iv ine ident i ty in the fo re fro nt of hea rers ' m ind s. Butev en a s co m p ar ed t o t h e d e m o n s ' k n o w l ed g e , t h e i r s is m o r ecomplete .

In ano ther sense , how ever, the de m on s ' fear fu l kno wled ge of Jesuspoints to an authori ty even beyond the hearers ' present experience.The unclean spir i t of 1 :24 speaks as a representat ive of a force, orgr ou p of forc es, wh ich fears fo r i ts very existen ce: ha ve you co m eto des t roy us ? (ήλθες α π ο λ έ σ α ι ή μ α ς ;) . Generally, i t is odd tospeak of an exorc is t des t roy ing a dem on; the verbs b in d in g( δβω )o r to r m en t ing (β α σ α ν ίζω , see M ark 5 :7 ) wou ld have been m ore

c o n v e n t i o n a l .2 1

The demons here seem to t r emble be fo re ane s c h a t o l o g i c a l d e s t r u c t i o n2 2 (se e the use of the ver b ά ττό λλ υ μ ι at12:9) , not s imply a d isplacement f rom the person they occupy. Whilethe Markan reference to the temptat ion of Jesus by Satan (1:13) is sospare as to make any guesses as to i t s p rec ise ou tcome largelyspeculat ive, the narrat ive l ine of 1 :21-28, 34, 39; 3 :11, 12, 20-27;5:1-20 presupposes that the rule of the demons has been broken, and

that a new era dawns. In that new era, the Markan hearer is as t ranger. He knows more of i t than Jesus ' con temporar ies in thesynagogue, but the new and the unexpected s t i l l have the upper hand.Because the d isc losure o f Jesus ' au thor i ty in the s to ry i s o f aneschato log ica l na ture , the hearer rea l izes tha t even h is o r her

2 1 S ee O . Bau e r n f e in d , Die Worte der Dämonen im Markusevangelium

(Stu t tgar t : K ohl ham m er, 1927) 24-2 5; and Chi l ton , Khristos Epiphanes.2 2 See V. Ta y lo r , The Gospel according to St. Ma rk ( L o n d o n : M a c m i l l a n ,

1952) 174, wh ere 1 Enoch 69 :27 ; Lu ke 10:18; Re v. 20 :10 are c i ted by wa y ofc o m p a r i s o n ; a nd An n e n , "Dä m o n e n a u s t r e i b u n g e n , " 1 26 , c i ti n g t h e Testaments ofSimeon 6 :6 and Levi 18:12. A case has been mad e agains t see ing Satan as s t r ic t lyassoc ia ted wi th demons in genera l by M. Limbeck , "Jesus und d ie Dämonen ," BK30 (1975) 7 -11 . Bu t see R. Ya tes , "Jesus and the Demonic in the Synop t icG o s p e l s , " 1TQ 4 4 ( 1 9 7 7 ) 3 9 - 5 7 ; J . D . G . Du n n a n d G . Twe l f t r e e , "De mo n -

Possess ion and Exorc i sm in the New Tes tamen t , " Churchman 94 ( 1 9 8 0 ) 2 1 0 - 2 5 ,esp . 217- 218 ; Ann en , "D äm one nau s t re ib ung en ," 180-82 .



knowledge of Jesus as God 's son i s but an in t imat ion of what i s asunknown as i t is i r resist ible. Even for the hearer, i t is a new teachingwh i ch needs t o be l e a r ned a f r e sh a t e ach m om en t , a s t h e f u t u r e

comes c lose r.T h r ee d i m ens i ons o f d i sc l o su r e a r e t he r e f o r e r ea l i z ed i n t he

Markan emphasis on Jesus ' author i ty. At the level of past , h is tor ica lexpe r i ence , J e sus ' con t em por a r i e s exp r e s s an am azem en t , wh i ch m aybo rde r on scanda l , a t a new , e ff i ca c io us " t ea ch ing . " At the l eve l o fpresent , l i te rary exper ience , the hearer i s invi ted to know more thanJesus ' con t em por a r i e s , t o l o ok m or e t o t he t e ache r t han t o h i s

m ess ag e . An d a t t he l eve l o f f u t u r e , e sch a t o l o g i ca l l y an t i c i pa t edexper ience , the b roken power o f the demons in t imates a new rea l i tywhich o therwise i s on ly a mat te r o f hope . The a t t en t ive heare r ( towhom Mark seems espec ia l ly addressed [ see 13 :14] ) need no t , o fcourse , be consciously aware of the three d imensions of d isc losure ashe / she hear s . Bu t any hear ing o f the t ex t which exc luded one o rm or e o f t hem wou l d be i ncom p l e t e . To h ea r t he t ex t pu r e l y

h i s to r i ca l ly, o r pure ly l i t e r a r i ly, o r pure ly escha to log ica l ly, wouldbe one- s ided , and unaccep tab le as an account o f wha t i s sa id . Thet h r e e d i m e n s i o n s a re a ll i n v o l v e d i n a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e M a r k a nredact ion a t the moment one hears .

Par t i cu la r a t t en t ion m igh t none the le ss be g ive n to the h i s to r i ca ll eve l o f the Markan d i scourse . The l i t e ra ry d i sc losure o f Jesus 'au thor i ty in the t ex t can be apprec ia ted by p lac ing the s to ry in

context ; s imi lar ly, the eschatological level of address i s appreciableas soon as i t i s p laced wi th in the f ramework of pr imi t ive Chr is t ianexpec ta t ion . But the t ex t as i t s t ands seems to make a ca tegor ica lstatement about the past ; in that claim, i t places i tself at the bar ofhis tory. I f the text i s an h is tor ica l nonsense , i t s c la im to d isc loseJesus ' authori ty is purely theoret ical , at least as far as hearers with asense of the past are concerned. But i f the text is histor ical ly tenable

in the hearer ' s mind, he or she might then see even in the l i teraryand eschatological d imensions of the s tory an asser t ion about the rea lwor ld . In any sor t of hear ing, of course , the hearer permi ts h is orher own wor ld to be inf luenced by the wor ld of the text . That i s whyhear ing o f a se r ious so r t i s fundamenta l ly an ac t o f d i sc ip l inedimaginat ion . In Mark 1:21-28, however, the wor ld of the text c la imsto be more than imaginary; Jesus ' author i ty i s presented , not only as

a l i terary mot i f and an eschatological hope, but as ins tanced in anevent . Whether one sees that presenta t ion as h is tor ica l ly t rue or fa lse



wil l therefore inf luence one ' s hear ing of the text . That i s to say, theissue of h is tor ic i ty i s not only a funct ion of an a priori h i s to r i ca lin teres t in Jesus; i t i s a l so par t and parcel of considered l i terary

aw are ne ss and of a cr i tica l analysis of the re l ig ious syste m the G osp elis evoked by and seeks to evoke.

In genera l t e rms , the re i s a good degree o f co inc idence be tweenth i s s to ry in i t s Markan p resen ta t ion and the kerygma of the NewTe s t am en t . T h e e scha t o l og i ca l s i gn i f i c anc e o f J e s u s ' ex o r c i sm s isc la imed in a saying a t t r ibuted to Jesus h imsel f , and widely acceptedas authent ic (Mat t 12:28 = Luke 11:20) .23 More par t icular ly, some of

Jesus ' pa rab les , inc lud ing the one abou t the s t rong man , make thec la im tha t h i s exorc i sms s ign i fy the end o f Sa tan ' s r ég ime (Mark3 : 2 3 - 2 7 = Ma t t 12 : 25 - 29 = L u ke 11 : 17 - 22 ) , wh i ch—i n e f f ec t —i swhat i s impl ic i t ly c la imed in Mark ' s Gospel by v i r tue of the order ingo f 1 : 2 1 - 28 sho r t l y a f t e r t h e t em p t a t i on s t o r y. E v en on t hesupposi t ion that these sayings are authent ic , of course , one could noti n f e r i m m ed i a t e l y t ha t t h i s pa r t i cu l a r Mar k an exo r c i sm s t o r y i s

h is tor ica l . I t i s possib le that the Markan presenta t ion accords wi th athe olo gic al c la i m w hic h i s i t se l f not base d on any fact , or — at anyra te— w hi ch i s not base d on the un de rs ta nd ing that the pres ent s toryis fac tual . But a t leas t we should grant that Mark 1:21-28 accordsw i t h a n e a r l y ( p e r h a p s , th e e a r l i e s t ) u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f J e s u s 'e x o r c i s m s , as e s c h a t o l o g i c a l l y r e d o l e n t . S i m i l a r l y, t h e l i te r a r yemphas i s o f Mark on the demons ' knowledge and d i sc losure o f Jesus 'ident i ty i s not merely an invent ive mot i f ,2 4 but an e lement in ear lyChr i s t i an theo logy ( see Act s 19 :13-17 ; and Jas 2 :19 [no ted aga inbelow]) . Within the general ly acceptable unders tanding that Jesus waskn ow n a m on g h i s f o l l ow er s a s a succe ss f u l exo r c i s t wh o se su ccesswas a seal of who he was and an eschatological por tent , the Markanstory of the exorcism in the synagogue seems a t home. I t i s d i ff icul tto imagine how Jesus could have gained the reputa t ion he d id unlesssuch s to r i es were c i r cu la ted , and harder s t i l l t o under s tand whyMark begins wi th the par t icular s tory i t does unless the s tory was a tl eas t c red ib le . In o ther words , we shou ld r ecogn ize f rom the ou t se t

2 3 See Ch i l ton , Pure Kingdom: Jesus' Vision of God (S tudying the His tor ica lJesu s 1 ; Ee rdm ans : Grand R ap ids and Lon don : SPC K, 1996) 67-70 .

2 4 S e e H . Rä i s ä n e n , Das Messiasgeheimnis im Markusevangelium: Ein

redaktionskritischer Versuch (He l s ink i: Suom ala inen Tiedea ka tem ia , 1976) 91-9 3 ;and M.- J . Lagrange , L'Evangile selon Marc (Paris: Ga ba lda , 1947) 23.



that , whatever we might make of the s tory, in i ts own t ime i t wasconsidered tenab le .2 5

I N I T I A L E X E G E S I S O F T RA D I T I O N

The observat ion of cer tain features of the text encourages the viewthat i t i s far f rom a composi t ion des igned merely to i l lus t ra teMarkan themes . The s to ry mani fes t s oddi t ies which do no t appear tobe redact ional , but rather suggest i t had i ts own individual characterbefore i t was taken up in to Mark ' s Gospel . The f i r s t and mostst r ik ing oddi ty is found in the opening statement of the demon (v.24 ). Ex ce pt f or the first per son plur al usa ge, the init ial Τ ι ή μ ΐν κ α ίσ οι f i ts wel l wi thin the co nv en t ion of ex orc ism stor ies: the d em onat tem pts to de f lec t h is anta go nist wi th an abr upt put off : W e h av en o t h i n g f o r y o u .2 6 But the demon in the s tory goes fur ther. He

2 5 I t is interesting that Ro bert Funk rather prou dly note s that, in co m in g to thisevaluation, the Jesus Seminar comes out looking more conservative than a contem-

porary Ca tho l ic exege te ; see The Acts of Jesus, 57-59 , 77-7 9 . He migh t hav ementioned that only considerable discussion brought us to that point, and to theacknowledgment that Jesus cleansed the man with outbreak in Mark 1:40-45 (pp.61-63) . Those two evaluat ions are t igh t ly l inked , s ince in bo th c leans ings andexorcisms within the Gospels purity is a prominent concern.

2 6 S ee Bau e r n f e in d , Worte, 7 . As Rä i s ä n e n (D a s Messiasgeheimnis imMarkusevangelium, 92 n . 9 ) obse rves , Ba uern fe ind based many o f h i s gene ra l i za -t ions on the assumption that texts of a magical nature are immediately relevant to the

ques t ion o f Jesus ' exorc i sms . To an ex ten t , however, the religionsgeschichtlicheapproa ch he em ploye d jus t i f i ed such a p rocedu re , a l though the appro ach has s incebeen d iscredi ted (see C. Colpe , Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule: Darstellung undKritik ihres Bildes vom gnostischen Erlösermythus [ Gö t t i n g e n : Va n d e n h o e c k &Ruprech t , 1961] ; H. C. Kee , Miracle in the Early Christian World: A Study inSociohistorical Method [New Hav en: Ya le Un ivers i ty Press , 1983]) . In any case ,Bauernfe ind 's f indings can be checked agains t more obviously re levant texts . A l i s to f use fu l ana log ies to exo rc i sm s to r ie s in the Go spe l s m igh t inc lude Tob i t 6 -8 ,

1QapGen 20 :12-32 (c f . J . A. F i t zmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave1 [BibO r 18A; Ro m e: Bibl ica l Ins t itu te Press , 1971]) , Ant. 8 .2.5 §46 -4 8 (cf . H . St .J . Th a c k e r a y a n d R . M a r c u s , Josephus V [ L C L 2 8 1 ; L o n d o n : H e i n e m a n n ;C am br id ge : Harv a rd Unive rs i ty P ress , 1934] ) , and Life of Apollonius 3 .38 ; 4 .2 0( f rom a l a te r pe r iod ; c f . F. C. Conybeare , Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius ofTyana [LC L 16-17 ; Lon don : He in em ann , 1912] ). Re fe ren ce migh t a lso be ma de toK. P re i sendanz , Papyri Graecae Magicae (Leipz ig: Te ubn er, 1928), and the revisionunder taken by A. Henr ichs , Die griechischen Zauberpapyri (S tu t tga r t : Te ub ne r,

1973-74 ) , wh ich o ff e r s ac tua l in s tances o f the l anguage o f exo rc i sm and incan-ta t ion , but the da tes of the documents are too la te to permit of a d i rec t compar ison



nam es the exorc is t qu i te p rec ise ly as Ίη σ ο ΰ [ό] Ν α ζαρ η νέ , a des ig-nat ion which only appears in Mark in direct or indirect d iscourse.2 7

Demons were commonly thought to possess supernatura l ins igh t in

antiquity, but this one is portrayed as naming Jesus in quite a formalsen se: I kn ow w ho you are, the holy one of G o d . In the l i teratur ewhich ment ions exorc ism, the technique of naming (somet imes wi thmult ip le designat ions) general ly appears as the means by which theexorc is t ga ins con t ro l over the demon.2 8 That convent ion is here

with the Gospels . (See also the remarks of Kee, Miracle, 214 -15 .) Th e que stion of

chronology must a lso be borne in mind when one uses G. A. Deissmann 's Lightfrom the Ancient East (Lo nd on : H od de r & Sto ug hto n, 1910). It is also w orthnoting that there are not many stories of exorcisms in the literature of early Judaism.But the evid enc e does not sugg est that such stor ies differe d entirely fro m those ofHellenistic literature. Moreover, this is an area in which the chronology of sourcesmay have l i t t le to do with the practices they relate. C. Bonner, for example,demonstra tes that e lements in the nar ra t ive of Josephus resemble a contemporarys tory ( The Vio lence of Depar t ing Demons,HTR 37 [1944] 334-36) . See also

Bauern fe ind , Worte, 13 η. 3, wh ich g ives a sure indication that the pra ctitio ner s ofReligionsgeschichte were not as naive in respect of chro nolo gy as is so m etim esalleged; and J . M. Hull , Hellenistic Mag ic and the Synoptic Tradition (SB T 28;London: SCM Press , 1974) .

2 7 See Η . H . Schaeder, Ν α£αρηνός· , Ν αζαρα ΐος· ,TDNT 4 (1967) 874 -79 .The understanding of the term in this material is discussed below.

2 8 See Annen, "Dä m one naus t re ibu nge n," 121, c i t ing the work of Lim beck ; butthe i r supposi t ion tha t th is fea ture i s theologica l ly mot iva ted does not bear exami-

na t ion . Bauern fe ind Worte, 3 -18) presents the c lass ic form of the observat ion . Hisposi t ion is a t tacked by A. Fr idr ichsen, "Jesu Kampf gegen d ie unre inen Geis ten ,"in Α . Suhl (ed .) , Der Wun derbegriff im Neuen Testament ( D a r m s tad t: W is s en -schaf t l iche Buchgesel lschaf t , 1980) 248-65 , 251-52 . Fr idr ichsen 's argument thatthe demon 's words amount to a confess ion is , however, on ly tenable with in theMarkan context, not within the context of the tradit ion. The oddity of the demon'sspeech is mentioned by C. Bonner ( The Technique of Exorcism,HTR 36 [1943]39 -49 , 44 ), wh o in turn ascribe s the obs erva tion to Lois y. For usage of άγιος·, se e

Testament of Solomon as cited by Bo nne r. Ha enc hen (Weg, 88) rejec ts the idea,ra ised by Lo hm eye r, that the nam ing repres ents an a t tem pt to contro l on e ' sad ver sar y, by say ing , Jes us ist doch f ü r d e n Dä mo n k e in 'Ru mp e l s t i l z c h e n ' "Were this observation couched in the form of an argument, one might respond to i t .See R. Pesch, Der Besessene von Gerasa: Entstehung und Überlieferung einerWundergeschichte (S tu t tgar t : Ka thol isches Bib elw erk , 1972) 26 (see 32-3 3) , w hocharac ter izes Mark 5 :7 as a parody of an exorc is t ic formula . Such words should bedis t inguished f rom those in which demons might recognize the power of exorc is ts

( see Pesch , Der Besessene von Gerasa, 3 4 ; An n e n , "Dä mo n e n a u s t r e i b u n g , " 1 20 -21 for examples) .



rev erse d: the de m on , in eff ec t , at tem pts to exo rcise Jesus, m uc h as at5:7 (see Luke 8:28) . No doubt , the demon acts with the mere in ten-tion of warding Jesus off; the fact remains that i t ut i l izes exorcist icmeans to do so . Jesus ' counter-measure in v. 252 9 p roves effec t ive ,but the de m on departs only with violence, con vu lsin g the m an andscreaming (v. 26) . Comparison might be made with 9:26, where thesam e verb (σ πα ρά σ σ ω ) is used to descr ibe such a violent seizure thatonlookers believe the victim is dead when i t is over. I t is true thatexorc ism s tor ies som et imes inc lude physical ev id ence of a de m on 'sdeparture; the most famous example is probably that of Eleazar in

Jos eph us , wh o co m m an de d a dem on to kno ck over a con ta iner o fwater as i t departed.3 0 But the present story is odd in the violence its t resses . (Be cau se the m ent io n of v io le nce occur s jus t wh en onemight expect a clear s tatement of the success of the exorcism, tospeak of a s t ress on violence appears appropriate . ) Both the at temptof the demon to gain control over Jesus, and i ts f inal , furious attemptto injure the demoniac are also, of course, hardly consistent with the

Markan emphasis on the magister ial authori ty of Jesus ' exorcism.Although these features of the s tory amount to a coherent version

(and help to confirm that i t is tradit ional in substance), they are noteasi ly explained as theological ly motivated elements . Such chris to log-ical point as there might be in having a demon in a synagogue callJes us the holy one of G o d is diss ipat ed, f irst of al l by the stron gresistance of the demon to Jesus, but also by the vagueness of the des-

ignat ion .3 1

I t has been suggested from time to t ime that stories aboutthe exorcisms of Jesus might have circulated among those who wereinterested more in the style of the exorcisms than in the person of theex o r c i s t .3 2 But the relative absence of technical detail and practical

2 9 S ee D u n n an d Tw e l f t r e e , D e m o n - P o s s e s s io n , 2 1 2 ; T. A . Bu r k i l l ,Mysterious Revelation: An Exam ination of the Philosophy of St. Ma rk s Gospel

(Ithaca: Cornell University, 1963) 73.3 0 S ee Ant. 8 .2 .5 §46-48.3 1 See Lagrang e, Marc, 22-2 3. Alt ho ug h this desc ription m ight be held to be

disappointingly general, it seems more adequate than the attempt to see the phrase ina specif ica l ly mess ian ic ( so H. B. Swete , The Gospel according to St. Ma rk[Lon don : M acm il lan , 1913] 19) , h igh pr ies t ly (so Lo hm eye r, Markus, 37 ), orchar ismat ic ( so Haenchen , Weg, 87 η. 5) light.

3 2 See E. Tr o c m é , La formation de l'Evangile selon Marc (Pa r i s : P re sses

Un ivers i ta i res , 1963) 42-4 3. Pesch (Der Besessene von Gerasa, 48- 49 ) spea ks ofqui te a d i f fer en t cyc le in respe ct of the s tory of the Ge ras en e dem on iac . But he



advice (in the style, say, of the Magical Papyri) would seem to tel lagainst speculation of this kind, at least in the case of the presentpassage. More to the point , the peculiar features of the story are nobet ter accounted for on the supposi t ion i t belonged to an exorcismcycle than they are on the supposit ion i t was transmitted by disciplesof Jesus. The quest ion of who the pre-Markan t radents of the s torywe re is best lef t open f or the mo m ent , w hich imp lies there is so m e-thing of a mystery as to why i t was told. The theological usefulnessof the story to the disciples, once i t originated, is evident; but thestory cannot be explained as a mere reflection of their theology.

In the absence of cer tainty, or even information, about the s tory-tellers and their motives, the odd elements of the story are difficultto evaluate. They might conceivably represent theological or typicalfeatures of which we are ignorant, but in which the story-tellers (bethey d isc ip les , fo lk exo rc is t s , o r wh atev er) and the i r au d ie nc esdel igh ted . But the presen t ly avai lab le ev idence concern ing conven-t ions of exorcism stor ies in general lends no support to such an

unders tand ing . Moreover, the s to ry i s somewhat ou t o f s tep wi thwhat we know of d isciples ' c laims about Jesus ' exorcisms in par t icu-lar. As we have already observed, the Markan redact ion presents thepoint of the s tory as the manifestat ion of Jesus ' authori ty, not thes t rugg le o f one exo rc i s t i c oa th aga ins t ano ther. The Mat theanredact ion handles the diff icul ty in a more dramatic way, by referr ingto i t , i f at al l , only in respect of Jesus' teaching, and in very

summary form (7:28-29) . Al though the Lukan paral lel of the s tory(4 :31-37) has reference to the demon 's ad jura t ion of Jesus (4 :34) ,3 3

the descr ipt ion of the violence done by the demon is weaker than inM ark . Ins tead of σ π α ρά σ σ ω , ρ ίπ τω is used to speak of the de m o n ' saction, and the reassurance is added that i t did no damage (4:35). Inthe end, i t would appear unwise to t ry to explain the pecul iarfea tures o f the s to ry wi th reference to convent ion of theo log ica ltendency.

INITIAL EXEGESIS OF HISTORY

The unders tand ing tha t an exorc ism of the sor t descr ibed was

clear ly d is t ingu ishe s 1 :21-28 f ro m th is co m ple x , and argu es that the ear l ierexorcism story is to some extent the paradigm of the later (pp. 41-42).

3 3

See also 8:29 as co m pa red to M ark 5:7, and Pesc h, Der Besessene vonGerasa, 52-53. But com pare Luk e 8:28 with M ark 5:7, and see Pesch, 61.



believed by the story-tellers to have happened would, on the othhand, adequately account for i ts presence in the Gospels, and for tre la t ive impor tance ascr ibed to i t wi th in the Markan redact ionAbove all , i t would explain the existence of the odd features of ths tory: Jesus was bel ieved on one occasion to be res is ted in synagogue by a demon who addressed him as both "Nazarene" an"th e ho ly o ne of G o d " as part of a vain atte m pt to ex or cis e thexorcist and/or kill the demoniac. As the story was told, the ultimavictory of Jesus was stressed more and more, until it came to be seas a manifestation of his authority. At the end of the day, the aspeof struggle which the story reveals only l inks in with the Markaoutline insofar as i t is in proximity to the temptation story. Thattempt of the demons to stop Jesus by naming him is submerged the motif of the demons' knowledge of Jesus ' identity (see l :34d). other words, a tradition history of the story is not diff icult tconstrue on the supposition that it was told originally to speak of actual event; just those features which suggest i t is in that sense

historical are difficult to account for as secondary elaborations.Pre-modern hearers of Mark would have required no tradi t io

crit ical consideration to be convinced that the story-tellers intendeto speak of an occurrence, and that they accomplished their intentioEven for them, however, an e lement of unexpected s t ruggle anviolence was present , an element which is sof tened in Luke anexpunged in Mat thew. Markan hearers were invi ted to perce iv

Jesus' authority in all its dimensions, historical, literary, and eschaological, as disclosed in continuing combat with the agents of SataFor them, Jesus had joined combat and begun the long bat t le fovictory, but the fight had still to be waged in his name (see 9:38-40)

Modern hearers of Mark are put in a different posit ion, not by thtext , but by their own unders tanding of the world. For us , thmeaning of Jesus' authority within Mark is still conveyed by the tex

and we can appreciate the significance which might be attached this sort of authority. But among educated Westerners, to think odemons at all , much less of demons uttering exorcistic formulae anconvulsing their victims, has long been considered more appropriawithin the realm of fantasy, rather than of fact . (The commonlvoiced objec t ion tha t there are cer ta in ins tances of demoniacathinking and experience in our cul ture does not refute the gener

observat ion that such ins tances are not consonant with our usuaapprehension.) A crit ical hearing of the evidence will not necessari



resolve our d i lemma, because i t i s not wi th in the province oexegetes or historians to rule on matters of natural science. To sayfor example, that the story is true and our view of the world to

narrow, is a perfectly respectable philosophical reflection, but i t cahardly be commended on s t r ic t ly tex tual or h is tor ica l groundsSimilarly, to say that demons do not exist and stories which supposthey do are misleading, has the attractive r ing of rational consistencabout it, but it would seem to reduce history to a priori no tion s ofwhat is possible.

Within the discipline of historical exegesis , the text is neither a

absolute, nor an inconvenience to be overcome: the task of the hearas exegete is to understand what the text he or she is hearing offerIn the present case, what is offered is a picture of Jesus ' authoritbased on the report of an exorcism which, in the minds of those whtold the story, actually occurred. The claim of actuality, so far acrit icism can determine, l ies at the very origin of the story; withoit, we can understand neither why the story was told, nor why it w

incorporated as it now is within Mark. In this sense, the speech of tdemon and Jesus ' eventual exorc ism of i t a re h is tor ica l eventsHistory in this case contradicts received notions of ordinary reali tOne might eas i ly construct an al ternat ive diagnosis of the demoniaalong the l ines, say, of a dissociative reaction.3 4 But construct ions ofthat sort would only impose an alien point of view on the text, anare more exercises in natural philosophy than in exegesis . The stora ises in our minds the phenomenologica l ques t ion whether demoexis t , without set t l ing i t ; what would have been experienced by modern observer in ancient Capernaum remains a mys tery. I f wcannot accept the terms of reference with which the story works, will not help us to i ts meaning if we invent new terms of referencfor i t . Even the at tempt to impose the demonic conventions of ths tory on the modern hearer is an exercise in inventing terms oreference, s ince demons are not a normal par t of our world view

3 4 See N. Ca me ron , Personality Developm ent and Psychopathology: ADynamic Approach (Bo ston: Ho ugh ton Mif fl in , 1963) 338 -72, w ho deals with thrather rare occurrence of multiple personali ty within this category (pp. 358-60)sho uld be ob serv ed that sch izop hren ia is desc ribed quite differen tly, as regre ssexpressed by the production of delusions and/or hallucinations (p. 584). See aThe Psychiatric Clinics of North America 7 (198 4). On the gene rally p rob lem atic

nature of at tempts at retrospective diagnosis, see R. Hengel and M. Hengel, "Hei lungen Jesu und medizinisches Denken," in Wunderbegriff, 338-73.



The story does not preach the existence of demons; i t merely takthem for granted.

Above all , exercises in the alternative reconstruction of the evdescr ibed do not explain why the text emerged as i t has ; threlinquish the study of the text in favor of a general s tudy of tphenomenology of exorcism. In the present case, to say that alleged instances of possession are really a species of psychologid i s t u r b a n c e3 5 might make some hearers more comfor table wi th thstory, but i t would not account for i ts impact on those who heard told i t , or for the precise words attr ibuted to the demon. Rather,

historicity of the text, quite aside from the ontological question the existence of demons, should be accepted on exegetical groundsone facet of its effectiveness as a literary whole. History is essentiathe study of human events, and of the factors which occasioned ainf luenced those events .3 6 By an act of sympathy, historians attemptto unders tand the recorded impact of events on people; how peoperceived events i s therefore par t of the h is tor ica l record . T

exorcism reported in Mark 1:21-28 should be accepted as one facin the recognition of Jesus ' identity by his followers.3 7 Usual ly, suchcon d i t i on ing f ac to r s — s uc h a s eco no m ic c l ima te , and pop u lexpectat ions of the t ime—can be recognized as possible real i t iesthe present, as well as the past. Historians normally speak of t

3 5 B efo re psy cho logica l exp lana tions of such even ts are acc epte d, how evemust be appreciated that the entire notion of mental disease has come under atboth on practical grounds (see W. E. Broen, Schizophrenia: Research and Theory[New York: Academic, 1968]; T. R. Sarbin and J . C. Mancuso, Schizophrenia:Med ical Diagnosis or Moral V erdict? [Oxfo rd : Perg am on, 1980]) and mora lgrou nds (see J . Cou l ter, Approache s to Insanity: A Philosophical and SociologicalStudy [Lon don: Robertson, 1973]; T. Szasz, The Myth of Psychotherapy: MentalHealing as Religion, Rhetoric, and Repression [Oxfo rd : Ox fo rd Un ive rs i ty,1979]).

3 6 See B. J. F. Lo nerg an, Method in Theology (New York: Herd er & Herder,1972) 178-96, 220-24.

3 7 Ann en ("Däm one nau st re ib ung ," 115-17) pu ts h i s f inger on a d i ff icuwhich has been created for (and by) cri t ical scholarship. Crit ics are will ing toJesus exorcized in general , but not which stories are historical (see Dunn Twelft ree , "Demon-Possession"). But general s ta tements cannot possibly do juto the particularity of texts, in this case, the struggle of the demon and its naminJesus. The force of any story l ies precisely in i ts unusual elements; their apprtion as historical, mythical, theoretical, fantastic, or whatever, is part of the heatask.



condit ioning factors of the past in the comfort ing knowledge thathey would eas i ly be recognized in the present . But there areoccasions, and this is one of them, when the historical conditions othe past have no obvious analogies in the present; whether that isbecause human perceptions have changed over t ime, or because thactuality perceived has i tself altered, no one can say with certaintyAn event may be said to be historical without being repeatable in thpresent . On such occas ions , h is tor ica l inquiry mus t i t se l f beexorcised of the pretension to speak of what is true for all time, andrest content with a reasoned, exeget ical account of how what is

written came to be, and how that influences our appreciation of threceived form of the text . The his tor ical quest ion centers funda-mental ly on what people perceived, and how they acted on theirperception; the question of how ancient experience relates to moderexperience is a distinct, interpretative matter.3 8

EXEG ESIS OF TRA DITION: A SEC ON D LOO K

The struggle to come to terms with Jesus ' exorcisms is evident noonly in contemporary discussion, but in the text of Mark. Nowhere ithat plainer than in the story of the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:120), which in some particulars bears a str iking resemblance to thestory of the exorcism in the synagogue. Jesus is placed on the easterside of the sea of Galilee, in explicitly gentile territory. The alreadyemphatic impuri ty of the locale is , a t i t were, squared by theapproach of a maniac who inhabits the cemetery of the GerasenesThe unclean spir i t within him cal ls himself " legion," an evidentreference to the recent occupation by the Romans (under Pompeyand the use of the region of the Decapolis for adminis trat ivepurposes .3 9 Now we understand how impure the place is , and why itis appropriate to think of i t—as the reference to the tombs suggest—in terms of death i t se l f . F inal ly, however, impur i ty squared

becomes impurity cubed, with the request of the demons to entire herd of about two thousand pigs. The narrative puts Jesus in confrontation with uncleanness, if not to the "nt h" degree, then cubed.

Jesus ' characteristic activity within Galilee put him into contac

3 8 See A. Suhl , "Die W und er Jesu: Ereignis und Üb erl ieferun g," in Wunder-begriff; 464-509.

3 9

See J. J. Ro ussea u and R. Arav , Jesus and His Wo rld. An Archaeologicaland Cultural Dictionary (M innea polis: Fortress, 1995) 85-8 7, 97-9 9.



with those whom many teachers would have considered of doubtfpurity, or as simply impure. The failure to pay ti the, for examplwas held by Phar isees to render one unf i t for fe l lowship ( iMishnah, see the t ractate Demai). A w ell-k no w n saying of Jesu s ,widely held to be authentic, attests Jesus ' own awareness that thhabi t of tab le- fe l lowship wi th dubious examples of I s rae l wanotorious (see Matt 11:19 = Luke 7:34, from "Q").4 0 But the story ofthe Gerasene maniac pushes the issue of uncleanness well beyodebatable questions: here is a man who lives in a cemetery in gentterri tory occupied by the Romans, whose unclean spiri t calls i tse

"legion" ("troops") and likes the company of swine.The maniac may be unders tood to be an Israel i te or not . Hi

proximity to the pigs is no disqualif ication; Jesus ' own parable of twayward son conceives of pig-keeping as the supreme symbol thatJew has hit rock bottom (see Luke 15:11-32). The reference to Jesas "the son of God Most High," however, probably suggests that tmaniac is a gentile, since "God Most High" is a title of the God

Israel which is classically used by non-Israeli tes (see Melchizedek Gen 14:19; Balaam in Num 24:16; the Philippian slave girl in Ac16:17).

Whether the maniac is identif ied as a Jew or not, the outcome ohis encounter is plainly indicated. The pigs are drowned, the demoare confined to the deep, and Jesus is cordially invited to depart frothe area. His purity is such that he can indeed encounter what

t r iply impure, the genti le domain of Roman mortuary demons answine, but the result is a disaster for uncleanness i tself . Jesus caabide what is impure, but what is impure cannot survive before him

Within i ts own particular terms of reference, the story of thlegion of demons might be compared to the s tory of Nadab anAbihu, the sons of Aaron, in the Hebrew Bible (Lev 10:1-3). Whthey offered an unauthorized, unwanted form of sacr if ice by f i r

they were themselves consumed with f i re . As f i re is the answer f ire in Leviticus, drowned pigs are the answer to impure spiri ts the Synoptic Gospels. In both cases, the underlying dynamic of tnarratives is that the pure and the impure are incompatible, and thit is the pure which destroys the impure when they meet, by driviuncleanness to self- immolat ion.

The narrative of the demonic legion and the Gerasene swine is

4 0 See Pure Kingdom, 80 , 83 , 112, 142.



explici t marker of the l imits of Jesus ' character is t ic act ivi ty. SeàFreyne has observed that Jesus is not placed by the Gospels in any othe urban centers which modern archaeologis ts have excavated.4 1 W e

can say m uch m ore about Sep pho ris and Tiber ias , for ex am ple , thawas once the case, but we find Jesus there no more than in Tyre oSidon. Fishing towns such as Bethsaida and Capernaum, agr icul turset t lements such as Nazareth and Chorazin, rather provided his focuof activity. Even in Jerusalem, we find him staying out in the vil lagof Bethany. The story of the legion may to some extent permit us tsay why Jesus avoided the centers of Roman civil ization in his area.

The very conception of the story projects Jesus ' practice of puritas inclusive, will ing to engage both the man from the tombs and threquest of the legion to enter the swine, and to do so on for himunusual terr i tory. But his apparent wil l ingness to accede to theidesire is a disas ter for them and for the economy of the regionImplici t ly, insofar as the demons take the name of legion, Romahegemony i tself is threatened. From the perspect ive of this s tory

Jesus d id not avoid Caesarea and Sepphor is and Tyre and S idonbecause he feared the contact of impurity; rather, his avoidance waa matter of containing the power of his own purity. The whole ironof the encounter is that Jesus ' tr ip east , in the direction of Romainfluence, banishes the demons, kil ls the pigs, upsets the prosperitwhich the Romans and their legions have brought .4 2

As purity delineated the Israel which the Pharisees attained to an

which the Essenes insisted upon, so purity was at the center of Jesup r o g r a m .4 3 According to his ideal, the purity of the kingdom could

4 1 See "T he Ge ograp hy, Pol it ics , and Ec ono mic s of Gal i lee and the Qu est fothe Historical Jesus," in B. D. Chi l ton and C. A. Evans (eds.) , Studying theHistorical Jesus. Eva luations of the State of Current Research (NT TS 19; Leid en:Bril l , 1994), 75-121, esp. 120-21.

4 2 Th is i rony wa s exte nsiv ely disc uss ed within the m eet i ng of the Jes u

Seminar which found that an historical event generated the story. Robert Funk wvisibly annoyed with the finding at the t ime, and now writes, "The Fellows of tJesus Seminar concluded that some vague historical event might l ie behind ts to ry" The Acts of Jesus, 78). Th e Se m ina r might wel l hav e go ne furth er inassert ions of historic i ty had there been greater part ic ipat ion by those who ainterested in history, but in any case the discussion was much more pointed, athe results sometimes more accommodating of a posit ively historical concern, thFunk indicates.

4 3 See Chi l ton , The Temp le of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program Within a

Cultural History of Sacrifice (Un iversity Park: Penn State Un ivers ity Pre ss, 1992).



be celebrated in meals of fellowship within Israel. The generic puof Israel was assumed, without the addit ion of Pharisaic or Essrules of t i thing and preparation. But within Jesus ' practice, precis

which "Israel" was assumed to be pure? Jesus ' own act ivi ty drawsa map of I s rae l as communi t ies in which Jewish se t t lemensuppor ted by f i sh ing and/or agr icu l ture , suppor ted themselves were productive for other Jews. Those communit ies might be in te r r i tory of Herod Ant ipas , such as Nazare th and Capernaum Chorazin, or in the terr i tory of Herod Phil ip , such as BethsaiPolit ical boundaries as such do not seem to have been considered

issue.What was an issue, the story of the legion informs us, was

cap ac ity an d will in gn ess to join the circle of Israel by m ea ns of practice of purity. Absent those conditions, contact with Jesus ' pumight be disas trous . Once puri ty in Jesus ' teaching and pract iceunderstood to be a posit ive value, the condition of Israel whichconsis tent with the kingdom of God, then the s tory of the leg

becomes sensible . Apart f rom the context of puri ty, the s tory seean arb i t rary d isp lay of power ; wi th in tha t context , the s toar t iculates the implici t l imitat ion of Jesus ' minis try to non-urbIsrael .

W ithin n on-urb an Israel , fe l low ship might be joine d by offe r ingone 's own produce, on the assumption that the products of Isrwere suitably pure. At the same time, forgiveness is clearly a fea

of Jesus ' movement , in which a regular prayer to be forgiven wcharacter is t ic (see Matt 6:12 = Luke 11:4) . But to that whichoutside Jesus ' Israel, to the world of unclean spiri ts , of swine cemeter ies , of that a l l the legion represent , Jesus ' pur i ty is threatening pract ice. There, generic cleanness may not be assumand forgiveness is neither asked nor offered; i t is a world whichsimply incompatible with Jesus ' vision. The end of the story, in

request that Jesus depart , is the l imiting boundary of what constitIsrael. As in the Mishnah, so for Jesus, Israel is marked off frnon-Israel by the practice of purity. In Jesus' case, the purity at isis more generic than in Mishnah, a matter of producing more thamatter of t i thing, and yet the fundamental , def ining role of purremains constant .

But how is i t that the implicit l imitation to agricultural Isr

within Jesus ' program became so emphatic and clear ly del ineatedthis s tory? That over t focus on puri ty within the s tory of t



Gerasene maniac is the l ikely contr ibut ion of James and his circleThe importance of James as a central authori ty within a pr imit ivestage of Chris t iani ty is evident f rom a reading of Acts and Gala

t ians .4 4

A passage within the Gospels will be the focus of attentionhere, in order to elucidate James ' inf luence within the oral andli terary formation of the texts . To lay the groundwork for a consider at ion of Ja m es ' con cern f or the Te m ple (a pivotal topic w ithinany discuss ion of puri ty) , we begin with the descr ipt ion of Jamesprovided by Hegesippus, a Chris t ian wri ter f rom the second century.

Heges ippus—as c i t ed by Euseb ius ( see Hist. Eccl. 2 . 23 .1 - 18 ) —

character izes James , Jesus ' b ro ther, as the person who exerc isedimmediate control of the church in Jerusalem. Although Peter hadin i t ia l ly ga thered a group of Jesus ' fo l lowers in Jerusa lem, h isinterests and activit ies further afield left the way open for James tobecome the natural head of the community there. That change, andpoli t ical changes in Jerusalem i tself , made the Temple the effect ivecenter of the local community of Jesus ' fol lowers . James pract iced

careful and idiosyncrat ic puri ty in the interes ts of worship in theTemple. He abstained from wine and animal f lesh, did not cut hishair or beard, and forsook oil and bathing. According to Hegesippusthose specia l prac t ices gave h im access even to the sanctuary.Josephus reports he was kil led in the Temple c. 62 at the instigationof the High Pries t Ananus during the interregnum of the Romangovernors Fes tus and Albinus (Ant. 20 .9 .1 §19 7-20 3) . H ege s ipp usgives a more circumstantial , less polit ically informed, account of them a r t y r d o m .

In addition to the sort of close association with the Temple whichcould and did result in conflict with the authorit ies there, the circleof James is expressly claimed in Acts to have exerted authority as faaway as Ant ioch , by means of emissar ies who spoke Greek (Acts15:13-35) . The par t iculars of the dispute (with both Pauline andPetr ine unders tandings of puri ty) wil l not detain us here, becausethey have been discussed at some length (see note 44). What is ofimmedia te impor t i s tha t James a lone determines the outcome ofapostolic policy. James in Acts agrees that Gentiles who turn to Godare not be encumbered with needless regulations (15:19), and yet h

4 4 See J . Ne usn er and B. D. Ch i l ton, Revelation: The Torah and the Bible

(Christ ianity and Judaism: The Formative Categories ; Valley F orge: Trinity PressInternational, 1995) 118-23.







Jesus himself had objected) , fed the convict ion of Jesus ' fol lowthat he who had been crucified had also been vindicated.

Acts pictures Peter as the f irst leader of a t ightly knit grouwhich broke bread at home and held property in common (see A1:12-26; 2:46; 3:1-26; 4:1-37; 5:1-11). But Peter is also represenas active much further afield. A shift in leadership of the communin Jerusa lem, f rom Peter to James , became necessary, and Aclearly attests it (see Act 12:17). Acts 12:17 also reflects an imptant (and overlooked) aspect of the shif t in power f rom Peter James. Peter has been imprisoned at the command of Herod Agrip

and is delivered by means of an angel. Greeted by companions in house he goes to, he orders them to tell James of his release, adeparts to an unspecified place. Peter had aroused priestly oppositin a way James did not (see Acts 4:1-31; 5:12-42), and the priewere able to use their inf luence with Herod. In contras t , Jammanaged to adapt Jesus ' message to a greater devotion to the Temthan most Jews demonstrated. Just that devotion is reflected in

scr ip tura l sy l logism regarding qorban, as well as in H eg es ip pu s 'description of James.

The syllogism in regard to qorban also ass um es that dev otion toJesus ' teaching is consistent with a greater than ordinary loyaltythe Temple. Hegesippus ' account of the death of James conveys same assumption, in i ts reference to the attempt by a member opriestly family to save James from death in the last moments of

l ife. Indeed, the entire scene of his martyrdom unfolds in the conof the Temple at the t ime of Passover, and reflects the particudevotion of James' circle both to that feast and to the conduct sacrif icial worship in the Temple.4 7

Typically, the circle of James applied the Scriptures directly to situation of Jesus ' followers, on the assumption of their regulatauthority. James cited the reference of Amos to the restoration of

house of David ( in Amos 9:11-12) . As James develops the meanof Amos in Acts 15:16-21, the gentiles are to recognize the tr iumof David, and that implies that they are to remain gentiles. They not a part of Israel, although they are to keep basic rules of purityorder to honor the law of Israel.

James' focus was on Jesus ' role as the ult imate arbiter within

4 7 See B. D. Chilton, A Feast of Mean ings: Eucharistie Theologies from Jesusthrough Johannine Circles (NovTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 93-108.





At the same t ime, we are shown how James ' c lass ic unders tandof Is rae l was cons idered au thor i ta t ive , even for the la rge ly noJewish congregat ion in Ant ioch . Here , in the p lace where Jes

fol lowers were first cal led "Christ ians" (so Acts 11:26), i t is accepaf ter a cons iderable cont roversy tha t , a l though Gent i les may notrequi red to c i rcumcise , ne i ther may they be cons idered one wIsrae l . James ' I s rae l cons i s ted of those who recognized Jesus , scion of the Davidic l ine, as the guardian of t rue, non-commercpuri ty in the Temple.

Th e nature of the vow fu l f i l l ed wi th in the T em pl e whic h Ja m

was especial ly devoted to seems quite clear. I t is to be fulfi l led wthe men shave thei r heads (so Acts 21:24) . We are evident ly dealwi th a Nazir i te vow.4 9 As set out in Numbers 6, a Naziri te was to lethis hai r and beard grow for the t ime of his vow, abstain completfrom grapes , and avoid approaching any dead body. At the close the period of the vow, he was to shave his head, and offer his hairproximity to the al tar (so Num 6:18). The end of this t ime of be

holy, the LORD's proper ty, i s marked by enabl ing the Nazi r i t e dr ink wine again (6:20) .Just these pract ices of hol iness are at t r ibuted by Hegesippus

c i ted by Eusebius , Hist. Eccl. 2 .23) to Jam es. Th e addi t io nal not ice,that he avoided oi l and using an enclosed bath, is consistent with especial concern for puri ty among Nazir i tes . They were to avoid con tac t wi th dea th (Num 6 :6 -12) , and the avo idance o f a

unc leann ess— wh ich i s incom pat ib le wi th sanct i ty — fol low s naturaThe avoidance of oi l i s a lso at t r ibuted by Josephus to the Esse(J.W. 2.8 .3 §123 ), and the reas on see m s plain : oi l , as a f lu id pr essfrom frui t , was considered to absorb impuri ty to such an extent tex t reme ca re in i t s p repara t ion was v i t a l .5 0 A b s e n t c o m p l e t eassu rance , abs t ine nce was a wise pol icy. Ja m es ' v egeta r ian ism acomports wi th a concern to avoid contact wi th any kind of corpFinal ly, a l though Heges ippus ' asser t ion tha t James could ac tuaenter the sanctuary seems exaggerated, h is acceptance of a Nazir

4 9 See R. T om es, "W hy did Paul Get his H ai rC ut ? (Acts 18.18; 21.23 -24)C. M. Tuckett (ed.), Luke s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays ( J SN TSu p116; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 188-97. Tomes rightly pointsthat there is considerable deviation from the prescriptions of Numbers 6 hereMishnah (see below) amply attests such flexibility within the practice of the vo

5 0 See Josephus , J.W. 2 .30 .4-5 §590-594; m. Menah. 8:3-5; and the w ho leof Makširin. Th e point of dep arture for the conce rn is Lev 11:34.



regime, such as Acts 21 explicit ly associates him with, would accoufor such a remembrance of h im, in tha t Nazi r i tes were to bpresented in the vicinity of the sanctuary.

As i t turned out , James ' advice proved disas trous for Paul . Paulentry into the Temple caused a r iot , because i t was supposed he wabringing non-Jews in . As a resul t , he was arres ted by a Romaof f ic er , and so beg an the long legal con tent io n w hich resu l teultimately in his death (Acts 21:27-28:21). The extent to which Jammight have anticipated such a result can not be known, but i t doeseem obvious that his commitment to a Nazirite ideology blinded hi

to the pol i t ical dangers which threatened the movement of which hwas the nearest thing to the head.Indeed, our suggest ion that James was a Nazir i te ,5 1 and saw his

brother ' s movement as focused on producing more Nazir i tes , enablus to address an old and as yet unsolved problem of research. Jesubea ring a co m m on na m e, is som etim es referred to as "of N az are thin the Gospels, and that reflects how he was specified in his owtime. There is no doubt but that a geographical reference is involve(see Joh n 1:45-46) .5 2 But more is going on here. Actually, Jesus israre ly ca l led "of Nazare th" or " f rom Nazare th ," a l though he waprobably known to have come f rom there . He is usual ly ca l le"Nazoraean" or "Nazarene ." Why the adjec t ive , and why the uncetainty in spel l ing? The Septuagint shows us that there were mandifferent transli terations of "Nazirite." That reflects uncertainty as

5 1 See the mo re global constru ction of R. H. Eis en m an, James the Brother ofJesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early C hristianity and the Dead SeaScrolls (Ne w Yo rk: Vik ing, 1996). It is som etim es argued that Jesu s himself wa sNaziri te . So an as yet unpubl ished paper by Marcus Bockmuehl , g iven at tmeeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas in Birmingham in 1997. Of the arguments adduced, the most a t t ract ive is that Yeshua 's s ta tement concerniwine and the kingdom involves his accepting Naziri te vows. See P. Lebeau, Le vin

nouveau du Royaum e: Etude exégétique et patristique sur la Parole eschatologiquede Jésus à la Cène (Paris : Desclée, 1966): M. Wojciechowski , "Le naziréat e t laPassion (Me 14,25a; 15:23)," Bib 65 (1984) 94-96. But the form of Yeshua 'sstatement has not been rightly understood, owing to i ts Semitic syntax. He is promising never to drink wine, but only to drink wine in association with hcelebration of the kingdom. See Chilton, A Feast of Mean ings, 169-71.

5 2 Inde ed, there wa s even a place called Be thleh em of Na zareth , acc ord ing the Talmud; see Chi l ton, God in Strength: Jesus Announcement of the Kingdom

(S N T U 1; Freistad t: Plöch l, 1979; repr. B ibS em 8; Sh eff ield : JS O T Press, 198311-13 .





s i lences the demons, because Nazir i te pract ice in Jesus ' name is tdevelop af ter the resur rec t ion wi th in the c i rc le of James . Thepremature acknowledgment by the unclean spir i ts is because they are

unclean, not because they believe and then act on their belief . As thletter of James puts the matter, "Do you believe that God is one? Youdo we ll Eve n the de m on s bel iev e— and qu ake " (Jas 2:19) .

The under ly ing assumpt ion of the Jacobean exeges is of Jesus 'exorc ism is tha t Jesus ' p rac t ice involves the confronta t ion wi thimpurity and its replacement with purity. The particular contributioof James' circle is the claim that the source of Jesus ' abili ty was hi

Nazir i te s tatus . But within Jesus ' l i fet ime, his exorcism appear tohave been a source of contention. There are rather clear indicationthat Jesus and his brothers were on strained terms. Within chap. 3 oMark, for example, we encounter the fol lowing scene:

3 1And his mother and his brothers come and standing outside, they sent delegation to him, call ing him. 3 2And a crowd sat around him, and they sayto him,

"Look, your mother and your brothers and your sisters seek yououtside."3 3He replied and says,

"Who is my mother and my brothers?"3 4He looks around at those sitting in a circle about him, and says,

"Look: my mother and my brothers. 3 5Whoever does the will ofGod, he is my brother and sister and mother."

Not a picture of family bliss , and evidently an echo of the earliestatement (3:21) that there were those associated with Jesus who tr ieto prevent him from engaging in exorcism. They said he was "besidhimself ." Now he says they are not true family.

Jesus was known to have confronted the or ig ins of impur i ty,"unclean spir i ts ," and to have entered into violent content ion withthem, even within a synagogue. The violence of that confrontat iowas disturbing to many of his followers and to his family. After thresurrection, the memory of that s truggle was cast in terms of thspecial sanctity which attached to Jesus, a secret Nazirite, "the holone of God."





T H E B E E L Z E B U L C O N T R O V E R S Y A N D T H E

E S C H ATO L O G I E S O F J E S U S

Joel Marcus

L O G I C A N D G R A M M A R

I start with a simple question: what is the rhetorical purpose of the

Parable of the Divided Kingdom in Mark 3:23-26 = Q 11:17-18?· I tseems obvious that the parable is designed to refute the charge thatimmediately precedes i t , namely the s lander of Jesus ' opponents thathe casts out demons by means of Beelzebul , the demons ' ru ler (Mark3:22b = Q 11:15b) .2 In the view of these opponents , then, Jesus 'exorcisms are a feint by Satan against h imself , designed, apparent ly,to convey the false impression that Jesus is on the divine side in theconf l i c t be tween the dev i l and God .3 But how exact ly does the

1 As is cu s to m ary , I use the Luk an cha pter and verse nu m be rs fo r Qpassages .

2 M. Sm ith (Jesus the Magician [New York: Ha rper & Ro w, 1978] 32- 33)takes Be elze bul as the name for Jesu s ' familiar spiri t; Jesu s ' question, Can Satancast out Sa tan ? sugg ests only that others identif ied this fam iliar with Satan. B utthis is a strange claim to make, when it is Jesus himself who makes the connection

between Beelzebul and Satan ; h is argument would have no force unless theequivalence were accepted by both sides in the dispute. By New Testament t imes,

Be elz eb ul , which or ig inal ly mean t Baal is ra ised (see M. Held Th e RootZBL/SBL in Akkadian , Ugar i t ic and Bib l ical Hebrew,JAOS 88 [1968 ] 90-9 6) ,had probably become an alternate name for Satan, the ruler of the demonic hordes,though the equivalence is not made explicit apart from our passage and parallel NewTestament tex ts ; see however T. Sol. 3 :6; 6:1-2; Origen, Celsus 8.25 ; and cf. Re v12:9 arm , wh ich has B ee lze bu l for δ ιά β ο λο ? (cf . W . D. Da vies and D. C.

Allison, Jr. , A Critical and Exegetical Com mentary on the Gospel According toSaint Matthew [3 vols . , ICC ; Edin burg h: T. & T. Cla rk, 1988-97] 2 .19 5-96 ) . AsDavies and Allison show, Satan had several al iases in Second Temple t imes, suchas A sm od eu s (Tob 3 :8) , Be l ia l Jub. 1 :20 ; QL ; 2 Cor 6 :15) , and d ia s te m aJub. 10:8; 11:5; QL ), and B ee lze bu l cou ld cer tainly have been ano the r on e;

against H.-J . Klauck (A ll e g o ri e und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten[NTAbh 13; Münster : Aschendorff , 1978] 179) , who asser ts tha t the ident i f ica t ionwas f irst made in the post-Easter period.

3 Klauck (Allegorie und Allegorese 178) speaks of the alleged tactic as a trickof war (K r i e g s l i s t) fo r the purpose o f b l ind ing the c rowd. The Church Fa the r s



Parable of the Divided Kingdom contr ibute to refut ing th is charge?In response , i t needs f i r s t to be recognized that Jesus ' refu ta t ion

employs a spec ies o f log ica l a rgument .4 Al though the passage omi t sseveral of the steps in this argument , i t is fair ly easy to reconstructmost of them on the basis of those that are present , and they aredi sp lay ed b el ow . But the th i rd s tep is no t so ob vio us , and i t i sindicated by a blank l ine.

1. If Jesu s cas ts out dem ons by mea ns of Beelzeb ul /Satan , as h is o ppo nen tscharge , then Satan 's k ingdom has become div ided.

2 . A div ided Satanic k ingdom impl ies a Satanic k ingdom la id waste , andone that cannot stand.

3. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

4. Therefore Satan 's k ingdom has not become div ided.

5 . Je sus , then , doe s no t cas t ou t dem ons by mean s o f Be e lzeb u l /Sa tan :Q . E . D .

What i s the miss ing l ine of the argument? What sor t of s ta tementw ou ld fo l low f r om 1 and 2 , and lead to 4 and 5? T he only logicalanswer is an argument that negates the implicat ions al luded to in l ine2: that Satan ' s k ingdom has been la id waste and i s unable to s tand.The con t rover sy, in o ther words , i s a reductio ad absurdum : it ispatent ly absurd to th ink that Satan ' s k ingdom has been la id waste oris about to fal l ; therefore i t cannot be divided in the way that Jesus 'opponen t s a l l ege .5 The missing l ink, then, is some such statement as,

accu sed paga n wo nde r-w ork ers of a s imi lar s t ra tegy; see the pas sag e of Eu seb iusc i ted in Sect ion I I be low and cf . Tat ian , Address to the Greeks 18, and Ire na eu s,Against Heresies 2 .31 .2 .

4 See V. K. Rob b ins , Rh e to r ica l Co mp os i t ion and the Bee lze bu l Co n t ro -ver sy, in B. L. M ack and V. K. Ro bbin s , Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels

(Foundat ions and Facets : Li terary Facets ; Sonoma: Polebr idge , 1989) 161-93.5 Th e on ly o the r exam ple o f reductio ad absurdum in the strict se ns e in the

Sy nop t ic t radi t ion is M ark 2 :19. But o ther passag es com e c lose by sh ow ing thefa l lac iousness ( though not the absurdi ty) of an a l te rnat ive posi t ion , of ten through aque stion or cou nte r-q ue stion ; see M ark 3:4; 11:30; 12:35-37 ; Lu ke 13:15; 14:5 (cf .R . Bu l t ma n n , The History of the Synoptic Tradition [New York : Harpe r & Row ,1963] 41 -45 ) . Bu l tma nn r ight ly asser ts tha t reductio i s f req uen t in rabb inic argu-ments ; one example he c i tes i s Num. Rab. 3 .2 (on Num 3:6) , in which a Roman

matron ch arge s tha t Go d is a rb i t rary becau se he choo ses wh om he p leases . H e [R.Jose] brought her a basket of f igs and she scrut in ised them wel l , p icking the bes t



"But Satan 's k ingdom has obviously not been laid waste, and is notabout to fal l ."6

I t i s understandable that th is fai r ly obvious logic has of ten been

avoided in the past : i t confl icts with two sayings in the immediatecontext , Q 11:20 ( the logion about cast ing out demons by the f ingero f God)7 and Mark 3:27 = Q 11:21-22 ( the Parable of the StrongMan) , bo th of which imply tha t Satan ' s k ingdom has suffered ad ev as t a t i n g d i v i n e b l o w. As C h r i s t o p h e r E v an s su mmar i ze s t h i sdiscrepancy: "[Luke 11:18] presupposes that the kingdom of Satan isevident ly in tact and shows no sign of being fatal ly divided, whereas

in vv 20ff. i t is supposed that i t is on the point of collapse."8

Evans 's content ion that the two passages clash with each other canbe ver i f ied by a close look at each of them individual ly. On the oneha nd , as w e ha ve ju st seen the very fo rm of the ar gu m en t in theP a r ab l e o f t h e D i v i d ed K i n g d o m i mp l i e s t h a t S a t an ' s k i n g d o mremains s t rong; th is impression cannot be weakened to the asser t ionthat i t merely cont inues to exist . At tent ion to the Greek here is

impor tan t : the word for "k ingdom" i s o f course βασιλε ία , which inmos t New Tes tamen t in s t ances means roya l ru l e o r power r a the r

and eating. Said he to her: 'You, apparently, know how to select , but the HolyOne, b lessed be He, does no t know how to se lect ' " (Soncino t rans . ) . See a lso t.Sota 15.11 ( = b. B. Bat. 60b) , in which R. Joshua converses with ascet ics whoabstain from meat and wine because the Temple in which these i tems used to be

sacrif iced has been destroyed. R. Joshua counters that by the same reasoning theyshou ld also abstain from brea d, f ruit , and water.

6 See W . L. Lan e, The Gospel of Mark (NIC NT ; Grand Rap ids : Eerd ma ns ,1974) 1 42-43: "[T he Ma rka n Jes us '] argum en t is cu m ula tive in i ts forc e: I f wh atyou say is true there exists the impossible circumstance that Satan is destroying hisown realm. For i t is self-evident that a kingdom divided against i tself will fall ,while a household divided against itself cannot be established. If your accusation isfactual, then Satan has become divided in his allegiance. This should mean that he

h as b eco m e p o w er l e s s . Yet this is clearly not so [emphasis in or ig inal] . Satanremains strong, and this fact exposes the fallacy of your charge."

7 Lu ke ' s " f ing er o f G od , " as opp osed to M at t he w 's "Sp i r i t o f G od , " i sprobably or iginal; see J . P. Meier, Λ Marg inal Jew: Rethinking the HistoricalJesus. Vo l. 2: Mentor, Messag e, and Miracles (AB RL 9 ; New York : Do ub leda y,1994) 410-11 .

8 C. F. Ev ans , Saint Luke ( N ew Tes t am en t Co m m en ta r i e s ; L o n d o n : S C MPress; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990) 491; cf . C. Ε. B. Cranfield,

The Gospel according to Saint Ma rk (CG TC ; Cam br idge : Cam br idge Un iver s i tyPress, 1959) 138.



than the place in which that ru le is exercised. I f , as seems l ikely,βασιλεία in our passage retains at least some of this dynamic nuance,making i t more or less synonymous wi th k ing ly s t reng th ,9 then the

Parab le o f the Div ided Kingdom impl ies tha t Satan ' s βασιλε ία , h i sroyal power, remains unshaken .

On the other hand, the Parable of the Strong Man and the sayingabout cas t ing ou t demons by the f inger o f God imply tha t Satan ' skingdom has been invaded in a v iolent , devastat ing way. The Devi l ' shouse has been assau l ted and p lundered , and he h imsel f has beenpara lyzed , t russed up so secure ly tha t he i s hencefor th unable to

prevent Jesus , the S t ronger Man, f rom rescu ing the human beings hehad p rev ious ly he ld in th ra l l . There fo re a s ign i f i can t aspec t o fSatan ' s βασιλε ία , namely h is sovere ign ty over the human race , i se n d e d ;1 0 i t has been replaced by the βασιλεία του θεου, which ismanifest in Jesus ' exorcisms "by the f inger of God."

This in terpre ta t ion i s suppor ted by h is to ry-of - re l ig ions para l le l sfrom early Judaism and Chris t iani ty, in which the binding of Satan

and/or ev i l sp i r i t s i s synonymous wi th the i r d i sempowerment ( see inthei r con tex ts 1 Enoch 10:4; Jub. 5 :6; 10:7-11 ; T. Levi 18:12; Rev20:1-3) . " Especia l ly s ign i f ican t here are Jub. 5 :6 , where the binding

9 See B. D. Ch ilton, God in Strength: Jesus Announc ement of the Kingdom(SN TU 1; Freis tad t : Plöchl , 1979; repr. Bib Sem 8; Sh eff ie ld: JS O T Press, 19and J . Marcus, The Mystery of the Kingdom of od (SBLDS 90; Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1986). Con trary to S. Àalen, 'R ei gn ' and 'Ho us e' in the Kin gd om in the Gospels ,NTS 8 (1961-62 ) 215-40 , and J . C. O'N ei l l , Th e Kin gd omG o d , NovT 35 (19 93) 13 0-41, the para llelism betwe en βασιλεία and house doesnot mea n that the β α σ ιλ εία is pr im arily c on ce ive d as a plac e; it is rathe r thecollectivity of sub jects ruled by the king, jus t as the "h ou se " or "h ou se ho ld " is , inthe ancient hierarchical family, the collectivity of family members ruled by the headof- ho us eh old , usual ly the fa ther. (M ark 3 :25 is cer ta in ly not ta lk ing abo ut thedivision against itself of a house as a physical object ) The idea of royal rule, then

maintains i ts pr imacy in New Testament usages of βασιλεία, even when, as here,the meaning shifts slightly to the subjects of that rule.

1 0 O ur pas sag e spe aks of two aspects of Sa tan 's βα σ ιλεία : his rule ove r his ow ndem onic "h ou seh old ," which is foreg roun ded in M ark 3 :23-26 = Q 11:17-18 , andhis rule over the human world, which is foregrounded in Mark 3:27 = Q 11:20-21But these two aspects of the Dev il 's βα σ ιλεία are interconn ected— cf. 1 Tim 3:4-5

1 1 Th e bind ing of evil spir i ts may be a tem pora ry mea su re aw aiting the f inaljudgmen t ( e .g . 1 Enoch 10:11-12; Jude 6) , but it ma y also sign ify perp etual capti-

vity as an eternal punishment (e.g . 1 Enoch 14:5; cf. PGM 4 .1245 -48 , on wh ichsee below, n . 86) .



of the evil angels is parallel to their being "uprooted from all theirdomin ion , " and Jub. 10:7-8, wh ere Ma ste m a com pla ins that if al l hissubordinate spir i ts are bound, "I wil l not be able to exercise thea u t h o r i t y1 2 o f my wi l l among the ch i ld ren of men ."1 3 Thus thebinding of Satan and other evi l spir i ts s ignif ies the end of theirβ α σ ιλ ε ία , and is i ncom pat ib le with a pa rab le that imp l i es tha tSa tan 's β α σ ιλ εία is in tact . Th e tension between the two parts of thepassage, then, is s t r ik ing: one par t , the Parable of the DividedKingdom, implies the cont inui ty of Satan 's ru le , whereas the otherpart , the Parable of the Strong Man and the saying about casting out

demons by the f inger of God, implies i ts overthrow.In a moment I will try to treat this tension with the seriousness i t

dese rves . F i rs t , ho we ver, I wi l l exa m ine som e ways tha t scho larshave found of mit igat ing i t . These fal l in to three general categories:(1) interpretations that assert that the details of the Parable of theDiv ided Kin gdo m should not be pressed, (2) in terpretat ions that foc uson the grammar of the Parab le o f the Div ided Kingdom, and (3)

interpretations that focus on the logic of the two parables.Interpretations that assert that the details of the Parable of the

Divided Kingdom should not be pressed. Th ese can be dealt with inshort order. Klauck suggests that the details are unimportant, becausethe only purpose of the parable is to show that Jesus' exorcisms areGod 's work , no t Satan ' s , i . e . the Q.E.D. in the ou t l ine of thea rg u men t ab o v e .1 4 But th is suggest ion ignores the polemical set t ing

of the discussion. In such a context i t is important not only to assertone ' s conc lus ion , bu t a l so to demons t ra t e i t , and an i l l og ica lproposi t ion , o r one tha t con t rad ic t s o ther par t s o f the argument ,

1 2 On the equiv alenc e of "au th or i ty" to β α σ ίλε ια , see e .g . Dan 7 :14 LX X ,where εξουσία and βασιλεία are parallel to each other.

1 3 Tran s, f ro m J. H. Ch arlesw orth (ed.) , The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

(2 vols . , ABRL 13-14: New York: Doubleday, 1983-85) 2 .76: the comparison andcontras t with our pas sage is especially str iking because in the conte xt M as tem a iscalled "the pr ince of spir i ts" (cf . Greek Jub. 17 :16 , where he is dub bed ό ά ρχω ντω ν δα ιμ ο νίω ν, jus t as Be elzeb ul is in M ark 3:22 = Q 11:15). Cf . also M elito ,Passover 102, in wh ich Ch rist says , "I am the one that de stro ye d dea th andtr iumphed over the enemy and t rod down Hades and bound the s t rong one andcarried off men to the heights of heaven" (trans, of S. G. Hall cited in H. W. Hoi-lander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Com mentary

[SVTP 8: Leiden: Brill, 1985] 182).1 4 K lauck , Allegorie und Allegorese, 178-79.



m ake s fo r a poor dem ons t ra t ion .1 5

Similar ly inadequate i s the analysis of scholars such as Böcherand Twel f t r ee , who asse r t o r imply, on the bas i s o f Mark 3 :23b( how can Satan cast out Satan? ) , tha t the argument in the Parableof the Div ided Kingdom h inges no t on the ques t ion o f Sa tan ' ss t rength or weakness but on the assumpt ion that the demonic rea lm isa n i n d i v i s i b l e w h o l e .1 6 T h i s a s s um p t i o n o f de m on i c un i t y isapplicable at most to 3:23, not to 3:24-26, and indeed the lat ter seemsto contradict i t , s ince i t implies that Jesus can rout individual demonswi thout necessar i ly destabi l iz ing Satan ' s overa l l ru le .

Interpretations that focus on the gramm ar of the Parable of theDivided Kingdom. Th ese a re wo r thy o f mo re se r ious cons ide ra t ion ,since they actual ly t ry to deal with the text . The main way in whichthey do so i s by separat ing the saying about Satan revol t ing againsth imsel f in Mark 3:26 = Q 11:18 f rom the metaphors of the d iv idedk i n gd o m and house i n Mar k 3 : 24 - 2 5 = Q 11 : 1 7 . Gn i l k a , f o rexample , observes tha t in Mark 3 :26 the g rammat ica l fo rm of thep r o t a s i s c h a n g e s f r o m èáv + aor is t su bj un ct iv e to e t + ao r is tindicat ive . For Gni lka th is sh i f t imp l ies that the arg um ent ha s m ov edfrom a premise that Jesus disputes to one that he accepts—namely thatSatan has r isen up against himself , and that therefore his power is atan end.1 7

The major problem wi th th is in terpre ta t ion i s that , despi te the

1 5 Aga ins t U. Luz , Das Evangelium nach Matthäus Mt 8-17) ( E K KN T 1 .2 ;Zür ich : Ben z ige r ; Neu k i rchen -Vluy n : Neu k i rchen er Ver lag , 1990) 259 -60 and n .61 , who c la ims tha t the arguments in Mat t 12:25-27 are more rhe tor ica l thans u b s t a n t i a l ; h e c o mp a r e s Pes. Rab Kah. 4 :7 , where Yohanan ben Zakka i , in acontroversy wi th an obst reperous Gent i le , uses demonologica l assumpt ions tha t hehims elf la ter adm its to h is d isc ip les are an argum ent of s t raw . But the s takes aremu ch h ighe r in our pass age , in wh ich a ch arg e of sorcery is being le veled at Jesu s;were i t sus ta ined, th is charge might carry the death penal ty (see Exod 22:18; Lev

20:27; and cf . m. Sanh. 7:4, in wh ich posse ssion of a fam iliar spir i t and sorcery arecapital off en ses ) . In such a conte xt a sound rebuttal is impera tive.

1 6 O. Böcher, Christus Exorcista: Däm onismus und Taufe im Neuen Testament(B W A N T 96 ; S tu t tga r t: Koh lha mm er, 1972) 162; and G. H. Tw el f t r ee , Jesus theExorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus ( W U NT 2 .5 4 ; Tü b i n -gen: Moh r [Siebeck] , 1993; repr. Pea body : He ndr ic kson , 1993) 106.

1 7 J . Gn i lka , Das Evangelium nach Markus (2 vo l s ., E K K N T 2 .1 -2 ; Zü r ich :Ben z ige r ; Neuk i rc hen-V luyn : N euk i rchen er Ver lag , 1978) 1 .150; c f . S . Ε. Porter,

Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense andMood (S B G 1; Ne w Yo rk and Bern: Peter Lan g, 1989) 310.



di fference in fo rm of the condi t ional sen tence in 3 :26 , fo r whichother explanat ions are avai lable,1 8 that verse is so closely parallel to3:24-25 that i t i s d i ff icul t to see how they can have radical lyd i f f e r en t mean i n g s .1 9 In the flow of the argument, al l three verses,3:24, 3 :25, and 3:26, seem to serve the same purpose, namely torefute the charge of 3:22 that Jesus casts out demons by means of theruler of the de m on s, and thus to ju st i f y the negat ive im plicat io n ofthe rhetor ical quest ion in 3:23b: "How can Satan cast out Satan?"Gni lka ' s exp lanat ion makes hash of th i s thought p rogress ion ; whyshould Jesus suddenly accept the premise of 3 :26a, that Satan has

risen against himself , when he has been arguing against i t consistent-ly since 3:23b?

One possible way around this problem is to assert that , in 3:26a,Jesus is not so much wholeheartedly accepting the premise that Satanhas rebel led against h imself as momentar i ly grant ing i t for the sakeof argument , in o rder to move on and make h is own po in t .T w el f t re e , fo r exa m ple , para ph rases 3 :26 thus : "E ve n if he w ere

exorc is ing by Satan , even i f Satan were d iv ided agains t h imsel f ,Jesus ' exorcisms would s t i l l mark the destruct ion of Satan and hisk i n g d o m . "2 0 But no th ing in the con tex t sugge s ts th i s "ev en i f 'a rgumen ta t ion ; one wou ld expec t a more d i s junc t ive con junc t ion ,such as ά λλά o r e κ α ί, if such a dram atic shif t were being m ad e inthe flow of the discourse.21 Moreover, i t would fatal ly weaken Jesus '

1 8 Th e for m has probably chan ged from that in 3:24-25 because Jesus is nowabandoning general analogies (dominion , house) and d irect ly tak ing up theparticular case presented by the supposit ion of his adversar ies that his exorcismsmean that Satan has gone to war against himself ; see M. Zerwick, Biblical GreekIllustrated from Examples (R om e: Scrip ta Po ntifici Instituti Bib lici, 1963) §3 06 ;and cf . BDF §372 ( lb) . But this does not necessar ily mean that Jesus accepts hisopponents' premise; rather, we are probably dealing with an unreal conditional (seebelo w) . Cf . J . M. W in ge r ' s ana lys is of unreal condi t ion al se n ten ces in Paul

("Unreal Conditions in the Letters of Paul," JB L 105 [198 6] 1 10-12); on e of thecommon types is the condition that is said to be true by someone else. In this classPaul always uses the indicative and typically proceeds by reductio ad absurdum seeR om 4 :2, 14; 1 C or 15:13, 15, 16, 29, 32; Ga l 2:21; 3:1 8, 21; 5:1 1, all of w hic hWinger considers to be reductio ad absurdum excep t for Gal 3:18 and 5:11.

1 9 Gn i lka h imself (M a r k u s, 1 .150) seems to acknowledge th is d i ff icul ty whenhe says that there is a certain discrepancy (U n s t im m ig k e i t) in the argument.

2 0 Tw e l f t r e e , Jesus the Exorcist 106.2 1

Co nfus ingly, Tw elf t ree com bines h is even i f ' in terpre ta tion wi th a recogn i-t ion that our passage is a reductio ad absurdum. But an even i f ' a rg um ent and a





T hi s i s a c l e ve r w ay o f pu t t ing the Pa rab le o f the D iv i de dKingdom toge ther wi th the Parab le o f the S t rong Man , and i t maywel l co r respond to the canon ica l wr i t e r s ' under s tand ing o f the l ink

be tw ee n the tw o sect ions . But it is dif f ic ul t to see ho w i t real ly m ak essense of the l ine of thought in Mark 3:23-26 = Q 11:17-18. For i f thef o r ce o f J e su s ' a rgu m en t we r e t h a t S a t an ' s k i n gd o m w as be i n gex p l o d e d r a t he r t han i m p l o de d , how we l l w ou l d it s e r ve t ha ta rg u m en t f o r h i m t o m e n t i on t hat d i v i d ed k i ng d o m s end up be i ngdev as ta te d? Sure ly invaded k ing dom s do too But Jesus cann o t r ea l lyafford to leave the two puta t ive explanat ions on an equal foot ing; h is

i n t e r p r e t a t i on o f h i s exo r c i sm s , r a t he r, m us t t r um p t ha t o f h i sopponen t s by appea l ing to ou tward c i r cumstances tha t a re v i s ib le toa l l and an un am big uo us t es t im on y to the supe r io r i ty, no t jus t theequal i ty, of h is in terpre ta t ion of them. He must demonst ra te , that i s ,that h is opponents ' content ion that he casts out demons by Satan i spatent ly unt rue , and th is he does by showing that i t would lead to ac o n s e q u e n c e t h a t o b v i o u s l y d o e s n o t e x i s t , n a m e l y t h e f a t a l

weak en i n g o f S a t an ' s em p i r e . T he p r o b l em wi t h t h e d i s t i nc t i onbetween internal revolt and external invasion, then, is that i t does notlead to an absurdi ty; but i t is precisely a reduct ion to absurdi ty that isr equ i red fo r the a rgument to be e ff ec t ive .2 4

T h e P a r ab l e o f t he D i v i ded K i n gdo m i n Mar k 3 : 23 - 2 6 = Q11:17-18 as a whole, then, is a reductio ad absurdum : i f the ch ar geof demonic co l lus ion were t rue , then Jesus ' exorc i sms would t es t i fy

to a d iv i s ion wi th in and consequen t co l l apse o f Sa tan ' s k ingdom; bu tsuc h a co l lap se is re fu ted by the co nt in ue d and obv iou s s t rength ofS a t a n .2 5 There i s , however, one f ina l l ine o f de fense aga ins t th i s

e v e r, t he y d i f f e r o n wh a t t h e c o m b i n e d p a s s a g e i mp l i e s a b o u t S a t a n ' s p o w e r ;Barre t t and Anderson th ink tha t i t suggests tha t Satan is s t i l l s t rong, whereas Juelthinks that it implies that Satan has come to an end.

2 4 Ba rret t (T h e Holy Spirit, 60-61) sets forth the dist inction between revolt andinvas ion as a way o f unders tand ing the passage in i t s p resen t con tex t , bu t herecognizes tha t th is does not correspond to the or ig ina l meaning of Mark 3 :23-26,which on i ts own implies that "the empire of Satan st i l l holds out" and is thereforedisharmonious wi th the Parable of the Strong Man.

2 5 W . S c h m i t h a l s (D a s Evangelium nach Markus [2 vo l s . , G T B 503 -50 4 ;Güte r s loh : Mohn; Würzburg : Ech te r Ver lag , 1979] 222) r ecogn izes tha t the a rgu-ment is a reductio ad absurdum , but the con clus ion he dra ws is fal lac ious : "In view

of the un tenab leness o f tha t absurd rep roach , one mus t conc lude f rom the demonexorc i sms tha t Sa tan has been shorn o f h i s power." Bu t i f Mark 3 :24-26 pa r s .



in terpre ta t ion . This i s the c la im that the Parab le o f the Div idedKingdom does not have in view "object ive" real i ty but real i ty as i t i sv iewed f rom the perspect ive of Satan . In o ther words , these verses

are indeed a reductio ad absurdum but not because the assumption ofSatan 's sel f-divis ion is contradicted by the present s tate of the world ,in which Satan ' s power i s mani fes t . They are ra ther a reductiobecause Satan would not do anything as irrat ional as r ising up againsthimself , when he knows that such a s t rategy would lead only to thedownfal l o f h i s k ingdom. Satan ' s revo l t agains t h imsel f , then , i sbeing weighed as a sub jec t ive poss ib i l i ty ra ther than as an accom-

pl ished fact . So Pesch, for example, says, "I t i s not the in tent ion ofSatan to destroy himself , to cast h imself out (v 23b) . Therefore thereproach against Jesus is senseless ."2 6 Davies and All ison, s imilar ly,speak of "a reductio ad absurdum wh ich a ff i rm s Sa tan ' s r a t iona lbehaviour. Would i t make sense for the devi l to g ive a human beingpower i f tha t power was in tu rn to ransack the k ingdom ofd e m o n s ? "2 7 And Robbins concurs , g iv ing the theory a scholar ly

pedigree by asser t ing that Mark 3:23-26 = Q 11:17-18 is an "argu-men t f r o m i mp l au s i b i t y " ( έκ το ΰ ά π ιθά νο υ ) :2 8 "It is unlikely thatSatan would be wil l ing to cast out an underl ing, because he would bedivided against h imself , and th is d ivis ion would destroy him and hisd o m a i n . "2 9 Or, as Barre t t succinct ly pu ts i t , "The argument i ss imply, Satan is not cast ing out Satan, because 'Satan is not such afool "'30

Bu t ther e are tw o prob lem s with this exe ges is, wh ich I will call the"Satan ic in ten t ional i ty" in terpre ta t ion . The f i r s t i s tha t there i s

really are a reductio ad absurdum that argumentat ive form is premised on theevid ent po w er of Satan ; it can not , then , be an argum ent fo r h is p ow er les sne ss .M ore ove r, Sch m itha ls ' way of s ta t ing the a l ternat ives is too catego r ical , s ince aportrayal of Satan as a spent force is not the only alternative to a depiction of him asa M ach iave l l ian ru ler w ho emp loy s Jesu s as a dou ble agent . O ne migh t ra the r

surmise, as I will argue below, that Jesus ' exorcisms are successful individual raidsagainst Satan's underlings that do not constitute a frontal assault on Satan himself.

2 6 R. Pesch Das Marku sevangelium ( 2 vo ls . , H T K N T 2 .1 -2 ; F re ibu rg :Herder, 1976) 1 .214-15.

2 7 Dav ies and All ison , Matthew 2.337-38 .2 8 Ro bbin s consistently translates the Gree k phrase as "arg um ent for implaus i-

bil i ty," but the έκ is better translated "from": Jesus is arguing from implaus ib i l i tyfor som ethin g else, nam ely that he is not Sa tan 's agen t.

2 9 Rob bins , "Rhetor ical Co mp ost i t ion ," 165 .3 0 Barrett , The Holy Spirit 61 -62 , quot ing T. W. M anso n.



simply no independent evidence for i t ; nothing in the passage direct lyindicate s that Jesus is hyp othes iz ing about Sata n ' s thou ght-p roce sses .The second and more weighty problem has to do wi th the form of

the condit ional sentence in Mark 3:26 = Q 11:18: both of these verseshave eL + aorist indicat ive in the protasis,3 1 wh i ch u nde r n o r m a lcond i t ions shou ld r e fe r to a pas t cond i t ion .3 2 But for the Sa tan ici n t en t i o na l i t y i n t e r p r e t a t ion , wh i ch f ocu se s no t o n t he o b j e c t i ves i tua t ion bu t on Sa tan ' s p resu m ed co g i t a t ions abou t it, one w ouldex pe c t in the p ro tas i s e i the r è á v + su b ju nc t ive o r e i + fu tu reindicat ive , s ince the contemplated se l f -d iv is ion of Satan would have

to be fu tur e fr om his ow n point of view : [S ata n kno w s that] if ev erhe becomes div ided against h imsel f , h is k ingdom wi l l not be able tos t a n d . 3 3 A s op po sed to th is, the e l + aor is t indic at ive co nd i t ion alf o r m o f 3 :26 seem s to po i n t t o wa r d a r ea l o r con t r a r y - t o - f a c td iv is ion of Satan ' s k ingdom that i s past f rom the perspect ive of theper so n f ro m w ho se ou t look the cond i t ion is be ing fo rm ula ted ;3 4 if

3 1 e l . . . ά νέ σ τη . . κα ί έμ ερίσ θη in Mark and el . . . [δι]6 μ ερίσ θη in Q. Irealize, of course, that Jesus spoke Aramaic rather than (or at least more than)Greek, but we have to assume that the Greek forms are being mobilized to create afair ly accurate rendering of the nuance of the Aramaic or iginal. Aramaic has anunambiguous way of indicating a contrary-to-fact conditional, the use of the particle

rath er than fo r if .3 2 Por ter, w ho se in terpreta t ion of the Gre ek tense sys tem is reso lu te ly

atemporal, d isputes this (Verbal Aspect, 297 -300). But see below , n . 34.3 3

Ev en if the main verb here we re past ( Sata n knew ), the fo rm of theconditional sentence would st i l l need to be èá v + aor is t sub junc t ive or e 1 + fu tu reindica t ive : Satan kne w that if ever he bec am e div ided agains t h im self , h is dom in-ion wo uld not have been able to s tand . In Gr eek, as opp ose d to En gl ish , a pas tmain verb does not change the tense of the condit ional clause dependent on i t .

3 4 Por ter Verbal Aspect, 29 8-9 9) argue s, on the basis of the parallel with è áv+ sub jun ct iv e in 3 :24-2 5, tha t the aor is t indica t ive in Ma rk 3 :26 is a tem por al ; theonly reason that the Markan Jesus switches to the el + aorist indicative form in 3:26

is to m ov e f ro m the hyp othe t ica l s ta te of a ff a i r s refe r red to in 3 :2 4-2 5 to anasser t ion ab out the spe ci f ic s i tua t ion of ad dr ess in 3 :26 . But as I hav e ar gue dabove, i f th is means tha t Jesus suddenly accepts the premise in 3 :26a , i t must beexplained why he has implici t ly rejected i t in 3:24-25. Besides, i f a movement fromhypothet ica l to ac tua l were the only reason for the change in form of the protas is ,Mark would p robab ly use the unambiguous e l + present indic ative rathe r than theam big uo us e l + aor is t indica t ive , or in som e other way give a c lear s ignal of thechange to actuali ty.

Por ter c i tes John 15:20; Gal 2 :17; Mat t 10:25b; and Rom 3:3 , 7 as o therinstances in which el + aorist indicative does not refer to the past . In none of these



that person were Satan himself , i t would be too late to do anythingabout i t , and the sentence would be senseless. Mark 3:26 = Q 11:18,therefore , i s no t based on specu la t ions about Satan ic reasoningprocesses .3 5

Rather, in view of the argument so far, i t seems safe to concludethat Jesus' point is that the internal division postulated in Mark 3:26a= Q 11:18a cannot have happened , because i f i t had occurredsometh ing e l se , namely the f a t a l weaken ing o f Sa tan ' s k ingdom,would rapidly have t ranspired—which is patent ly not the case. Thesentence, in o ther words, is a form of past unreal condi t ion,3 6 an

interpretat ion compat ible with i ts form.The textbook form of the past unreal condit ion, to be sure, is 61 +

aor i s t ind ica t ive in the pro tas i s , a v + aor i s t ind ica t iv e in theapodosis. Our verse conforms to this pattern only in the protasis; theap od os i s h as p resen t ind ic a t ive wi t ho u t α ν (M ark ) o r fu tu r eind ica t ive wi thout äv (Q) . As Winger has shown, however, wr i t e r s

cas es , how ev er, i s a pas t refere nce imp oss ib le , or even in my opinio n un l ike ly ,desp i te Por ter ' s a rgu m ents . With regard to John 15:20, I am puz zled , in v iew ofsuch pass age s as 7 :7 ; 8 :23 , 39-5 9, by Po r ter ' s c la im tha t the ha t red of the w orl dfor Jesus has not ye t shown i tse l f in the Johannine narra t ive . S imilar ly, e l τόνο ίκ ο δεσ π ό την Β εεΧ £εβουλ έττεκάλ εσα ν in M att 10:25 is a gla nc e back at 9:34. InRom 3:3 Paul is discussing the election of Israel, which is rooted in the Sinai eventin the past, to which the previous verse makes an explicit reference with a verb thatis cog nate to the one at issue in 3:3 (έπ ισ τεύθ η σ α ν / el ή π ίσ τη σ α ν) . In Rom 3:7

Paul seems to be speaking in the person of Israel of the history of God's dealingswith the nation; very similar language is used for the same subject in Rom 5:20. InGal 2:17 Paul is defending his past conduct in Antioch, when he and Peter werefound by strict Jewish Christians to be "sinners" for associating with Gentiles.

I t is cer tainly true that the aorist indicative can occasionally have a presentreference, but as Michael Winger has pointed out in pr ivate correspondence, " theoccasional uses of any tense with non-standard t ime reference actually depend onthe norm al t im e refere nc e for their ef fe ct ." In the prese nt ins tanc e neither th e

Vulgate nor the Peshita supports Porter 's non-temporal understanding of the aoristin 3 :26a; the Vulgate changes f rom si + p resent su bjunc t ive in 3 :24-25 to si +perfect indicative in 3:26, and the Peshita changes from ,en ( = if) + im pe rfec t in3:24-25 to en + perfect in 3:26.

3 5 S imilar ly Gu ndry, Mark, 173: "Je sus is not arguin g for the psy cho logic alimpossibil i ty of thinking that Satan would not use him to cast out the demonsbecause they serve Satan and because Satan is too smart to work against his owncause. The impossibil i ty has to do with Satan 's action, not with our thinking"

(shouldn't the last two words read "S a t a n s th inking"?) .3 6 Cf . R. A. Gu elich, Mark 1-8:26 (W B C 34A; Dallas: W ord , 1989) 176.



of ancient Greek, including ear ly Chris t ian authors such as Paul ,o f t en fo rmula ted cond i t iona l sen tences they regarded as un rea lwi thout us ing secondary tenses o r av .3 7 A New Testament example ofa past unreal condit ion that is parallel in form to the Markan version(el + aorist indicative in protasis, present indicative in apodosis) isp rov ided by R om 4 :2 : e l γα ρ 'Α βρ α ά μ έξ έ' ργω ν έδ ικ α ιώ θη , 6 χε ικ α ύ χη μ α (cf . 1 Co r 15:14, 17). An exam ple that is paral lel in for mto the Q version (el + aorist indicative in protasis, future indicativein apod os is) is pro vid ed by Joh n 15:20: e'1 τον λό γον μο υ έτή ρη σ α ν,κ α ι τό ν ù p é Te p o v τη ρ ή σ ο υ σ ιν. In 1 Co r 12:19 the apo do sis of an

unreal condit ional is in the form of a question, as in Q 11:18. AsWinger demons t ra t es , moreover, Pau l ' s un rea l cond i t ions inc ludesome "that someone other than Paul apparent ly claims are fulf i l led .Paul at any rate puts these condi t ions forward only to deny them,usual ly by reductio ad absurdum . . ."38 Paul can vary the formbecause he takes the condit ion to be refuted at face value, so that hedoes not need to overemphasize the point with the av + secondary

tense form.T h e se r em ar k s , I wo u l d su g g es t , ap p l y to t h e B e e l zeb u l

controversy as wel l . The proposi t ion that Jesus casts out demons byBeelzebul has been put forward by Jesus ' opponents . Jesus respondsto this suggestion with a reductio ad absurdum, wh ich con clude s witha condi t ional sentence implying that , i f the opponents ' charge weretrue, Satan 's k ingdom would have fal len . This sentence does not need

to be in the standard unreal form, indeed i ts statement in such a formwould represen t rhetor ica l overk i l l , because the proposi t ion of abound Satan is refuted at face value by the obvious strength of evil inthe world .3 9 For i t is a standard theme in Jewish tradit ions, especiallyapocalypt ic ones, that the sad s tate of the world test i f ies to thesovereignty of Satan over the present age.4 0 We may apply to thetheory of Satan 's s t rength what someone has said about the idea of

3 7 W inger, "Unreal Con di t ions ," 1986.3 8 Th e Pau line pas sag es are cited abo ve, n. 18.3 9 Cf . Luz, Matthäus 259 : T he logic is for ma lly con vin cing if one takes it as

self-evident that the kingdom of Satan is intact .4 0 See e.g. 1QS 1:18-19; 2:19 ; 1QM 14:9; T. Zeh. 9 :8 ; T. Dan 5 : 1 0 - 11 ; Jub.

10:31; Apoc. Elijah 1:3-4; cf . 1 Enoch 9:1, 6- 9; 10 :7-8; 16:1-3; 19:1; 1 C or 2:6 ;John 12 :31 ; 14 :30; 16 :11 . Th e Qum ran pa ssag es a re e spec ia l ly c lose to ours

bec aus e in them the p resen t wo r ld -ag e is des ign a ted the dom in ion o f Be l i a l ) ; cf . Apoc Ab 23:12-13, which speaks of the dominion of Azazel.



original s in : i t i s the only Chris t ian doctr ine that is empir ical lyver i f iab le .

H I S TO RY A N D T H E O L O G Y

The Parable of the Divided Kingdom, then, is a reductio ad absur-dum, and there is a real and i r re du cea ble dif fe re nc e be tw ee n i tsportrayal of a strong Satan, on the one hand, and the depiction of aparalyzed Satan in the Parable of the Strong Man and, by inference,in the saying about casting out demons by the finger of God, on theother. Indeed, the sheer number, var iety, and invent iveness of themethods that scholars have used to avoid this conclusion is i tself anindirect test imony to i ts validity.4 1

The tension between the two port ions of the passage immediatelysuggests that nei ther the Markan nor the Q context is an or iginalun i ty, a sugg es t ion wh ich man y li t era ry obse rva t ion s co n f i rm .4 2

4 1 So m e good schola rs end up tying the m selv es in kno ts wh en they try tounravel the twisted l ine of thought in our passage. Guelich (Mark, 175), fo rexample , wr i tes , "One would assume that the response to Jesus ' ques t ion ["Howcan Satan cast out Satan?"] would be negative. From the viewpoint of the narratorand the reader who knows that Jesus is not working in collaboration with Satan,Satan is not casting out Satan. Yet the argument that follows operates reductio adabsurdum with this prem ise to show that Satan has indeed 'm et his en d ' (3:2 6) ."But surely the reductio ad absurdum show s exactly the opp osite Juel (Mark, 63),s imilar ly, paraphrases Mark 3:23-27 thus: "Their evaluation is absurd. Attr ibuting

his po w er to cast out de m on s to dem on ic possessio n v iolates co m m on sens e . . .For a ruler to take up arms against himself would be the prelude to disaster. Dividedhouseholds cannot survive. In fact , if Satan 's host is at war with i tself , peopleought to re jo ice—for he has come to an end . Jesus offers the on ly reasonableinterpretation of wha t is oc cu rr i ng -s om eo ne has invaded the dom ain of the strongman (S atan )— and that som eon e is the ' s t ronger one ' o f whom John the B apt is tspoke. Satan is being deposed and his domain plundered." The conclusion of thisparaphrase says that Satan 's dominion has come to an end , bu t i ts beginning

suggests that it has not.4 2 As for M ark, not only doe s the them e cha nge from the strength of Satan to

his weakness in 3:27, which is probably an independent logion (see V. Taylor, TheGospel According to St. Mark [2nd ed . , Lo ndo n: M acm il lan ; Ne w York: S t .M art in ' s , 1966] 240 -41) , but it cha nge s again in 3:28-2 9, where Ma rk introdu cesthe saying about the sin against the Holy Spirit; only with difficulty can he link thissaying with the preceding discussion by means of the parenthetical remark in 3:30.Th e or ig inal in depe nden ce of 3 :28-2 9 is con f i rm ed by i ts in t roductory for m ula

'Α μ ήν λέγω ύμ ίν, which Ma rk usually uses to insert una ttache d tradit ions into acontext, and by its apparent absence in Q.



Might then the theological f r ict ion between the par ts , l ike the l i teraryawkwardness of the composi t ion , be the resul t of the church layingi ts c lumsy hands on the Jesus t radi t ion? In o ther words, i s one (oreven both) of the tensive e lements , the por t ra i t of a powerful Satanand/or the por t ra i t of one who has been bound, to be ascr ibed tolater Christ ian ref lect ion rather than to Jesus?4 3

This i s an a l lur ing but u l t imate ly unsat i sfactory solut ion , becausea good case can be made that both of the conf l ic t ing t radi t ions goback to the histor ical Jesus. As for the portrayal of Satan disarmed,both the saying about cast ing out demons by the f inger of God in Q

11:20 and the Parable of the Strong Man in Mark 3:27 = Q 11:21-22are fu l l of the sor t of eschatological dynamism that i s character i s t ico f the t each ing o f Jesus ,4 4 and they both l ink exorcism wi th aco nv ic t io n abou t esc ha to log ica l a dve n t , a l inkag e tha t is a lmo s tnonexis tent outs ide of the teaching of Jesus .4 5 As Meier points out ,

Th e Q passa ge , a lso , has grow n by accre t ion ; it con ta ins three sayin gs tha t a re

absent in Mark, Q 11:19 (by whom do your sons cast out demons), 11:20 ( if I bythe f inger/Spiri t of God), and 11:23 ( the one who is not with me is against me). Ofthese, the f irst two are in tension with each other; as Bultmann points out , i f thecon nec t ion b etwe en Q 11:19 and 11:20 we re or ig in a l , i t wo uld fo l l ow tha t theJewish exorc is ts a lso cas t out demons by the Spir i t , and tha t the i r ac t iv i ty a lsodem ons tra ted the com ing of the Kin gdo m, which is contrary to the overa l l contex tHistory of the Synoptic Tradition, 14) . Th e saying about cas t ing out de m on s by

the f inger/Spiri t of God in Q 11:20, moreover, was probably originally independent

of the Parable of the Strong Man, which al ludes to Jesus ' victory over Satan; i t isnot present in Mark, even though i t would f i t his theology and the Markan contextwel l .

On all this , cf . Meier, A Marginal Jew, 407-41 1.4 3 Cf . A. F r id r ich sen , The Problem of Miracle in Primitive Christianity

(M inne apo l is : Au gsb urg , 1972 [or ig . 1925]) 102-10.4 4 See Bu l tm ann , History of the Synoptic Tradition, 162; Da vies and Allis on,

Matthew, 2 .339 , 342.4 5

S e e G . Th e i s s e n , The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition(S N TW ; Ed inbu rgh : T. & T . Cla rk , 1983) 277-80 ; and Tw el f t r ee , Jesus the Exorc ist,184 -89 , 219-20. / Enoch 10:4; 55:4 ; T. Moses 10:1-3; Pesiq. R. 36; and Sipra§262 (on Lev 26:6) speak of eschato logica l judgment on , des t ruc t ion of , or therender ing harmless of Satan , h is angels , and/or demons, but none of them speaksof exorc ism; on the la t te r passage , see be low, n . 86 . S imilar ly, severa l passages inthe Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs re fe r in an esc hato logic a l co nte xt tot reading evi l sp i r i t s under foot T. Sim. 6:6; T. Levi 18:12 [which a lso spe aks of

Bel iar be ing bound] ; T. Zeh. 9:8) , but none of them talks explici t ly about exorcism,a l though a re la ted passage , T. Dan 5 :10-1 1, spea ks of taking the capt iv i ty f ro m



m o r e o v e r ,4 6 i n the say ing abou t cas t ing ou t demons Jesus speaksdis t inct ively of the coming of the k in gd om of G od and of ex orc ismby the f inger of God. Fur ther, the Parable of the St rong Man makesi t s point wi th graphic , even vio lent imagery that a l ludes ra ther thanexpounding the point expl ic i t ly ; th is i s the customary s ty le of Jesus 'pa r ab o l i c m e t hod .4 7 And i t is l ike other authentic parables of Jesus inwhich he compares God or h imsel f to lawless characters .4 8

But the Parable of Satan ' s House and Kingdom, which impl ies theoppos i t e eva lua t ion o f Sa tan ' s power, a l so has a s t rong c la im toau the n t i c i ty . As K lau ck po in t s ou t , i t i s ind i sp u ta b le tha t thehis tor ica l Jesus was an exorcis t ,4 9 and therefore i t is logical that hisop p o n e n t s wou l d have w an t e d t o co m e u p w i t h an un f a vo r ab l ein te rp re ta t ion o f h i s power over demons ; the Sitz of the pa rab le ,then, has an intr insic plausibi l i ty. As the previous analysis has shown,m o r eov e r, t he pa r ab l e r ep r e sen t s an i n gen i ou s r e f u t a t i o n o f t hecharge of demonic complici ty, and i t is easier to at t r ibute this sor t ofclever r iposte to an ad hoc comment of Jesus than i t is to ascr ibe i t to

the apologet ics of the la ter church.5 0 The use of the parabol ic formis, again, typical of Jesus, and the image of the col lapse of a kingdomand house i s the sor t of v io lent , gr ipping metaphor that he seems tohave favored; i t s ar res t ing qual i ty was exploi ted centur ies la ter byAb r aham L i nco l n .

I should br ief ly take up a couple of chal lenges to my view. Onecomes f rom a scho la r who usua l ly deserves a hear ing—Bul tmann . He

Bel iar, the souls of the sa in ts . Th ese passag es f rom the Testaments, in any ca se,may be Christ ian or reflect Christ ian influence.

4 6 Me i e r, A Marginal Jew, 413-17.4 7 See C. H. Do dd , The Parables of the Kingdom (Lo ndo n : Nisb e t , 1935 ;

repr. Glasgow: Col l ins , 1961) ; J . D. Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of theHistorical Jesus (Ne w York : Harp er & Row , 1973) .

4 8 See e .g . the Pa ra b les o f the U njus t S tew ard (Luke 16 :1 -8 ), the U nju s t

Judge (Luke 18:1-8), and the Thief in the Night (Matt 24:43 = Luke 12:39). Otherparables also feature violated norms: see e.g. the harsh treatment of the man lackinga wedd ing ga rmen t in Mat t 22 :11-13 and the unfa i rness o f the employer in thePara ble of the Lab orer s in the Viney ard (Mat t 20:1-16; c f . J . M arcu s , Bla nk s andGaps in the Parable of the Sower, Biblnt 5 [19 97 ] 1-16 , her e 6 n. 15).

4 9 K l a u c k , Allegorie und Allegorese, 178 . Cf . Tw el f t r e e , Jesus the Exorc ist,142 nn. 24-25, for a l i s t of exegetes who agree . D. E. Aune ( Magic in Ear lyChr i s t i an i ty, ANRWII.23.2 [198 0] 1507-57 , here 1525 -26) has so m e par t icula rly

t renchant arguments .s 0 Cf . F r id r i chsen , The Problem of Miracle, 105-106.



quest ions the authent ici ty of the Parable of the Kingdom and Houseon the gr ou nd that i t i s in fac t ha rd ly th in ka ble that a me reexorcism of a demon would give r ise to an accusat ion of being inleague with the Devi l .5 1 W e are not deal ing, how ever , wi th a m ereexo rc ism of a de m on bu t wi th a ser ies o f exo rc ism s by one w hoop era tes ou t s ide o f o ff i c i a l chan ne l s .5 2 Such activit ies in such acontext can easi ly inspire a charge of demonic col lusion; the demons 'obedience to the exorcis t may be seen by host i le cr i t ics as anind ica tio n that he is on the d em o n s' s ide, on the pr inc iple that i ttake s one to kn ow on e (and to m anip ulate one) .5 3 For the exorcist

inh ab i t s a da ng ero us ly l im inal spac e by the m ere fac t o f h i scommerce wi th the demons ,5 4 and th is commerce may ei ther lead toh i s o wn p o s se s s i o n5 5 o r tes t i fy tha t he i s a l ready possessed .5 6

5 1 Bu l tmann , History of the Synoptic Tradition 49 n. 1.5 2 Cf . Β . J . M alina and J . H. Ne yrey , Calling Jesus Nam es: The Social Value

of Labels in Matthew (Foun dations and Facets . Son om a: Polebridg e, 1988) 20-2 5.

There is much that is instructive in Malina and Neyrey 's analysis of the Beelzebulcontroversy in i ts Matthean context, but is i t accurate to term the charge againstJesus a witchcraf t accusation (p. 25)? In sociological discussions, including thosecited by M alina and Ne yrey , a w itch is som eon e wh o caus es harm to others bysuperna tu ra l m eans ; see fo r exam ple M . Doug las , Witchcraft Confessions andAccusations (Lon don : Tav istock, 1970) xxxvi; M . M arw ick (ed.) , Witchcraft andSorcery: Selected Readings (New York: Peng uin , 1970) 11; and K. Th om as ,Religion and the Decline of Ma gic: S tudies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth- and

Seventeenth-Century England (Ha rmo nds wo r th and Ne w York: Peng uin , 1971)517-34, 551-54. But Jesus is not accused of causing harm in this sor t of way inMark 3:22 = Q 11:15; i t is admitted that he has done something good, namelyexorcism; the accusation is that he has accomplished this good deed by diabolicalmeans .

5 3 As O. Böcher points out (D äm on en fu rc ht und Dämonenabwehr: Ein Beitragzur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe ( B W A N T 9 0 ; S t u tt g a rt : Ko h l h a m me r,1970] 161-67; idem, Christus Exorcista, 77), the idea of drivin g out a de m on by a

demon corresponds to the homoeopathic na ture of ancient magic .5 4 See I . M . Le wis , Religion in Context: Cults and Charisma (2nd ed . C am -

br idge and New York: Cambridge Univers i ty Press , 1996) 137-38.5 5 See T. K. Oester re ich , Possession Dem oniacal and Other Among Primitive

Races, in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and Modern Times (London : Kegan Pau l ,Tr en ch , Tr ub ner , 1930) 80 , 92 , 161 ; N. P. Spa nos and J . Go t t l i eb , D em on icPossess ion , Mesmer i sm, and Hys te r i a : A Soc ia l Psycho log ica l Pe r spec t ive onTh eir His to r ica l In te r re la t ions , in B. P. Le vac k (ed .) , Articles on Witchcraft,

Magic and Demonology, vol . 9 (New York and Lo ndo n: Ga rdlan d, 1992) 263 -82 ,here 272. A c lass ic example is provided by Fr. Sur in , the exorc is t of Soeur Jeanne



E u s e b i u s On Philostratus 26) provid es an ancien t ex am ple w hen herepor ts the popular opinion ( as they say ) that Apol lonius of Tyanad r o v e o u t de m on s by a dem on . T he accu sa t i o n m u s t hav e b eencommonplace , for i t causes the Church Father e i ther to forget or toignore that the same charge had been leveled at Jesus.5 7

I n s t ead o f a sc r i b i ng M ar k 3 : 2 2 - 2 6 = Q 11 : 17 - 1 8 to Je su s ,Bul tmann a t t r ibutes i t to the ear ly church ' s defense of h im againstJewish charges that d iabol ica l powers had been the mainstay of h isen t i r e m i n i s t r y.5 8 But i t would be s t range for the church to defendJesus in a way that confl icted with the ear ly Christ ian convict ion that

his advent was the beginning of the end of Satan 's reign (cf . e .g. John12:31; 16 :11; 1 Co r 2:8; Co l 2:1 4-1 5; Heb 2:14) . Th is im pla usib i l i tyi s r e co g n i ze d by M . S m i t h , w ho says : T h i s i m p l i c i t l y an t i -e sc ha t o l o g i c a l s ay i ng [ 3 : 22 - 2 6 ] wa s t h e n uc l eu s t o w h i c h t h ecollect ions of other sayings on the subject [ in 3:20-30] were at tached;it the re fo re mus t be very ea r ly , and it co n t r ad ic t s the ge ne ra leschatological expecta t ions of la ter gospel mater ia l . Why, then, was

i t preserved? Perhaps because i t was genuine .5 9

Smith i s happy wi th the ant i -eschatological thrust of Mark 3:23-26 pars . , s ince it f i ts into his no n-e sch ato log ical p ictur e of Je sus them agic ian . But he adop t s two d i ff e re n t and som ew hat con t rad ic to rys t r a teg ies fo r pu t t ing th is an t i - esc ha to lo g ica l say ing toge the r wi ththe rest of the passage. At one point he t r ies to give the passage a

of Loudun , a s desc r ibed by A. Hux ley, The Devils of Loudun (Lon don : Ch a t to &W indu s , 1952) 273-78 , 283 .

5 6 S e e I . M. Le w i s , A S t r u c t u r a l Ap p r o a c h t o W i t c h c r a f t a n d S p i r i t -Poss ess ion , in M . Do ug las ( ed . ), Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations ( L o n -don: Tav is tock , 1970) 293-3 09, here 304-3 05. In ear ly mod ern E urop e , P rotes tantsf requent ly a l leged tha t Cathol ic exorc isms worked through the col lus ion of demons;see S . Cla rk , Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early ModernEurope (O xfo rd: Clare ndo n Press , 1997) 360, 421. For a s ix teen th-centu ry case in

which a demon accused h is exorc is t of be ing a wi tch , see Thomas, Religion and theDecline of Magic, 575. In con tem por ary charis ma tic Chr ist ian circles, s imilarly , thecha rge is wid espr ead tha t occ ul t ( i .e . non-C hris t ian) healers per fo rm the i r mira -c les through the power of Satan; see e .g . P. Horrobin , Healing T hrough Deliver-ance: The Biblical Basis (Chiches ter : Sovere ign World , 1991) 231-35.

5 7 Cf . Smi th , Jesus the Magician, 205.5 8 Bu l tman n i s fo l low ed by W . W eiss , Eine neue Lehre in Vollmacht: Die

Streit- und Schulgespräche des Markus-Evangeliums (B ZN W 52 ; Ber l in : de Gru y-

ter, 1989) 171.5 9 Smi th , Jesus the Magician, 205.



uni ta ry m ean ing by imp os ing a non -escha to log ica l sen se on Q 11 :20also: the f ing er of G od is the po w er in m agic , and the k i ng do m ofG o d i s the acce ss ib i l i ty o f th i s po w er.6 0 Th i s in te rp re ta t ion , how-

ever, i s unconvinc ing in v iew of the escha to log ica l s ign i f i cance o fk in gd om of G o d e l sew here in the Syn opt ic t r ad i t ion ,6 1 and Smi th

has problems wi th the c lear ly eschatological thrust of the Parable ofthe S t rong Man , which he paraphrases bu t does no t exp l i ca te . Atanother point he forswears any a t tempt to g ive the passage a uni tarym e a n i n g , a rg u i n g i n s t e a d t h a t t h e v a r i e t y o f d e m o n o l o g i c a ld iagnoses in Mark 3 :20-30 sugges t s tha t they [ a l l ] come f rom good

tradi t ion . Later invent ion would have sa id only, 'He has an uncleanspir i t , ' as the evangelist does in his explanatory note at the end (3:30). . . . 6 2 But th is cor rect observat ion s t i l l leaves unexpla ined how thev a r i e t y o f con t r ad i c t o r y dem on o l og i ca l d i agn oses i n 3 : 20 - 3 0 co u l da l l have come f rom Jesus .

We canno t , t hen , a l l ev i a t e t h e t en s i o n be t ween t he d i f f e r en ta t t i tudes toward Satan ' s s t rength in our passage s imply by dismissing

one o r the o ther o f the componen t par t s as unjesuanisch, or byg loss ing over the c lash be tween them. A more sens ib le cour se , Iwould suggest , i s to hypothesize that Jesus ' th inking on the subject ofSa ta n ' s dom in ion ove r the ea r th und erw ent a dev e lop m ent . Ear ly inh i s min i s t ry he per fo rmed exorc i sms wi thou t d rawing the conc lus iontha t he o r anyone e l se had over th rown Sa tan ; th i s ea r ly s t age inJesus ' unders tanding of h is char ismat ic g i f t i s ref lec ted in Mark 3:23-

26 = Q 11 :17-18 . Tha t Jesus he ld such an op in ion i s pe r fec t lyplausib le , s ince most of the Jewish exorcis ts known to us mainta ineds imi la r v iews; as we have seen above , the l inkage be tween exorc i smand escha to log ica l adven t o r the defea t o f Sa tan i s r a re ly i f evermade in Jewish t r ad i t ions tha t an teda te the New Tes tament . Th i sear ly Jesus was, to be sure , probably in some sense an apocalypt icth inker, a s the l anguage abou t Sa tan ' s domin ion seems to ind ica te ,6 3

6 0 Smi th , Jesus the Magician, 130.6 1 Cf . M eie r, A Marginal Jew, 237-508 .6 2 S m i t h , Jesus the Magician, 32-3 3. But there is an inco nsis te ncy her e as

wel l ; Smith goes on to say tha t the var ie ty of demonologica l analyses correspondsto the ac tual s i tua t ion , thus imp lying tha t M ark 3 :20 -30 as a wh ole co m es f rom apar t icular occas ion in the minis t ry of Jesus . But h is acknowledgment on p . 205 tha t3 :22 -26 was the nucleu s to which la ter Gos pel mater ia l was a t tached sugg ests the

oppos i t e .6 3 Th is imagery seem s to p lace M ark 3 :26 = Q 11:18 in an apocalyp t ic contex t



but that does not necessar i ly mean that he would have in terpre ted h isexo r c i sm s a s s i gns o f e scha t o l o g i ca l adven t . T he peop l e whom heexorc i sed , r a ther, were ind iv idua l b rands p lucked f rom the Sa tan icf ire of the present evi l age; he did not yet see himself as the f i remanwhose task i t was to put the f i re out . His pract ical response to the evi lin the wor ld , then, was episodic ra ther than programmat ic , the sor to f r espo nse tha t W i l son charac te r i zes as thaum aturg ica l :

The indiv idual ' s concern is re l ie f f rom present and speci f ic i l l s by specia ld i spe nsa t ion s . Th e dem and fo r superna tu ra l he lp is pe r sona l and loca l : it sopera t ion is magica l . Sa lvat ion is immedia te but has no genera l appl ica t ion

beyond the g iven case and o thers l ike i t . . .The evi ls feared are a l l h ighlyspecif ic , and i t i s f rom thei r par t icular inc idence (not f rom thei r universa lopera t ion) tha t sa lva t ion is sought .6 4

Late r, however, Jesus came to see h i s exorc i s t i c min i s t ry in ad i f f e r e n t , m or e exa l t ed wa y t h a t W i l so n wo u l d ch a r a c t e r i ze a smi l l en ar ian . He began to v iew h im se l f as the e ff ec t ive op po ne n t o fSatan , the St ronger One whose exorcisms tes t i f ied to h is ro le as the

spearhead of the inbreaking age of God 's dominion; i t i s th is s tage inh i s se l f -u nde r s tan d ing tha t is r e f l ec ted in M ark 3 :27 = Q 1L 20 -22 .6 5

because of the impl ica t ion tha t Satan ru les the world ; c f . the Qumran passages c i tedabo ve in n . 40 . On sub jec t ion to ev i l cos mic p ow ers a s a cha r ac te r i s t i c o f o ne

t rac k o f apoca lyp t i c though t , see M. C. de Boer, Pau l and Jewish Ap oca ly p t i cEs ch a to log y, in J . M arcu s and M. L. Soard s (eds . ) , Apocalyptic and the N ewTestament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis M artyn ( J S N T S u p 2 4 ; S h e f f i e l d : J S O TPre ss , 1989) 169-90 , e sp . 174-75 . I u se ap oc a ly p t i c to de no te the fo rm ofthou ght tha t is fo un d in ancien t Jew ish and Chr is t ian a po ca lyp ses , a v iew of thewo rld tha t i s do m ina ted by co sm ic dual ism, an or ienta t ion tow ard the sup erna tura lw orld , and a con vic tion that the esc hato n is ei ther very close or has alread y arriv ed;c f . J . M arcus , M ode rn and Anc ien t Jewish Ap oca ly p t i c i sm ,JR 76 (1996) 2 n. 5,for b ib l iography on the ques t ion of def in i t ion .

6 4 B . W i l son , Magic and the Millennium (St . Alb ans : Palad in, 1973) 24 -25 .6 5 T he Parab le of the Stro ng Man in M ark 3:27 = Q 11 :21-22 and the sayin g in

Q 11:20 about the demonstra t ion of the advent of the k ingdom of God in Jesus 'exorc isms were probably or ig ina l ly independent of each o ther (see above, n . 42) .But even wi thout the proximity of the Strong Man parable , Q 11:20 impl ies tha tJesus ' exorc isms are a v ic tory over Satan , s ince the ar r iva l of the dominion of God,which is spoken of in one breath with the rout of the demons, implies the defeat ofthe r ival dominion of Satan; cf . T. Moses 10:1 . S imilar ly, the M arka n and Mat th eanvers ion s of the Strong Man Parable speak of the Strong er On e b in din g the StrongMan , which i s l anguage assoc ia ted wi th exorc i sm (e .g . Tob i t 3 :17 ; 8 :3 ; PGM4 .1 2 4 5 - 1 2 4 8 ) a n d wi t h d iv i n e j u d g m e n t o n t h e d e m o n s ( e .g . I Enoch 10:4 , 12;



I hav e argu ed e l sewh ere tha t Jes us ' co nvic t ion of es cha to lo g ica ladvent and of his own unique role within that advent came to him atthe t ime of h is bapt ism by John, when he saw Satan thrown down

from heaven (Luke 10:18) and arr ived at the conclusion that thedominion of the Devi l was now being replaced by the dominion ofG o d .6 6 I t would make sense that the same visionary event was theturn ing po in t in Jesus ' unders tand ing of the s ign i f icance of h isex o r c i sms .6 7

This sort of changed evaluation is, in a way, logical; if miraclesbegin to occur on a wide enough scale, i t may start to seem to the

miracle-worker and /or h is fo l lowers tha t these ex t raord inary even tsdo not m ere ly rep rese nt the activity of G od in terri tory held largelyby the de vi l but a m om en to us al terat ion in the s t ru ctur e of theuniverse , the beg inn ing of the longed-for defeat o f cosmic ev i l .6 8

Such a change in wor ld-v iew has socio log ica l p recedents ; Wi lsonci tes severa l Thi rd World examples o f thaumaturg ica l movementsthat mutated in to mil lenarian ones, ent i t l ing the relevant chapter of

13:1) an d o n S ata n (7 . Lev. 18 :12) ; cf . R. H. Hiers , 'B in di ng ' and ' Lo os ing ' :The Matthean Author izat ions ,JB L 104 (198 5)23 3-50 , esp . 235-39 . This languagewas probably originally in Q, though it is absent in Luke 11:22-23 (cf. Fridrichsen,The Problem of Miracle 108; Evans, Luke 492-93) . Moreover, ancien t Jewishthinkers could view the human body as the dwelling-place of Satan (see e.g . T.Naph. 8 :6) , so a parable about a s trong m an 's house might imm ediate ly awake ndemonological associa t ions . Even without the proximity of Q 11:20 , then , the

Strong Ma n Parable implies exorcism (cf . Β . Ko llman n, Jesus und die Christen alsWundertäter: Studien zu Magie, Medizin und Schaman ismus in Antike undChristentum [FR LA NT 170; Göt t ingen: Va nden hoeck & Ruprec ht , 1996] 190).

6 6 J . M arcus , Je su s ' Bap t i sma l Vis ion , NTS 41 (1995) 512-21.6 7 I rea l ize tha t the Go spe ls (and Acts 10:37) present Jesus ' bapt ism by John

as the s tar t ing point of h is publ ic ac t iv i ty ; they know nothing of an exorc is t icminis t ry (or any o ther sor t ) before tha t poin t . But th is schema may ref lec t thechurch 's theologica l convic t ion tha t John was El i jah , the messenger who paved the

wa y for Jes us the M es sia h (see M ark 1 :2-4; 9 :1 1-1 3, e tc . ) ra the r than s t r ic th is tor ica l chro nolo gy. In any case , I am not c la imin g tha t a m ajo r por t ion of Jes us 'publ ic minis t ry preceded h is bapt ism, only a pre l iminary s tage tha t was bas ica l lyl imi ted to exorc i sms . Bu t he s t i l l may have had fo l lowers who cou ld haveremembered h i s say ings .

6 8 Th e q u o t a t io n is f r o m F. O 'C o n n o r, Mystery and Mann ers: OccasionalProse (eds . S . & R. Fi tzge ra ld ; Ne w Y ork: Farra r, S t rau s & Gi rou x, 1961) 118.Cf . Cla rk , Thinking with Demons, 405 -406 , wh o notes tha t the prem oni t io ns of thela s t t imes o f the s ix teen th -cen tu ry p r ie s t , P ie r re Crespe t , seem to have beenprompted by possess ion cases .



h i s book F rom M ag ic to the M i l l enn ium — and B ack .69 (The andba ck part will not con cern us here, thou gh i t is a fair des crip tion ofcer ta in aspects o f the development o f Chr is t ian i ty af ter the f i r s tgenerat ion or so . ) Closer to Jesus rel ig iously i f not chronological ly,there is a Jewish parallel in the transformation since the beginning ofthe twentieth century of the Habad (Lubav i tch) Ha sid ic sec t, wh ichhad p rev io us ly been thaum atu rg ica l i n W i l s on ' s sense , i n to amovement that retained and even increased i ts emphasis on miracles ,but now interpreted them as s igns of the imminence and eventual lythe arr ival of messianic redemption.7 0

A ltho ug h in the case of Jesu s th i s ch an ge f r om m ag ic tom il le nn iu m wa s sealed by the vis io nary event of the ba pt is m , i t

m ay hav e been pre pared for by o ther fac to rs . For ex am ple , theopposi t ion tha t h i s sensat ional ly successfu l and popular exorc is t icminist ry provoked in more mainstream groups such as the scr ibes7 1

could have pushed him in a mil lenarian direct ion even before hisbap t i sm, and could indeed have been par t ly responsib le fo r h is

jo ining himself with the Bapt is t movement in the f i rs t p lace. Wilsondescr ibes the analogous apocalyp t ic t ransformat ion of the movementstar ted by Simon Kimbangu, a fai th healer whose successful minist ryin the Belgian Co ng o of the 19 20 's arouse d off ic ial con cern and ledqu ickly to his arrest and im pri son m en t. Th is per secu tion set the sealon the muta t ion in to a revo lu t ion is t movement o f an or ig inal lyt h au ma t u rg i ca l r ev i v a l .7 2 S imi lar ly, Jesus ' exorc isms could have

p ro vo ked har ra ssm en t f rom env ious and fea r fu l au tho r i t i e s w howere concerned about the growing popular i ty and inf luence with thepeople of a charismat ic f igure who had no l ink with off icial ci rcles .The plausibi l i ty of th is scenario is supported by the unease withwhich o ther Gal i lean fa i th -healers and miracle-workers (H a s i d i m

6 9 Wi lson , Magic and the Millennium, 348-83.7 0 See A. Ravi tzky, Messianism, Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism

(Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism; Chicago and London: University ofChicago Press, 1996) 193-203.

7 1 It is prob ably signific ant that the m ani festa tion s of scribal hostility to Jes usin Mark 2 :1-3 :6 are immediate ly preceded by the ser ies of heal ing miraclesdes cribe d in 1:21-45. Th is jux tap osi t ion may well ref lect a scr ibal antipathy todisp lays of free -lan ce cha rism atic p ow er both in Ma rk 's own d ay and in the time ofJesus; cf . below on off icial discomfort with wonder-workers such as Hanina ben

Dosa and Honi the Circle-drawer.7 2 Wi lson , Magic and the Millennium, 367-73.





contex t wi th the submiss ion of the demons to Jesus ' power.7 7 Jesusnow sees that his exorcisms, and those of people who cast out demonsin his name, have been made possible by the overthrow of Satan.7 8

The tension between Mark 3:23-26 = Q 11:17-18 and Mark 3:27 = Q11:20-22, then, does not ref lect a clash between concurrent ly heldopin ions bu t a progression in und ers tand ing , cor resp on din g to theevent of Sa tan 's fal l f ro m heaven.

C O N G R U E N T S AY I N G S

But doesn ' t th is at tempt to reconstruct an ear ly phase in Jesus 'eschatological th inking from one puzzl ing saying rely on too th in anevident ial basis to be convincing? Is there any veri f icat ion of thehypothesis from other parts of the Synoptic tradit ion? At least two ofthe say ings in the immedia te Q contex t , and perhaps one in ad i fferen t Markan se t t ing , are coheren t wi th my in terpre ta t ion ofMark 3 :23-26 = Q 11:17-18 and could belong to the same pre-baptismal stage.

T he first is the very nex t verse in Q: A nd if I cast out de m on s b yBeelzebul , by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they wil lbe yo ur ju d ge s (Q 11 :19) . This say ing cont in ues the reductio d

bsurdum reas on ing of the Parab le of the K ing do m and H ou se inMark 3:23-26 = Q 11:17-18, and the first part of i t is parallel toMark 3:24-26 = Q 11:18 in form (condi t ional clause with el in

se a, and to m ak e wa r with the saints , and indeed his dep osit io n fro m heav enseems to have increased his wrath against the inhabitants of the ear th . Yet he hasbeen decisively we ak en ed, s ince vv. 10-11 ann ou nce that the salvation and thepower and the kingdom (βασιλεία) of our God have come, for the accuser of ourbrethren ha s been thrown d o w n ,. . . and they have conq uere d him by the blood ofthe Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives evenunto dea th. For Ch rist ian s, the refo re, Sa ta n 's fall m ean s victo ry, eve n if i t isachieved at the cost of their lives, whereas for non-Christians it seems to mean only

exposure to the terrors of the end-time.7 7 Th e Lu kan conte x t , though perh aps not or ig inal ( see M arc us , Je su s '

B apt ism al Vis ion , 514 -15 ) , is correc t to l ink Sa ta n ' s fall with with a dec isiveweakening of his power. See the related saying in John 12:31, which l inks Satan 'sexpu lsion with the judg me nt of this wo rld.

7 8 I t rem ain s an open questio n how Jesus , af te r his bap tism and vision ofSatan 's fall , would have interpreted the exorcisms he had performed earlier, beforethose events—perhaps as s igns that Satan 's dominion was beginning to crack? But

it is uncertain that he was given to such retrospective thinking, or to such consis-tency.



protasis, rhetorical question in apodosis). It is also coherent with tworld-view expressed in Mark 3:23-26 = Q 11:17-18, but i t clashwith Jesus ' mature thinking. Jesus portrays himself as one of

number of contemporary f igures who perform exorcisms; the fathat these exorcisms are taking place drives him to no conclusioabout eschatological advent or about his own unique role in iIndeed, such uniqueness would seem to be excluded by the sayinsince any feature ascribed to Jesus ' exorcisms would also need to ascribed to those of other exorcists who do not follow him.7 9 Nor dowe find here the realized eschatology of the Parable of the Stron

Man and the saying about casting out demons by the power of Goalthough there is an element of end-expectation in the saying, refers to the future rather than to the present ( therefore they will beyour judges ) .

In this saying, then, reaction to the eschatological figure of Jesuis not the critical criterion of a ju d gm en t alread y takin g place, aswill be in Jesus' later thought; it is not the case that one must eith

fal l into s tep behind Jesus on the apocalpyt ic bat t lef ield , or brevealed as an enemy of the salvific power that is breaking into tworld through him, as will be the situation in the saying that occursfe w vers es after w ard s in Q, Th e one w ho is not with me is againm e ( Q 1:23).8 0 To be sure, a harsh judgment is implied againstthose who put a sinister construction on Jesus' exorcisms, but it is harsher than the verd ict rendered on those who censure o the

ex orc is ts ( the ref or e they wil l be your ju dg es ) , an d noth ing explicitly said about the position of those who simply do not take

7 9 See the ci tat ion of Bu ltma nn abov e, n . 42 ; cf . A. D. Jac ob son , T hLiterary Unity of Q,JB L 101 (1982 ) 365 -89, here 381. But Jac obs on un con vin -cin gly tries to m ainta in the literary unity of the Q version by ass erting that tco m ing of the king dom is the presup position for all exo rcism s, not jus t for th

of Jesus. Mark 3:27 = Q 11:21-22, however, speaks of a strong man who hasbound Satan, not of strong men, and Q 11:20 speaks of Jesus exorcisms ( if I bythe finger of God ), not of exorcisms in general (cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew,2.339) .

8 0 Th is mo re sectarian attitude is sim ilar to that exp ress ed in 1600 by Ge orM ore , the chief suppo rter of the Puritan exorcist John D arrell: If the C hu rch England have this power to cast out devils, then the Church of Rome is a falchurch; for there can be but one true church, the principal mark whereof (as th

say) is to work miracles, and of them this is the greatest, namely to cast out dev(cited in Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Ma gic, 577 ; cf. 587 ).



stand vis-à-vis Jesus. Indeed, i t is possible that the pre-baptiJesus ' at t i tude toward such fence-sit ters was not that of Q 11:2the op po si te vie w po int exp ress ed in M ark 9:40, H e w ho isaga ins t us [exo rc i s t s?] is fo r us . Th is m ore ope n a t t i tcorresponds to the probable social locat ion posi t ion of the baptismal Jesus. As a healer and exorcist who was not yet the cof a large movement that could support him f inancial ly, he p r ob ab ly l a rge ly dep en de n t fo r h i s su s te na nc e on fe es contr ibut ions from those whom he had cured.8 1 A person in such aposi t ion wo uld proba bly not em bra ce the sort of m e aga inst

w o rld attitude that is ex pre ssed in Q 11:23.A parallel , one among many to the ministry of Jesus, may

cited from the career of the Baal Shem Τ ον or Besh t , the fo un de r ofmodern Hasidism. The Besht began his minist ry as one of numerousbaalei shem ( li t. m asters of the N am e [of Go d] ) , fai th-h ealers wh owe re act ive in Pol ish Jew ry in the ear ly eigh teen th centu ry. A t at ime when t rained physicians were rare—indeed, in the smal l towns

and v i l l ages were unheard o f—the baalei shem took the place ofdo cto rs in the treatm ent of phy sical and em otion al ai lm ents . . . T heBesht f irst turned to this call ing out of poverty, earning his l iving bymeans of the fees he co l lec ted for miracu lous cures and for thetherapeut ic amulets that he provided. Only gradual ly did he emergeas p re-eminent among the baalei shem and bec om e fam ou s fo r h iscompassionate teaching as wel l as h is miraculous cures, eventual ly

earning the sobriquet Baal Shem Τ ο ν , the good baa l shem .8 2

It isplausible that these basic points were matched in the early career of

8 1 On fees cha rged by ancient exorc ists and faith-h ealer s see Philo , SpecialLaws 3 .100-10 1: Lucian , Alexander the False Prophet 22-23; Lover of Lies 15-16;Or igen , Celsus 1.68; con trast what is said about Th om as in Acts of Thomas 20; cf.Acts 8:18-19 (see S. R. Garrett , The Dem ise of the Devil: Magic and the Dem onic

in Luke s Writings [M inne apo lis: Fortress, 1989] 70, 145 n. 39; Ko llm ann , Jesusund die Christen, 362 -78). Th ese sourc es are all nega tive tow ard the venality of thehealers , but the taking of fees does not necessar ily indicate greed or corruption;even faith-healers need to make a l iving. The sixteenth- and seventeenth-centuryEngl ish healers d iscussed by Thomas (R el ig io n and the Decline of Magic, 210)norm ally exp ecte d a fee ; cf. also below on the Baal She m Τ ον.

8 2 S . Du bno w, The Beginnings: The Baal Shem Τ ον (Besht) and the Cen terin Po do lia, in G. D. Hu nde rt (ed.) , Essential Papers on Hasidism: Origins to

Present (Essential Papers on Jew ish Studies ; Ne w York and Lo nd on : Ne w Y orkUn iversity P ress, 1994) 25-57 , here 31 -32.



Jesus. He started out as one of a number of f irst-century Galilewonder-workers, earning his l iving through his healings, and he shimself as being in a sor t of loose al l iance with these othechar ismat ics . Only la ter d id he become pre-eminent among thehealers and begin to reveal his gifts as a teacher.

One other logion in the Q context may be l inked with the prebaptismal Jesus, and i t may provide a hint about a factor that lJesus eventually to ally himself with John the Baptist 's penitential apocalyp t ic movement , to become conv inced o f eschato log icadvent , and to come to see his exorcisms in a more programma

w ay.8 3 This is the passage about the return of the unclean spirit in 11:24-26. On the surface this is a strange thing for Jesus to say, sihe was an exorcist , yet the saying seems to acknowledge that the result of exorcism is that the supposedly healed person ends upworse shape than he or she was in before. The evicted demon fiseven fr iends more powerful than himself , and with their help reoccupies his previous human host in a much more formidable w

than formerly. Most exegetes have ei ther opted for an al legoriinterpretation of this saying or have claimed that in i t Jesus wspeaking about exorcists other than himself .8 4

But why couldn' t this be the pre-baptismal Jesus talking about hown exorcisms and their lack of las t ing effect iveness? Why couldthis saying be the cri de coeur of an exorcist who, like a battlefieldmedic, comes to the depressing realization that he mends his patie

only to send them back into the thick of the fighting, where they wbe mauled sti l l more terribly by the enemy?8 5 And may not suchsobering ref lect ions have led Jesus to begin thinking more dee

8 3 For another factor which may have driven Jesus to the Ba ptist 's a pocalym ove m ent, see the discussion of the effec t of persecution above .

8 4 See the surve ys in Luz, Matthäus, 282 -84; Da vies and Allison , Matthew

2.359-60; and D. C. Allison, The Jesus Tradition in Q (Valley Forge: Trinity PressInternational, 1997) 122-23.

8 5 See Bö che r (Christus Exorcista 17) and Hull (Hellen is t ic Magic 102),who recognize that the passage is s imply a summary of ancient demonlogy;All ison, The Jesus Tradition 120-32. In Acts of Thom as 46 a dem on threatens thatafter his exorc ist departs he will reposse ss the wo ma n fro m wh om he has just cast out; anxiety about re-possession is also reflected in Mark 9:25; Tobit 6:8Josephus , Ant. 8.2.5 §46-47; and Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 4.20. In cha ris-

matic Christian circles today, such anxiety is sti l l very real; see e.g. J. WimPower Healing (Lon don : Ho dder & Stoug hton, 1986) 243.



about the scope of the opposit ion to the human wholeness thatheal ings were meant to impart , and to wonder whether God mnot be calling him to attack the problem directly at its source?8 6

C O N C L U D I N G Q U E S T I O N S A N D S P E C U L AT I O N S

One of the problems with thinking you have a good thesisknowing how far to push it , and when to stop. In the present cabelieve I have shown that certain parts of the Beelzebul controvreflect an early stage in Jesus ' ministry, in which he had not become convinced that Satan had fal len from heaven. Rather, hesti l l sure, and could treat i t as a self-evident fact , that Satan enthroned in a posit ion of cosmic lordship. Later, however, afterbapt ism, he became convinced of Satan 's deposi t ion from power,saw his own exorcisms as evidence for the progressing overthrothe Satanic regime.

Could this theory also help to resolve the tension betweerea l i z ed and fu tu r i s t i c esc ha to log y in the Sy no pt ic t r ad i tgenerally? Might i t be that the futurist ic eschatology belongs toearly, pre-bapt ismal phrase of Jesus ' minis try, before he had sSatan fall , while the realized eschatology belongs to the later, pbaptismal phase? I acknowledged earlier that apocalyptic thinkerable to hold together seemingly i r reconci lab le convict ions abeschatological advent, and this abil i ty would provide an alternateof explaining the clash between futurist ic and realized eschatologthe tradition. But would it not be a neater solution to suppose there was a discernable progression in Jesus ' thought , f rom a hthat was only a hope, to a hope that was conceived as being

8 6 In both ancient and mo dern t imes, de m on s have usually been treatedrituals of location or reloca tion (see J. Z. Sm ith, To w ard s Inter pretin g D emPo w ers in Hellenistic and Ro m an Antiqu ity, in ANRW 11.17.1 [19 78 ] 42 5- 39 ,esp. 428-29, 438). But the apocalyptic goal of the later Jesus and of the churcthe extermination of the dem on s, not just their eviction fro m particular hu msubjects; Jesus was viewed not merely as a supernatural policeman who movevagrant spirits on, but as their eschatological liquidator. Mark 1:24, for exadesc ribes the de m on s scream ing in fear, H av e you co m e to destroy us? Cf. T.

Judah 25:3; Eusebius , Proof of the Gospel 6.13 ; Igna tius, Eph. 19:2-3 ; and PGM4.1245-1248; the latter invokes Jesus in order to bind and destroy a demonalso the interesting passage in Sipra §2 62 (on Lev 26 :6) cited by Ba rrett (The Holy

Spirit 59), in which R. Judah and R. ŠimC0n debate whether at the eschaton Godwill destroy the demons or merely render them harmless.



process of realization?To pose the question in this way is immediately to hear alarm

bells r inging. Neat solut ions are of ten wrong solut ions, especiawhen one is dealing with a f igure as complex as Jesus and an areirration al as esc ha tolo gy . Yet I do not think that this neatn ess shonecessar i ly prevent the hypothes is f rom being inves t igated; nsolut ions are sometimes corr ect. In any cas e, on ce w e let go of thetheo log ica l a priori that thro ugh ou t his car eer Jes us m ust ha veconsistently preached and taught the same doctrine, that becausewas the incarnate Word h is thought could not have undergo

signif icant development , the main obstacle is removed to at leconsidering the possibi l i ty that his thinking on the subject esch ato lo gy prog resse d , and that d i ff ere nt par ts of the Syn opt rad i t ion ref lec t d i fferen t phases in th i s though t .8 7 S ev e r a lcommentators have been will ing to consider such a possibil i ty,8 8 andthere are also those who have argued that Paul 's eschatologithought changed.8 9

I realize that there is a certain similari ty between this broadhypothesis and the theory of John Kloppenborg (1987) and oththat the earliest layer of Q was less apocalyptic than its later stage9 0

This thesis has been subjected to searching cr i t iques by Hors(1989), Attr idge (1992), Tucket t (1992) and All ison (1997),9· and I

8 7 It ma y seem odd that these differe nt atti tudes of Jesus towa rd esc hato l

are preserved within a single passage, Mark 3:20-30 pars. But it is characteristthe Synoptic tradition (as it is of the later rabbinic tradition) to collect together iplace different and even contradictory sayings that deal with the same subanother Synoptic example that deals with eschatology is Luke 17:20-37, wpreserves attitudes toward the presence or futurity of the kingdom of God that agreat tension with each other.

8 8 See e.g. A. Sch we itzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (New York:M acm illan , 1968 forig. 1906]); F. M ussn er, G ab es eine 'galiläisc he K ris e'?

P. Hoffm an n (ed.) , Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker. Für JosefSchmid (Freibu rg: Herd er, 1973) 235 -52; J. D. Cros san, The Historical Jesus: TheLife of a Med iterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991) 237-38; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.270-71.

8 9 E.g. C. H. Do dd, New Testam ent Studies (Manc hes ter : M anch es ter Un i-versity Press, 1953) 109-18.

9 0 J . S. Klop penb org, The Form ation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient WisdomCollections (SA C ; Philad elphia : Fortress, 1987).

9 1

R. A. H ors ley , Q ue st io ns Ab out Re dac tiona l Strata and the SocR ela tion s Refle cte d in Q , in D. J. Lull (ed.), Society of Biblical L iterature 1989



w ou ld l ike to dis t in guis h m y ow n posi t ion f ro m it . I am clwhereas Kloppenborg is not, that both of the layers of tradit iohave dis t inguished come from the his tor ical Jesus. Further, I specifically stated that the early Jesus as well as the later one p rob ab ly an apoc alyp t ic th inker, w here as fo r K lopp en bo rg earliest layer of Q is much less apocalyptic than sapiential, and ohave used this conclusion as the basis for asserting that Jesus himwas a wisdom teacher rather than an apocalypticist .9 2

I must admit , however, that my exact formulat ion containsqu al i f i e r : the p re -ba p t i sm al Jesu s w as in som e se ns e apoca lyp t i c i s t . Th i s qua l i f i ca t i on h in t s t ha t t he apoca lypframework may have been more cent ral to Jesus ' la ter, pbaptismal thinking than i t was to his pre-baptismal thought. I mthis qual i f icat ion part ly because according to my interpretat ioMark 3:22-26 = Q 11:17-18, the pre-bapt ismal Jesus thought something s ignif icant , namely his exorcisms, was being accomplin the present, even though it was not yet the t ime of apocaly

fulfi l lment. In this sense apocalypticism was not yet as crucial toas it became after his baptism, when he began to see his exorcismsigns of eschatological advent.

Also , I must acknowledge that my appropr iat ion of Wilsonana ly s i s o f p rog res s ion f rom thaumatu rg i ca l t o mi l l enarm ov em en ts migh t sugge st that Jesus started out as a sim ple exoand wonder-worker, and that he became an apocalypt ic one o

later, af ter experiencing persecut ion from off icial quarters forsuccess of his faith healing. One might synthesize these concepby postulat ing a progression from the non-apocalypt ic thaumatof the early ear ly Jesu s to the futurist ic apo calyp tic esc ha tologthe early Jesus to the fulfi l led apocalyptic eschatology of the pbaptismal Jesus. In fact , th is sor t of progression would makcer tain amount of sense; i t corresponds , for example, to

development of the H abaci Hasidic movement , to which I referredabove, f rom the non-apocalypt ic thaumaturgy of i ts beginnings

Seminar Papers (SB LS P 28; Atlanta: Sch olars Press , 1989) 175-209; H. WAttr idg e, R efle ct io ns on Rese arch into Q ,Semeia 55 (1992) 223 -34; C. M.Tu cke tt , O n the Stratification of Q: A Re spo nse ,Semeia 55 (199 2) 213 -22; andAll ison, The Jesus Traditions 3-8.

9 2 E.g. B. L. M ack , Q and the Gosp el of M ark: Revising Christian OrigSemeia 55 (19 92 ) 15-39.



the catastro phic , futurist ic me ssianism of the W orld W ar II period,to the triumphant, fulfilled messianism of the most recent decades.9 3

Such a progression is an intriguing possibility, but I do not think

that it has the same degree of probability as the basic thesis of thise s s a y.9 4 The lat ter is the more l imited content ion that Jesus 'eschatological thought underwent a discernable change on at least onesignificant subject, namely the status of Satan in the government ofthe cosmos. If this hypothesis weathers the test of critical scrutiny,perhaps subsequent scholarship wil l be able to bui ld on i t toformulate a more comprehensive theory about the development ofJesus' view of the end and of the world's standing in relation to it .

9 3 See Ravi tzky, Messianism Zionism , 193-203. Rav itzky thinks that thepersecutions of Jews throughout the first half of this century played a decisive rolein moving R. Joseph Isaac Schneerson toward an acute messianic hope; they werefor him the birth pangs of the Messiah, which would soon be followed byredem ption. Ravitzky therefore calls R. Jo se ph 's messianism catastro phic. R.Joseph 's post-war successor, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, saw this hope asbeing fulf i l led in his own days and perhaps in his own person; hence hismes sianism was triump hant. The contrast between the catastrophic messianism ofR. Joseph and the tr iumphant messianism of R. Menahem corresponds to thedifference between the apocalypticism of John the Baptist and that of the laterJesus, but it may also correspond to two different stages in the development ofJes us ' own apocalypticism — a catastrop hic phase that f lowed out of his ear lyperse cutio ns by the authorities, and a trium pha nt phase that follow ed his baptism .

9 4 The main evidence for the ear ly ear ly non-ap ocalyptic s tage in Jes us 'career is the sociological typology mapped out by Wilson, which is supported byJewish exam ples such as the Baal Shem Τ ον and perhaps Ver me s's H asidim. Butthere is no hard evidence in the Jesus tradition itself.





T H E E N C O U N T E R O F J E S U S W I T H T H E G E R A S E N E

D E M O N I A C *

Jostein Adna

The account of Jesus and the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5:1-20 isthe most dramatic and astounding exorcism story in the Gospels . I t

has a s l ight ly shorter, but basical ly corresponding paral lel in Luke8:26-39 , whereas the Mat thean para l le l in Mat t 8 :28-34 i s bo thremarkably much shor ter1 and less dramatic. In this article I will tryto invest igate whether and, i f so , to what degree th is narrat ivepresen ts an au then t ic h is to r ica l account o f an encounter be tweenJesu s and a dem on -po sses sed m an which hap pen ed a t a par t icu lart ime and place during his pre-Easter minist ry.

L I T E RA R Y- CRI T I CA L A N D T RA D I T I O - CRI T I CA L A N A LY S E S

O F M AR K 5:1-20

Some twenty- f ive years ago , Franz Annen submi t ted a doctora ldissertat ion on Mark 5:1-20 parr, to the Pontifical Biblical Insti tutein Rome, which he later revised sl ightly and published under the t i t le

ei l für die Heiden: Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition

vom bessenenen Gerasener Mk 5,1-20 parr.).2

As a fu l l -sc alemonograph on the text(s) which wil l serve as the pr imary textualbasis for our invest igat ion, Annen's s tudy deserves more at tent ionthan i t has t rad i t ional ly rece ived .3 Particularly in the realm of

I thank my friend, Prof. James M. Scott , Trinity Western University, forhaving corrected and polished my English.

1

Th e M arka n version com prises 325 wo rds in 20 verses, the Luk an version293 words in 14 verses, and the Matthean one solely 135 words in seven verses(These numbers are taken from Annen, Heil [cf. η. 2], 22, 30.

2 F. Ann en, ei l für die Heiden: Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Traditionvom besessenen Gerasener Mk 5,1-20 parr.) (Frank furter The ologis che Studien20; Frankfurt am Main: Josef Knecht, 1976).

3 Even the m ajo r mo nog raph during the recent years on Jesus as an exo rcistproduced by Graham H. Twelft ree Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study

of the Historical Jesus [W UN T 2.54; Tü binge n: M ohr (Siebeck), 1993]) , wh ichgeneral ly considers and discusses German scholarly contribut ions, pract ical ly



l i terary cr i t ic ism, Annen has done very sol id work from which wemay gladly profi t .

The f i rs t resul t of Annen 's l i terary-cr i t ical analysis which is ofre levance to us i s the aff i rmat ion of Markan pr io r i ty ; Luke andMatthew have not had any other sources than Mark 5:1-20 at theirdisposal when formulat ing the text in Luke 8:26-39 and Matt 8 :2834 , r espec t ive ly.4 Co nseq uen t ly, fo r our pu rpo se of reco nst ru ct ingthe oldest possible version of the t radi t ion as the basis for ourhistor ical quest , we may concentrate on Mark 5:1-20 and ignore i tssynopt ic paral lels .5

A Pre-Markan Version of the Story

Despi te v igorous s ta tements to the con t rary in recen t years , i tseems l ikely that Mark redacted the source behind Mark 5:1-20.6 Ofcourse, the l i terary-cri t ical evaluation of certain minute details in thetext remains disputable and more or less hypothet ical . Nevertheless ,

in my op in ion , Annen has succeeded in reconst ruct ing a coheren tpre-Markan version of the s tory which can serve as a suff icient lyc o n v i n c i n g , g e n e r a l b a s i s f o r a n y f u r t h e r t r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l

ignores Annen's s tudy. In contrast , J . P. Meier A Ma rginal Jew: Rethinking theHistorical Jesus, Vol. 2: Mentor, Messag e, and Miracles [AB RL ; New York :Do uble day , 1994] 650-53 , 664 -67) values and prof i ts ex tens ively f r om Anne n inhis treatment of Mark 5:1-20. In English the t i t le of Annen's monograph might berend ered Salv ation fo r the Ge ntiles: Th e M ean ing and History of the Trad it ionabout the Possessed Gerasene.

4 An nen co m pa res the texts of M ark and Lu ke in Heil, 21-29, and of Markand Ma tthe w on pp. 29-3 8. This analysis is con siderab ly ab breviate d over againstthe l i terary cr i t ical comparison of the different Gospel versions in his unpublisheddisser tation from 1973, also enti t led Heil für die Heiden , cf . there pp. 26-56 forMark -Luke and pp . 61 -76 fo r Mark -Mat thew.

5 Fo r a redac tion critical ana lysis of the M atthe an and Lu kan ver sion s of thestory cf. R. Pesch, Der Besessene von Gerasa: Entstehung und Überlieferung einerWundergeschichte (SB S 56; Stuttgart : Ka tholisch es Bibel we rk, 1972) 50-64 ; anAn n e n , Heil, 206-209. General ly, the commentaries on the Gospels of Mattheand Luke are to be consulted on the particular aspects of the versions of theseevangelists.

6 An outs pok en con testant of any editorial cha nge s by M ark is for ex amRu dolf Pe sch ; cf. both his art icle, T he M arkan V ersion of the He aling of

Ge ra s e n e De m o n i a c ,Ecumenical Review 23 (197 1) 349 -76, esp. 351 -52, 374;and the parallel , sl ightly expanded German version, Der Besessene, 14-17, 49 .





and he had often been restrained with fetters and chains, and the chains hadbeen torn apart by him and the fetters had been broken, and no one wass t rong enough to subdue h im;1 2 (5) and always, night and day,1 3 in the

tombs and in the mountains he was crying out and bruising himself withs ton es . (6) An d wh en he saw Jes us f rom a d is tan ce, he ran and d idob eis an ce to him , (7) and shou ting at the top of his voice , he spo ke: W h atha ve you to do with me , Jesu s, son of the m ost high G od ? I ad ju re you byGod, do not to rment me.1 4 (9*) An d he asked him, W hat is you r nam e?An d he said to him, Legio n is my nam e.1 5 (11) But there on the hillside alarge herd of pigs was feeding;1 6 (12*) and they begg ed him saying , Sen dus in to the p igs .1 7 (13) And he gave them permiss ion . And af ter the

in the preceding main clause I render i t as a main clause, as well , because therelative pron oun w ho (= δς·) wo uld wron gly have referred back to Jesus instea dof the demoniac. V. 3b is probably editorial Heil, 45-46) .

1 2 Annen Heil, 46) holds the syntactical construction with διά + infinitives tobe an editorial feature, but considers the content of the whole v. 4 to be traditional:διά τό α ύ τό ν πο λλά κις πέδα ις• κα ι άλύ σ εσιν δεδέσθα ι κα ι δ ιεσπά σ θα ι ΰπ ' αύτοΰτάς- άλύ σ εις· κα ι τάς πέδας• σ υ ντετρ ίφ θα ι, καΙ ο ύδ είς ϊσ χυ εν α υ τόν δα μ ά σ α ι.

1 3 A n n en Heil, 7 ) has here, without commenting on i t and at var iance withhis Greek text on p. 70, reversed the word order of νυκτός κα ί ημέρας to T ag un dN ac ht. I see no reason w hy not to st ick to the wo rd order of M ark , bec aus e theform ulation here probably already at the pre-M arkan level, as elsew here, ref lects aJewish method of reckoning twenty- four hour days f rom sunset to sunset (cf .4 :2 7 ) ( G u n d r y, Mark, 249) .

1 4 Acc ord ing to An nen Heil, 46-50) vv. 5-7, with the probable exception ofthe histor ical present λέγει in v. 7 , are com pletely tradit ional: (5) κα ι διά πα ντόςν υ κ τό ς κ α ι η μ έρ α ς έν τοις μ ν ή μ α σ ιν κ α ι έ ν το ις δ ρ ε σ ιν f j v κ ρ ά σ ω ν κ α ικα τα κ ό π τω ν εα υ τό ν λ ίθ ο ις 6 ) και ίδώ ν τόν Ί ήσ ουν ά π ό μα κρό θεν έδρα μ εν καΙπρ οσ εκύνησ εν αύ τω (7) κα ι κράξας· φ ω νη μ εγά λη λέγει, Τ ί έμο ι κα ι σο ι, Ί ησ οΰυΙέ τοΰ θεοΰ τοΰ υψ ίσ του ; όρ κί£ω σ ε τόν θεόν, μ ή μ ε βα σ α νίσ η ς· . V erse 8 heconsiders to be editorial (cf. Heil, 50-52) .

1 5 An nen sum s up his exten sive discussion of v. 9 in Heil, 52-54 , as fo l lows:Für V 9 ergibt sich also, daß Mk die Einleitungen zu den direkten Reden ges

hat. Die Frage Jesu Τ ί δ νο μ ά σο ι u nd d ie A n tw o rt Λ εγ ιώ ν δ νο μ ά μ ο ι s in d v o r m k .

Für die Erklärung δ τι π ολ λο ί έσ μ εν läßt s ich keine sichere Entscheidung t reffen(54). Wh en it co m es to v. 10, how ever, A nnen is clear in his jud ge m en t in faof a Markan editorial addition (cf. Heil, 54-55).

1 6 A nn en 's discus sion of v. 11 (ήν δέ έκε ΐ πρός τω δ ρ ει ά γ έ λ η χ ο ίρ ω νμ ε γ ά λη βο σκο μ έ ν η ) i n Heil, 55-56 , reaches the conclus ion : M it Au sna hm e desAnfangs ην δε έκεΐ, der redaktioneller Anschluß sein könnte , is t . . . V 11 ziemlicheindeu tig vo rm k (56).

1 7 An ne n ' s ana lys i s o f ν. 12 Heil, 56) leads to the fol low ing resu lt: V 12ab

[ i.e. : και πα ρεκά λεσ α ν α ύτόν λέγοντες, Π έμ ψ ο ν η μά ς εις• τους• χοίρους•] ist alsoziemlich sicher vormk. V 12c [i.e. the rest of the verse] dagegen kann sehr wohl



unclean spiri ts had come out, they went into the pigs, and the herd rusheddown the steep bank into the sea—about two thousand in number—, andthey were drowned in the sea.1 8 (14*) And those tendering them ran off to

the town; and people came to see what i t was that had happened.1 9

(15*)And they saw the demoniac, dressed and in his right mind, (the very man)who had had the legion, and they were afraid.2 0 (16*) And those who hadseen what had happened to the demoniac, reported to them.2 1 (19*) AndJe su s spo ke to him , G o forth and tell how mu ch the Lord has do ne to youand how he has had mercy on you.2 2

aus der Red aktion stam me n, für die einige s spricht, wä hrend nichts eind eutig auTradit ion hinw eist (57).

1 8 Acc ording to Ann en Heil, 57-58) all elements of v. 13, including the delay-ed apposit ion ώ ? δισ χίλιο ι, are tradit ional: και έπ έτρεψ εν α ύτοΐ?. κα ί εξελθό ντατα π νεύμ α τα τα άκά θαρ τα είσή λθον ε Is του ? χο ίρου?, καί ώ ρμ ησ εν ή αγέλη κα τάτο υ κρ η μ νού εις την θάλα σ σ αν, ώ ? δισ χίλιοι, καί έπν ίγο ντο έν τη θαλ άσ σ η.

1 9 W ith regard to v. 14 An nen Heil, 58-59) reaches the following conclusion:Im Ganzen is t also Mk 5,14 wohl vormk. Es gibt aber Gründe, die es möglich

erscheinen lassen, daß κ α ί ά π ή γ γε ιλ α ν un d κ α ί els τού ? ά γρο ύ? r edak t ione l leZuta ten sin d (59) . W ith these probably editor ial addit ions lef t out the Gre ek text,on which the above t rans la t ion of v. 14* res ts , reads : καί 01 β όσ κο ντε? α ύ τού ?έφ υγο ν ει? τήν π ά λ ιν κα ί ήλθον ίδεΐν τί έσ τιν τό γεγον ό ? .

2 0 Th e exte nsiv e discussion of v. 15 by Ann en Heil, 59-61) concludes in thef o l lo w in g ev a lu a t io n : D ie F o r m u l i e r u n g v o n V 15 is t . . . b is θ ε ω ρ ο ΰ σ ινredaktionell ; nachher fehlen außer für κα θή μ ενον Spuren mk Eing reifens . Anste llevon θεω ροΰ σ ιν muß aber wohl schon vor Mk ein Verb des Sehens, Findens o.ä.ges tand en hab en, um mit dem Folge nde n zu ve rbin den (61). For the ab ovrendering of v. 15* I have, fol lowing Annen 's German text Heil, 71) , hypo -thetically constructed the beginning of the sentence as καί fo l lowed by an aor is tplural of θεω ρεΐν or som e other verb with the m ean ing to see . Th e rest of thepre su pp os ed G reek text of v. 15* reads: . . . τον δα ιμ ονι£ό μ ενον ιμ α τισ μ ένο ν κα ίσω φ ρονούντα , τόν έσχη κό τα τον λεγ ιώ να , κα ί έφ οβήθησ αν .

2 1 I t is very diffic ul t to reach any certa in co nc lus io ns with reg ard to v. 16.A n n e n Heil, 61 -62 ) leaves ou t the las t fou r words κα ί περ ί τώ ν χο ίρω ν andaccepts the res t as t rad it ion : καί δ ιη γή σ α ντο α ύτο ΐ? 01 ίδό ντε? π ώ ? έγένετο τω

δα ιμ ονι£ο μ ένω . Ve rses 17 and 18 are com plete ly editorial; cf. Heil, 43, 63-64.2 2 A nn en 's investigation of v. 19 Heil, 64-6 7) leads to the follo wi ng result :

V 19ab, also die Einleitung der Worte Jesu, is t redaktionell formulier t , ϋπαγε is te in t r ad i tione l les Mot iv, ebens o οσ α ό κύρ ιό? σο ι π επο ίη κ εν κα ί ή λέη σ έν σε .ά π α γγ έλ ειν is t h ier wohl eben fal ls t rad i t ionel l ; es hat wie der gan ze mit όσ αeing eleitete N ebe nsa tz atl Kolorit . Da geg en ist ε ί? τόν όίκόν σου πρό ? το ύ? σ ού ?eher redakt io nel l (66-67) . In the render ing abo ve I have once mo re fo l low edAnnen's own guess in formulating the lost introduction which has been replaced by

the M ark an l inkage be tween the prec edin g editor ial v. 18 and the tradit ional ele-m ent s in v. 19: U nd Jesus sprach zu ihmHeil, 71). In accordance with the cited





pro po sed t r ipar t i te s t ructure for the s tory i s jus t i f ied i f the f o l l ow ingpoints are taken in to considera t ion . In every scene a new set ofpersons or ac tors i s in t roduced: (1) the demoniac and Jesus , (2) theherd of p igs , (3) d i ff ere nt gro ups of wi tnesse s to the eve nt . Fu r the r-more , every scene concent ra tes on a par t icular theme or main mot i f :In the first scene there is the presentation of the m iserable m an f r omG er as a (ele m en t 2, vv. 3a, 4-5 ) , of the ident i ty of Jes us as son of them ost h igh G o d in the cry of the de m on ( iac ) (e lem en t 4, v. 7), and,f ina l ly, o f the mul t i fo rm charac te r o f the demon expressed by i t sna m e Le gio n (e leme nt 5 , v. 9*) . In the secon d scene w e w i tness the

t ransfer of the demons descr ibed as a dramat ic flight into the herdof pigs (element 9, v. 13b) , causing the pigs themselves to f lee awayinto the sea (e lement 10, v. 13c) . Opening the third scene is the f l ightof the swineherds (e lement 11, v. 14a*) , causing people to come outto the si te where the event had taken place and let t ing them becomewitnesses, aw e-s t ruck by Jesu s ' migh ty deed ( e lements 12 + 14, vv.14b, 15a* + 15c) . Those who had actual ly seen what had happened to

the demoniac , as wel l a s the hea led man h imse l f , become ac t ivewitnesses in the sen se that they tel l othe rs abo ut the ev en t (e lem en ts15 + 16, vv. 16* + 19*).24 Final ly, this placing of the episode withthe pigs as a single scene inside the unfolding of the story has theobvious advantage of being able to respect i ts integral posi t ion withinw hat ap pea r s to be a coh eren t na r ra t ive ,2 5 and s i m u l t an eous l y t oreflect the fact that i t is a unit of i ts own and that the rest of the story

is imaginable wi thout th is scene.2 6

vv. 6 -1 3 under the head ing Jesu s ' encoun te r and conversa t ion [G erman: Ausein-andersetzung] wi th the dem on.

2 4 Th i s p resen ta t ion jo in s f a i r ly c lose ly A nn en ' s ana ly s i s o f Ab lauf de rErz äh lu ng and S t ruk tu r de r Erz äh lu ng in Heil, 103-107 . Ho we ver, he inc ludesthe f l ight of the he rds m en in v. 14 into sce ne two, w he rea s I hav e put this b rid gin gelement be tween the second and th i rd scenes in to the la t te r one because the i r

behaviour already belongs to the chain of reactions to the event and helps call forththe further reactions of witnesses.

2 5 C f . An n e n , Heil, 106: . . . d ie Sch we ine- Ep isod e (erk lär t und b eg rün det )den Gegensa tz zwischen dem Zus tand des άνθρω πος· έν πνεύμ α τι άκα θάρτω (V 3 -5) und dem Zustand des Mannes, der die Legion gehabt hatte (τόν έσχηκότα τόνλ εγιώ να V 15) . . . Die drei Szen en sind nicht ein fach lose anein an der gereih t ,sondern e rzähler isch sehr geschickt mi te inander verbunden, so daß sich im ganze neine recht e inhei tl iche Erzählung ergib t (A nne n ' emph asis) .

2 6 Fo r exam ple , Gund ry (Mark, 248 ) lets the ep iso de with the pigs in vv. 11-

13 appear as a part of i ts own within his division of the story into al together six



The Search for F urther Earlier Stages of the Story

With the h is to r ica l ques t ion as the gu id ing pr incip le to ourdiscussion we ask next whether i t is possible to trace the tradit ion ofJes us ' enco un ter wi th the Ge rasene de m onia c even fur th er back toone or more levels behind the reconstructed pre-Markan version.

The German scholar Rudolf Pesch undertook in the ear ly sevent iesan at tempt to do precisely th is and suggested a fourfold developmentof the s tory, in which the fourth s tage represents the text in i tscanon ica l , Markan fo rm.2 7 The major tools which Pesch employs inhis t radi t io-histor ical reconstruct ion of the t ransmission process are aform-cri t ical analysis and an invest igat ion of the themes or motifscontained in the text .2 8 According to his form-cri t ical analysis , thel o n g n a r r a t i v e i n M ar k 5 : 1 - 2 0 co n t a i n s t h e t y p i ca l f o r ma lcha rac te r i s t i c s o f exo rc i sm s to r i es ; m ore ov er, i t a l so inc lu descertain features der ived from the themes of the ancient s tor ies ofm i rac u lo us he a l in g and so m e o f the typ ica l f ea t u re s o f theexorc ism r i tua l .2 9 Th is sys temat iz ing of the fo rm-cr i t ica l e lementsserves as a warrant for the t radi t io-histor ical inferences insofar asPesch conjectures an or ig inal s to ry consis t ing of the f ive ex tan tcha racte r is t ics of exo rcism stor ies , i .e . (1) the en co un ter be tw eenthe exo rc is t and the de m on iac (vv. 1 -2* , 5*) , (2 ) the de fe ns iv ereaction of the demon (vv. 6*, 7), (3) the apopompe30 (v. 8* ), (4)

par ts pace Pe sch , cf. η. 23 abov e). He inserts the fligh t of the herd sm en into the

the response of the people in the region (vv 14-17)pace A nn en ; cf . η . 24above) .

2 7 As noted in n . 6 Pesch contes ts any editor ial ch an ge s by the ev an ge listMark. The canonical text is , therefore, according to him identical with the formgiven to i t when i t was incorporated into the catena of miracle stor ies, whichadditionally contained the story of the storm on the lake and the story of Jairus'daughter and the woman with the issue of blood, now to be found in Mark 4:35-5:43. The editor including the story of the Gerasene demoniac into this catena only

ma de min or cha nge s, adding the necessa ry comb ining refe rence s to the jou rne y onthe lak e (vv . 1-2, 18), the plural ήλθον in v. 1, tak ing n otic e of the pr es en ce of th edisc iples , and per hap s the dro w nin g of the pigs in v. 13. Cf. Pes ch, H ea lin g,351, 353, 355-56, 374; idem, Der Besessene, 17, 19, 22 -2 3, 48 .

2 8 Pesch Der Besessene, 21-4 0) give s this par t of his s tudy the hea din gFo rm - und motivgeschich t l iche Analyse , and His tory of the Form s and Th em es

of the Pas sag e, respectively ( He aling, 354-68) .2 9 Pesc h, He aling , 354-5 5 ( the direct quotations are to be fou nd on each one

of these two pages) ; idem, Der Besessene, 21-22.3 0 I .e. the exo rcist 's com ma nd expell ing the dem on.



the exi t of the demon (v. 13*) , and (5) the amazement of theon loo ke rs (vv. 15* and 20d [καί π ά ντες• έθα ύ μ α £ ο ν] or 17) and th espread of the exorcis t ' s fame (vv. [11,] 14a* + 16*) .31 Par t icu lar ly

bec au se the de fen s ive react ion in M ark 5 :7 , desc r ibed wh ol ly inthe m at ic te rm s, see m s to be de pe nd en t on M ark 1 :24 , i .e . theco r respond ing e l emen t in the s to ry abou t the demon iac in thesynagogue in Caparnaum in Mark 1 :21-28 ,32 Pesch contemplates thepossibil i ty that the whole story is a secondary creation dependent onthe story take n up in M ark 1, or at least that the na rra tiv e w as no tcrea ted f rom d i rec t observat ion .3 3 In his f ixing of the form-crit ical

character i s t ics o f an exorc ism s tory—and a lso of the add i t ionalfea tures o f miracu lous heal ing and of exorc ism r i tua l—Pesch showsa c o n s i d e r a b l e d e p e n d e n c e o n R u d o l f B u l t m a n n ' s c l a s s i c a ldef in i t ions .3 4 Even though Pesch undoubtedly succeeds in br inging usmuch c loser to a sympathet ic unders tand ing of th i s s t range andas tounding nar ra t ive than the c lass ica l fo rm cr i t ics d id ,3 5 he still

3 1 Th ese five form al characteristics of exo rcism stories are first shortly listed inHe a l in g , 354 , and idem, Der Besessene, 21 ; then fo l lo ws a m ore deta i led

discussion of each of these form crit ical elements on pp. 355-60, respectively pp.22 -2 9; and, fina lly, in the part of his study entitled H istor y of the Tra ns m iss ionand Editing of the Pa ssa ge (pp. 368 -76) , and Übe r l ie ferungs- und redakt ions-gesc hicht l ich e Analyse I: Von der Urf orm zum M arku stext (pp. 41-49 ), Pesundertakes the traditio-historical application of the form critical analysis, reconstting the original exorcism story consisting of these five characteristics (cf. pp. 3

71/41-45). Where Pesch only includes a part of a verse into his reconstructoriginal version, I have marked that in the references above with an asterisk. information about the exact conjectures cf. the references to Pesch's two studies

3 2 Pesch , He al in g , 357-58 (quota t ion taken f rom p . 357) ; idem , DerBesessene, 25-2 6. W he rea s our story include s a lot of addit ional features , Pesccon side rs M ark 1:21-28 to represen t the classical patt ern of an ex orc ism sto( Heal ing , 354; Der Besessene, 21).

3 3 Pesch , H ea l in g , ' 37 0 -7 1 ; idem. Der Besessene 44.3 4

Cf . his explicit refe ren ces to the relevant passa ges in R. B ultm an n, DieGeschichte der synoptischen Tradition 7 th ed. , Gö t t ingen : Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1967) 224, 236ff. , and 238f. , in the three footnotes related to the thfor m s that Pesch detects in M ark 5:1-20: H ea l in g, 35 4-5 5 nn. 7-9; idem, DerBesessene, 21 nn. 23- 25.

3 5 Cf . Pe sc h's own characterisation of the classical form cri t ics: Crit ics wsee the preservat ion of th is s t range story as marking a ' fa l l ' in to unorthodpreaching and unorthodox gospel-writ ing have to now found i t simplest to dism

it as an obvious transference of a popular tale to Jesus. The only remaining probis whether i t was a popular tale about duping or being duped by the devil a



seems to fall into the trap of classical form crit icism when claiminas the point of departure for the transmission process an originvers ion in the pu re fo rm of exo rcism s tor ies and w he n dra w inhistorical conclusions on this basis.

Fra nz An nen has , in my opin ion , cho sen a m uch m ore we lfounded approach when examining the val idi ty of the BultmanniG at tu ng of exorc ism s tory ( in Ge rma n: Dämonenaustreibung).36

Restricting the comparative material to texts which are older than contemporary with the pre-Markan vers ion of the s tory about thGerasene demoniac, Annen concludes that i t is actual ly jus t i f ied cla ssify a G at tun g of this kind, but it wa s obv iously hand led w igreat f reedom and var iat ion.3 7 In his jud ge m en t , even those fea tureswhich occur regularly in exorcism stories, and, thus, in this sencan be labelled typical, do not have their origin in the force oformal s tandardisa t ion , but l ike ly ref lec t cur rent demonologicbeliefs and exorcistic practices.3 8 Ins tead of ascr ibing supplementaryor non-typical features in a s tory to other forms and viewing th

extant tex t as a m ixtur e— a M isc hf or m as opp osed to a re inFo rm — ref lec t ing a dev elop m ent within the t radit ion co rresp ond ito more successive stages in a transmission process, Annen pleads fdue respect for the individual particularity of each individual s torD ie A us s age e ine r D ämonen aus t r e ib ungs e r zäh lun g aus i h r e

topischen Elementen (oder der Gattung) allein erheben zu wollen, e ine une rlau bte V era l lgem eine run g. Jede Erz ählu ng ist fü r s ich

untersuchen; ihre indiv iduel len Elemente haben dabei eher meh

wh ethe r the tale wa s originally Jewish or pa ga n ( H ea ling , 349 -50). In tcorresponding passage of the German version Der Besessene, 10) Pesch qu ote sB ul tm an n's jud gem ent explicitly: . . . daß hier ein volkstüm licher Sch wa nk Jesus übertrage n ist, kann nicht zw eife lha ft sein (Bu ltma nn, Geschichte, 225).

3 6 Annen Heil, 115-27.

3 7 Annen, Heil, 125: Eine genau e parallele Form zur Ge rasen er-E rzäh lungdie alle Elemente der bulmannschen [sie] Gattung aufweisen würde, fehlt alsoNT. Doch weisen Mk 1,21-28: Mk 9,14-29 und Apg 16,16-19 eine recht groÄhnlichkeit auf. Man kann also im Falle der ntl Erzählungen tatsächlich von eiliterarischen Gattung sprechen, die allerdings sehr frei gehandhabt wird.

3 8 Annen , Heil, 126: . . . e inzelne Elem ente der D äm one naus treibu nge n,which im m er w ieder auftau chen . . ., drängen sich dem Erzä hler . . . offe nsi clieh nicht von einer festen literarischen Gattung her auf, sondern spiegeln wohl e

dämonologische Ansichten und exorzistische Praktiken der Zeit wieder, soweitsich nicht einfach von der erzählten Sache her ergeben.



Gewicht als die topischen.3 9

Hence, with regard to the historical question Annen warns againsa p remature judgement g rounded on a fo rm c r i t i ca l ana lys i s .4 0

Pesch, too, acknowledges that the or iginal s tory which he reconstructs is localized and con tains a few vivid con crete details . . . T hquest ion ar ises therefore, whether there is not preserved here anauthentic local historical tradition.4 1 However, this del iberat ion isimmediately fol lowed by the aforementioned s tatement of probabldependence on Mark 1 :21-28 ,4 2 and Pesch leaves his readers inuncer ta in ty regard ing h is evaluat ion of the h is tor ica l ques t ion .

Instead, he goes on with his reconstruction of the further stages inthe transmission of the story, concentrating on the message and thSitz im Leben of eac h level.43

In my opinion, Rudolf Pesch's traditio-historical analysis rests ontoo many uncertaint ies and methodological ly untenable premises tb e c o n v i n c i n g .4 4 In one ins tance, however, there is a s t r iking

3 9 Annen Heil, 126.4 0 A n n e n , Heil, 127: . . . da nicht nur die D äm on olo gie , son dern auch

exorzist ische Praktiken die topischen Elemente best immten, is t es sehr wohmöglich, daß hinter diesen öfters e in wirkliches Geschehen stand. Außerdementhält keine Erzählung nur topische Elemente. Die Historizität der Erzählungenm uß von andern Kriterien her beurteilt we rden (A nn en 's empha sis).

4 1 Pesch, H ealin g, 370; cf. idem, Der Besessene, 44.4 2 Do uble d by the earlier and seem ingly even stronger statemen t in H eal ing

368: Th e original story about the G erase ne dem onia c was rather like and possibm ode lled on the story hand ed down in M k. 1,21-28 (cf. idem , Der Besessene, 41).

4 3 Th e original version was a m ission -prom oting miracle s tory (PeschHe alin g, 374; cf. idem, Der Besessene, 48), origina ting prob ably in He llenistic

Jew ish Christian circles in Ga lilee ( He aling , 368; cf. Der Besessene, 41). Forfurther details about this first level in the transmission, cf. pp. 286-87 above and 31. At the secon d stage, on the basis of Isaiah 65 (and Psalm 67), the G era se ndem oni ac is presented as a prototy pe of the Ge ntile wo rld, and the narrative w

exp ande d in to a dem onstra t ion of Jesu s ' super ior i ty over pagan d iso rde r( Healing , 371 ; for details, cf. 37 -73; Der Besessene, 45-4 7). At a third stage inthe narration, when vv. 18-20 were added, the mission in the Gentile world is evmo re clearly the focus of a t tention ( He aling , 373; for detai ls 373-7 4; DerBesessene, 45-4 7). Finally, cf. η. 27 with regard to the fourth and last pre-Markanstage reconstructed by Pesch.

4 4 Cf . Gun dry, Mark, 266: To follo w Pesch . . . in tracing this story throughfive stages, each having a different point, requires much imagination and runs the

danger of too hastily giving up the attempt to find coherence in the story as wepresently have it.



co rre spo nd en ce betw een his results and the obse rvation I m ad e a bthat the episode with the pigs might be omitted without harming coherence of the narrat ive. In the fol lowing, we must invest igwhether this fact is purely coincidental , or whether i t ref lectstraditio-historical expansion at an earlier s tage of the transmission

THE EPISODE WITH THE PIGS

A review of the history of research4 5 shows that the episode withthe pigs has long been considered the most diff icul t or dis turbi

part of the story. To the extent that objections against it are rooteda feel ing of dis tas te for the al leged coarseness and pr imit iveneconsidered to be improper for a person of Jesus ' s tature to involved in , they are to be suspected as modern biases , l ikeproduced by al ienat ion to the cul ture f rom which the s tory comRelated, but admittedly with a closer link to the description of Jein the Gospels, is the observation that this incident is the soexample of Jesus ' des troying people ' s l ivel ihood.46 But to exclude onmoral grounds the possibil i ty that Jesus could have been engagedan incident affecting negatively the l iving conditions of some peosmacks too much of apologet ics and, moreover, runs the r isk apply ing modern sent iments and s tandards of what i s moralacceptable to a society and a culture where things might have beviewed and experienced in a totally different way.

To be taken much more seriously is the consideration that the p

4 5 Cf. the infor ma tive presen tat ion in An nen Heil, 79-1 01 ) of the Fo r-sch un gsg esc hic h te , sys tem at ica l ly ca tego r i sed in the sub div is io ns 1 . h is torischer Berich t (79-82), 2 . Der historische Bericht e ines Ereign isses oW un de r (82-86), 3 . Eine unhistorische Erzä hlun g (86-89), 4 . Ein historisKern erw ei tert (90-95), and 5 . Keine Stel lungn ahm e zur Historiz i tä t (96-1In his dissertation (cf. η . 4) Ann en g ave an even mo re detailed presentation of the

history of research (cf. there pp. 137-88).4 6 A. D. M ar t in ( The Loss of the Ga daren e Sw ine,ExpTim 25 [1913 -14]

38 0-8 1) can be me ntion ed as a repres entativ e of those con side ring the so-ca lled'mora l d i f f ic u l ty ' as the one ser ious object ion which rem ains (380) . M ar t in ' sapologetic and hardly convincing solution is to downplay the amount of the loss forthe own ers of the pigs as much as possib le and to desc ribe the eff ec ts of the hea lingof the de m on iac as by far co m pe ns atin g the loss of the herd: Ind ee d, the f inalfeeling of the owners of the herd may have been one of thankfulness that the hil l-

sides were at last made safe for all live stock. Then, too, the change effected in theman w as a person al gain for every one belongin g to the locality (381).



episode might be a secondary proof of Jesus' success in expell ing thedem on (s ) . There a re c l ea r ana lo g ies in co n te m po rary exo rc i s mstor ies o f a demonst ra t ion tha t an exorc ism has been successfu l .

Part icularly interesting and relevant is the story related by Josephusabout the Jewish exorcis t Eleazar Ant. 8 .2 .5 §46-48):4 7

I have observed a certain Eleazar, of my race, in the presence of Vespasian,his sons, tr ibunes and a number of other soldiers , release people possessedby demons. Now this was the manner of the cure: Placing to the nostrils ofthe demon possessed person the ring which had under the seal a root whichSolomon had prescr ibed, he then, as the person smelled i t , drew out thedemon through the nostr i ls . When the person fell down, he adjured thedemon, speaking Solomon 's name and repeat ing the incanta t ions which hehad composed , never to re-en ter h im. Then , wish ing to persuade and toprove to those present that he had this ability, Eleazar would place at a smalldistance either a cup full of water or a foot basin and command the demonwhile going out of the human to overturn i t and to make known to thosewatching that he had left him.

To be ment ioned is also the s tory about how Apollonius of Tyana

exorcised a demon from a young man in Athens who with a loud andcoarse laughter d is tu rbed h im whi le he was speak ing . Apol lon iusreal ises that i t i s a demon which makes the young man behave theway he does, and confronts i t d i rect ly Vit. Α ρ . 4 .20) :4 8

Now when Apollonius gazed on him, the ghost in him began to utter cr iesof fear and rage, such as one hears from people who are being branded orracked; and the ghost swore that he would leave the young man alone and

never take possession of any man again. But Apollonius addressed himwith anger, as a master might a shif ty, rascally, and shameless slave and soon, and he ordered him to quit the young man and show by a visible signthat he had done so. Ί will throw down yonder statue, ' said the devil, andpointed to one of the images which were in the king's portico, for there itwas that the scene took place. But when the statue began by moving gently,and then fell down, i t would defy anyone to describe the hubbub whicharose thereat and the way they clapped their hands with wonder.

A ctua l ly, t he aspec t o f a de m on s t ra t ive ad d i t ion a l p roo f i sgenera l ly absen t fo rm the Gospels ' descr ip t ion of Jesus ' heal ing

4 7 Ci ted f rom C. A. Evan s , Jesus and His Contemp oraries: Com parativeStudies (A G JU 25; Leid en: Brill, 1995) 237 .

4 8 Th e transla tion is that of F. C. C on yb ea re in the LCL editio n. I ha ve cited itf rom Evans , Jesus, 247 . Ev ans add s the co m m en t: O ne is rem inde d of the story of

the G eras ene dem onia c (Mark 5 :1-2 0) (248 n. 8 ) . Cf . Tw elf t re e , Jesus, 25, aswell .





very unusual. Normally, the activity of the demons is restricted to anon-speci f ied p lea fo r len ience , bu t here they presen t a speci f icreques t fo r an epipompe.57 The observ a t ion o f th i s com bin a t ionm ak es on e legit im ately ask w he the r this dist inc tive fea tur e po ints toa d is locat ion in the t rad i t ion .5 8 H ave we, f ina l ly, co m e ac ros scorroborat ive evidence to our observat ion that the whole scene withthe pigs can be deleted without harming the inner coherence of thes tory?

If w e hy poth et ical ly ask what effe ct a seco nd ary in trodu ct ion ofthe episode with the pigs eventually would have on the story, i t is not

diff icul t to g ive a fai r ly exact answer. Being classi f ied in the Torahas an unclean an im al , s t r ict ly for bid den for fo od (Lev 11:7-8; Deu t14:8; cf. Isa 65:4; 66:17), by the time of the first century CE the pighad become the very symbol of paganism to be avoided at any pr icein the eyes of al l Jews. Probably, the violent measures of theSe leuc ids du r ing the r e ign o f An t iochus IV Ep iphanes (175-163BCE) to force the Jews to sacr i f ice and eat p igs and the vigorous

Jew ish resis tan ce against th is supp ression (cf . 1 M acc 1:47; 2 M ac c6:2 , 5 ; 6 :18-7:42) had contr ibuted to making the pig such a promi-nent token of pagan uncleanness. Besides the s tory of the Gerasenedemoniac, p igs are ment ioned in only three other texts in the NewTestament (Matt 7:6; Luke 15:15-16 and 2 Pet 2:22 [υ?]). In al l thesetexts the pig is associated with paganism in a way that corresponds tothe cur ren t Jewish sen t iments . Hence , Franz Annen 's conclus ion to

h i s ex tens ive religionsgeschichtliche inv est ig at ion abo ut p ig s isj u s t i f i e d : F ü r da s ze i t gen öss i sch e Ju d en t u m wi e f ü r d i e f r ü h e nJude nchr i s t en , i st das Schw ein das Au shänge sch i ld , das K enn ze iche nfür d ie Heiden . 5 9 C on seq ue nt ly , the ef fec t of in t rod ucing a herd of

5 7 Us ual ly, « / there i s som eon e p leading for an epipompe tha t i s the su ffe r in gpossessed human himself . Often there is no plea related to the epipompe at all; then

it ju s t tak es the fo rm of a co m m an d on the par t of the ex orc is t . I t is theamalgamat ion and combinat ion of the two which const i tu tes the d is t inc t iveness ofthe M ark an narra t ive (Pesch, He al ing , 367; cf . idem, Der Besessene, 38).

5 8 Pesch , He a l ing , 367 . His Ge rm an o r ig ina l in Der Besessene, 38 reads:E s b le ib t zu f rag en , ob d iese Eig ena r t n icht . . . e ine t rad i t ion sge sch ich t l ich e

Verwerfung s ichtbar werden läßt .5 9 A n n e n , Heil, 173. In h is inves t iga t ion of what he labels the A ns ch au un gs -

ho r iz on t of the text , i .e. the very K om ple x von A nsc ha uu ng en . . ., d ie e inen

best immten Bere ich des ge is t igen , kul ture l len , re l ig iösen Lebens der be t reffendenGesel lschaf t umfassen und von denen aus e in bes t immter Text verfaßt und daher zu



pigs in to a s tory about the exorcism of a non-Jewish person, andassigning to them the role of being the new abode of the exorciseddemon(s) , would be to focus more s t rongly and dramatical ly on theco nfr on tat ion betw een the Jew ish exo rcis t— the son of the mo st h ighG od (M ark 5 :7)— and the uncleanness re la ted to pagan ism.

So far I have cons is ten t ly spoken of the G eras en e d em on iac ,r esp ec t iv e ly— in the con jec tu red in t roduc t ion of the p re -M ark anver s ion — a man f ro m Ge rasa , seeming ly t ak ing fo r g ran ted tha tthe man Jesus encountered was related to the famous ci ty of Gerasa,si tuated east of Jordan near the river Jabbok, about 55 km south eastof the Sea of Gal i lee, and belonging to the Decapol is (cf . Mark5 :20 ) .6 0 But this localisation is definitely no matter of course becausethe textual witnesses to the synoptic Gospels in Mark 5:1 and in theparallel references in Matt 8:28 and Luke 8:26 display a variat ion ofa l t e r n a ti v e read i n g s , am o n g wh i ch ή χώ ρα τ ώ ν Γ βρ α σ η νώ ν ( t h ereg ion of the Gerasen es ) , ή χώ ρα τώ ν Γ α δα ρη νώ ν ( the r eg ion oft he Gad a r en es ) an d ή χώ ρα τώ ν Γ β ργε σ η νώ ν ( t h e r egi o n o f t h e

G erg ase ne s ) a re the mo st imp or tan t . To day there seem s to be ac lear con sens us am ong tex tual cri tics in favo ur o f Γ α δα ρη νώ ν as theoriginal reading in Matt 8 :28;61 thus, the first evangelist relates theincident to the town of Gadara, also belonging to the Decapol is , butsi tuated less than ten km south east of the Sea of Gali lee.6 2 Pe rhapsmost difficult to decide is the case of Luke 8:26, 37. In the first twoedi t ions of the Greek New Testament (1966 and 1968) the var iant

Γ β ργεσ η νώ ν was g iven preferenc e , bu t th is has been chan ged in the

versteh en is t (133) , he discu sses the two them es of Dä m o n o l o g i e u n d e x o r z i s -t i sche Prak t iken (135-58) and Die Sch we ine (162-73 ) .

6 0 For the h is tory of Ge rasa , see E. Schüre r, The History of the Jewish Peoplein the Age of Jesus Christ 175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (3 vols . , rev. ed . ; Edinburgh: T.& T. Cla rk , 1973-87) 2 .149-5 5 ; and fo r the a rcha eo logy S . Ap p leb aum and A .Sega l , Gerasa , The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy

Land (4 vols . ; N ew Y ork: S imon & Sch uster, 1993) 2 .47 0-79 . For De cap ol is , c f .S c h ü r e r, History, 2 .125 -27 , and S . Th om as Pa rke r, Th e De cap o l i s Rev i s i t ed ,JB L 9 4 ( 1 9 7 5 ) 4 3 7 - 4 1 .

6 1 Cf . the text and the cr i t ica l appara tus in N est le- A lan d2 6 7 2 7, U B S G N T4 , andthe a rgument in Β . M. Me tzg e r, A Textual Comm entary on the Greek NewTestament (correc ted ed. , Lon don and New York : Un ited Bible Soc ieties , 1975)23-24 .

6 2 S ee S c h ü r e r, History, 2 .1 32- 36, and, for the arc hae olog y of the s i te , Y.

H i r s c h f e l d , w i th M . Av i - Y o n a h , H a m m a t G a d e r, The New Encyclopedia ofArchaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 2 .565-73.



t h ir d an d f o u r t h ed i ti o n s to Γ β ρ α σ η νώ ν .6 3 W he n it co m es to theM ark an text , for exa m ple, Rob ert H. Gu nd ry has recent ly adv oca tedthe r ead ing Γ β ρ γεσ η νώ ν , i .e . l oca l i s ing the inc iden t in mo dernKursi, situated at the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee.6 4 However, inspi te of some impressive textual witnesses and the obvious advantageof a locale very close to the shore of the Sea of Gali lee, the textualev i d en ce i n its t ot al it y f av o u r s Γ 6 ρ α σ η νώ ν .6 5 Actual ly, the acutege og rap hic al prob lem of the refe ren ce to the region of the Ge ra-se ne s in a story pre sup po sing the eastern sho re of the Sea of Gali l eeas i ts scene s t rengthens th is reading considerably as lectio difficilior

among the ex tan t va r i an t s .6 6 The Mat thean a l t e rna t ive r ead ingΓ α δα ρ η νώ ν i s p roba bly due to a con sciou s ed i to r ia l cha ng e of thetext that the evangelist found in his Markan source, and, thus, l ikelyrepresents a very ear ly witness of the perplexi ty which the readingΓ ε ρ α σ η ν ώ ν c au se d.6 7 O n th is ba ck gro un d , th eref ore , I jo in theconclusion of Rudolf Pesch, Franz Annen, and John P. Meier, amongother s , dec iding in fav ou r of G era sen es as the or iginal read ing of

Mark and his source.6 8

6 3 Identical with Ne stle-A land2 6 7 2 7; cf. Metzger, Commentary, 145.6 4 G u n d r y, Mark, 255 -56. For the arch aeo log y of the si te, cf . V. Tz afe r is ,

K u r s i , The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land,3 .893-96 .

6 5 Cf. the text and the critical app aratu s in N es tle -A la nd2 6 7 2 7, U B S G N T4 , and

Metzg e r, Commentary, 84.6 6 G u n d r y Mark, 256) argues, adm ittedly, cleverly on the basis of internal

cr i ter ia in favo ur of Ge rga sen es, but in Origen we hav e an explicit co nfirm atio nthat in his days and under his influence this reading was introduced to the displace-men t o f G eras ene s , consc ious ly based on geogra ph ica l and topog raph ica lco n s id e r a t i o n s ; c f . T. Baa r d a , G a d a r en es , G e r a s en es , G e rg es en es an d th e'D iate ss aro n ' Tra dit ion s, in E. Earle Ell is and M . W ilcox (eds.), Neotestamenticaet Semitica: Studies in Honour of Ma tthew Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969)

181-97, esp. 183-88; Annen, Heil, 204.6 7 W he rea s the region of Ge rasa cer tainly never exte nde d as far as the Sea of

Galilee, this might have been the case for the region of Gadara or is , at least ,imaginable from the geographical distance. Even though the f l ight of the herdsmenfrom the shore of the lake to the town and the arr ival of people from there,described in v. 14, still presupposes a very long distance if the town is identifiedwith Gadara, it is not totally incredible as is the case of Gerasa, more than 50 kmaway. Cf . Annen , Heil, 202-203.

6 8

Pesch , He al ing , 352-53; idem, Der Besessene, 17-19; An nen , Heil, 2 0 1 -206; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2 .651.



Th e de m on s t ra t i on tha t G era sen es i s o r ig ina l i n ou r s to ryreveals a geographical con t rad ic t ion wi th in i t be tween the in landlocalisation of Gerasa without any lake in i ts surrounding region andthe pre su pp ose d sea (θά λα σ σ α ) at the s i te of the event . Th e role ofthe sea is , however, rest r icted to the second scene with the pigsep iso de (cf. p. 28 4 abo ve). I hav e repe atedly c laim ed that this sce necan be dropped without harming the inner coherence of the exorcismstory, but so far we had not found any cogent just i f icat ion for doingso. Now, th is has suddenly changed, because we real ise that withreferences both to Gerasa, or the region of the Gerasenes, and to thesea into which the pigs run and are drowned, the text is incoherent.W e have a lready conc luded that Γ ερασ ηνώ νbelong s to the or ig inaltext , and the question then arises whether the omission of the episodewith the pigs migh t be jus tif i ed to solve the pro blem of c oh ere nc e.

In the search for an answer let me, once more, pick up the threadof the epipompe discussed above. There we noted that the demons 'v iolent effect on the pigs is a feature in complete concordance with

general ideas connected to th is phenomenon. In l ine with th is Peschdiscusses whether the mention of the sea in the narrative has in factbeen prompted by the very idea of the epipompe taking due regardto ho w wid esp read the idea of ban ishm ent of de m on s in to the seaw a s . 6 9 If , as Pesch assumes, the herdsmen and the pigs belonged tothe oldest version of the s tory, funct ioning as witnesses to Jesus 'miracle (cf . pp. 286-87 above) , then there would have been a point

of connect ion even in the or iginal version which the dramatic shap-ing of the epipompe ban ishin g the de m on s in the sea cou ld hav e usedas i ts point of departure.7 0 Of course, i t i s h is tor ical ly imaginable

6 9 Pesc h, H eali ng , 367: The re is probably st il l so m e ech o of the idea of anepipompe ban ish in g the de m on s in to the sea . Th is may have pro m pte d theintroduction of the sea into the narrative . . .; the epipompe ban ish ing dem ons in to

the sea is the one which really renders the destructive spirits harmless and banishesthem to their own elem ent, the cha os. Cf . idem, Der Besessene, 39.

7 0 Pesch ( Hea l ing , 353-54 , 370; idem, Der Besessene 19, 43) con tem plate sw he the r ev en the herd had a fun ctio n in the origin al version in the sen se that theexit of the demon was or iginally demonstrated in the narrative by the stampede ofthe herd of sw ine ( Healin g, 370) , but con clud es that this is imp roba ble. If thiselem ent had been original, the fur ther dram atizing of the epipompe to a des tructionin the sea, would have been particular ly easy to explain, he correctly notes. But

acc ord ing to Pesch the introduction of the destruc tion is suffic iently exp licab le a lsowithout this precedent, and he ascribes this innovation to the alleged second stage in





of the sea sid e in the con jectu red in troduct ion (cf . θά λα σ σ α in v. 1)and of the f leeing herdsmen in v. 14*—a secondary element in thestory of Jesus ' encounter with a Gerasene demoniac.7 2

T H E H I S TO RI CI T Y O F T H E E N CO U N T E R

Without the panicky pigs and their d ip in the deep, the environsof Ger asa . . . crea te no pro ble m fo r the s tory .7 3 As a matter offact , exactly this geographical designation is decisive evidence for theh is to r ica l judgement . I f the whole s to ry were a la ter Chr is t ianinvention, why is i t located in the region of the Gerasenes?7 4 To benoted are also other details that surpass standard stereotypic featureso f exo rc i sm s to r i es and poss ib ly h in t a t fu r the r un ique andhisto rically fo un de d elem en ts of the story. I think in par t icular at thedescr ip t ion of the demoniac ' s s ta te , which sugges ts tha t in th i sins tance Jesus was confron ted wi th an especia l ly severe case ofd e m o n p o s s e s s i o n .7 5 Ne i the r the ind i spu tab le p resence o f fo rm-

7 2 G u n d r y Mark, 257 -58) , and Tw el f t r ee Jesus, 74-7 6) con sider the p igsepisode to be an integral , necessary part of the story and, accordingly, opposestrongly the isolation or om ission of i t. Tw elf tre e accep ts the reading G era se ne s(73 ) , but, as far as I can see , he totally ign ore s the wh ole pr ob lem of thelocalisation. This is intolerable, all the more so, because he advocates the historicityof the incident. On the contrary, Pesch (cf . above) , Annen, Heil, 192-93 , andMeie r, Marginal Jew, 2.640-41 (n. 32), 651, 665 (n. 18) view this episode as a

secondary addition to the tradit ion. These authors also cite and refer to otherscholars supporting this position; cf. Pesch, Der Besessene, 39-40; Meier, MarginalJew, 2 .641, and in Annen, Heil, particularly his research history survey (cf. η. 45above) of those who assume behind the story a histor ical kernel which secondarilyhas been exp and ed with new unhistorical material: Eine gew isse Einig keit herrscht. . . da r übe r, . . . daß d ie Sc hw ein e -E p is od e e r s t in e ine m s pä te re n S ta d iumdazu gek om me n se i (95 , conc lud ing 90-95) .

7 3 Me i e r, Marginal Jew, 2 .651.7 4 Cf . the me nt ion of De capo l is in v. 20 , as wel l , in the Ne w Testa m ent only

paralleled in Mark 7:31 and Matt 4:25. Meier Marginal Jew, 2 .653) correctly notes:The sheer oddi ty of the geographica l des ignat ion—unpara l le led in the Bible and

early Christ ian tradit ion—may reflect a singular historical event. I t could be that theunique connect ion of one of Jesus ' mirac les wi th a par t icular pagan c i ty in theDecapol is , a t a good dis tance f rom the Sea of Gal i lee and Jesus ' cus tomary area ofac t iv i ty, may have s tuck in the col lec t ive memory of Jesus ' d isc ip les prec ise lybeca use of the ex orc ism 's unusual ven ue.

7 5 I wi ll not , how ever, exclu de poss ib le inf luen ce f ro m Scr ip tura l pass ages , in

par t icular Isa iah 65 and the descr ip t ion of Samson 's except ional s t rength in Judges



cr i t ica l ly typical fea tures (cf . pp . 286-88 above) nor the inf luence ofp o s t - E a s t e r t h e o l o g i c a l c o n v i c t i o n s7 6 c an un de r m i ne t he ba s i cprobabi l i ty that the or ig in of th is t radi t ion i s to be found in an

au then t i c exorc i sm per fo rmed by Jesus .Th ere i s a b roa d conse nsu s am on g scho la r s tha t Jesu s a c tua l ly

worked as an exorcis t . The to ta l weight of the accumulated evidenceof a number of exorcism stor ies (Mark 1:21-28 par. ; 7 :24-30 par. ;9 :14-29 par r. ; Mat t 9 :32-33; Mat t 12:22-23 = Luke 11:14) , the br iefment ion o f exorc i sms in summary r epor t s ( e .g . Mark 1 :32-34 , 39 ;3 : 7 - 1 27 7) , sayings of Jesus refer r ing to or presupposing a minis t ry of

exorcisms ( in par t icular Mat t 12:27-28 = Luke 11:19-20; Mark 3:27;Lu ke 13 :32) , and a ff i rm at ion s f ro m opp one n t s tha t Jesus p er f o rm edex o r c i sm s ( M ar k 3 : 22 = M a t t 12 : 24 = L u k e 11 : 15 ) , i s ve r yimpress ive , indeed .7 8 In his survey of the research on the miracles of

13- 16 , and f ro m popu la r no t ions o f f r igh ten ing e ffec t s o f dem on p ossess ion . C f .the cons ide ra t ions o f Annen , Heil, 192. He nce , we are well adv ised in takin g no te

of M ei er ' s w arnin g: Ev en i f we take the descr ip t ion a t face va lue , a ll we can besure o f i s tha t Je su s was fac ing a p ro fou nd ly d i s tu rbe d ind iv idua l . P rec i sed iagnoses ove r the chasm of 2 ,000 yea r s ( e .g . , the demoniac was a pa rano idschizo phren ic) a re specula t ive a t the bes t (Ma rgina l Jew, 2 .666 n. 22).

7 6 For exa m ple , the descr ip t ion of the dem onia c fa l ling dow n in f ron t of Jesu sas a proskynese in v. 6 is sure ly a Ch rist ia n inter pre tat io n, but s t i l l i t do es no texclude the possibil i ty that the confrontation with the exorcist had such a disturbingeffec t on the demoniac tha t he fe l l (c f . Twelf t ree , Jesus, 81 , 147-48) . W he the r the

for m ula t ion of the de m on 's addre ss to Jesu s in v. 7 , son of the mo st h igh G od ,presupposes a Chr is t ian Chr is to logica l confess ion , or whether i t i s imaginable aspart of the at tempt by the demon(iac) to defend i tself against and gain control overi ts adversary by us ing h is name, i s d isputed . Twelf t ree Jesus) a rgues v igorou sly infavour of the second unders tanding, see 64-68 ( refer r ing to the para l le l in Mark1:24), 81 -82 , 1 49-52 .

7 7 No te in par t icular the refe ren ce to M ary Ma gd alen e in Lu ke 8 :2 and thediscuss ion in Meier, Marginal Jew, 2 .657-59.

7 8

In sp i te of a gene ra l ly unsa t is fa c tory and too sup erf ic ia l t rea tm ent of theh i s to r ica l ques t ions re la ted to the s ing le un i t s o f ev idence , s t i l l , Twel f t r ee ' smonograph on Jesus a s an exorc i s t con t r ibu tes in i t s sum to an a ff i rma t iveeva luat ion rega rding the h is tor ica l Jesus . See in par t icular h is §16 W as Jesus anEx o r c i s t ? {Jesus, 136-42) and the Co nclu s ion s (225-2 8) , headed by the jus t i f ieds ta tem en t : Th e f i rs t resul t we can record f ro m our s tudy is tha t we are ableunh esi ta t in gly to supp or t the v iew tha t Jesu s was an exo rc is t (225) . Am on g thenumerous contributions to the discussion of the historici ty of Jesus ' miracles during

recen t yea r s conc lud ing in the a ff i rma t ive wi th rega rd to h i s exorc i sms l e t mem ent io n E va ns ' chap . 5 Jesu s and Jew ish M irac le Stor ies in h is Jesus, 2 1 3 - 4 3 ,



Jesus since the rise of form cri t icism, with special emphasis on thelast three dec ade s, Barry L. Bla ckb urn con clud es: [T ]ha t Jes us actedas an exorcist and healer can easily be described as the consensus ofthe modern per iod .7 9 W he n i t co m es to the individ ual m iracle andexorcism stor ies , however, scholars are general ly very reserved andhesitant to give any posit ive affirmation of a basic historici ty.8 0 JohnP. Meier is one of the few who have undertaken a detailed analysis ofindiv idual exorc ism stor ies with the goal of asse ssing the po ssib lehistor ical elements in individual cases.8 1 His conclusion is that thes tory of the possessed boy (Mark 9 :14-29 par r. ) and the br ief

re fe rence to Mary Magda lene ' s exo rc i sm (Luke 8 :2 ) a re the twostrongest individual cases preserved in the gospels that can be tracedback to h is to r ica l even ts in Jesus ' min is t ry.8 2 Next to these twostor ies , Meier ranks our s tory of the Gerasene demoniac as th ird inter m s of h is tor ical probab i l i ty, tho ug h in th is case the argu m en tsare less probat ive.8 3 Also Franz Annen shows a s imilar reservat ion,but concludes that , al l in al l , the localisation of the story l ikely

reflects i ts historical origin.8 4

and Meier, Marginal Jew 2.404-23, 457-76 (a detailed treatment of Matt 12:28 =Lu ke 11:20 and M ark 3:24-27 par.) , 61 7-4 5 (chap . 19, add ress ing the glo ba lqu est ion of the historicity of Jes us ' m iracles).

7 9 B. L. Bla ckb urn, Th e M iracles of Jes us, in B. Chilton and C. A. Ev an s(eds.) , Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research(N TT S 19; Leid en: Brill, 1994) 353 -94, here 362.

8 0 Cf . Blac kbu rn, M irac les, 363 -68, conc luding : Tha t at least a few of themirac le stor ies rest on reminisc ence is co m m on ly held (368) . Th e story of Jesu s 'enc oun ter with the Ge rasen e dem onia c is no t included amo ng those nar ra t ivesspecified as possibly resting on a degree of reminiscence.

8 1 Meie r, Marginal Jew 2.648. In his chap . 20, Jes us ' Ex orc ism s (646 -77) ,he disc uss es seven individual sp ec im en s of reported exo rcism s, nam ely the f iveexorcism stories, starting with Mark 1:21-28, mentioned above plus the story of theGerasene demoniac and the reference to Mary Magdalene (cf . η . 77 above) .

8 2 Meie r, Marginal Jew 2.660-61. Meier views Mark 7:24-30 and Matt 9:32-33 as Christian redactional creations, but is uncertain with regard to Matt 12:22-23par. and Mark 1:21-28 par.

8 3 Meie r, Marginal Jew 2.6 61; cf. 653 : M eier is incline d to belie ve that anexorcism performed by Jesus near Gerasa lies at the basis of the Gospel narrative inMark 5:1-20. I readily admit, though, that there is no hard proof in the matter.B ey on d this , I dou bt that much can be said abou t the histor ical eve nt; too m anylayers of literary activity and theological imagination have been superimposed.

8 4 A n n e n , Heil 197: Ich bin . . . der A ns ich t, daß d ie His tor iz i tä t e inerDä mo n e n a u s t r e i b u n g J e s u i n Ge r a s a o d e r Umg e b u n g b z w. a n e i n e m Ge r a s e n e r



EXORCI S M AND PAGANI S M

Ex orcistic practice played a con sider able role in the period of theEarly and Old Church.8 5 With regard to the reception of the story ofthe Gerasene demoniac , in which the confronta t ion wi th and theliberation from the realm of pagan uncleanness is such a dominatingp e r s p e c t i v e ,8 6 it is interesting to note that in the Old Church thephenomenon of demon possession was predominant ly re la ted topaganism and the idolatry connected with it .87 As it probably was themiracles, including the exorcisms, that at the most at t racted thecrowds and made them fo l low Jesus ,8 8 the same is true for the

ministry of the church during the f i rst centur ies: Ex co rcism [sic]remained impor tant throughout the Old Church per iod, par t lybecause excorcisms [s ic]—more than heal ings—were regarded asmanifes ta t ions of d i rect and unambiguous confronta t ions betweenChrist and Satan, in which Christ 's victory could be seen by all .8 9

The dramat ic s tory of how Jesus had once t r iumphed over them ult i fo rm dem on Le gio n and thereby l iberated the poor gen ti leman w ho had been su ffe ring so severe ly unde r i ts pos session cou lddefinitely serve as a motivation and an inspiration for the missionaryendeavour of the Old Church when it confronted idolatry and provedvictorious in successful exorcisms.

zwar keineswegs sicher ist, aber doch recht vieles für sich hat.8 5 Cf. , for exam ple, G. H. Tw elftree, Christ Triumphant: Exorcism Then and

Now (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1985) 87-134.8 6

Cf. the discussion of the pigs episod e above and for a detailed argum ent thatthis perspective is the key to the message of the story; cf. Annen, Heil.8 7 My Norw egian colleague, Prof. Oskar Skarsaune has recently published an

interest ing art icle focu sing on this aspect , Be settelse og dem onu tdrive lse i denoldkirkelige og nytestamentl ige l i t teratur, Norsk Tidsskrift for Misjon 51 (1997)157-71 [Eng lish: De mo n Possession and Exo rcism in the Literature of the NewTe stam ent and the Early Ch urch ] . I quote from the English sum ma ry: In earlyChrist ian l i t térature [sic] the phenomenon of demon possession is not primarilyseen as a problem of illness or health in the modern sense, but rather as one

possible consequence of idolatry, and therefore interpreted within a framework ofrel igio us conf l ict . . . dem on p osses sion is prim arily seen as co m m on am on gPagans (170-71) .

8 8 Cf . Evans , Jesus 222-23.8 9 Skarsau ne, Bes ettelse, 171.





B E D E U T U N G U N D R E L I G IO N S G E S C H I C H T L I C H E R

H I N T E R G R U N D D E R V E RWA N D L U N G J E S U ( M A R K U S 9 : 2 - 8 )

Dieter Zeller

APORIEN DER EXEGESE

Die Per ikope von der Verwandlung Jesu1 scheint auf den ersten

1 Eine neuere Bib liograp hie in Au sw ahl bietet T. F. Best , "T he Tr an sfig ura -t ion: A Select Bibl iography," JETS 24 (198 1) 157-61. Ich nen ne die fü r mic hwichtigsten Veröffentl ichungen zur Geschichte als solcher und ihrer markinischenBearbei tung: E. Lohmeyer, "Die Verklärung Jesu nach dem Markus-Evangel ium,ZNW 21 (192 2) 185-215; C. M asso n, "La t ransfigu rat ion de Jésus (Marc 9 ,2 -13)," RTP 97 (1964) 1-14; W. Gerber, "Die Me tam orph ose Jesu , M ark . 9 ,2f .par. ," TZ 23 (1967) 385-95; H. C. Kee, "The Transfigurat ion in Mark: Epiphany

or Apocalyptic Vision?" in J. Reumann (Hg.), Understanding the Sacred Text (M.S. Enslin Festschrift ; Valley Forge: Judson, 1972) 135-52; U. B. Müller, "Diechristologische Absicht des Markusevangel iums und die Verklärungsgeschichte ,ZNW 64 (197 3) 15 9-93; J. M . Nü tzel , Die Verklärungserzählung im Markus-evangelium (FB 6; W ürzbu rg: Echter, 1973); W . L. Liefeld, "Theo logical M otifs inthe Transfigurat ion Narrat ive," in R. N. Longenecker und M. C. Tenney (Hg.) ,New Dimensions in New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 162-79; F. H. Daniel , The Transfiguration (Mk 9:2-13 and Par.) (unpubl ished disser-

tat ion; Nashvil le: Vanderbil t University, 1976); E. Nardoni, La Transfiguraciân deJesus y el diâlogo sobre Elias según el Evangelio de San Marcos (Teo logia 2;Buenos Aires: Patria Grande, 1976); B. D. Chilton, "The Transfiguration: Dominica l Assurance and Aposto l ic Vis ion ," NTS 27 (19 81 ) 115-24; E. Bes t , "T heMarkan Redact ion of the Transfigurat ion," in ders . , Disciples and Discipleship:Studies in the Gospel according to Mark (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982) 206-25;J . A. McGuckin, The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (SB EC 9;Lewiston und Queenston: Mellen, 1986); Β . Ch i l ton , Trans f igu ra t ion ,ABD

(1992 ) 640 -42; A. del Ag ua, Th e Na rrative of the Tran sf igu ration as a D eras hicScenif ication of a Faith Confession (Mark 9.2-8 Par) ,NTS 39 (1993) 340-54; J .E. Fos sum , Asc ensio , M etam orph osis , in ders ., The Image of the Invisible God(NTOA 30 ; F r ibourg : Universi tä tsverlag; Göt t ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht ,1995) 71-94; M. Ohler, "Die Verklärung (Mk 9:1-8): d ie Ankunft der HerrschaftGottes auf der Erde," NovT 38 (199 6) 197-217; ders. , Elia im Neuen Testament(BZNW 88; Berl in: de Gruyter, 1997) 118-35; D. Zel ler, "La métamorphose deJésus comme épiphanie (Me 9, 2-8)," in A. Marchadour (Hg.) , L évangile exploré(S. Légasse Festschrift ; LD 166; Paris: Cerf, 1996) 167-86. Ich konzentriere michdort auf das Motiv der Verwandlung.



Blick wenig geeignet , um an ihr das Programm "Authenticat ing Activi t ies of Jesus" durchzuführen. Schon formgeschicht l ich is t nicht le icht einzuordnen. Gewiß haben wir es mit e inem Erzähltzu tun; doch steht darin überhaupt ein Tun Jesu, eine activity, imMittelpunkt? Dies dürfte selbst dann nicht der Fall sein, wenn mmit G. Theißen d ie Verklärung s t rukture l l unter "Wunder" fadessen Adressa t a l le rd ings n icht andere Menschen oder Mächsondern der Wundertäter selbst is t .2 Dann müßte man μ ετβ μ ο ρ φ ώ θ ηV. 2c ko nse qu ent mi t und er ver wa nd el te s ichüberse tzen , wasgrammatikalisch möglich ist . Angesichts der gezielten Init iative J

in V. 2ab l iegt diese Wiedergabe sogar nahe.3 Doch dann tretenandere Handlungs t räger in den Vordergrund: Mose und El i ja , reagierende Petrus , die St imme aus der Wolke. In der ProklamatJesu als geliebter Sohn liegt zweifellos die Pointe der ganzen Szehier wird das vorangegangene Geschehen gedeutet . So geht es niprimär um ein Tun Jesu, sondern darum, daß Jesus in seinem wahSein den Jünge rn offe nb ar wird . De swe gen heben man che For

geschicht ler solche "Jesus-Geschichten"—ein anderes Beispiel is t Taufe Mk 1:9-11—vom übrigen Erzähls toff ab und suchen s ie under Kategorie des "Mythos" zu begreifen.4

Wie steht es dann aber mit der authenticity? D i e Ta u f p e r i k o p eenthäl t wenigs tens e in unbezweife lbares Faktum: daß Jesus vJohannes getauft wurde. Woran kann man s ich dagegen bei Mk 9:halten? Das einzige Konkretum scheinen die "sechs Tage" zu sein,

den Aufs t ieg Jesu in Beziehung se tzen zu e inem vorangehendEreignis , wohl dem Gespräch mi t den Jüngern 8 :27-9:1 . Deshs teh t d ie A ng ab e jed oc h von vorn here in un te r dem V erd acredaktionel ler Bildung, obwohl Markus solche genauen Angaben

2 G. Theißen , Urchristliche Wundergeschichten (SN T 8; Güterslo h: M oh n,1974) 121-25; 102-105 spricht er von Epiphanie , wenn die Gött l ichkei t e

Person nicht nur an ihren Auswirkungen oder Begleiterscheinungen, sondern aselbst erscheint.

3 Geg en die vorschnel le An nah m e eines "theologischen Passiv s" vgl . Ze"La métamorphose," 169. Nur Lk 9:28 weiß, daß Jesus auf den Berg st ieg, ubeten.

4 Vgl . G. Bo rnka m m, "Form en und Gat tungen II im NT ," RGG3 2 .999-1005, 1001, im Gefolge von M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums(Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck] , 519 66 ) Kap . X, bes. 275 -76. Th eiße n (Wunderge-

schichten, 106) präzisiert : eher ein episo daler Au sschnit t aus m ythis che m Ge schen, der einen menschlichen Standort voraussetzt.



wieder in der Pass ionsgeschichte macht . Auch können die verschiedenen Versuche, s ie als fes ts tehenden Topos zu erweisen und damifür die vormarkinische Überl ieferung zu ret ten,5 n ich t überzeugen.Ältere Autoren hat ten hier noch die Spur einer his tor ischen Erinnerung gesehen .6 Diese beziehe sich auf ein Erlebnis, das man sichoft nach psycholog ischem E rme ssen zurechtschneider t . Ha rnack etwhatte die objekt iv geschilder te Verwandlung auf eine Vis ion derJünger bzw. des Petrus reduzier t . Dazu regt f rei l ich der Terminus"es erschienen ihnen" in V. 4 an; aber auch hier denkt der Autor ane inen mehreren zug le ich s ich tbaren Vorgang . Zum mindes ten

müssen wir seine Dars tel lung und heutige Versuche einer psychologischen Erklärung unterscheiden. Das jüngste Beispiel eines solcheRedukt ionismus b ie te t J . Murphy-O'Connor. Nach e iner abenteuerl iehen Litera rkr i t ik , w on ac h in der ers ten Hä lf te die lu ka nis ch eVersion ursprünglicher als Markus sein soll , in der zweiten aber ein"editor" sekundär Lukas dem Markus angeglichen habe, vermutet eals historischen Kern:

Jesus decided to withdraw to the top of a mountain to pray about hisproblem [das Leidenmüssen]. As he prayed, he got the answer—and hisfac e li t up Th e glory that Peter and the others saw (L uke 9:32 ) w as theradiant joy that accompanies the resolution of a terrible perplexity.7

Mehr als solch ein menschliches Strahlen Jesu darf der Dominikanerexeget die Jünger nicht erfahren lassen; denn er s ieht dieSchwier igkei t , d ie ein wört l iches Vers tändnis der Begebenheit mi

5 Zuletzt Fossu m, "A scen sio ," 79-82. Für Of fenb aru ngs em pfan g am siebteTag gibt es zwar einige Beispiele; aber dazu müßte man "nach sechs Tagenexklusiv verstehen, was wegen Mk 8,31 nicht geht. Die sechs Tage werden bei Mnicht a ls Vorberei tungszei t erkennbar. Auch in der rabbinischen Auslegung voExod 24:16 (b. Yom. 4b) erfolgt der Aufstieg des Mose am siebten Tag. Tg. Ps.-J.dat iert d ie Ereignisse E xod us 19 -24 auf den 6 . Ta g des M ona ts , ohn e das au

drücklich zu betonen.6 A. von Ha rnack , "D ie Ve rkläru ngs ges chic hte Jesu, der Bericht des Pau lu(I. Kor. 15,3ff) und die beiden Christu svision en des Petrus," Sitzungsberichte derpreußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1922) 62-80, 74 ff; J . Bl inzler, Dieneutestamentlichen Berichte über die Verklärung Jesu (NTAbh 17.4; Münster:Aschendorff , 1937); H. Bal tenswei ler, Die Verklärung Jesu (ATANT 33; Zür ich :Zwingli , 1959). Ähnlich wie Harnack N. Smith, "The Origin and History of tTransfigurat ion Story," USQR 36 (1980) 39-44.

7

J . M urp hy -O 'Co nn or, "W hat Real ly Happ ened a t the Tran sf igura t ion?BibRev 3 (198 7) 8-21 .



s ich br ingt : Wie konnten die Jünger, besonders Petrus , nach einüberwäl t igenden Schau h immlischer Herr l ichkei t an Jesus in dPassion wenig später versagen?8

Der Anstoß wäre beseitigt , wenn man mit R. Bultmann in unserGesch ich te e ine vorgezogene Os te r legende sehen könn te .9 Dami twird aber wieder das objekt ive Geschehen zum Inhal t e iner Vis iund der eigentliche Iktus verfehlt , daß nämlich schon einmal mittim Leben Jesu solcher Glanz an ihm sichtbar war (s .u.) . Ein neueVersuch s te l l t d ie Verklärung wenigs tens funkt ional den Erschenungen des Auferstandenen an die Seite; auch sie habe legitimieren

Funkt ion—nämlich für d ie dre i in V. 2 genannten Jünger.1 0 Somitw ä r e w e n ig s t e ns e in f r ü h e r nach ös t e r l i ch e r " S i t z im L eb engesichert . Allerdings läuft die Geschichte in V. 7 weniger auf eiLegitimation der Jünger als auf eine Legitimation Jesu zu. Außerdist die Auswahl der Drei möglicherweise redaktionell (wie 5:37, 414:33), wie auch das κατ Ιδ ίαν d ie Hand des Markus verrät. Sieentspr icht auch nicht einer aufweisbaren geschicht l ichen Konstel

t ion nach Ostern. Denn daß der Gal 2:9 unter den drei "Säulengenannte Herrenbruder Jakobus an die Stel le des 42 n. Chr. hingr ichte ten Zebedaiden Jakobus get re ten se i , i s t nur e ine vagH y p o t h e s e .1 1 Das e inzige Arg um en t da für , daß d ie Drei sc hon

8 Vg l. ebd . 9.9 R . Bul tmann, Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göt t ingen: Van den-

hoeek & Ruprecht , 61964) 278-81 nach Wellhausen, Loisy, Bousset u .a . WeitereVert re te r im Ergänzungshef t419 71 , 92. Das Für und Wid er diskutiert R. H. Stein,"Is the Transfigurat ion (Mark 9:2-8) a Misplaced Resurrect ion Account?" JBL 95(1976) 79-96; neu gedruckt in ders. , Gospels and Tradition: Studies on RedactionCriticism of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapid s: Bake r, 1991) 97-11 9. Ge gendiese Lösung auch R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Com mentary on His Apology for theCross (Grand Rapids : Eerd ma ns , 1993) 471-74 ; M. D. Hoo ker, The Gospelaccording to Saint Mark (BNT C; London: Black , 199 1)21 3-14 ,219 .

1 0 D. W enh am und A. D. A. M oses, " T h e re are som e standing here . . . ' : DThey Become the 'Reputed Pil lars ' of the Jerusalem Church? Some ReflectionsMark 9:1 , Galat ians 2:9 and the Transfigurat ion," NovT 36 (199 4) 146-63, nacheiner Anregung von Β . Ch i l ton . Unglücklich ist die Beziehung von Mk 9:1 auf die"Säulen." Fairerweise notieren die Autoren auch immer gleich die Schwierigkeihrer "admittedly speculative thesis" (158).

1 1 Etw a bei Η . K r a ft , Die Entstehung des hristentums (Darms tad t : W issen -schaftl iche Buchgesellschaft , 1981) 230, 275. Aber dann soll te man Jakobus in Gal

2:9 nicht an der Spitze, sondern nach Johannes erwarten. Gal 1:19 läßt annehmen,daß der Herrenbruder sich schon vor 42 einer führenden Rolle näherte.



vormarkinisch als Zeugen genannt waren, is t die numerische Ensprechung zu den drei Himmelsgestalten.

Ü B E R L I E F E R U N G S G E S C H I C H T L I C H E A N H A LT S P U N K T E

Eine Analyse, die sich hinter den vorliegenden Text zurücktastemöchte , muß dafür Hinweise im Text se lber f inden bzw. untersuchen, wie er in e inen größeren Zusammenhang e ingebaut i s tMöglicherweise helfen auch Paral lelvers ionen, eine ursprünglicherGestalt herauszuschälen. In Mk 9:6 spricht vor allem die auktorialErklärung für die seltsame Rede des Petrus dafür, daß der EvangeliV. 5 schon kannte; dabei kann aber V. 6b durchaus eine topischeJüngerreaktion bewahren. Auch die Tatsache, daß der V. 4 erscheinende Elija in Vv. 12-13 mit dem Täufer identifiziert ist, verrät einfrühere Tradi t ionss tufe des Geschehens auf dem Berg.12 Sonst fügt essich aber so bruchlos in den näheren Kontext (das Messiasbekenntndes Pet rus mi t der anschl ießenden Belehrung von Jüngern undVolksmassen 8:27-9:1; das Gespräch beim Abst ieg 9:9-13) ein , dadie A nn ahm e e ines ursprüngl ichen Zusa m m enh ang s von Vv. 1 un11-1313 als überholt gelten muß. Die Elijafrage knüpft nahtlos an daStichwort "von den Toten aufers tehen," das eine al lgemeine Totenerweckung sugger ier t , an . Leider t ragen auch d ie Fassungen deMatthäus und Lukas nicht dazu bei , e ine Vorform der markinischeErzählung zu eruieren. Die minor agreements,14 d ie M cG uckin dazunutzen wil l ,1 5 s ind gewiß auffäl l ig , aber erklärbar.1 6 Noch weniger

ist zu vermuten, daß die späte Paraphrase in 2 Petrus 1:16-18, diDaniel heranzieht , Ursprünglicheres enthäl t .

1 2 Vgl . Loh me yer, "Ve rklärung ," 213.1 3 Bu l tmann , Geschichte, 279. Die Frag e V. 11 entw ickelt sich aber aus de m

Streit V. 10 ähnlich w ie Mk 9:14 , 16; 12:8. Ein e ana loge Jüng ers itua tion sch ildMk 9:43, wo freilich die Frage aus Furcht unterlassen wird.

1 4 Eine extens ive Liste bei C. Nie ma nd, Studien zu den Minor Agreements der

synoptischen Verklärungsperikopen (EH S XX III 352; Frank furt am M ain: Lan g,1982). Dagegen F. Fendler, Studien zum Markusevangelium (GT A 49; Gö t t ingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 180-84.

1 5 McGuck in , Transfiguration, 8-14.1 6 Vgl. F. Neiryn ck, "M inor Ag reem ents M atthew -Luk e in the Tran sfiguratio

Story," in Neirynck, Evangelica I (BETL 60; Leuven: Peeters und Leuven Univer-si ty Press, 1982) 797-810; ders . , "The Minor Agreements and the Two-Sour

Theory," in ders. , Evangelica II (BETL 99; Leuven: Peeters und Leuven UniversityPress, 1991) 3-42, bes. 34-40.



Die Unte r suchung von S t i l und Vokabu la r1 7 k an n mehr e r emarkinische Eigentümlichkeiten aufweisen (vor allem in Vv. 2ab, 56); s ie s tößt auch auf einige Hapaxlegomena (bei Markus, in deEvangelien oder gar im Neuen Testament) ,1 8 aber diese können nochkeine Tradit ion garant ieren, wie die s tark markinischer Redaktiove rdä ch tige Be sch reib un g V. 3 zeigt . Die V oka bels tat is t ik al le igenügt nicht ; das belegen die recht unterschiedl ichen Rekonstrutionsversuche von Nützel und Daniel, die noch andere Kriterien Hilfe nehmen müssen. Aber obwohl Markus das Stück sprachlich uthematisch vollkommen in sein Evangelium integriert hat, fäll t do

die abwandelnde Wiederholung der Gottess t imme bei der Taufe (M1:11) in V. 7bc auf . Ihre Formulierung dürf te dort ursprüngliches e i n .1 9 Denn d ie Anredeform läßt noch am ehes ten Ps 2 :7 a lsGrundlage erkennen; sol l te aber 1:11 eher auf Jes 42:1 zurückzuführen sein, wie Lührmann meint, dann hat das Zitat noch sicherseinen Si tz in der Taufs i tuat ion mit der Geis tver leihung. Was Godort Jesus zusprach, wird jetzt den ausgewählten Jüngern verkünd

An die Stel le des Nachsatzes "An dir habe ich mein Wohlgefal lentri t t nun die Forderung "Auf ihn sollt ihr hören," die die ganzautor i tat ive Lehre Jesu im Evangelium im Auge hat . Wegen diesbeabs icht ig ten Beziehungen kann d ie S t imme aus der Wolke kauvorredaktionell sein. Man hat deshalb in V. 7bcd eine markinischZutat gesehen; die Wolke habe ursprünglich nur die Funktion gehabdie h immlischen Ges ta l ten zu verhül len ,2 0 während das αύτοΐς in

seinem jetzigen Bezug unsicher is t21

Dagegen spr ich t zunächst , daß1 7 Au ßer Nützel , Verklärungserzählung , Ka p. II, und Da niel, Transfiguration,

24-43 vgl. E. J. Pryke, Redaktional Style in the Marcan Gospel (SN TS M S 33 ;Cambridge: University Press, 1978); und P. Dschulnigg, Sprache, Redaktion undIntention des Markus-Evangeliums (SB B 11; Stuttgart : Ka tholisc hes Bib elw erk,1984).

1 8 ά ν α φ έ ρ ε ι ν , υ ψ η λ ό ςμ ε τα μ ο ρφ ο ϋ σθ α ι , σ τ ί λ βε ι ν , γ ν α φ ε ύ ς λευκαίνειν,

ώ φ θηνα ι, συ λλα λεΐν, σ κη νή, εκφ οβο ? γενέσ θα ι, έπισ κ ιά £ ειν, έξά π ινα .1 9 G e g e n Μ . H o r st m a nn , Studien zur markinischen Christologie N TA b h N F

6; Münster: Aschendorff , 1969) 91-92; und D. Lührmann, Das Markusevangelium(H N T 3; Tü bin ge n: M oh r [Siebe ck], 1987) 155, nach dem 1:11 aus der V erk lärvorgezogen ist . Er hat aber inzwischen selbst die Inkonsistenz gegenüber 37bemerkt .

2 0 Nützel , Verklärungserzählung, 151-52, nach M ass on , Ba ltens we iler u.a.Eb enso J . Zm i jew ski , "Die Sohn-Go t tes-Präd ika tionen im M arku sev ang el ium

SNTU 12 (198 7) 5-34 , 28-31 .2 1 Im jetzigen Zus am m enh ang schl ießt es die Jün ger min desten s ein , d ie



das Erscheinen von Mose und Elija nach Deutung verlangt2 2 und dasverfehl te Wort des Petrus eine Klars tel lung erforder t . Aber genaubesehen bleibt die Erscheinung nach wie vor rätselhaf t ; d ie Gottesstimme führt über das Vv. 2c-4 Erzählte hinaus. Während dort Jesunur auf gleicher Ebene mit den al t tes tamentl ichen Gestal ten s tehtw ird er jetz t als der Soh n Gotte s übe r sie hin au sg eh ob en . D ie V erm utu ng ist also erlau bt, daß die jetz ige Spitze der Pe riko pe in V. 7eine vorhergehende Offenbarungsszene verdrängt hat , d ie viel leichnoch in dem inhaltslosen V. 4b rudimentär zu erkennen ist . Weiterwird man in der Dekomposi t ion aber kaum gehen können;2 3 und da

wir bezüglich der Vorform des Textes im Dunkeln tappen, muß eineIn terpre ta t ion nun a l le dre i Momente zusammenbr ingen: d ie Ver- ndlung Jesu, seine Gleichstel lung mit El i ja und Mose und diekrönende Gottesrede am Schluß.

G EG EN RED A K TIO N SG ESCH ICH T LICH E N IV ELLIERU N G

Natürl ich muß die Per ikope so vom Ganzen des Evangeliums hergelesen und in den näheren Kontext eingebettet werden. Die neuereredaktionsgeschicht l ichen Studien (Nützel , Daniel , Nardoni , McGuck in )2 4 tun das zur Genüge, manchmal im Übermaß. In ers ter Linie

Vv. 6b und 8 Subjekt sind und denen die Anrede in 7cd gilt.2 2 Vgl. K. Berger, Formgesch ichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle

und Meyer, 1984) 284-85.2 3 Nützel, Verklärungserzählung (mit ihm Zm ijew ski) meint, mit der auf De ut

18:15 anspielenden Wolkenstimme habe Markus auch Mose in Vv. 4-5 und Bezunahmen auf die Sinaigeschichte eingefügt. Doch hätte er sie dann doch deutlichmachen müssen. Außerdem wird schwer verständlich, weshalb Mose—im Unteschied zu Elija—im Folgenden keine Rolle mehr spielt . Auch ist die Zweizahhimmlischer Wesen ein verbreiteter Topos: vgl. G. Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu(SANT 226: München: Kösel, 1971) 198; dazu Ps.-Philon, LAB 64:6; K. Berger,Die Auferstehung des Propheten und die Erscheinung des Menschensohnes (SUNT

13; Gö ttinge n: V ande nhoe ck & Rupre cht, 1976) 269 Anm . 104. Sie fördert hiauch die Symmetrie. Weitere, mehr religionsgeschichtlich argumentierende "Telungsvorschläge" (Lohmeyer, Hahn, H. P. Müller, Masson) referier t kri t ischHors tmann, Studien, 74-8 0. Zuletzt trat Oh ler ("D ie V erkl äru ng," 199-202) fü r die"relative Einheitlichkeit der Tradition" ein, die Markus lediglich in einigen Punktergänzt habe.

2 4 Außer Hors tmann , Studien, 80-1 03, wären noch H.-J. Steich ele, Derleidende Sohn Gottes (BU 14; Re gen sbur g: Pustet, 1980) 161-92, oder J. M arc us,

The Way of the Lord (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993) 80-93, zur Verwendungder atl. Zitate zu nennen. Weitere Beispiele heutiger Synchronexegese erspare ic



hat sie sicher die Funktion, die Identität des Messias-MenschensohJesus zu bestät igen. M anc he Autoren f inden in der Ve rklärun g Jeauch d ie in de r Te x tu m ge bu ng ank l ing end en The m en Le ideAufers tehung und Parus ie wieder. Wei l d ie Auferweckten in djüdischen Apokalypt ik ihre neue Leib l ichkei t durch Verwandlue r r e i c h e n ,2 5 nehme d ie Metamorphose Jesu d iese Aufer s tehungshe r r l i chke i t vo r w eg .2 6 Be m erk en sw ert ist f rei l ic h, da ß dies hierdemonstrat iv vor den Augen der Jünger geschieht . Vor al lem reddie Wolkenst imme nicht in der Zukunft , sondern von dem, was Jejetzt schon ist . Die Auferstehung Jesu ist der terminus a quo für

Verkündigung des auf dem Berg Geschauten (9:9) , nicht für seiWahrhei t . Ähnl iche Bedenken kommen auf gegen d ie Deutung dEreignisses a ls Ant iz ipat ion der δ ό ξα de s W i e d e r k o m m e n d e n ,2 7

zumal es nicht als Vision von Künft igem erzählt wird. Ganz verfehl tscheint mir die beliebte Auskunft, es stelle die Erfüllung des in 9Geweis sag ten dar.2 8 Der Vers bekräf t igt pr imär den vorangehenden.Weil keine große Gefahr besteht , daß die Jünger binnen sechs Tag

sterben, gi l t d ie Verheißung kaum den Drei von 9:2. Gundry uOhler müssen zuges tehen, daß d ie "Ankunf t der Herrschaf t Gotauf der Erde" in der Verklärung nur vorläuf ig is t . Solche Ausl

mir, da es in diesem Buch nicht darauf ankommt.2 5 Vg l. vor allem syrBar. 49, 51; auße rdem äthHen. 50:1; 108:11-15; Ps.-

Phi lon, LAB 28:9 ; 1 Ko r 15:51-52 ; hebrHen. 48C 6-7.2 6 Z .B . Μ . E . Thra l l , E l i j ah and Mo ses in M ark ' s Accoun t o f the Trans -

f igurat ion , NTS 16 (1969 -70) 305-1 7; s ie nimm t noch eine merkwürdige Polemikgegen die Entrückung (wie bei Elija und Mose) an.

2 7 Richt ig Τ . A. Burkii i , Mysterious Revelation ( I thaca: Co rnell Un iversityPress , 1963) 159-60: Th e voic e fro m the clou d do es not dec lare that Jes us will bethe Son of God at some future date, but s imply that he is the Son of God . . .Accordingly, St . Mark 's account of the transf iguration does not disclose a s tatuswhich Jesus is to enjoy on a future occasion, whether it be at his resurrection or at

h is parou sia . Tex twidr ig dagegen Daniel , Transfiguration 65: Th e revelation ofJes us iden tity on the mou ntain is the pred iction of a fut ur e con dition , not a prese nto n e . D as schließt nicht aus, daß für den Leser die glorreiche Wiederkunft durdas Berichtete um so gewisser werden soll .

2 8 So jetzt wie der betont Gu ndry , Mark, 457; Ohler, "Die Verklärung," 216-17 (Der Anm . 1 als Ge wä hrsm ann genan nte Nardo nia heißt a l lerdings N ardoWenn man Jesus und die Basileia einfach gleichsetzt , was m.E. nicht im SinnRedaktors is t , umgeht man elegant das Problem der Mk 9:1 ausgesproche

Naherwartung. Das hier Gesagte gi l t auch gegen Wenham und Moses, ' "Theresome standing here . . . ' ," 146-63.



gungen laufen Gefahr, die Tatsache, daß s ich die Verwandlung amIrdischen vollzieht und sein ihm bereits eigenes Wesen enthüllt , ein-zuebnen. Wir müssen also nach zei tgenössischen Modellen Ausschauhalten, wo ähnliches zu Lebzeiten bei großen Männern geschieht.

A U F D E R S U C H E N A C H R E L I G I O N S G E S C H I C H T L I C H E N A N A L O G I E N

Getreu dem Programm des "Authent ica t ing" wird man versuchen,die Begebenheit zunächst aus dem jüdischen Mil ieu zu erhel len. Sieweis t ja auch unübersehbar jüdisches Kolor i t auf : das Motiv derweißen Kleider, Mose und Eli ja , was ihr Erscheinen auch immerbedeute t ( s .u . ) , d ie Wolke , d ie d ie Präsenz Got tes anzeig t ; d ieGottess t imme, die an die bei Rabbinen ergehende bat qol er inner t ,2 9

die—frei l ich nicht le icht herauszuhörenden—Anklänge an Ps 2:7 undDeut 18:15 in V. 7cd. Die Parallelen kann man leicht in den Kom-menta ren zusammenges te l l t f inden .3 0 Ich hab e jed oc h scho n dara ufaufmerksam gemach t , daß e ine überna tü r l i che Veränderung desAussehens im Alten Testament und in der zwischentes tamentar ischenL i t e r a t u r s e l t e n v o r k o m m t .3 1 D ie LXX ken nt daf ür n icht denTe r m i n u s μ β τ α μ ο ρ φ - . Ab e r e s g ib t i mm er h i n e in v e rg l e i ch b a r e sPhänomen: den Widerschein der Herr l ichkei t Gottes auf dem Antl i tzdes M ose (Ex od 34:29 -30) , den die jüd isch e Literatur noch s tärkerausmal t (z .B. Phi lon , Vita Mosis 2 .70; Ps . -Phi lon , LAB 12:1;hebrHen. 15B5).32 Und Philon gebra ucht für den pro phe tische n è v-θουσ ιασ μ ός· des Mose auch schon e inmal das Verb um μ ετα βά λλο υν,

2 9 So Chilton , Tra nsf ig uratio n, der ein regelrechtes genre Ges chich ten mitHim me lss t im me n behauptet. P. Kuhn OJfenbarungsstimm en im antiken Judentum[TSAJ 20; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1989]) stellt in seiner Monographie allerdingsfest, daß das Motiv in den verschiedensten Gattungen belegt ist.

3 0 Zuletzt Gun dry, Mark, speziell 477 zum jüdisch en Hintergrun d.3 1 Vgl. Zeller, "L a m étam orp hos e," 167-68. In jüng ster Zeit hat U. B. M ülle

(" 'Sohn Got tes '—ein mess ian ischer Hohei t s t i t e l , " ZNW [1987 ] 1-39, 22) auchStel len herangezogen, wo Menschen durch Verzückung "ein anderer werden" (Sam 10:6, in Ps.-Philon, LAB 20:2 bei der Investitur Josuas verwendet; ähnlich beiKenas 27:10). Aber hier findet keine äußere Verwandlung statt ; bezeichnenderweigeht die Bekleidung mit den Gewändern des Mose (Josua) bzw. mit dem "Geist dStärke" (Kenas) der Verwandlung voran. Erst beim echten Phi lon ergreif t d ieprophetische Inspiration auch das Aussehen: vgl. Vita Mosis 1.57; 2.2 72 , 28 0 vonMose , Virt. 217 von Abraham.

3 2

Foss um ("Ascen sio , M etam orpho sis , " 74) führ t mehrere samari tan ischeTexte an, nach denen "his face was clothed with a ray of light."



μ ε τα μ ο ρ φ ο ϋ σ θ α ι.3 3 S t eh t n ich t au ch d as μ ε τα μ ο ρ φ ο ύ μ ε θα 2 Ko r3:18 im Gegenüber zur Verklärung des Mose, wenn es sich jetzt auauf die Christen bezieht?

Die Mose-Typologie

So hat man in den Exoduskapiteln, die vom Aufstieg und Abstides Mose handeln, die narrat ive Struktur unseres Textes vorgebilgefunden, der mehrfach auf die Mosegeschichte anspiele , ja geradeinen Midrasch über Exodus dars tel le;3 4 d ie Mose-Typologie l ie ferenicht nur das Gestal tungsprinzip, sondern auch die Intent ion: Jewird als neuer Mose präsent ier t , auf den die Jünger hören sol l(vgl. Deut 18:15 in V. 7d); er ist nicht nur gleichen Ranges, wie Vsuggerier t , sondern ihm als "Sohn Gottes" überlegen. Das kl inzunächs t p laus ibel . Doch können d ie Einzelzüge, auf denen dIndizienschluß aufbaut , für s ich genommen meis t auch anders erklwerden. S ie s tehen in Exodus in anderem Zusammenhang und anderer Funktion:

- Exod 24:16 bedeckt e ine Wolke sechs Tage lang den Berg bzw. über-schat te t Mose (Jub. 1:2; äthApkEsr. 68:12 -13), der bereits hera ufg estie genist . Erst am 7. Tag empfängt er aber die gött l ichen Anweisungen. Dagegenist nach Markus das Widerfahrnis auf dem Berg am 6. Tag zu datieren.3 5

- Schon vorher hatte eine ältere Schicht Mose mit drei Begleitern, aber auchzusammen mit siebzig Ältesten zur Gottesschau hinaufsteigen lassen (Exod24:9-11); darin kann man ein Vorbild für die Auswahl der drei Jünger

finden, die Jesus nach Markus aber auch anderswo trifft .- Das Strahlen des Antli tzes wird nach Exod 34:29 erst beim Abstieg vomSinai, wo Mose die steinernen Tafeln beschrieben hatte, sichtbar, "weil ermit dem Herrn geredet hatte," und zwar allen Israeliten. Philo und Ps-Philoverlegen die Verwandlung ins Göttl iche aber auch schon in frühere Gottes-b e g e g n u n g e n .3 6

- Daß eine St imme aus der Wolke ertönt , könnte s ich an Exod 24:16

3 3 Vg l. auß er den A nm . 31 gen ann ten Stellen noch Quaest. in Exod. 2.29,au sfü hrl ic he r Zel ler, "L a m éta m orp ho se ," 176-77. Ich unters t re iche dort , solche Verwandlung nicht auf Mose beschränkt ist.

3 4 In neue rer Zeit del Ag ua, "N arrativ e"; Chilton, "T ran sfig ura tion ," der adie Bezeichnung "Midrasch" ablehnt und eher e ine "explosion of associat ibefürwortet .

3 5 Vgl. die An m. 5 genan nte Schw ierigkeit .3 6 Vgl . Quaest. in Exod. 2 .29 zu Exodus 24; Ps.-Phi lon, LAB 11 -12 zieht

Exodus 19-31 mit Exod 34:29-35 zusammen.



anlehnen, wo aber Mose auf den Gipfel gerufen wird (vgl . noch dieAnkündigung 19:9). Das Motiv der Wolke, und auch das der darauserklingenden Stimme ist jedoch weiter verbreitet .3 7

Vor allem kommt das spezielle Motiv des leuchtenden Angesichtesbei Markus gar nicht vor; erst Matthäus und Lukas ergänzen es, wohunabhängig voneinander e iner Topik fo lgend,3 8 zu den leuchtendenGewändern , d ie wiederum in der b ib l i schen S inai t rad i t ion keineParallele haben (erst in der samaritanischen). D. F. Strauß, der inder evange l i schen Gesch ich te e ine Nachb i ldung der mosa i schenerblickte, ging von der Priorität des Matthäus aus.39 Außerdem wirdes nach dem Obigen schwier ig , a l le Mose-Anspie lungen für e inevormarkinische Tradit ion in Anspruch zu nehmen, da sowohl die 6Ta ge w ie die Dre i, ja vielleicht auch V. 7d auf Ma rku s zu rüc kg eh enkönnen. Doch auch Form und Absicht des vorl iegenden Textes ismi t e iner Mosetypologie n icht ausre ichend erk lär t .4 0 Daß Elija ander Seite des Mose erscheint, bleibt auch so unmotiviert.

Verwand lung in jüdischer Mystik und Apokalyptik

W. Gerber hat darauf hingewiesen, daß die Verklärung Jesu etwasmit dem Gespräch mit himmlischen Gestal ten (V. 4) zu tun habenmüsse, und Texte der Hekhalot-Literatur an g ef ü hr t, in de ne n einähnl icher Zusammenhang bes teht : Bei se inem Aufs t ieg zur Got tesschau wird der Seher verwandel t .4 1 Das Problem ist nur, daß die

3 7 Vg l. U. Luz , Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (E K K N T 1.2, Zürich undBraunschweig : Benziger ; Neuki rchen-Vluyn: Neuki rchener Ver lag , 1990) 507Ohler, "Die Verklärung," 209-10.

3 8 Vgl . Fos sum , "A sce nsi o ," 84-85; seine Beisp iele , zu dene n ma n nochhebrHen. 48 C 6 ergän zen kön nte, hand eln aber von Henoch und Jes aja. Nu r dersamari tanische Defter-Hymnus (ebd. 74) verbindet die Bekleidung des Mose meinem mehr als königlichen Gewand und das Strahlen seines Antlitzes.

3 9 D. F. Strau ß, Das Lehen Jesu (Leipzig: Os lande r, 1864) 516 -22, vgl. 138-

39. Auch in neuerer Zeit gibt A. D. A. Moses (M a t th e w s Transfiguration Storyand Jewish-Christian Controversy [JSN TS up 122; Sheffie ld: She ffie ld Ac ade m icPress, 1996] 45-49) zu, daß die Sinai typologie bei Markus—im Unterschied zMatthäus—"debatable" ist .

4 0 Geg en A ufn ah m e von M ose-M otiven äußert s ich je tz t auch Gu ndry, Mark,475-76. Ohler ("Die Verklärung," 202-204) stellt sie ebenfalls in Frage.

4 1 Gerber, "Die M etam orpho se Jesu" (s. Anm . 1). In "La mé tam orph ose ,"172 Anm. 24, habe ich dazu Stellen aus slavHen. und Asc. Jes. nachgetragen. Vgl .

je tz t auch M. Himmelfarb, "Revelat ion and Rapture: The Transformation of thVisionary in the Ascent Apocalypses," in J . J . Col l ins und J . H. Charleswort



V erw an dlu ng Jesu im je tz ige n Z us am m en ha ng n icht nur auf Erscheinung V. 4 ausgerichtet is t . Diese gi l t in ers ter Linie dJün ge rn. Die Unte rha ltung m it M ose und Elija bringt für Jesu s kee ig en t l i che O ff enba r ung4 2 und entspr icht nicht der Schau Gottes .Auch im fo lgenden is t das Offenbarungsgeschehen auf d ie Jünbezogen, die gerade nicht verwandelt werden.

A uch J . E . F os s um s i eh t d i e S chw äch e d es G e r b e r s cheV orsc h lag es : W ähre nd d ie in den m ys t i schen Tex ten gen annUmwandlung von mensch l icher Na tu r in h imml isches Feuer eVoraussetzung dafür is t , daß man Gott oder die Engel sehen kann,gera de hier " the paral lel ism w ith the Syno ptic account . . . not quin evidence ."4 3 Dennoch baut er auf diesem Ansatz weiter. Um diParal lele zur Himmelsreise zu vers tärken, muß er zunächst e inmden "hohen Berg" a ls "heavenly locale" wahrschein l ich machobwohl er zuges teht , daß er n icht den Ausgangspunkt für dAufstieg bildet wie in seinen Belegen aus Apk. Petr. 17, Asc. Jes. 2:8( Ä th ) ; T. Lev. 2 :5 - 7 .4 4 Da Exodus 24 nicht viel Licht auf die

Verklärungsperikope werfen kann (76-78) , z ieht er Weiterbi ldungdes Sinaiaufenthaltes heran, in denen Mose in den Himmel aufstei4 5

und dabei eine "glorif ication" erfährt (83-86). Daß dabei die Kleiverwandel t werden, i s t—wie bere i t s bemerkt—nur e inmal von Mbeleg t ( sam ar i t an i sc her D ef te r ) , dage gen häu f ige r von and erGestalten; ebensowenig ist das strahlende Antli tz spezifisch für MoDennoch vers icher t Fossum "The Moses pat tern continues to h

good," wei l Def ter und der Tragiker Ezechie l 68ff Mose mkönigl ichem Gewand bekleidet bzw. auf einem Thron s i tzend zeig

(Hg. ) , Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies since the UppsalaColloquium (JSP Su p 9; She ffie ld: JS O T Press, 1991) 79-90 , bes. 84-85; W . Smelik, "On Mystical Transformation of the Righteous into Light in Judaism," JSJ226 (1995) 122-44. In beiden Arbeiten müßte deutl icher zwischen einer vorügehenden und einer f inalen Verwandlung (so vor a l lem die Texte bei Sme

unterschieden werden.4 2 Da s will ich fü r ein frü he res Stad ium nicht aus sch ließe n. D aß jetzt a

Mose und Elija mit Jesus reden, unterstreicht nur seine Gleichrangigkeit ; vgl. Apk.Soph. 14:3-4; Asc. Jes. 7:6-7.

4 3 Fossu m, "As censio , M etam orph osis ," 83.4 4 Eb d. 72, 79, 82.4 5 Üb erzeug end sind S. 73-74 Tg. Ps 69:19; Sifre Deut. §357 (zu Deut 34:1-

12) und Par.; Ps.-Philon, LAB 12:1; 32:9; dazu spätere sam ari tanisch e Ü berl ie-

ferungen. Ohler ("Die Verklärung," 205 Anm. 26) möchte nur zwei Stel len TehR anerkennen.



So werde Jesus nicht nur verwandelt , sondern auch in sein Amt alGottes Prophet-König ins tal l ier t mit dem implizi ten Auftrag, GottesWillen zu proklamieren (83) . In neuerer Zei t is t aber mit Rechtbestri t ten worden, daß die an die Jünger gerichtete Gottesrede V. 7als Ins tal lat ion zu vers tehen is t .4 6 Noch einmal: Es geht um dieOffenbarung dessen , was Jesus schon is t . Diese hat f re i l ich d ieFunk t ion , d ie h in te r s e iner Bo tschaf t s t ehende Autor i t ä t zuverdeutl ichen.

Unabhängig von Fossum und vom Mose-Paradigma hat neuerdingM. Ohler versucht , die ganze Motivik (Berg, Verwandlung, Begeg

nung mit Himmelsbewohnern, Zel te , Präsentat ion als gel iebter SohnGot tes ) in den Kontex t von En t rückung bzw. Himmels re i se zus t e l l en ;4 7 er bemerkt aber zum Schluß mit Recht , daß von einerEntrückung Jesu in den Himmel gar nicht die Rede ist . Es fehlen dieda fü r chara kter is t i schen Term ini , der Blick in den Him m el , e ineNotiz über die Rückkehr. Um dennoch Gewinn aus seinen Funden zuziehen, behi lf t s ich Ohler mit e inem kühnen sal to mortale: Das

entscheidend Neue unseres Ber ichtes gegenüber ähnl ichen andernbestehe dar in , daß die Reise in den Himmel in ein "Kommen desHimmels auf die Erde" t ransponier t werde: "Gottes Gegenwart wirdvon den Jüngern auf Erden er leb t und d ient zum Aufweis derhimmlischen Identi tä t Jesu" (215) . Im Ergebnis is t er somit nichtweit entfernt von meinem Vorschlag:

Die Verwandlung als Moment einer EpiphanieGerade weil in der vorangehenden Deutung die Verwandlung Jesu

nicht befriedigend der Sinnspitze in V. 7 zugeordnet wird, habe ichin meinem Aufsa tz4 8 auf d ie e ingangs erwähnte Lösung von M.Dibel ius zurückgegriffen und versucht , die Verklärung innerhalb dere l ig ionsgesch ich t l i chen Kategor ie "Ep iphan ie e ines Got tes inmenschl icher Ges ta l t"4 9 zu verstehen, bei der der Gestaltwandel eine

4 6 Vg l. schon Ha rnack (s.o. An m. 6) 76 A nm . 3; zuletzt M . Fren sch ko w sk iOffenbarung und Epiphanie I I (W U N T 2.80; Tüb ingen : M ohr [Siebeck], 1996)186; das is t auch gegen die von U. B. Müller ( ' "Sohn Gottes ' ," s . Anm. 31angeführten Parallelen aus Ps.-Philon, LAB, zu sagen.

4 7 Ohler, "D ie Verk lärung"; er schreibt in Kenn tnis des Au fsatzes von Gerber.4 8 Ze l le r, "L a m étam orp ho se ," 179-81; unab hän gig von mir kom m t d ie

Mainzer Disserta t ion von M. Frenschkowski ff en b run g und Epiphanie II, 184-

87) zum selben Ergebnis.4 9 Zu r griech ischen Vo rstellung vgl. F. Pfister, "E pip ha nie ," PRE.S 4 (1924)



wesentl iche Rolle spiel t . Wie man dieses Modell bei der heidechr is t l ichen Formul ierung der Menschwerdung (vor a l lem in P2,6ff ) benutz te ,5 0 so konnte man sich seiner bedienen, um mitten imLeben Jesu an ihm gött l iche Herr l ichkei t aufbl i tzen zu lassen. AEnde einer "verborgenen Epiphanie," bei der Götter s ich in mensliehe Gestalt hüllen, steht häufig eine Szene, in der sie sich in ihGöt t l i chke i t zu e rkennen geben .5 1 Die in unscheinbarer Ges ta l tErschienenen wachsen zu unheimlicher Größe, s t rah len vor jugel icher Schönheit ; ihre Gesichtsfarbe wechsel t , ihre Augen leuchtih re p räch t igen Gewänder duf ten . D ie Menschen reag ie ren mErschrecken (vgl . V. 6b) . Manchmal suchen s ie auch die Erschnung mit s innlosen Vorschlägen aufzuhal ten wie Petrus in V. 55 2

Was in den weißen Gewändern und im Verkehr mit Mose und Elzum Ausdruck kommt, spr icht dann die Wolkenst imme aus: Jesus ein himmlisches Wesen. "Sohn Gottes" hat hier gewiß von 8:29 hmess ianischen Klang. Zugle ich verb indet s ich damit aber übmenschliche Schönheit und Lichtglanz wie bei Joseph, der JosAs 6

"Sohn Gottes" bekannt wird, wie bei dem Totenrichter, von dem Abr. Re z. A 12:5 sagt: "a w on dr ou s man , brig ht as the sun, like una son of God."5 3 Das bedeutet "engelgleich." Natürlich is t dann noc

277-323 . Frenschkowsk i , Offenbarung und Epiphanie II hat den Un tertitel Dieverborgene Epiphanie in Spätantike und frühem Christentum, zeigt anh and vonGenesis 18, daß die Kategorie nicht auf die griechisch-römische Antike beschrist und liefert ein reiches Motivrepertoire.

5 0 Vgl . D. Zel le r, "D ie M ens ch we rdu ng des So hn es Go t tes im Ne uTestament und die ant ike Rel igionsgeschichte ," in ders . (Hg.) , MenschwerdungGottes—Vergöttlichung von Menschen (NT OA 7; Fr ibourg : Univers i tä t sver lag ,Gött ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht , 1988) 141-76, 160-63, und U. B. MüDie Menschw erdung des Gottessohnes (SBS 140, Stut tgart : Ka thol ische s Bib el-werk, 1990); vgl. ders. , Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (T H K NT 11 .1 ;Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt , 1993) 93-95.

5 1 Vg l . F r e n s c h k o w s k i , Offenbarung und Epiphanie II , 75 -76 , und dasScholion zu Homer, Ilias 2.791 : "Bei den sich verw ande lnden Göttern ist es ü blichbeim Weggehen ein Zeichen zur Erkenntnis zu hinterlassen"; ähnl ich Ovid, Met.1.220: signa dedi venisse deum. Während die Engel Gottes im Alten Testament ananderen Zeichen nachträglich manifest werden, haben wir in Herrn. Vis. 5:1-4 undCH 1.1-5 dem Neuen Testament nahe Texte , in denen die Erkenntnis duMetamorphose ausgelöst wird.

5 2 So in atl .-jüdisc hen Be ispielen , wenn körperlosen Engeln Esse n ode r

Lager angeboten wird: vgl. Ri 13:15-16; T. Abr. Rez. A 4.5 3 Üb ers etzu ng von E. P. San ders in J . H. Ch arles wo rth (Hg.) , The Old



einmal ein Schrit t von solchen "Söhnen Gottes" zu einem singuläre"Sohn Gottes ," der aus himmlischem Milieu s tammt. Er wurde kauinnerhalb des f rühen Judenchris tentums getan.5 4

Ein Einwand wird natür l ich sofor t laut : Solche Selbstenthüllungö t t l i cher Wesen s teh t gewöhnl ich am Ende ih res ve rdeck tenWandels auf Erden. Dagegen bedeutet Jesu Verklärung nicht schoseine Rückkehr in die himmlische Welt, sondern währt nur kurz. Dahängt jedoch damit zusammen, daß hier eine ursprünglich für Himmelsbewohner geprägte Vors te l lung auf e inen i rd ischen Menscheübertragen worden is t . Dafür lassen s ich einige hel lenis t ische—un

nur so lche—Analogien beibr ingen. Vor a l lem habe ich d ie a l tLegende vom goldenen Schenkel des Pythagoras ins Feld geführder ihn als den Hyperboreischen Apoll ausweis t .5 5 Zwar muß mansich ihn wohl als von Geburt an vorhandene Markierung seineG ött l ich ke i t vors tel len, aber er wird auch nur fü r einen M om enentblößt . Besonders interessant für die A bfo lge M essias bek enn tnis—V erk läru ng sep isod e is t e ine Vers ion der Pyth ago rasg esch ichte , d

e ine anonyme, v ie l le ich t auf Herakl ides Pont icus zurückgehendQuel le (be i Iambl ich , Vit. Pyth. 91-93) bietet : Abaris , der Dienerdes H ype rbo re isc hen A pol l , t r i ff t mi t Pytha gora s zu sam m en unfindet in ihm den Gott , dessen Priester er war. Der Weise "zog, alwäre er wirklich der Gott selbst , den Abaris beiseite und zeigte ihse inen go lden en Sche nkel zum Z eichen da für , daß er s ich n ichgetäuscht hatte." Die Szene im Abseits hat ähnlich wie die auf de

Berg die Funktion, ein vorausgehendes Bekenntnis zu bestätigen.Weiter habe ich auf Beispiele aus Biographien über neuplatonischPhi losophen verwiesen ;5 6 sie liegen mehr auf der Linie von PhilonsBeschreibung prophetischer Ekstase: Der Geis t , d ie Einhei t mit de

Testament Pseudepigrapha , vol. 1 (A BR L: Garde n City: Do ubled ay, 1983) 889.5 4 D aß ma n im jüdis che n De nke n nicht so leicht eine "W ese nsg leich heit d

Messias mit den Engeln" behaupten kann, habe ich in "La métamorphose," 173-gegen M. Mach, "Christus Mutans," in I . Gruenwald u .a . (Hg.) , Messiah andChristos (D. Flusser Fes tschrift ; TS AJ 32; Tü bing en: Moh r [Siebeck ], 1992) 1798, darzutun versucht.

5 5 Vgl. die "La mé tam orph ose," 181-83, angeg ebenen Quellen.5 6 Ebd. S. 183-85; vgl. jetzt auch Fren sch kow ski, Offenbarung und Epiphanie

II , 185 A nm . 153. Na chz utrag en is t d ie V erw and lun g geringere n Grad es, dHip pok rates (Brief 17, Lit tré IX 378, entstanden um die Ze itenw end e) an De mo

nach dessen großer Rede bemerkt: "Er erschien als einer von gött l icher Gestavergessen war sein früheres Aussehen."



Gött l ichen, macht s ich im Äußeren eines Plot in , Alypios , ProkloIs idor, bemerkbar, vor a l lem im Strahlen der Augen und deGesichtes . Für die Verwandlung der Kleider nach Markus besondeinteressant is t ein Gerücht, das sich um Jamblich rankte: Abgesondevon seinen Schülern soll er beim Gebet nicht nur eine erstaunlichLévi ta t ion er fahren haben, ne in auch se in Leib und das Gewanwandelten s ich angeblich zu goldener Schönheit (Eunapios , Vit. Phil.458 ) . W ie das We iß der Kle ider im jüdisc hen Bere ich d ie Z ugehörigkeit zum Göttl ichen signalisiert , so das Gold im griechischeZugegeben, nur Lukas s i tuier t die Verklärung Jesu beim Gebet; s i

zeigt auch etwas an, was Jesus schon ist, nicht was er erst im Kontami t dem Göt t l i chen und be i zunehmender Verge i s t igung wi rdInsofe rn kommt das "mytho log ischere" Be isp ie l des Py thagoranäher an die neutestamentliche Perikope heran als diese ohnehin erim 4 . /5 . Jh . n iedergeschr iebenen Zeugnisse . Die Deutung unsereJesusgeschichte von hel len is t i schen Analogien aus wird a l lerd ingers t von einem Gesamtbild markinischer Chris tologie her plausibe

wie es je tzt Frenschkowski vorlegt .5 7

Auf alle Fälle verwendet er fürsein K onz ept äl tere , jüd isc h-a po ka lyp tisc he E leme nte, aber er orgnis ier t s ie , wie Ohler r icht ig beobachtet hat , auf unkonventionelWeise zu e inem neuen Sinnzusammenhang. Wir gre i fen zum Schlunur ein umstr i t tenes Moment heraus: das Erscheinen von Eli ja mMose. Kurz sol l skizzier t werden, welchen Sinn es für ihn gehabhaben könnte und wie es sich mit den vorgetragenen Interpretatione

ver t rägt .

DER SINN VON V. 4 INSBESONDERE

Es ist deutlich, daß das Erscheinen der beiden Prominenten aus dGeschichte Israels indirekt etwas über Jesus aussagen soll , mit desie ins Gespräch treten. Aber was?

(a) W eithin aufg eg eb en is t die f rüh er erw oge ne M öglich kei t , da

s ie das Schrif tz eug nis fü r Jesus , bes tehen d aus "G esetz und Pro phten," verkörpern. Für die Schrif tpropheten wäre Eli ja ein schlechtRepräsentant . Höchstens Lukas mag die beiden Figuren so aufgefahaben, wenn er s ie über den "Ausgang Jesu in Jerusalem" reden lä(9:31; vgl. 24:25-27, 44-45).

(b) Mehr Anhalt im Text (V. 7d) und seiner Umgebung (Vv. 9-13

5 7 S . 197-98 mein t e r, daß M arkus e ine Präex is tenzch r i s to log ie in statu

nascendi impliziere. Das war mir (in "L a m éta m orp ho se," 174-75) nicht so greifb a



hat eine andere Sicht : Danach is t Mose der Prototyp des eschatolog isch en Pro ph eten nac h D eut 18:15, 18, Elija aber der V or läu fdes Tages Jahwes nach Mal 3 :23-24 oder gar des Mess ias nachchris t l icher Anschauung. Ihr Erscheinen bedeutet dann: Die Endzeist da, und mit ihr der erwartete Prophet wie Mose bzw. der MessiaAbgesehen davon, daß d ie Funkt ionen der be iden e twas ungle ica u s f a l l e n ,5 8 is t ihr Z usa m m en in der jüd isch en T radit io n so nichtp r ä f o r mie r t .5 9 Aus der Reaktion des Petrus "Es ist gut, daß wir hiers ind" zu schl ießen, kommt es auch weniger auf die eschatologischQualif ikation der Zeit , als auf den Ort an: der Himmel senkt sic

gleichsam auf den Berg.Andere Autoren suchen e ine Gemeinsamkei t zwischen El i ja un

Mose:(c) Beide hat ten auf einem Berg eine Theophanie.6 0 Doch was hat

das mit Jesus zu tun, der selbst keine Gottesschau erfährt? Wird docGöttl ichkeit an ihm selber anschaulich.

(d) Unter der Vorausse tzung, daß Mose und El i ja ebenso " in

Herr l ichkei t" erscheinen wie Jesus ,6 1 wird derzei t e ine Alternat ivefavoris ier t : Wie das Alte Testament von der Entrückung des Eli jerzäh l t , so scheint auch ein Tei l der jüd isch en T radit ion M os e eiähnl iches Ende zugeschr ieben zu haben.6 2 Er wird in die Gemein-schaft mit Gott versetzt (Philon), verschwindet plötzlich (Josephussteht bei Gott und dient ihm (tannaitische Stimmen). Die Mehrheder Rabbinen kann freil ich das in der Bibel bezeugte Sterben nich

umgehen; das er laubt höchstens eine Aufnahme seiner Seele . El i jund Mose a ls notor ische menschl iche Himmelsbewohner—sie kön

5 8 Liefeld ("Theological M otifs") weist M ose primär eine typologische, Eleine eschatologische Rolle zu.

5 9 Es nützt we nig, an die A bfo lge von M al 3:22, 23 -24 zu erinn ern. Do rt stezwar die Einschärfung des Gesetzes des Mose neben der Ankündigung des komenden Elija, aber Mose ist nur als Gesetzgeber in der Vergangenheit anvisiert.

6 0 So zuletzt Gu ndry , Mark, 459.6 1 Da s exp liziert zw ar erst Lk 9:31 a; aber auch die Gle ich stellu ng der dr

Gestalten in V. 5 legt einen ähnlichen Zustand nahe. Gegen Gundry, Mark, 478.6 2 Vgl . K. Haa cker und P. Schäfe r, "Nac hbibl ische Tradi t ionen vom To d d

Mose," in O. Betz u.a. (Hg.), Josephus-Studien (O. M ichel Fests chrift ; Gö ttinge n:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht , 1974) 147-74; B. Ego, "Der Diener im Palast dhimmlischen Königs," in M. Hengel und A. M. Schwemer (Hg.) , Königsherr-schaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult (W U N T 55; Tüb ingen: Moh r [Siebeck], 1991)

361-84, bes. 374-78; J . E. Fossum, The Name of the God and the Angel of theLord (W U N T 36, Tü bing en: M ohr [Siebeck], 1985) 131-36.



ten zu Jesus in den weißen Kleidern passen. Noch besser hätte sif rei l ich Henoch als Par tner des entrückten Eli ja geeignet . Wenn dVerklärungsgeschichte diese Weiterentwicklung der Mosehaggada abekannt annimmt, is t s ie eher im gr iechischsprechenden Judenchritentum ents tanden als in der aramäischsprechenden Urgemeinde.6 3

J . E. Fossum hat diese Deutung in seine Aufst iegshypothese eigebaut; nach ihm bilden die beiden Erscheinenden das Äquivalent den zwei h immlischen Wesen, d ie auch sons t den Aufs te igendebegle i ten .6 4 Aber da von einem Aufstieg Jesu nach V. 2b nicht mehrdie Rede ist , läßt s ie sich mindestens ebensogut in meinen Vorschlainteg r ieren : Mo se und Eli ja ersc hein en als V ertrete r der h im m lsehen Welt , in die der Verwandelte einbezogen wird. Die Wolkens t imme s te l l t dann k lar, daß er ihr ursprungsmäßig , a ls "SohGot tes ," zugehör t .6 5

S C H L U S S F O L G E R U N G E N

Der Überbl ick über die neuere Forschung hat keine Gesamtlösunzutage geförder t , d ie s ich zwingend aufdrängt . Die Mose-Typologerwies s ich gerade am Mk-Text a ls ungenügend; d ie FossumschThese will s ie retten, indem sie sie in den weiteren Rahmen demyst ischen Aufs t iegs von Offenbarungsempfängern s te l l t ; s ie s töaber auf Bedenken, insofern Markus weder einen Aufst ieg in deHimmel noch e ine ausdrück l iche E inse tzung zum Offenbarungm ittler beric htet . Da s erstere tr iff t auch den Ve rsuc h von O hler. DVerklärung er fo lg t zur Aufklärung der Jünger über Jesu verborgnes Wesen. Deshalb bot s ich ein Vers tändnis aus dem Motivkomplder Epiphanie an. Die Begründung muß al lerdings z .T. mit späteVergleichstexten arbei ten (das gi l t im übrigen auch für Fossumsam ari tanisch e Paral lelen und seine jüdisch en M idrasch im), die danoch aus dem hel len is t i schen Raum s tammen. Diese Schwier igkeläßt s ich entschärfen, wenn man damit rechnet , daß Markus ein

vor gefu nde ne Geschichte aus jüdisch-hel len ist i schem Chr is ten tum seinem Sinne umgestal tet hat . Weiter als zu einer judenchris t l ichellenistischen Erzählung, die zudem in ihren Umrissen und in ihrBedeutung unscharf bleibt , kommt man al lerdings nicht zurück. S

6 3 Da s folge rt auch M üller, "D ie christo logisc he A bsi ch t" (s. A nm . 1) 183-86 4 Fossu m, "Asc ensio , M etam orph osis , " 89-90 . Er z i ti e rt Ev. Petr. 12.39;

Herrn. Vis. 1.4.3; Mart. Mt. 30; s. auch die Anm. 23 gegebenen Hinweise.6 5 So auch Ohler, "Die Ve rkläru ng," 206-20 7.



zeigen sich an unserem Beispiel auch die Grenzen des Authenticatingthe Activities of Jesus.





JE S US , T HE M E S S I AH OF I S R AE L

T H E D E B A T E A B O U T T H E M E S S I A N I C M I S S I O N O F J E S U S*

Mart in Hengel

Χ ρ ίσ τ ο ? IN PA U L1

Paul , the ear l iest Ch ris t ian author, g ives Jesu s the nam e C hr is to s

some 270 t imes. A few texts may retain , at most , a g l immer of i tst i tular use in the sens e of M essiah , T he An oin ted O ne , but as a rulethe com pou nd nam e Ίη σ ο ΰ ? Χ ρισ τό? has comp le te ly abso rbed thet i tle ό χρ ισ τό? — th e re is only one Χ ρ ισ τό?, th is very Jesu s w ho wa scrucified. The t i t le has become fully a part of his name.

In Paul 's Bible, the LXX, the si tuation is very different. There theverbal ad je c t ive χρ ισ τό? , t rans la tes , the An oin ted One, som e

37 t imes—the Anointed of God, i .e. ei ther the king or the priest .Fo r Greek , however, χριστό? would no t have been used wi th refer-

enc e to person s. Th e neutral χρ ισ τόν m eant rub bing oin tm en t , andνβ ό χρ ισ το? newly p las te red .2 T he new name Χ ρισ τό? was so un -usual that non-J ews confu sed it wi th the com m on slave nam e Χ ρή σ το?.3

Th is Χ ρ ισ τό? as a persona l nam e for Jesus was al ready in use longbefore the let ters of Paul, e.g. in Rome, and above all in Antioch,

where barely ten years af ter the death of Jesus the Chris t ians weredes crib ed as Χ ρισ τια νο ί.4 Th is m ean s that they ch ang ed the t i tle T he

* I wish to thank Paul A. Ca they for translating my essa y, wh ich ap pe are d inan earlier form in German in I . Gruenwald et al. (eds.) , Messiah and Christos (D.Flusser Fes tschr i f t ; TSAJ 32; Tü bin gen : M oh r [Siebeck] , 1992) 155-76. It i s thesum m ary o f a mu ch l a rge r s tudy, The El i sabe th - Jam es Lec tu res 1991 in Ca rd i f f ,publ ished in i t s fu l le r form in my col lec t ion , Studies in Early Christology ( Ed i n -bur gh: T. T. Cla rk , 1995) 1-72 . T he pres ent , br ie fer fo rm of th is s tudy is as l ight ly revised and updated vers ion of what appeared in W. R. Farmer (ed .) , Crisis in Christology: Essays in Quest of Resolution (Livonia : Do ve, 1995) 217 -40.

1 See my Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (L ond on : SC M Press , 1983) 65-7 7, 179-88.

2 LS J 1170.3 Sue ton ius , Claudius 25 .4 ; c f . Tac i tus , Annals 15.4: Chrestiani.4 See M. Heng el and A. M. Schw em er, Paul Between D amascus and Antioch:

The Unknown Years (Lo ndon : SC M Press ; Lou isv i l l e : W es tm ins te r John Knox



An ointe d On e in to a nam e within an astonishin gly br ief per iod, andthereb y usu rped it exclusive ly fo r their Lo rd, Jesus of Na zareth .

A cco rd in g ly , we f ind severa l t ime in Pau l the fo rm ula , Ch r is td ied for us . 5 We can st i l l d iscern in th is formula t races of theoriginal ly t i tu lar meaning, for at the center of the new message wasthis: i t was the sinless Messiah the esch ato lo g ica l em issar y andsav i o r — n o t mer e l y a su f f e r i n g r i g h t eo u s man o r p r o p h e t — w h osacr i f iced his l i fe fo r the m an y. Th us Paul spea ks of [ the] Chris tcru cif ied as the conten t of h is prea chin g. The bipar t i te for m of thenam e, the fami l iar Ίη σ ο ΰ ? Χ ριστός, as well as the Χ ρισ τό? ' Ιησούς

prefer red by Paul , were or ig inal ly fo rmula ic confess ions . ' ΙησούςΧ ρ ισ τ ό ς der ives f ro m , Jesu s the M ess iah , w he rea sΧ ριστός ' Ιησούς or iginal ly was probably used analogously to thecry of acclamation κύριος Ίησους .

That Paul was perfect ly acquainted with the Old Testament-Jewishconcept ions bound up with the messianic name 'Ιησούς Χ ρισ τός canbe seen f rom any number o f tex ts : thus , the reference to Jesus '

desc ent f r om the seed of D av id (Ro m 1:3-4) . Son of Dav id wa s anepithet for the Messiah. To be numbered here as well is the rehearsalof the salvat ion -histor ical pr iv i leges of Israel (R om 9:3-5): . . . m ykin sm en by race . . . are Israel i tes , and to them belon g the sons hip ,the g lo ry, t he covenan t s . . . t he worsh ip , and the p rom ises . . . t hepatr iarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is [the] Christ.

The descent of Chris t f rom Israel forms a cl imax to th is ser ies .

For Paul Chris t is the Messiah promised to Israel—to be sure hissalvif ic work has universal s ignif icance. At the end of Romans (15:7-13) he t reats th is quest ion: Jews and Gent i les in Rome ought tow elc om e one ano ther as Chris t has we lco m ed you, fo r the glory ofGod. For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcisedto show God 's t ru thfu lness , in o rder to conf i rm the promises g ivento the patriarchs . . . .

W i th th i s Ch r is t bec am e a servan t to the c i r cu m cis i on , Pau lref ers to the m ess ian ic m inis t ry of the ear th ly Jes us to his ow npeople, through which the t ru th of God 's promises to the patr iarchs(and la ter to the prophets) becomes mani fes t : God has p romisednothing in the messianic prophecy of Scripture that he does not keep

Press , 1997) 225-30 , 4541-56 .5 R om 5:8; cf. 5:6; 14:9, 15; 1 Co r 8:11; 15:3; 2 Co r 5:15 ; 1 Th es s 5:1 0; Ga l

2 :21; Pet 3:18.



(cf . R om 11:28-29) . On the o ther hand , the G en t i l es ' acce ss tosalvat ion in Chris t resul ts f rom his f ree mercy, and for th is reasonthey ought to give God the glory.

An adopt ionist Chris to logy, f i rs t val id via the resurrect ion, was animpossible idea for Paul . This can be seen not only in Paul 's pre-ex i s t ence- and m iss ion - Chr i s to logy ,6 but also in that the earthlyJesus, i .e. the Crucified One, is already Kyrios;7 i t is also apparent inthe account of the insti tution of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:23-25):Jesus dedicates the fruits of his death to his disciples; i .e. alreadybefore his death , as Kyrios, he promises them ful l salvat ion. Paul

holds in common with all the Gospels the certainty that Jesus was theMessiah of Israel promised in Scripture. Even in John Jesus acquireshis f i rs t d isciples because they recognize and confess h im to be theMessiah of Israel .

He re the qu estion necessari ly arises: D oe s this co nfe ssio n of Jes usas Messiah of Israel have anything to do with the real person ofJes us , his m inis try and dea th, or is i t co nf in ed mer ely to i ts late r

in f luence Wirkungsgeschichte) in the post-E aster co m m un it ies ?

T H E P R E - PA U L I N E T R A D I T I O N A N D T H E R E S U R R E C T I O N O F J E S U S

T he t ransi t ion of the t it le M es sia h in to a nam e, and its fu sio nwith the person of Jesus, happened already early on in the crossoverof the gospel f rom the Aramaic in to the Greek language sphere. Thede scri ptio n of the A ntio che ne follo we rs of Jes us as Χ ρ ισ τια νο ί (Acts11:26) presupposes th is as long since accomplished. Presumably, thecon fess ion al fo r m ula Jesus i s the M ess ia h , by v i r tue of con s tan tuse, gave rise of i tself , so to speak, to a permanent name both amongChr is t ians , who thereby emphasized tha t on ly one could bear th isname, and their Gent i le audi tors , who were not par t icular ly conver-sant with the language of Jewish piety.

This also means, however, that th is confession was fundamental to

the ear l iest community in Jerusalem. The persecut ion of the ear ly

6 M. Henge l , The Son of God (London: SCM Press ; Phi ladelphia : For t ress ,1976) 48-56, 66-83; idem, Präexis tenz bei Pau lus? in C. La ndm ess er et a l. (eds .) ,Jesus Ch ristus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Herm eneutik des Evangeliums(O. Hof ius Fes tschr i f t ; B ZN W 86; Ber l in : de Gru yter, 1997) 479 -518 .

7 1 Co r 7 :10 ; 9 :1 ; c f . 1 Th ess 4 :5 . See He nge l , Between D amascus and

Antioch, 120-21, 394 -95 nn. 632 -40, 275 -76 , 48 4-8 5 nn. 1436-41; idem , The Sonof God, 77 -84 .



Church in Je rusa lem s tems f rom th i s ve ry confess ion o f Jesus o fNazare th as the c ruc i f i ed Mess iah whom God had r i sen f rom thedeath .

The connec t ion i s inseparab le be tween the appearances o f Jesus ,which es tabl i shed the new messianic communi ty of d isc ip les , and theproc lamat ion o f the c ruc i f i ed Mess iah by the messenger s whom hehim sel f auth or ize d, the apo st les of the M essia h , Jes us .8 H o w e v e r ,the re i s no p roof wha tever fo r the cur ren t suppos i t ion9 that in thebeg i nn i ng the con f e s s i on G o d r a ised Je su s f r o m t h e d e ad s t oo da l on e—t he appea r ances o f J e sus be i ng u nde r s t oo d m er e l y a s t he

be g in n ing o f the genera l r esur r ec t io n— an d on ly a f t e r a secon dar yl eve l o f r e f l ec t i on , was t he Resu r r ec t ed One p r o c l a i m ed a s t h eMess i ah . How a r e we t o sup pose t h i s t o have happen ed? Af t e rw ai t ing va in ly fo r the gen era l r esur rec t ion , d id so m eo ne pe rha pssud de nly d is co ve r the m essia hsh ip of Je sus ' as the solu t ion to thed i l em m a? Wer e t he beg i nn i n gs o f e a r l y Ch r i s t i an i t y b a sed o n atwofo ld se l f -decep t ion?

No, the cer ta in ty that Jesus ' resur rect ion a lso meant h is exal ta t ionas Messiah-Son of Man to the r ight hand of God was ra ther a d i rectc o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e a p p e a r a n c e s ; f o r t h e c o m m i s s i o n i n g o f t h ed i sc ip les as messenger s o f the Mess iah was connec ted wi th these .1 0

Their task was to procla im Jesus as the Messiah of I srael , and too f f e r t he peo p l e a f i na l oppo r t u n i t y f o r r epe n t an ce . T h e an c i e n tc o n f e s s i o n , G o d r a is e d J e s u s f r o m t h e d e a d , o n l y b e c a m e a

m ea n i n g f u l pa r t o f t he p r oc l am a t i on b eca u se it o r i g i na l l y s t o odbes ide the con fess ion Jesus i s the M ess iah . Th e me re r ev iv i f i ca t ionof a person or, as the case may be, his t ranslat ion into the heavenlyr ea l m , e s t ab l i shed ne i t he r m ess i a n i c m a j e s t y no r e sch a t o l og i ca lmission, nor could i t , of i tself , supply the content of a message ofsa lvat ion .

He re it is pop u la r to r e fe r to two ado p t ion i s t s t a t em ents , R om

1:3-4 and Acts 2:36.1 1

H ow ev er R om 1:4 do es not say that the So npossessed no messianic c la im pr ior to the resur rect ion; ra ther, th is i sr e fe r r ing to the en th ronement o f the Son o f God in h i s fu l l

8 1 Cor : ; cf . 2 C or 1:1; 11:13; Eph 2 :1; Col 1:1.9 See , e .g . , J . Be cke r, Auferstehung der Toten im Urchristentum (SB S 82;

Stut tgar t : Kathol isches Bibelwerk , 1976) 14-15,28.

1 0 1 C or 9:1; 15:1-8; Gal 1:15-16; Ac ts 1:8; M att 28:1 9-2 0; John 20 :21.1 1 See Hen ge l , The Son of God, 59- 66; cf . also Ac ts 13:33.



eschatological majesty and power. This i s val id for Acts 2 :36. Thist ex t—formula ted by Luke—expresses no t an adop t ion i s t Chr i s to logy,but a radical vo l te- fa ce of the po w ers that be : G od ma de him w hohad been cru ci f ie d on the acc urse d t ree to be Lo rd and A no inte d ;i .e . , he ins ta l led h im in h is esc ha tolo gic al o ff ic e as the Lo rd andJudge. That an adopt ionis t Chr is to logy in the fu l les t sense—i.e . , inwhich Jesus is not regarded as the Messiah unti l his Passion, this f i rstb e i n g e s t ab l i shed t h r oug h t he r e su r r ec t i o n — eve r ex i s t ed in ea r l yChr is t iani ty seems to me more than doubtful .

J e w i s h Religionsgeschichte prese nts an addi t iona l pro ble m T o be

sure , we have accounts of the t ransla t ion of cer ta in r ighteous men,and we hear a lso of i so la ted instances of resur rect ion . But that ar i gh t eou s m an v i a r e su r r ec t i o n f r o m t he dead was app o i n t ed a sM ess i a h , is ab so l u t e l y w i t hou t an a l o gy. Ne i t he r r e su r r ec t i on n o rt r an s l a t i o n ha ve any t h i n g t o d o w i t h m ess i ahs h i p . I ndee d , t h esu ffe r in g r igh teo us m an a t t a ins a p lac e of hon or in Para d i se , bu tthere i s never any ques t ion o f mess ian ic majes ty and t r ansfe r o f

eschatological funct ions in th is connect ion.If J e su s n eve r poss e s sed a m e ss i an i c co n sc i ou s n e ss o f d i v i ne

m ission, nor spo ke of the com ing, or presen t , Son of M an , nor wasexe cu t e d a s a m ess i an i c p r e t en de r — as is m a i n t a i n e d by r ad i ca lc r i t i c i sm un t roub led by h i s to r i ca l a rguments—then the emergence o fC hr is to log y, inde ed, the ent i re early h is tory of pr im i t ive Ch r is t iani ty,i s incomprehensible . But th is i s not a l l—al l four gospels , and above

al l the Passion nar ra t ive as thei r most ancient component , would be acu r iou s prod uc t of the imagin at ion v ery d i ff icu l t to exp la in , for theMessiah quest ion is at the center of them al l . When al l is said anddone: i f the eleven disciples with Peter at their head, on the basis ofthe app ea ra nc es o f the r es ur r ec ted Jes us so d i f f i c u l t fo r us tocom p r eh end , and com pl e t e l y unp r om pt ed , r eached t h e v i ew t ha tJesus was the Son of Man exal ted to God, knowing that in real i ty he

had been merely a procla imer of the k ingdom of God, a rabbi and apro phe t , kn ow ing noth ing of escha tological off ic es , d id they not thenc o m p l e t e l y f a l s i f y t h e p u r e ( a n d s o u n m y t h o l o g i c a l l y m o d e r nsounding) intent ion of their master? Is i t not the case that not onlyJudas , bu t a l so the d i sc ip les , wa l lowing in mess ian ic mytho logyaga i n s t t he i r m as t e r ' s w i l l , we r e—vi ewed h i s t o r i ca l l y—at bo t t ombetrayers of Jesus , s ince they misunders tood his cause as thoroughlyas it could po ssib ly be m isund ers to od?

On the o ther hand , s ince human be ings a l so had memor ies then ,



wh y do we now her e f ind a p ro tes t aga ins t th is m ess ian ic f a l s i f i -ca t ion o f Jesus? A p ious venera t ion o f a su ffe r ing r igh teous Jesus ,who now (as wi th a l l the r ighteous) res ided wi th God, would haveg iven l ess o ff en se am on g the ir ow n comp at r io t s , and the imp end ingsepara t ion f rom Jud a i sm co u ld have been avo ided ( r e m oving a ll theco n te m po rar y d i ff i cu l t i es o f Jew ish-C hr i s t i an d ia log ue) . Bu t such aprotes t in favor of the true, unmessianic intention of Jesus is no-where attested.

T H E P R O B L E M I N T H E H I S TO RY O F R E S E A R C H

The doubts of the messianic cer ta in ty of Jesus ' se l f -unders tandingcan be t raced to a few nineteenth-century Li fe of Jesus researchers ,such as Volkmar and Schöl ten; these tended to be outs iders , however.Already in 1873, the ant i - Jewish Paul de Lagarde could a lso empha-t ical ly m ain tai n, tha t i t did not fal l to Je su s to pre sen t him self asM e s s i a h . 1 2 On the o ther han d, no less a Jew ish sch olar than Sa m ue lK raus s cou ld regard it as que st ionab le , w heth er Jesus regar ded h im -self in any sense a Messiah or spir i tual ruler ;1 3 But here and therethe direct ion is clear.

Wil l iam Wrede f i r s t se t the unmessianic Jesus in mot ion wi th h is1901 study Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien [The MessianicSecret in the Gospels], w i th the sub- t i t le Being a ContributionToward Understanding the Gospel of Mark.]A H e r eg ard ed themessianic secre t in the Gospel of Mark as an apologet ic const ruct ionof the Evange l i s t based par t ly in the communi ty ' s t r ad i t ion . Hec la ss i f i e s va r io us ma te r i a l und er the t e rm m ess ia n ic sec re t : no tonly Jesus ' prohibi t ion of the d isc ip les speaking about h is messiah-ship , but a lso the commands of s i lence to those who had been healed ,to the demons who knew h i s t rue iden t i ty, a l so the unbe l i e f o rincomprehension of the d isc ip les in var ious s i tuat ions , and f inal ly,the parable theory that Jesus only spoke in parables in order that the

1 2 H. J . Ho l tzm ann , Das messianische Bew ußtsein Jesu ( Tu b i n g e n : M o h r[Siebeck] , 1907) 4-6; P. de Lagarde , Deutsche Schriften (5 th ed . , Gö t t inge n: Die -terich, 1920) 58.

1 3 S . Krauss , Je su s , JE 4 (190 4) 163-64.1 4 W. W r e d e , Das Messiasgeheimn is in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag

zum Verständnis des Ma rkusevangeliums (Gö t t ingen : Va nden hoec k & Ru prech t ,

1901; 3rd ed . , 1963) ; e t : The Messianic Secret ( Ca m b r i d g e a n d Lo n d o n : J a m e sClarke , 1971) .



hear ts of the people might be hardened. To be sure , la ter invest iga-t ions have shown that th is ent i re complex cannot be t raced back to as ing le mot ive o f mask ing the unmess ian ic charac te r o f Jesus ' min i s -t ry, and reading post -Easter Chr is to logy in to h is h is tory. Rather, th isi s seen as a paradoxical s ty le device in tended to a l low the h idden

glo ry of the M essiah , w ho goes to the cross , to shine even br ighter.Leading New Testament scholars of the day more or less re jec ted

Wr ed e ' s hypo t hes i s . T he i r c r i t i c i sm f ocu sed ab ove a l l o n t h r eepoints : f i r s t , Wrede ' s denia l of the h is tor ic i ty of Peter ' s confession a tCaesarea Phi l ippi , second, h is unsat i sfactory t rea tment of the Passion

narrat ive, where in the t r ial before Pi late the Messiah quest ion standsat the center, and br ings Jesus to the cross, and third, his disregardof the re l ig ion-his tor ica l problem and the quest ion connected wi th i tco nce r n i n g how, t h r ough t he E as t e r v i s i o ns a l one , t he d i sc i p l e ssudden ly cou ld have made the unmess ian ic Jesus in to the heaven lySon of Man and Messiah . To th is l i s t one might add Wrede ' s fa i lureto r ecogn ize the impor tance o f the Gal i l ean- Jewish o r ig in o f Jesus

and his f i r s t hea rers and disc ip les . Th ese quer ies rem ain un res olv edto this day.1 5

I t must be said that these l iberal theologians were not par t icular lyin te res ted in Je su s ' me ss iahsh ip . For the i r en l igh tene d hu m an is t i cpic ture of Jesus i t was ra ther an embarrassment . W. Bousset refer redto th is problem:

Inad equa te as the conc ept ion s k ing dom of G od ' and jud gm ent , we re . . .

in l ight of Je su s ' p reac hing , so inad equ ate . . . a lso w as the t i tle M es si ahas an express ion of h is innermost be ing.1 6

He re on e m ight ra ise the objec t ion , W hy then did Jesu s m ake useof these messianic hopes a t a l l , so a l ien to h is innermost being—whydid he not re jec t th is concept ion ? Bousset answers:

Bec ause . . . i t was abso lu te ly necessa ry to h im. As the conce p t ions k ing-d o m o f G o d a n d j u d g m e n t we r e i n d i s p e n s a b l e f o r ma k i n g h i ms e l f

in te l l ig ib le to h is peop le , so a lso was the idea M ess iah indispe nsab le forun de rsta nd ing him self . . . Jesu s wan ted to be m ore than on e in a serie s . . .o f the Prophets . . . But according to the popular concept ion , th is [couldonly be] the M essiah . . . He fe lt h imse lf to be s tanding in a nea rne ss toGo d such as no one be fo re h im . . . He spoke wi th con f ide nce the f ina l ,

1 5 See my Studies in the Gospel of Mu rk (Phi ladelph ia : For t ress , 1985) 31-4 5.1 6

W . Bousse t , Jesus (Re l ig ionsg esch ich t l i che Volk sbüc her fü r d ie deu t sc hechr is t l iche Geg enw art 1. Ser. 2 /3 ; Hal le : Ge bau er-S chw etsch ke, 1904) 86 .



dec i s ive , wo rd , was conv inced tha t he was the pe r fec te r— af te r h im noneo the r wou ld come .1 7

Altho ugh B ou sse t ' s l anguage here has been in f luence d by Ca r ly le ' s1 8

model of heroic personal i ty venerat ion , he i s no less the exper t forJewish apocalypt ic and messianic expecta t ions , and grasped the actualhistor ical basis for the messianic secret in Mark bet ter than his f r iendWrede . One the o ther hand , i t mus t be admi t t ed tha t the l ibe ra ll i tera ture a t the turn of the century f requent ly shows a deep avers ionagainst the Jewish messianic hope. I t i s therefore unders tandable thatthe new discovery of the unmessianic Jesus a lso found an enthusias t icrecep t ion . The Heide lberg scho la r, Ada lber t Merx conc luded :

. . . tha t Yes hu a nev er c la im ed to be the M ess iah , tha t h is pro hibi t ing h isdisciples to declare him as the Messiah was not only temporary but absolute,and tha t consequen t ly Yeshua ' s t rue be ing wi l l r emain misunders tood aslong as Chr is t ians do not resolve to erase th is charac ter is t ic f rom his in te l -lectual mak e-u p just as [all other] apocalyp tic fana ticism .1 9

Willy Staerck c losed a s tudy on Jesus ' a t t i tude towards the JewishMessiah concept wi th a chal lenge:

Now let us also f inally be done with speaking of the messiahship of Jesus,pull ing him down into the atmosphere of eth nic religiosity . . . Jes us [is] notthe M ess iah , but . . . the Sav iour of the wo rld , throu gh the l ibera t ion ofre l ig ion f rom i ts bonds of mater ia l i sm, whether legal , cu l t ic or chauvinis t ic—in hoc signo vincemus\20

This false pathos is al ien to us today at the close of a century thatweighs par t i cu la r ly heav i ly on us Germans . But the r e jec t ion o f Jesus 'mess ian ic c l a im has r emained , a l though the r eason ing has changed . H.C on ze lm an n ' s sem inal ar t ic le , Jesus Ch r is tus , in the th i rd edi t ion ofthe RGG, is one exa m ple am ong ma ny. Co nze lma nn emp has ize s tha t

the quest ion conce rning Jesu s ' se lf con scio usn ess i s too quick ly a t-tached to the con cep t m essian ic con sciou sne ss and i s not [exhausted]

1 7 Bo u s s e t , Jesus, 87.1 8 For Bo usse t and Car ly le , see A. F. Ve rheu le , Wilhelm Bousset: Leben und

Werk. Eine theologiegeschichtlicher Versuch (Am ste rdam : Van Bo nen bur g , 1973)733-35. See the cr i t ique by J . Weiss , Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Gö t t in -gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht , 1892; 2nd ed . , 1900; 3rd ed . edi ted by F. Hahn,wi th in t roduc t ion by R. Bu l tmann , 1964) 56 ; e t : Jesus Proclamation of theKingdom of God (P hila delp hia: Fortres s, 1971; repr. Ch ico: Sch ola rs, 1985) 115.

1 9 Ve r h e u l e , Bousset, Ba nd II /2, 48 1.

2 0 W . Staerck , Jesu Ste l lung zum jüdisc hen Mess iasbegr i ff ,, ProtestantischeMonatshefte 6 (19 02 ) 309.



in the problem of whether and how J[esus] applied the Jewish christ-ological t i t le to himself .2 1 This is certainly correct . However, in theinvest igat ion of the t i t les he concludes that they al l der ive from" c o m m u n i t y t h e o l o g y, so " that Jesus ' se l f -unders tand ing i s no taccessible via the t i t les.22 Nor can the words in which Jesus speaks ofh is sen ding and com ing "b e for m ula t ed f ro m a re t rosp ect on h iscompleted min is t ry." However, he admi ts tha t , " the concept ions ofthe pr op he t and rabbi [ typ ify] only part ial aspec ts( ) , yet no thi ng ofthe center. Jesus understands himself as the final herald ("d er letzteRu fer" ) . . . fo r af ter h im no one e l se "co m es" bu t God h im sel f .2 3

Yet by his own interpretat ion—contra that s tatements of the pr imi-t ive Chris t ian texts—grave diff icul t ies must ensue, The final herald,after whom "no one else 'comes ' but God himself ," is not Jesus, butJohn the Bapt is t . I f Jesus were the "f inal cr ier" what then woulddist inguish him from the Bapt is t? The synopt ic accounts g ive a clearanswer. For example, in Q we f ind:

The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the

kin gd om of Go d is preac hed . . . (Luk e 16:16) . [From that t ime] the k ing-dom of heaven has been coming violently and men of violence take i t byfor ce (M att 11:12).

However, where the kingdom of God is breaking through, "God isalready coming, i .e. in Jesus' activity i tself . The treasure in the field,the pearl of great price, will be discovered now or not at al l , andapp rop riated by m ean s of a "vio lent" decisio n Jesus says noth ing of

a merely future "c om ing " of Go d. Th e p lea fo r the com ing of thek ingdom of God in the Lord ' s Prayer refers to p resen t and fu ture ,just as al l the other pleas. The future reserves only the revelation ofthe Son of Man, whatever Jesus may have meant by th is , and wil lm ak e m ani fes t the decis ion which is co nsu m m ated n ow rega rd in gJesus ' message. In contrast to the Bapt is t , the f inal and greatestprophet , Jesus br ings the eschatological fulfillment of the pro m ise:

Blessed are the eyes which see what you see, and the ears which hear whatyou h ear For I tell you that many prop hets and king s desired to see w hatyou see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it(Matt 13:16-17; Luke 10:23).

2 1 H . Co nze lma nn , " Jesus Chr i s tu s , " RGG 3 (3rd ed. , 1959) cols . 61 9-5 3;e t : Jesus (Ph ilade lph ia: Fortress , 1973).

2 2 Co nze lma nn, "Jesus Chr is tus ," 631 .

2 3 Co nzelm ann, "Jesus Chr is tus ," 633 (Co nze lma nn 's emp hasis) .





h e a v e n l y w o r l d f o r m e d one con t i n uum , we r e bo und t oge t he r an dcont inual ly inf luenced one another.

Th e t iming of the Escha ton is a lso var iable . In the zo om orp hic apo -ca lypse o f 1 Enoch the M ess iah is not born unt i l af ter G od him se lfhas des t royed the power o f the na t ions and passed judgment . Migh tnot th is order somet imes have been reversed? Psalms of Solomon 17al ready a t tes ts that the Messiah wi l l be the Spi r i t - f i l led teacher andju dg e o f h i s peop le . Th i s r e fu tes the a l l eged con t rad ic t ion , em ph as iz edch ie f ly by Vie lhauer, be tween Mess iah and k ingdom of God . Godsets up h is ru le through the k ing f rom David ' s house who, taught by

G od an d ar m ed w ith the gif ts of the Spir i t me ntio ne d in Isa 11:2-5,wi l l lead and ju dg e his peo ple in r ighte ous nes s .2 6 In T. Judah 24 w ef ind a non-war l ike Mess iah f rom Judah wi th an e th ica l o r i en ta t ion .A l o ngs i de t h i s , T. Levi 18 sp ea ks of the m es sia nic H igh Priest assav i o r. T he c i r cum s t ances o f p l ace and t i m e o f t he Mess i ah ' sappearance, h is concealment before h is publ ic minis t ry, the forms ofhis legi t im at ion thro ugh G od him sel f , throu gh a prop het l ike El i jah ,

o r coram publico and h i s coming in humi l i ty o r g lo ry, r emainastonishingly var iable in the la ter Messiah Haggada. Even the pre-ex i s t en ce M ess i a h , h i dden by G od , or t he su f f e r i n g an d dy i n gMessiah, are not absent .

The thesis that there i s no reference whatever to a pre-Chr is t iansu ffe r in g M ess ia h appe ar s que s t ion ab le in l igh t o f the m ess ian icfeatures of the LXX t ransla t ion of I sa iah 53, and Aramaic text f rom

Cave 4 concern ing an a ton ing r eve la to r.2 7

In fact , we have only veryfew pre-Chr is t ian messianic texts , which nonetheless a l ready show anas ton i sh ing var i e ty ; Qumran has s ign i f i can t ly inc reased these . Wenow know of the two Anointed f igures , the pre-eminent pr ies t ly, andthe Davidic . To th is may be added the eschatological ro le of Michael

26 Pss. Sol. 17:3-4 , 21 , 36- 37, 43 . See a lso the recent ly pu bl ish ed 4Q 36 9,

wh ich in 1 ii 5-8 speaks of som eon e ins t ruc ted by Go d: and you have mad e c learto h im your good jud gm en ts [ . . . ] in e ternal l ight. And you m ade h im a f i rs t -bo[rn ]son to you [ . . . ] l ike h im for a pr ince and ru ler in al l your ear th ly land [ . . . th e]cro w n of the hea ven s and the glory of the clou ds [you] have set [on him . . . ] . T hef igure descr ibed here i s probably a Davidic k ing ( i f not David h imself ) , but qui teposs ib ly a Da vidic mes s ianic f igure . No te tha t Go d has ins t ruc ted h im in e ternall igh t . See C. A. Eva ns , A Note on the 'F i r s t -Born So n ' of 4Q 36 9 ,DSD 2 ( 199 5)185-201 .

2 7

Cf . M. Hen gel , The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Tes-tament (L on do n: SC M Pre ss; Philad elphia : Fortress, 1981 ) 58. Th e text is 4Q 54 1.



as heav enly sav ior. W i th such a widely ar rayed backg rou nd , wh ichcont inues in the rabb in ic tex ts desp i te the conso l idat ions fo l lowingAD 70 and 135, i t may be presumed that the messianic spectrum waseven much b roader.2 8 A case in point are Josephus ' references toradical eschatological groups, and the messianic ambit ions of indivi-duals , a l though he passes over in s i lence al l messianic s tatementsbecause of their pol i t ical sensi t iv i ty. There can be no quest ion hereof a systematic configurat ion of the Messiah Haggada, to say nothingof a Messiah dogmatic .

Th e wo rd r e fe r s a l r eady in the Old Te s tam en t to G o d ' sactiv ity. H e is the acto r in the an oi nt in g carr ied out in his nam e.T h u s , Γ Γ Μ - χρ ισ τ ό ? is n o t s imp l y a t it le of ma j e s t y, wh i ch o n ecan adopt , but presupposes God 's act ing. But the concept need notpossess , a priori a greater theocratic-poli t ical content, than the meta-ph or kin gd om of G od . Isaiah 61:1 -2 is especial ly f i tt ing as an escha-tolo gica l text here : T he Spiri t of the Lo rd G od is up on me , bec au sethe Lord has anointed me to bring good t idings to the affl icted.

I know of no other Old Testament text that bet ter descr ibes theminist ry of Jesus in Gal i lee. Luke, with excel lent h is tor ical- theologi-cal f lair, puts this word on Jesus' l ips in his sermon at the outset ofhis publ ic minist ry in Nazareth (Luke 4:17-19) . The importance ofthis text for Jesus himself can be seen from his answer to theBapt i s t ' s ques t ion , and the Beat i tudes . The same mot i f , however,appears in one of the most influential texts of those referring to the

ki ng ly M ess iah , Isa 11:1-5: A nd the Spiri t of the L or d shall restupon him . . . .

The Dead Sea Scrol ls have s ignif icant ly added to our knowledge ofJewish mess ian ism in la te an t iqu i ty.2 9 We know f rom the Qumrantexts that the messianic prophet of Deuteronomy 18 plays a role, not

2 8 Th is is not to claim that there wa s no core of co m m on m ess ianic beliefs ; cf.J . J . Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls andOther Ancient Literature (A BR L 10; New York: Do ubled ay, 1995); C. A. Eva nsand P. W. Flint (eds.) , Eschatology Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DeadSea Scrolls and Re lated Literature 1; Gra nd Rap ids: Ee rdm an s, 1997).

2 9 See Co l l in s , The Scepter and the Star J . H. Char leswor th (ed . ) , TheMe ssiah: Developm ents in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (M innea polis: Fortress,1992); C. A. Evans and P. W. Flint (eds.) , Eschatology Messianism and theDead Sea Scrolls (De ad Sea Scro l ls and Rela ted Li tera ture 1; Gra nd Ra pids :

Eerdmans , 1997) ; and J . Zimmermann, Messianische Vorstellungen in den Schrift-funden von Qumran (disser tation; Tiibingen, 1996) [for thcom ing in WU N T] .



only in the Samari tan eschatology (where there could be no royalDavidic Messiah) , and in Chris t ian texts , but also in Jewish texts .Moreover, there the Old Tes tament p rophets are somet imes descr ib -

ed as ano inted , for exam ple, we read in 1QM 11:7, yo ur Anoin tedones , seers of the test im on ies ; e lsew her e we f ind A no inte d of theHo ly Spi r i t (CD 2 :12 , and a fu r the r D f ra gm en t f ro m 4Q 26 7; cf .6 :1: ) , and holy An ointed O ne s (CD 6:1) . M os esappe ar s once as G od ' s ano in ted .3 0 In an oth er text the Sh oo t ofD av id is the An ointe d of Righ teousness ,3 1 whi le elsew here we readof on e an oin ted with the oil of the k in gd o m (4 Q 45 8 2 i i 6). D av id

was not only the prototype of the kingly Messiah, but, next to Isaiah,the most important prophet as wel l .3 2 What was t rue for the prophetsof I s rae l was cer ta in ly val id fo r a f igure b r ing ing eschato log ica lsalvation, as is seen by the appearance of such a one in l Q M e l c h i z e -dek . There the messenger o f good t id ings f rom Isa 52 :7 , wi th anal lus ion to I sa 61 :1 , i s in terpre ted as the o ne A n o in te d w i th theS p i r i t ( ) wh o [preaches] good news, p rocla im s [sa lvation] ,

of whom it is writ ten, [when i t says, ' to comfort [al l who mourn inZion], and to teach them in truth . . . .33 The var iab i l i ty o f the m an i fe s t in the Q um ra n tex ts acco rds wi th the poss ib i l i ty o f descr ib -ing the So n of M an as M essiah since the Similitudes of Enoch

I f , then , a p rophet ic teacher f igure wi th the au thor i ty o f God 'sSpiri t appeared with the outrageous claim that with his activity God'seternal reign became real i ty, i f he appl ied the apocalypt ic cipher

(So n of) M an to him self , and also to the futu re heav enly Ju dg e, ifhe also came from a family of the l ineage of David, then does i t notap pe ar pro bab le, that he was invested with the t i tle A no inte d, andtook a posit ion with regard to the t i t le, and under the charge of beingthe long-aw ai ted M ess iah and King of the Jew s was execu ted onthe cross as a poli t ical criminal? In other words: the historical sound-ing of the qu estio n, Jesus and M es sia h, m ust beg in with the Pas sionstory.

3 0 4Q3 77 2 ii 5 : by the mou th o f Moses h is ano in ted [ . [ 4 3 1 Q 2 5 2 1 ν 3-4: unti l the com ing of the anoin ted of r igh teou sne ss [

] , t he b r an ch o f D av id [ . [ 3 2 J . A. Sand ers , The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 ( DJ D 4 : Ox f o r d :

Clarendon, 1965) 96 = l Q P sa 27:9-11.3 3

P. J . Ko belsk i , Melchizeclek and Melchirešac

( C B Q M S 1 0: W a s h i n g t o n :Ca tho l ic Bib l i ca l Assoc ia t ion , 1981)6= lQMelch 2 :18-21 .



T H E C R U C I F I E D M E S S I A H3 4

H. J. Holtzmann said of Jesus ' death on the cross that i t was "of al l

th ings , the mos t ce r t a in . "3 5

On th is s ingle point , even in researchtoday, there i s s t i l l a consensus. But here the consensus ends. Thewo r k b ook by Conze l m ann and L i nd em an n , f o l l owi ng R . Bu l t m an n ,manages to admit that i t must have been "a pol i t ica l accusat ion thatwas leveled against Jesus" and " that a t r ia l before the representa t iveof the Roman government ac tua l ly d id t ake p lace , "3 6 which led tocruci f ix ion; a l l e l se i s a l leged to be redact ional , secondar i ly "spunfrom" Old Testament mater ia l , or s imply legend. Al l that remains ofthe Markan Pass ion nar ra t ive i s wha t we can o therwise der ive f romthe Paul ine s ta tement that Jesus was executed by cruci f ix ion.

On the other hand, i t seems that scholarship is widely agreed that ,as Bul tmann emphas izes , Mark "had a l r eady before h im a Pass ionstory that was a cont inuous nar ra t ive ,"3 7 indeed the earliest of all the

3 4 On the tr ial of Jes us, see A. Strob el , Die Stunde der Wahrheit ( W U N T 2 1 ;Tü b i n g e n : Mo h r [ S i e b e c k ] , 1 9 8 0 ) ; O . Be t z , "P r o b l e me d e s P r o z e s s e s J e s u , "ANRW 11/25.1 (19 82 ) 56 5-6 47 . See also my studies: "M o r s turpissima crucis: DieKreuzignung in der ant iken Wel t und d ie 'Torhei t ' des 'Wortes vom Kreuz ' ," in J .F r ied r ich , W. Pöh lmann , and P. S tuh lmacher ( eds . ) , Rechtfertigung: Festschrift

für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag (Tüb ing en : M ohr [S iebeck] ; Gö t t inge n :Va nde nho eck & Ru prech t , 1976) 125-84; expa nded ET Crucifixion: In the AncientWorld and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (London: SCM Press ; Phi ladelphia :For t ress , 1977) ; and Atonement ( see n . 25 abov e) , wh ich is an exp and ed En gl ish

vers ion of my "Der s te l lver t re tende Sühnetod Jesu: Ein Bei t rag zur Ents tehung desu r c h r i s t l i c h e n Ke r y g ma , " IK Z 9 (198 0) 1 -25, 135-47. Th e En gl ish vers ions arenow publ ished together in one volume: The Cross of the Son of God (Phi ladelphia :For t ress , 1986; repr. London: SCM Press , 1997) .

35 GGA (1901) 959 .3 6 H. Con ze lm ann and A. Lindem ann , Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament (9th

ed. , Tü bing en: M ohr [Siebeck] , 1988) 331; ET Interpreting the New Testament: AnIntroduction to the Principles and Methods of New Testament Exegesis (Peabody :

Hendr icksen , 1988) 333 .3 7 R . Bu l t m a n n , Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition ( F R L A N T 12;

Göt t ingen : Vande nhoe ck & Ruprech t , 1921 ; 2nd ed . , FR LA N T 29 ; 1931); ET TheHistory of the Synoptic Tradition (Ox ford : Black wel l , 1972) 275 . Clo se to theancient kerygma of the "Pass ion and Death of Jesus , as the analys is has shown,was a short narrat ive of historical reminiscence about the Arrest , Condemnation andExecut ion of Jesus ." Cf . idem, Die Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien (2nded . , Glessen : Töpe lmann . 1930) 45 ; ET "A Study of the Synopt ic Gospels ," in R.

Bu l t ma n n a n d K . Ku n d s i n , Form Criticism: Two Essays on New TestamentResearch (N ew York: Ha rper & Ro w, 1962) 11-76, here 65 .



ear ly Church ' s connected nar ra t ives about Jesus . To be sure , there i smuch d i sagreement abou t the da te and ex ten t o f th i s p re -Markan"Pa ssio n s tory ." Paul provid es a h in t in 1 Co r in th ian s 11, w he re he

refers to Jesus ' las t meal . This account may a l ready have exis ted a tthe end of the Thir t ies when Paul was preaching in Syr ia . Can thenthe account of Jesus ' suffer ing be very much la ter? I f the o ldestnar ra t ive account about Jesus , the Passion s tory, represents a merecon g l om er a t e o f "dogm a t i c " and l egenda r y com m u n i t y f o r m u l a t i o ns ,as radical cr i t icism postulates, can anything at al l of the Jesus t radi-t ion be t rustwor thy? The disc ip les must have been much more in ter-

es ted in Jesus ' Passion—which formed the basis for the beginning ofthe Church and the Kerygma—than in individual logia and parables .Wel lhausen , the g rea t skep t i ca l h i s to r i an , comments : " the r emin i s -cences of him are one-sided and sketchy; only the last days of his l i fer em a i n ed e t ched i n m em or y. "3 8 The ea r ly Je rusa lem church , underthe l eader sh ip o f Pe te r and James , the Lord ' s b ro ther, was fo r thenext three decades the pr imary church that could gather informat ion

about that unique event . I f they were not in teres ted in th is , butinstead , con t rary to a ll m em ory , f re e ly con st ruc ted and his tor ic iz ed,than nei ther can we expect them to have had any in teres t in sayingso f J e s us . Bu t no one is p r ep a r ed t o acc ep t t h i s c o n se qu en ce .Bul tmann wrote a c lass ic s tudy on Jesus , and Conzelmann is able totel l us a good deal about Jesus in his ar t icle, "Jesus Christus."

Wi th good reason . For how can the d i sc ip les have fo rgo t t en the

m ost con vu ls iv e day of thei r l ives? If , ho w ev er , w e take the v iewthat the disciples, Peter at their head, held this day in memory, anda t t em p t ed t o supp l em en t t he i r kn owl edg e o f t h e i r Mas t e r ' s d ea t hth rough add i t iona l in fo rmat ion f rom S imon of Cyrene , the women,Joseph o f Ar imathea , and o ther s , then we canno t ignore tha t theMessiah question runs through the Passion story of all the Gospelslike a red thread. Th is is par t icu lar ly prom ine nt in the olde st acc ou nt ,M ar k ' s , and is sure ly t rue for the pre-M ark an s tory as wel l .

N. A. Dahl has a l ready pointed out the l ine of connect ion betweenthe Paul ine message of "Chr is t cruci f ied ," and the s ta tement of theGospe l s tha t Jesus was execu ted as King of the Jews. Th is w as thedecis ive charge against Jesus , that brought h im to the cross; for " thef o r m u l a t i on ' K i ng o f t he Jews ' de r i ve s ne i t he r f r om a p r oph e t i c

3 8

J . W el lhausen , Israelitisch-jüdische Geschichte (8th ed., Ber l in: de Gru yte r,1 9 2 1 ) 3 6 7 .



p r oo f n o r f r om t he Chur ch ' s Ch r i s t o l o gy. "3 9 I t i s improbable thatthe ear ly Church, wi th no reference to h is tor ica l rea l i ty, in t roducedof i t se l f the pol i t ica l ly pre judic ia l expression, "King of the Jews,"

s ince th i s wo uld hav e jus t i f i ed the Rom an p rocee d ings aga ins t Je susas a r ebe l . Al l those who even s t r e tched the i r hand towards thecrown, f rom the l as t o f the Hasmoneans , Ant igonus , to the pseudo-m ess i ah , Ba r Cochba , we r e r eb e l s ag a i n s t Ro m e and su f f e r ed aviolent death. Had the ear l iest Church applied the t i t le , "King of theJews," to Jesus , i t would i t se l f have been responsible for ar rayinghim wi th the worst of a l l possib le company, defaming both h im and

itself . But i t was unnecessary to invent this charge; i t was, in fact ,b rought by the h ie ra rchs aga ins t Jesus before P i l a t e as the mos tcer tain means of br inging this seducer of the people to the cross.

With good reason, Dahl refers her to the causa poena on the cro ss(M ark 15 :26) : K ing o f the Jew s . Th i s in fo rm ed ev ery on e in Je ru sa lemof the charge aga ins t Jesus . Conze lmann and L indemann , however,see even in th is i tem, which disadvantaged Chr is t ians in the eyes of

the i r opponen t s , "a chr i s to log ica l [mot ive] wi thou t h i s to r i ca l back-gr ou nd "; fo r, " there i s no eviden ce for aff ix in g such ins cr ip t ion s . . .a s a Ro m an cus t om ."4 0 But th is argument i s misleading. For i t mustbe r ecogn ized tha t an t iqu i ty has supp l i ed us wi th very f ew rea ldescr ip t ions of cruci f ix ion a t a l l .41 The Gospels are by far the mostextensive accounts of execut ion on the cross . Ancient authors gener-a l ly considered i t far too unsavory a subject . For this reason w e f ind

hardly any deta i l s . The practice of pub l ic iz ing a causa poena on aplacard for general deter rence a t an execut ion i s a t tes ted in severa lt ex t s . T hese we r e hung a r oun d t he de l i n quen t ' s neck , o r c a r r i edbefore h im when he was l ed to the p lace o f execu t ion .4 2 Wi t hcruc i f ix ion how ev er the su ffe r ing o f the co nd em ned ma n befor e h isde ath co uld last fo r day s; to incre ase the de terre nt effe ct , the p laca rdwi l l have been a ff ixed to the c ross . There i s no bas i s then fo r

3 9 N. A. Dah l , "D er gek reuz ig te M ess ias , " in H. Ris tow and K. Ma t th iae(eds . ) , Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus: Beiträge zumChristusverständnis in Forschung und Verkündigung (Ber l in : Eva ngel ische Ver lags-anstal t , 1961) 159; ET "The Cruc i f i ed Mess iah ," in Dah l , The Crucified Messiahand Other Essays (M inneapo l is : Au gsbu rg , 1974) 10-36, here 23-24.

4 0 Co n z e l ma n n a n d L i n d e ma n n , Interpreting the New Testament, 333.4 1 See Henge l , Crucifixion.4 2

S u e t o n i u s , Caligula 32 .2 ; Domitian 10 .1 ; Ca ss iu s Dio 54.3 .7 ; Eu seb ius ,Hist. Eccl. 5 .1 .44 .



dismissing as "dogmat ic invent ion" the reference to the causa poena,l ike ly to be un der s too d by anc ien t r eade r s as a de fa m at io n . T hetitulus on the cro ss is jus t as histo r ica l as the en su in g acc ou nt tha t

Je sus was c r uc i f i ed be t ween t wo " r o bbe r s , " i . e . p r e sum ab l y t wopoli t ical insurrect ionists . The same is t rue of the mocking of Jesus bythe ant i - Jewish soldier rabble , who der ide h im in a parody of royalho m ag e as a k ing we ar ing a purp le mant le and crow n of thorns .4 3

Fur th er, I f ind imp roba b ly the v iew tha t P i l a t e ' s ques t ion , "A reyou the King of the Jews?," and Jesus ' posi t ive answer, was secon-dari ly interpolated into the or iginal uni ty of 15:1 and 3. For i t is

incredible that the or iginal account of Jesus ' del ivery to Pi late shouldhave been no more speci f ic than the banal , "And the chief pr ies tsac cu sed h im of m an y th ing s , " o f 15 :3 . I s the ea r l i es t Ch urc h su pp os edto hav e bel ieved that Jesus wa s exec uted on such unspe ci f ied gro und s?In fact , v. 3 underscores only the one point of the charge , to whichJesus confesses in v. 2 , and in which a l l four Gospels agree . Jesus 'conf i rming answer to Pi la te seals h is fa te : confessus pro iudicato est

{Digestae 42 .2 : de confessis)Here, one thing leads to the next . Jesus was del ivered to Pi late with

the capi ta l charge , "King of the Jews." But how did the h ierarchsarr ive at this charge , graver than any other? Through the previouslynar ra ted in ter rogat ion a t n ight before the h ighest Jewish off ice , theHigh Pr ies t and the cour t over which he presided. In favor of theMarkan account i s the cur ious no te concern ing the a l l eged Temple

saying of Jesus . The erect ion of the new eschatological sanctuary wasa mess ian ic t ask . Thus the re was an inner connec t ion be tween th i sa l l eged say ing o f Jesus and the p rovoca t ive ques t ion o f the HighPr ies t concerning Jesus ' messianic d igni ty. I s i t not p lausib le thatJes us an sw ere d th is que st ion wi th a w ord of ju dg m en t wh ich , in it st u r n , p r o voked t he S anhéd r i n , con f i r m ed h i s Go d- g i ven au t ho r i t y,and a t once refer red the h ierarchs to the coming Son of Man wi thwhom he was inext r icably bound? This would expla in thei r indignantr ea c t i o n , and t he ab use he su f f e r e d a s a f a l s e p r o ph e t . T hepre cau t ion s taken a t Je su s ' a r res t , and the speed wi th w hich he w asde l ivered to P i l a t e , show tha t h i s in f luence wi th the peop le wasfeared, making i t necessary to avoid publ ic proceedings. I t was h ismessianic claim that f inal ly led to their making short work of him.

The Mess iah ques t ion , accord ing to Mark , was p redominan t dur ing

4 3 M ark 15:16-20 ; cf . Philo, Flacc. 36-42.



the f inal , tense days in Jerusalem. He dramat ical ly prepares the wayfor i t wi th the heal ing of b l ind Bar t imaeus in Jer icho; th is heal ingfa l l s ou t s id e the top ics of cus tom ary mi rac le s to r ies . Th e add ress ,"Son o f Dav id , " marks Jesus as a mess ian ic p re tender. Jesus ' en t ryin to Jerusalem, r id ing down f rom the Mount of Ol ives in to the HolyCi ty—as in Zech 9 :9—accompanied by the acc lamat ion o f h i s f e l lowpi lg r ims , b r ings the Mess iah ques t ion d i s t inc t ly to the fo re . Whyshould no t the c rowd of accompanying p i lg r ims , who knew on ly toowell a prophetic word such as Zech 9:9, have seen in Jesus the messi-anic Prophet , and have harbored the hope that he would be "one to

redeem I s rae l "? And Jesus h imse l f—why shou ld he no t have ac tedout a m ess ian ic sym bo l ism , wi th the Ho ly Ci ty and it s T em pl e inv iew?

The Cleans ing o f the Temple a l so p resupposes a sc r ip tu ra l r e fe r-en ce f ro m Ze ch ar ia h— the las t wo rd in the boo k: "A nd there shall nolonger be a t rader in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day"( 1 4 : 2 1 b ) .4 4 Wi th th i s second symbol ic ac t ion , Jesus c leanses the

Temple for the k ingdom of God in a paradigmat ic ac t in h is fu l lauthor i ty as Messiah designatus . I t i s no wonder that the h ierarchsquest ion h im concerning his author i ty (11:27-32) . A messianic back-gro und is ev ide n t in o ther ep i sod es as wel l . Th e Para b le o f the W ick edVi n e y a r d Te n a n t s ( M a r k 1 2 : 1 -1 2 ) , s h o w i n g a f a m i l i a r i t y w i t hPa les t in ian cond i t ions ,4 5 thre atens the h ierarch s wi th the ju dg m en t ofGod fo r r e j ec t ing h i s messenger s .4 6 Other anecdo tes demons t ra te h i s

author i ty as a char ismat ic teacher, "not as the scr ibes ." I f Mark hasinven ted a l l th i s mate r i a l—his to r i ca l ly appropr ia te in s ty le to anas t on i sh i ng deg r ee— t hen he ha s d on e it w i t h i n gen i o u s em p a t h y,

4 4 On the pos s ib le inf luen ce of Ze cha r iah on Jesu s , see R. M . Gr ant , "T heCo mi n g o f t h e Ki n g d o m," JB L 67 (1948 ) 297 -303 ; F. F. Bruce , "T he Bo ok o fZechar iah and the Pass ion Narra t ive ," BJRL 43 (1960-61) 336-53; J . D. M. Derre t t ,

"The Zeal of thy House and the Cleansing of the Temple ," Dow nside Review 95(1977) 79-94; and now B. Chi l ton , The Temple of Jesus: H is Sacrificial ProgramWithin a Cultural History of Sacrifice (Un ivers i ty Park: Penn Sta te Press , 1992)135-36, as wel l as the chapter by Evans , "Jesus and Zechar iah 's Mess ianic Hope,"which appears later in the present volume.

4 5 See M . He nge l , "D as Gle ichn i s von den W eing är tne rn Mc 12 :1 -12 imLichte der Zenonpapyr i und der rabbinischen Gle ichnisse ," ZNW 59 (196 8) 1-39.

4 6 See C. A. Ev ans , "G od 's Viney ard and I ts Ca re tak ers ," in Eva ns , Jesus and

His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (A GJ U 25; Leid en: Br i l l , 1995) 381 -4 0 6 .



in tu i t ion , and unders tanding. But in the opinion of many cr i t ics hewas a s imple anonymous Gent i l e Chr i s t i an4 7 How is this supposed tohave come abou t?

W ith the se all too brief ref lec t ion s I ha ve inten ded no m or e than topoint out that the Passion narrat ive can (and in my opinion must) beviewed very d i fferent ly than the widespread his tor ica l skept ic ism inco n t em po r a r y c r i t i c i sm a l l ows . Absolute proof for the histo r ici ty ofthe individual episodes in the Markan passion is not the issue here.This can hardly be obta ined, g iven the l imi ted source basis—as i sf requent ly the case in Ancient His tory. Whoever radical ly s t r ikes the

Messiah quest ion f rom the Passion s tory makes the account not onlyincomprehensible , and a banal torso , but i s a lso unable to expla in theEa ster eve nts and the or igin of po st-E aste r C hr isto log y. Th is is a highpr ice—much too h igh a p r i ce—to pay fo r the pos tu la te o f an unmes-sianic Jesus.

T H E T I T L E S " M E S S I A H " A N D "S O N O F M A N "4«

Might one not object here that in a l l four Gospels Jesus neverapp l i es the appe l l a t ion "Chr i s t " ( ano in ted) to h imse l f , bu t , on thecontrary, this t i t le is always applied to him by others. However, Jesusnever rejects the t i t le—neither in the t r ial before the High Priest , norbefore Peter and the d isc ip les . Dur ing the t r ia l before Pi la te hemight yet have denied this charge, and he explained that he was onlya rabbi and prophet declar ing the wil l of God. But even as he refused

4 7 Co n z e l ma n n a n d L i n d e m a n n , Interpreting the New Testamen t, 218 : "T heonly thin g we can state is that the auth or of M k is a Ge nti le Ch rist ian with w ho mwe are not o therwise acquainted ." Also: "Mk has qui te obviously not been wri t tenby a Jew." Such opinions are typical for modern unhistorical "uncri t ical New Testa-men t c r i t i c i sm." Of course , Mark , the "un jewish au thor," r ead ne i the r S t rack-Bi l lebeck nor Josephus .

4 8

See M. He nge l , "Jes us a l s m ess ia n i sch e r Leh re r de r W eishe i t und d ieAnfänge der Christologie," in J . Leclant et al . (eds.) , Sagesse et Religion: Colloquede Strasbourg (octobre 1976) (Par is : Bibl io thèque des Centres d 'E tud es Sup ér ieuresSpéc ia l i sé s , 1979) 147-88 : e t : "Jesus the Mess ian ic Teacher o f Wisdom and theBeg inn ings o f Chr i s to logy," in Henge l , Studies in Early Christology, 73 -1 17 ; a swel l as the ess ay s by O. Betz , "D ie Frage nach dem me ss ian isch en Be w ußts e inJesu ," "Jesu Evange l ium vom Got te s re ich ," and "Jesus in Nazare th : Bemerkungenzu Markus 6 ,1 -6 ," in Be tz , Jesus, der Messias Israels: Aufsätze zur biblischen

Theologie (W U N T 42 ; Tüb ingen : M ohr [S iebeck] , 1987) 140-68 , 232-5 4 , and 301-17, respectively.



a hasty f l ight the night before to avoid arrest , so also he refuses thisopt ion. In Mark 8:24-26 he merely forbids Peter and the d isc ip les tobet ray the secre t . The ensuing repudia t ion of Peter as "Satan" ( i s th isa lso a product of the ear l ies t Church?) resul t s f rom Peter ' s react ionto the r eve la t ion tha t Jesus "m ust su f fe r ma ny th ings . " W e do no tknow whether, or how, these accounts or ig inal ly belonged together.

I would put the quest ion the other way round: Is i t not an indica-t ion of the re la t ive t rustwor th iness of the Gospel t radi t ion that thea l l eged g r ea t c r ea t i v i t y o f t he "com m un i t y " nev e r p r od uced anun am b i guous scene i n wh i ch Je sus ann oun ces h i s c l a i m coram

publico w ith a clea r "I am the M essia h, the Son of G od "? C ou ld thisnot be the resul t of the "communi ty" knowing that Jesus never pro-claimed himself to be the Messiah in this manner, or even that i t wass imp ly imp oss ib le thus to p roc la im onese l f Me ss iah , fo r exam ple ,because the r eve la t ion o f God ' s Anoin ted in h i s majes ty cou ld on lybe accompl i shed by God h imse l f?4 9 The messianic secre t then woulds tem in nuce f r om the (esc hato logic al ) secre t of Jesu s h im sel f , and

his conduct .This i s known by his use of the d isputed c ipher, " the man," for

h imse l f and the coming Judge . Th i s express ion , incomprehens ib le inGreek and which wi th one except ion (Acts 7 :56) occurs only on thel ips o f Jes us , and a lw ay s in the four G osp e l s , i s am on g tho seimi ta t ions o f Jesus ' speech found in the Gospe l s such as " theKi n gd o m o f God , " "a m e n I say to you," the prayer address , Abba,

Father," and " th is generat ion ." I am simply unable to bel ieve that theso-cal led ear l ies t communi ty ( i .e . in rea l i ty, h is c losest d isc ip les)m ad e him the resur rected Son of M an af ter the app eara nce s , and thenvery qu ick ly suppressed th i s c ipher because i t was unsu i t ab le fo rm i s s i on p r oc l am a t i on , wh i l e a t t he sam e t i m e b e i n g ex t r em e l ycareful to insure that in the Gospel t radi t ion only Jesus speaks of theSon of Man, never his disciples, just as the Messiah t i t le was str ict ly

he ld a t a d i s t ance f rom h im in the p roduc t ion o f the domin ica lsayings. Radical exegetes seem to be to be too " t rust ing" here .Sin ce in the fo l low ing sect ion I wa nt to t rea t Je su s ' "m es sia ni c"

co nd uc t and teach ing , and no long er the t i t les , her e I ad dre ss th issupremely d i spu ted p rob lem, whose sec re t we can no longer fu l ly

4 9 M at t he w 's expans ion of Pete r ' s confe ss ion ref lec ts th is very be l ief ; c f . M at t

16:17: "A nd Jesus answered h im, 'B lessed are you, S imo n Ba r-Jona For f lesh andblood have not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. '"



unv ei l , on ly br ief ly. It som et im es seem s as it N ew Te stam en t sch olar-ship has l i t t le new to say about this problem. But there is no causefor complete skept icism. I t i s in any case wrong to construct a thor-ou gh go ing ant i thesis betw een the (Son of) M an , and the M ess iah .Alr ead y the (few ) Jew ish sourc es referr ing to the (So n of ) M an ofDan 7 :13 forb id th is . Jesus em ploy s (Son of ) M an , an expre ss ioncharacter ized both by Dan 7:13, and ordinary, everyday use, becauseit is a cipher, and not explici t ly messianic. I t becomes then, paradoxi-cal ly, the exp ression for the my stery con nected with his m ission andpassion. Mark appears already to have understood i t in this way, and

thus for him it is not included in the messianic secret . We meet theexpression 81 t imes in the Gospels . That all these texts were secon-dari ly in ser ted by the C om m un ity , 1 hold to be imp oss ible. In theinterest of space, I restrict myself to what seems to me to be the mostplausible solution. The earthly and suffering Son of Man are a cipherwith which Jesus, in cer tain s i tuat ions, expresses both his authori ty( indeed, we may say as Messias designates) , and his hu m ili ty and

t r ibu la t ion , wh ich u l t im ate ly l ead h im to su f fe r ing and dea th .Regard ing the coming Son of Man, who appears as a myster ioushea ven ly f igur e, I refer to the sem inal s tudy by Carsten Co lpe: T heap oc a ly p t i c S on o f M an is a sym bo l fo r Je su s ' ce r t a in ty o fp e r f ec t i o n . 5 0 Just as the Son of Man may not be set in opposition toJesus, nei ther may he be set over against the Kingdom of God. Onthe o th er han d , a p re c ip i to us iden t i f ica t io n in the co n te m po rar y

minist ry of Jesus was impossible. A text such as Luke 12:8-9 empha-sizes the inextr icable connect ion between Jesus and the coming Sonof Man, but does not remove the dialect ical tension between theear th ly preacher and the coming judge. Adol f Sch la t ter, as wel l ,emphasizes that the eschatological d igni ty of Jesus is indeed one ofh is goals , therefore ,5 1

the M es sia h idea wa s flexible beca use it expre ssed a goal; it did not derive

its co nte nt fro m a realize d state of aff airs . Th e proce ssion of ev ents ha d toshow how the kingdom of the promised king came into being, and what i tacco mp lished . N o promise receives its concrete form unt il G od 's govern -ment supplies i t .5 2

5 0 C. Co lpe, ό υ ιό? του άνθρώ που ,T NT 8 (1972 ) 400 -77 .5 1 Α . Schla t ter, De r Zw eife l an der Mess ian i t ä t Je su ," BFCT 11/7 (19 07)

151.5 2 Sch latter, "D er Zw eife l an der M essian ität Jes u," 162.



Th is m ean s, ho w eve r, that Jesu s h im sel f , in obe dien ce to h is God -g iven t ask o f ann oun c ing the escha to log ica l fu l f i l lm ent o f the p rom -ise , and thereby in t roducing i t , expounds, through his conduct andhis way , just what was really fitting for God's chosen Ano inted. Itw as no t a g iven , f ixed Jew ish "m es s ian o lo gy " tha t de te rm ined h i sservice , but ra ther h is service es tabl i shed the s tandards for what was,in the t ruest sense , legi t imate ly "messianic ." His God-given task , thefu l f i l lm en t of His wi l l , s tood be for e , and abo ve , the t i tles . T o th ismessianic minis t ry to h is own people we now turn our a t tent ion .

T H E M E S S I A N I C M I N I S T RY O F J E S U S5 3

Despi te the widespread avers ion to a t t r ibut ing to Jesus a "messianicco nsc iou sne ss ," there is broad con sensu s that Jes us ' minis t ry and con -duct can hardly be expla ined as that of a mere rabbi and prophet :"A nd they w ere as tonishe d a t h is teaching , for he taught them as on ewho had au thor i ty, and not as the scr ibe s" (M ark 1:22). Fo r M ark ,this is the teaching authori ty of the perfect Spir i t -bearer (1:10, 13) ,which br ings the radical ly New. This same author i ty shows i t se l f inJes us ' beha v ior and conduc t . He p rom ises to s in fu l me n and w om enthe forgiveness of thei r s in , that which i s the prerogat ive of Godalone; the scandalous fe l lowship wi th tax-col lec tors and s inners has asim ilar inten t ion. H e jus t i f ie s it with the sayin g: "I cam not to cal l ther igh teo us , bu t s inn er s " (M ark 2 :17b ) . Th e Pau l ine jus t i f i c a t io n o fthe s inner der ives f ro m Jes us ' m essianic ac t iv i ty.

His d i smiss ive answer concern ing the Phar i sees and the Bap t i s t ' sd isc ip les , "Can the wedding guests fas t whi le the br idegroom is wi ththem?," res ts on th is miss ion-consciousness which exceeds the boundsof the prophet ic . This saying, even as Jesus ' behavior wi th the tax-co l l ec to r s and s inner s , i s on ly comprehens ib le i f the p romise i s

5 3 See M. He ngel , "Jesu s und d ie To ra ," TBei 9 (1978 ) 152-72; idem, Studies

in Early Christology, 1 -72 ; Nachfolge und Charisma : Eine exegetisch-religions-geschichtliche Studie zu Mt 8,2If und Jesu Ruf in die Nachfolge ( B Z N W 3 4 ;Ber l in : de Gruy te r, 1968) ; ET The Charisma tic Leader and His Followers( Ed i n b u r g h : T. & T. C l a r k ; Ne w Y o r k : Cr o s s r o a d , 1 9 8 1 ); id e m , War JesusRevolutionär? (C H 110; Stuttgar t : C alw er, 1970); ET Was Jesus a Revolutionist?(FBBS 28; Phi ladelphia : For t ress , 1971) ; idem, Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zurjüdischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr. ( A G J U ;Leiden: Bril l , 1961; 2nd ed., 1976); ET The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish

Freedom Movem ent in the Period from Herod 1 until 70 A.D. (Ed inburgh : T. & T.Clark , 1989) .



a l r ead y present in Je su s ' minis t ry, if the K ing do m of G od comeswith him. Be cau se the p rom ises a re now be ing fu l f i l l ed , those w howitness wi th eye and ear are counted b lessed; thus the cry of accla-mat ion tha t the escha to log ica l r eve la t ion o f the Heaven ly Fa ther ' ssa lva t ion for the po or and dis-e nf r an ch ise d is co m e (Luk e 10:21 =Mat t 11:25) ; thus a lso heal ings and exorcisms, the deeds of h im inw ho m the fu l f i l lm en t of the prom ises bec om es real i ty. "But if it is bythe f inge r of G od that I cas t out de m on s, then the Kin gd om of G odhas come upon you" (Luke 11:20 = Mat t 12:28) .54

The Kingdom of God , overcoming the o ld aeon and the k ingdom

of Evil , is not only near, i t is present in Jesus ' ministry. When Jesusspeaks of the ear th ly Son of Man on the one hand, and the comingSon of Man on the o ther, the tension between the two cor responds totha t be tween the p resence o f the k ingdom in h i s min i s t ry—whichundergoes tes t ing and t r ia l—and his coming in power. Jesus ' answerto the charge of being in league with the Devil tends in this direct ion:" . . . ho w can on e enter a s t rong m an 's h ouse and plu nde r h is g oo ds,

unless he f i rst binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder hishouse" (Mat t 12:29) . Jesus i s he who br ings " l iber ty to the capt ives"(Isa 61:1-2) . As the victor in this bat t le he can also cal l out to hisdisc iple s as they return ful l of jo y fr om their ex orc ism s: "I saw Sa tanfal l l ike l ightning f rom heaven" (Luke 10:18) . What fo l lows th is i sno less astonishing:

Be hold , I have g iven you author i ty to t read upon serpe nts and sco rpio ns ,

and over a l l the power of the enemy; and nothing shal l hur t you. Never the-less do not rejoice in this . . . but rejoice that your names are writ ten inheaven (Luke 10:19-20) .

Who ut ters such an out rage i s not only cer ta in , in h is h igh-f ly ing,god- insp i red en thus iasm, tha t the power o f the "Enemy" i s b rokenher e and now , but he a lso dare s to ant ic ip ate the ju dg m en t of G od .Thus a lso , in three b less ings ( fo l lowing Isa iah 61) , he can promise

the poor, the hungry, and the gr ieving, uncondi t ional par t ic ipat ion int h e K i n g d o m o f G o d . A s h e a l r e a d y n o w p r o m i s e s s a l v a t i o n w i t habsolute cer ta in ty, so a lso he can ant ic ipate the word of the las tjudgment ; thus , we f ind the woes p ronounced aga ins t Choraz in andBethsa ida , where he had done such "migh ty works , " and even more

5 4 See M . H eng el , "Lk 11,20 = Mt 12,28: De r Fing er and d ie H er rs ch af t

Got tes in Lk 11,20," in R. Kiefer and J . Bergman (eds .) , La Main de Dieu / DieHand Gottes (W U N T 94; Tu bing en: M ohr [Siebeck] , 1997) 87-106 .



sharp ly, aga ins t the cen te r o f h i s ac t iv i ty : "And you , Capernaum,wi l l you be exal ted to heaven? You shal l be brought down to Hades"(Mat t 11:20-24 = Luke 10:12-15 [Q]) .

We mee t the same "mess ian ic" se l f - consc iousness in the answer tothe Bapt is t to h is quest ion whether he was "he who is to come." Jesusrefers to h is heal ing and sa lv i f ic minis t ry in which the promises ofIsaia h are fulf i l le d, as we ll as his l iber at ing g oo d ne w s to the p oo r.He em phas i ze s h i s e scha t o l og i ca l au t h o r i t y and m a j e s t y w i t h t h econcluding, "blesses i s he who takes no offense a t me" (Luke 7:23 =Matt 11:6 [Q]).

For th is very reason, then, one cannot demand a s ign of h im—asfrom a prophet . Rather, Gent i les wi l l r i se up as wi tnesses against th isgen era t io n of Je su s ' con te m por ar i es : the Qu een o f the Sou th , w hocame to hear the wisdom of Solomon, the wisest of the wise , and theNinevi tes , who repented a t the preaching of Jonah, the most success-fu l o f the p rophe t s ; fo r "be ho ld , a g rea te r than So lom on i s he re , "and "behold , a greater than Jonah i s here" (Mat t 12:42 = Luke 11:32[Q]) . How are we to unders tand th is "behold , a greater than Solomonis here" i f not in the sense of the end of the old "salvat ion history,"and the da w nin g o f the Kin gd om of G od in the w ork o f Jes us h im se l f?Because he i s "more than a prophet" he does not begin h is author i ta-t ive words wi th the Old Testament ' s "Thus says the Lord ," but wi ththe un ique " A m en , I say to yo u."

In my judgment , the rea l Jesus was more enthusias t ic , more ecsta-

t ic , more passionate , and that means a lso , more a l ien to us , than weenl ightened Westerners care to admit today. We al l tend to shape h imtheo log ica l ly " in our image . " The en thus ias t i c , mess ian ic Jesus i sfu r the r f ro m us than the " rabb i and p roph e t" who has beco m e dearto us, or even the "herald before the end."

Jesus ' "e th ical" preaching, as wel l , s tands under h is "messianic au-thor i ty, " wh ich can an t i c ipa te G o d ' s jud gm en t : who eve r judg es , w i ll

h im sel f be jud ge d, only he w ho hears and obey s h is word bui lds upo nthe rock, whoever i s anxious makes mammon his idol . This very say-ing , "Do no t be anx ious , " con t rad ic t ing a l l wisdom and exper ience ,presupposes that l imi t less care of God, which i s par t of h is Kingdom.With the seeking of the Kingdom of God as a present power, anxie tyand fear fa l l by the wayside . This command, "Do not be anxious," i sjust as much par t of h is d iv ine "messianic" cer ta in ty as the saying

about f a i th tha t moves mounta ins , and the ce r t a in ty o f answer toprayer. That he reveals the Kingdom of God in parables shows that



he (a lone) knows i t s present nd fu ture secre t .The t r ia l of Jesus , which ends wi th h is execut ion as messianic pre-

tender, and the unique author i ty, which determines h is preaching, h isminis t ry, and his conduct , i l luminate each other. Therefore , i t seemsto me also probable that he goes to Jerusalem in this very authori ty,wi th h is death before h is eyes as the way that the Father has deter-mined fo r h im. The doub le say ing , " I came to cas t f i r e upon theear th ; and wou ld that it w ere a l ready kindled I have a bap t ism wi thw hich to be ba pt ize d; and how I am con st ra in ed un t i l i t i s acc om -pl ish ed " (Luk e 12:49 -50) , indic ates that he is goin g to his dea th fo r

the sake of his mission. This is also t rue of the quest ion by the sonsof Zebedee, the debated ransom saying (Mark 10:45) , and above a l l ,the words spoken a t the Last Supper. Jesus goes to h is death for thesake of his messianic ministry to Israel .

That he in tended to address not only the Gal i lean popula t ion , butal l Israel , is seen by his cal l and appointment of the Twelve and hissending them out among the people . He cal l s them to fo l low him as

God once ca l l ed the p rophe t s , and commiss ions them wi th h i s mes-sage.

Just as the Son of Man and the Messiah cannot be fundamental lysepara ted , ne i the r may one priori com ple te ly t ea r the "p rop he t i c"f r om the "k ing ly" Me ssiah . Each i s "Sp i r i t -be are r" in a un iqu e w ay,and th is connects the two. Also , the "kingly," and the "prophet ic ,"Messiah can be teacher and procla imer of God 's wi l l , and even more

so, ju dg e. A t f i rst , the mo tif of the pol i t ical M essia h can re ce de intothe background: the overcoming o f the wor ld ly powers a t enmi tywi th God, not only the ru l ing pol i t ica l k ingdoms, but above a l l inSa tan as the i r lo rd , was accompl i shed " in power" by God ' s mi rac le .O ne ca nno t deny a ll poli tica l con sequ enc es to Jes us ' e ff ic ac y, but th iswas of a very d i fferent k ind than that of the var ious "messianic" pre-tenders of his t ime.

About Jesus, one may say that he made his appearance in Gali lee as"A no in te d o f the Sp i r i t , " in the m an ne r o f I sa iah 61 , and w as ex ec u te din Jerusalem as "King of the Jews." That h is fami ly was repor ted tobe descen ded f r om Dav i d , t ha t he add r e s sed t he en t i r e " t we l vet r ibe s" wi th the fu l f i l lm en t o f p rom ise and the daw nin g K ing do m ,that he not only entered Jeru salem a cc om pa nie d by a cro w d gree t inghim as a messianic f igure , but entered wi th eschatological author i ty,a l l may have p layed a ro le here . With regard to the charges a t h istr ial , he did not renounce the messianic claim.



How he h imse l f v iewed the escha to log ica l ccomplishment of hi swork, we may only presume by exa m ining such texts as M ark 14:25;10:37; or 14:62. In our lack of knowledge, however, we should notforget that Jesus ' d isc ip les knew inf in i te ly more about Jesus than wetoday, and that this knowledge also f lowed into the ear l iest Christol-ogy wh ich beg an d i r ec t ly wi th , and a f t e r, the Ea s te r ap pe ara nc es .H ow co uld th is hav e been otherw ise Ea ster d id not a l ter the d i rectremembr nce of Jesus . Th is exp er ie nce bur ned it in to the hea r ts ofthe disciples.

With our extant sources , we tod y can sketch only a very f rag m en -tary "pic ture" of Jesus ' minis t ry. To be sure , th is i s t rue of manygrea t f igu res f ro m an t iqu i ty. I am re m inde d o f the de ba te ov er the"h i s t o r i ca l S oc r a t e s . " Many f ea t u r e s r em a i n ob scu r e . Ho weve r, weought not therefore to make of necessi ty a v i r tue , and, wi th radicalc r i t i ca l skep t i c i sm, r e jec t limine i n fo rm at ion wh ich is p lau s ib le .That Jesus nei ther in tended to be a mere "rabbi and prophet ," norone " e scha t o l og i ca l p r o ph e t " am ong m any, ou gh t no l on ge r t o bedisputed . Just as one-s ided i s the p ic ture , so popular today, of thesup e r t em por a l , b enevo l en t t e ach e r o f b r o t he r l y l ove and hu m aneprinciples, who died in the end as a martyr for his good cause. Here,aspects appeal ing to the modern mind are emphasized in a one-s idedmanner. Or thodox- fundamenta l b ib l i c i sm has i t s coun te rpar t in c r i t i -c a l b i b l i c i sm .5 5 Both are naïve and in danger of doing vio lence tohis tor ica l rea l i ty—the one, because of i t s ahis tor ica l b ib l ica l l i tera l -

i sm, and the o ther, because i t se lec ts and in terpre ts in accordancewi th i t s m od er n wo r ld -vie w , and theo log ical in te"fests . A ga ins t theview, s ince Wrede, of the unmessianic Jesus , i t must be admit ted thatJesus conducted h imsel f wi th "messianic" author i ty, and was executedas a mess ian ic p re tender. Only thus a re the deve lopment o f pos t -Eas te r Chr i s to logy, the accoun t s o f h i s Pass ion , and h i s e ff i cacy,h i s to r i ca l ly comprehens ib le .

With h is messianic c la im, Jesus the Jew may appear a l ien , indeedv ex i n g , s i nce h i s "m y t h i ca l " cha r ac t e r i s t i c s ob scu r e ou r e t h i ca l l yde te rmined , demytho log ized p ic tu re o f h im. But the r ea l Jesus wasvery d i ff e ren t . He l ived in the l anguage and imagery o f the OldTe s t am en t and its J ew i sh - Ga l i l e an en v i r on m e n t , and h e co nd u c t ed

5 5 On e imm edia te ly th inks of the North Am erican Jesus Sem inar. For t rencha ntcr i t ic isms of th is group 's presupposi t ions , methods , and conclus ions , see the chap-ter in this vo lum e by N. T. W righ t.



him self with the— in the t ruest sense of the w or d— ap oc aly pt i c ( thewo r d co m es f r o m ά π ο κ α λ ύ π τ ε ιν , t o r ev ea l ) r ig h t to u sh e r inG o d 's reign over Israel (and all nat ion s) , and, as the A no inte d ofG o d , to fu lf i l l the pro m ises ma de to the fath ers and the pr op het s .His death—which he conscious ly aff i rmed—placed the sea l o f con-firmation on this r ight.

That Jesus conducted himself in this manner, I hold to be provableby the methods of h is tor ical-cr i t ical research. From this f low conse-qu en ces f or theolo gical ref lect ion as wel l ; for, as the m essianic br in gerof salvat ion, he is the fundament of our fai th , who fulf i l led the Old

Covenant , and breathed the breath of l i fe in to the New. His personand w ork ch arg e us with the task of a w ho le biblical the olo gy tha treal ize s its Jew ish he r i tage (and the pres ent Israel) , a b ibl ical the olo gythat does not eradicate the l ines between the Old and the New, butp roper ly de f ines them, and , r emember ing a long and checkeredhistory, considers them afresh. I could also express th is in the wordsof Paul with wh ich I beg an (R om 15:8): Th e Jew , Jes us of Na zar eth ,

be ca m e the M ess iah of Israel in ord er to fu lfi l l the pr om ises m ad e tothe fath ers , and he bec am e for us , the Ge nt i les , the author of oursal va t ion , be cau se we ex pe rien ce in him wha t the love of G od is , thatwe might, for the sake of such grace, praise as u r Father, the Godof Israel and Father of Jesus Christ .





A S S E S S I N G T H E H I S TO R I C I T Y

O F J E S U S ' W A L K I N G O N T H E S E A

I N S IG H T S F R O M C R O S S - C U L T U R A L SO C I A L P S Y C H O L O G Y

Bruce J. Malina

The task of assessing the authentical ly histor ical deeds of Jesus can

only be under taken by means of the imaginary const ructs of readersand/or hearers of the Gospel documents . Readers and/or hearers reador hear the documenta ry sources fo r a l i f e o f Jesus in o rder toimagine and assess the wr i t ten descr ip t ions of the deeds in quest ion .Every person seeking to evaluate the h is tor ica l authent ic i ty of Jesus 'deed s t h us m us t necessa r i l y a s sum e and ap p l y som e t heo r y o freading, of language and of socia l meaning, whether they are aware

of i t or not (see Malina 1996) . While a number of scholars do invoket he Ro m an t i c , a e s t he t i c ca t eg o r y o f t he Go spe l s a s " l i t e r a t u r e , "nearly al l give no thought to the fact that the descr ipt ions in quest ionin i t i a l ly had mean ing because o f some f i r s t - cen tu ry Medi te r r aneansocial system context. And if they have any meaning today at all , i t isonly because the reader or hearer br ings to h is or her reading orl i s t en ing imagina t ive scenar ios o f soc ia l in te rac t ion f rom a soc ia lsystem context , more of ten than not that of thei r own contemporarysocie ty. In the quest for evaluat ing the authent ic deeds of Jesus , Isuggest that an appreciat ion of the social system of those who at testto Jesus 's deeds as well as that of those who read those deeds today isf u nd am en t a l .

C U R R E N T A S S E S S M E N T S O F T H E E P I S O D E O F

J E S U S ' WA L K I N G O N T H E S E A

This s tudy i s about the episode of Jesus walking on the sea (Mat t14 :22-33 ; Mark 6 :45-52 ; John 6 :16-21) . The most r ecen t overv iewof p rev ious in te rp re ta t ions o f th i s ep i sode i s tha t o f Pa t r i ck J .M ad d e n ( 1997 , a d i s se r t a t i o n d i r ec t ed by Jo se p h A . F i t zm ye r ) .M ad de n de scr ibes f ive types of assessm ent of th is passag e:

T he f i rs t gro up wi th hold s any jud gm en t conc ern ing the h is tor ic i ty of the

pe r icop e . Th ey en ga ge mere ly in sou rce and li t e ra ry ana lys es , o f t en



s t re ss ing the symbol ic mean ing o f the s to ry, bu t make no judgementwhether or not there was a h is tor ica l event under ly ing the symbol ism. Thesecond group regards the story as a historical account of a miracle that took

place dur ing the minis t ry of Jesus . The th i rd group of in terpre ters proposesthat an originally natural event during the l ife of Jesus has been given ami racu lous in te rp re ta t ion . The four th g roup o f commenta to r s r ega rds thewalking on the sea as a symbolic story with no concrete event as i ts basis .This group differs from the f irst group in that for them the story is definitelynot h is tor ica l . Th e f i f th grou p argue s tha t the s tory is a d isp lac ed resurr ec-tion narrative (Madden 1996: 1).

A fte r du ly des cr ib ing the pos i t ions o f a l l these g roups , M ad de nhim se l f o p t s to jo in the f i f t h g ro up . H e p rese n t s h i s pos i t ion asfo l lows:

While absolute cer ta in ty is not to be had, i t appears more l ike ly tha t anor ig inal ly pos t resurrec t ional narra t ive has been t ransposed to the Gal i leanministry rather than vice-versa. There are no real parallels to the sea-walkingnarrative in the OT or in pre-Gospel pagan literature. So it is likely that thisunique narrat ive is related to Christ ianity 's unique event, the resurrection of

Jesu s (M add en 1996: 138-39) .

Fro m M ad de n ' s exc e l l en t su rvey and sum m ary, it is appa ren t tha tJe su s ' w a lk in g on the sea is one o f those cu l tu ra l ly un fa m i l i a r,problem-f i l led behaviors in the t radi t ions about Jesus . These includeh i s hea l ings , exorc i sms , h i s hear ing vo ices f rom the sky, see ingvis ions of Satan and angels in the wi lderness , wonders such as h ismul t ip l ica t ion of loaves and f i shes , or the d isc ip les ' v is ionary exper i -

ence ( t r ansf igura t ion , appearances o f the r esur rec ted Jesus) and thel ike . Such behaviors are a problem largely because there i s no roomfor them among the pat terns of conduct and percept ion avai lable incon temporary U.S . and nor thern European soc ia l sys tems . They a reanomal ies , not repl icable in terms of contemporary cul tura l cues .

T h e p r o b l e m s pos ed by such beh av i o r s a r e va r i o u s l y so l ve d .Con se r v a t i ve , "be l i ev i ng" scho l a r s h ave r ecou r se t o t he ca t ego r y,

"mi rac le , " and t r ace the behav ior to some superna tu ra l agency. Thereason for this, i t seems, is that i f the behavior in quest ion occurredin the way i t i s descr ibed in the Gospels , then modern wi tnesseswo u l d h av e to s ay it wa s m i r acu l ou s , ob v i o us l y sup e r n a t u r a l l ycaused. These scholars seem innocent of the fac t that the ca tegory"miracle" as they use i t is t raceable to rather recent t imes (see Brown1984; Remus 1983) , whi le the l abe l , " superna tu ra l , " inven ted by

Origen in the third century, was of l i t t le signif icance in the world ofJesus and much of the world today (see De Lubac 1948; Saler 1977) .



Libe ral scho lars , on the o ther hand, jud ge such be hav ior as s imp lyimpossib le , e i ther in the f i r s t -century Medi ter ranean or today. Hencesome modern , more enl ightened explanat ions must be used to c lar i fy

w ha t o u r ben i gh t ed f ir s t c en t u r y M ed i t e r r an e an a u t ho r s d e sc r i be .Such more en l igh tened exp lana t ions inc lude modern psycho logy andi ts psychosomat ic inventory, psychia t ry wi th i t s neurosis and psycho-sis : psychot ic in ter ludes , group delusions, or even to ta l shamanis t ichoaxes ( see Nol l 1983) . Among these enl ightened moderns , there arethe l i t e r a t i who would assess these behav ior s as l i t e r a ry f i c t ion ,f i c t iona l acco un t s deve lo ped fo r som e such pur pos e as sup por t in g

weak fa i th or symbol ical ly expressing some t ru th or even rooted inmisperceptions on the par t of f i rst-century witnesses (see Hesse 1965;Keller and Keller 1969) .

As a rule, any behavior not readi ly ver if iable in terms of the con-cep t ions ava i l ab le f rom the con tem pora ry soc ia l sys tem in to wh ichthe in terpre ter has been encu l tura ted is jud ge d to be a pro ble m . AsJung long ago noted: "a l l human beings are bad observers of th ings

that are unfamil iar to them" (1976: 307) . S ince the inqui ry in to theh i s to r i ca l au then t i c i ty o f Jesus ' deeds i s l a rge ly ca r r i ed ou t byl ibera l ly enl ightened scholars , the general presumpt ion i s that noneof these ext raordinary deeds i s h is tor ica l ly authent ic in the way theGospel authors descr ibe them. Thus Jesus sure ly healed , but psycho-phys ica l p rob lems were the r ea l i s sue and Jesus was a mas te r asins t i ll ing co nf ide nc e and a l l ay ing anx ie ty. He nce he cou ld "h ea l "

peo ple . Ex orc ism s are a case in point. The y are ins tances of psy cho l-o g i ca l p r o j ec t i ons p r oduced by p sych oses . J e sus ' t e chn i q ues we r esuccessful in redi rect ing the project ions and bols ter ing the pat ient ' scr ippled ego. The mul t ip l ica t ion of the loaves and f i shes and thesubsequen t walk ing on the sea s imply h igh l igh t Jesus as the newMoses , in a g raph ic r e te l l ing o f God ' s Exodus wonder s (wate r andfood) po in t ing up the ro le o f God ' s new prophe t ( see Be tz andG r i m m 1977; and the r an ge o f ex p la na t ion s in Th e i s sen 1983 :passim .

V I E W I N G J E S U S ' W A L K I N G O N T H E S E A

F R O M A N O T H E R P E R S P E C T I V E

A cross -cu l tu ra l , an th ropo log ica l appro ach to und er s tand ing theseext raordinary behaviors in the s tory of Jesus has produced a ra ther

di fferent se t of explanat ions . For such behaviors s t i l l exis t on the



planet in general , and in the Medi ter ranean as wel l . The US and i t sparen t nor thern Europe have g rown se lec t ive ly ina t t en t ive to suchbe h av i o r s . Tak i ng h i s cue f r o m an t h r o po l og i s t s , Jo hn P i l ch h a sd em on s t r a t ed t he h i s t o r i ca l a ccu r acy and p l au s i b i l i t y o f J e su s 'h ea l i n g s in t e r m s of m ode l s d r aw n f r om a nu m ber n o n - W es t e r nso cie t ies ( see Pi lch 1992; 1993a for a l is t of h is pr ev iou s w ork ) .P i l ch has a l so t aken the l ead in in t roduc ing the exp lana t ion- r i chca teg ory of a l tered (or a l terna te) s ta tes of co ns cio us ne ss ( = A SC )into New Testament study (Pi lch 1993; 1995; 1996; 1998a; 1998b) .

Some twenty- f ive year s ago , E r ika Bourgu ignon has demons t ra ted

tha t v i s ionary, t r ance- s ta te exper iences and o ther fo rms o f ASCsex i s t in i n s t i t u t i ona l i zed f o r m am o n g m os t so c i e t i e s co m p r i s i ngw or ld ' s popu la t ion . P i lch off ers an ove rview of her data , as fo l lo w s:

ASCs can be induced e i ther d i rec t ly and in tent ional ly or indirec t ly anduninten t ional ly. On a con t inuu m, such exper iences extend f rom RE M sleep( rap id eye movement ) on one end th rough t r ance and cu lmina te inposs ess ion t rance on the o ther, wi th many di ffe rent expe r ience s in b e twe en.

T he se ins igh ts and fur the r de ta i ls abou t them are based on a m et ic ulo usanalysis of the ethnographic l i terature from 488 societ ies in al l parts of theworld inc luding 44 c i rcum-Medi ter ranean socie t ies . Ninety percent of thesesociet ies reported one or more inst i tut ionalized, culturally patterned forms ofAS C. Eigh ty pe rcen t o f c i r cum -M edi te r ra nean soc ie t i e s sha red the sam eexper ience . S ince anc ien t Pa les t ine and ne ighbor ing soc ie t i e s such asAnc ien t Egyp t and Greece were inc luded in the da ta bank , the ASCexp er ie nce is a h igh ly p laus ib le , cu l tu ra l exp lana to ry mo de l fo r New

Tes tament r epor t s o f c i r cum-Medi te r ranean peop le see ing the Risen Jesus(Pilch 1998a).

In recent years a goodly number of researchers have taken ser ious ,exper ien t i a l , pa r t i c ipa to ry c ross -cu l tu ra l looks in to such phenomena ,reveal ing our ignorance of the broad range of possib le a l tered s ta teso f co n sc i ou snes s ava i lab l e in h u m an ex p e r i en ce ( Go o d m an 19 8 8 ;1990; Walsh 1993) . There i s s igni f icant evidence that ASCs represent

core exper ient ia l fea tures of human l iv ing in most socie t ies on theplanet , where they are "a mat ter of major impor tance, not merely ab i t o f an th ropo log ica l eso te r i ca" (Bourgu ignon 1973:11) . ASCs se rveto expla in v is ionary, t rance , and ecsta t ic exper ience , of ten combinedwi th ex t r ao rd in ary f ea t s o f beh av io r ( e .g . w a lk ing on a l adde r o fsh a r p kn i ves un sca t hed , wa l k i n g o v e r a bed o f co a l s un ha r m ed ,walking over an unrol led sheet of paper held off the ground wi thout

t ea r ing the paper, se l f -p ie rc ings wi thou t b leed ing and r a ther r ap idhea l ing , and the l ike— al l now do cu m en ted on f i lm , ava i l ab le on



videocaset tes , and sporadical ly te levised on The Discovery Channe l .A ny inc iden t p re sum ably roo ted in an A SC m ay be d i ff i cu l t fo r

Westerners to bel ieve because people in th is cul tura l area have beenencul tura ted to d iscount such s ta tes of awareness except in dreams.Pilch (1994: 233) has noted:

The p hysic ian-anthropologis t Ar thur Kle inm an of fers an explanat ion f or theWest ' s def ic iency in th is mat ter. "Only the modern , secular West seems tohave b locked indiv idual ' s access to these o therwise pan-human dimensionsof the self ." What is the Western problem? The advent of modern science inabout the seventeenth century d isrupted the b io-psycho-spir i tua l uni ty of

human consciousness tha t had exis ted unt i l then . According to Kle inman,we have deve loped an "acqu i red consc iousness ," whereby we d i s soc ia teself and look at self "objectively." Western culture social izes individuals todev e lo p a me tase l f , a c r i t ica l obse rve r who mo ni to r s and co m m en ts onexper ience . The me tase l f does no t a l low the to ta l absorp t ion in l ivedexp er ie nce whic h is the very esse nce of h ighly focu sed A SC s ( = a l te rnates ta tes of consciousness) . The metase l f s tands in the way of unref lec ted ,unmedia ted exper ience which now becomes d is tanced.

I f we recal l that "object iv i ty" i s s imply socia l ly tu tored subject iv i ty,we migh t be more empathe t i c wi th per sons o f o ther cu l tu res whorepor t pe rcep t ions tha t we f ind inc red ib le , whe ther mi racu lous o rnot , because they are socia l ly dysfunct ional for us .

We have come a long a b i t fu r ther than Kant , whose Critique ofPure Reason (178 1) i s dev oted to sho w ing how our per cep t ions , sofa r f rom conforming to the ob jec t s themse lves , can on ly conform to

the cond i t ions imposed by our own minds—which inc lude even suchapparent ly object ive external condi t ions as space and t ime. For Kant ,t h e " r e a l " wo r l d o f " t h i n gs - i n - t h em se l v es" i s bo t h unk n ow n an dun kn ow able . W e inhab i t a un iver se o f our ow n per sona l con s t ruc t s(see Pr icket t 1996: 184). Th e Kan t ian spin-o ff kn ow n as the "s oc iol -ogy o f knowledge" ( so o f t en confused in r e l ig ious s tud ies wi th theac ad em i c d i sc i p l i ne o f soc i o l o gy ) w o u l d g o a s t ep f u r t he r an d

procla im that rea l i ty i s socia l ly const ructed . But th is Romant ic v iewnormal ly conf l ic ts wi th U.S. pragmat ism that ins is t s that i t i s notreal i ty that i s socia l ly const ructed , but ra ther the socia l concept ionsby which we produce our cul tura l ly rooted percept ions . This meansthat real i ty is social ly interpreted. While I might stub my toe on ahard object in my path and interpret the object as a "a large stone,"the object and my immediate ly fe l t pa in are personal ly exper ienced

rea l i t i e s tha t a re no t soc ia l ly cons t ruc ted ( see Borhek and Cur t i s1975) . Th e reason fo r ins is t ing on the radical d i ffe ren ce be tw een the



social construct ion of real i ty and the social interpretat ion of real i ty ist ha t f o r t he f o r m er, AS Cs a r e m er e soc i a l l y co n t r i ved m en t a lco ns t ru c t s , w hi le fo r the l a t t e r, A SC s a re r ea l i t i e s . Ye t v a r io uscultures deal with these real i t ies different ly or not at al l , even to thepoint of denying thei r exis tence as anomal ies . Anomal ies are a lwaysful l of pro ble m s for m em be rs of a g iven socia l system (see M al in a1993: 154-59) .

W A L K I N G O N T H E S E A A S A N A S C E X P E R I E N C E

The Gospel descr ip t ions of Jesus walking on the sea have a l l thehal lmarks of a repor t of an ASC exper ience . As a mat ter of fac t ,Jes us is reg ular ly d esc r ibe d in the G os pe ls as a "sh am an is t ic holyman," to use an e t ic designat ion (see Pi lch 1998a; a lso 1996) . Thecateg ory i s w el l -kn ow n and m uch used by bib l ica l scho lars (Th eissen1983: 266) . In emic terms, Jesus was said to be a person l ike John theBa pt is t , E l i jah , Je re m iah or one of the o ld pro ph ets (M at t 16:14;Mark 8 :28 ; Luke 9 :19) . In modern descr ip t ions , these per sons can"vo lun ta r i ly en te r a l t e red s t a t es o f consc iousness in which theyexper ience themselves or thei r sp i r i t ( s) , t ravel ing to o ther rea lms a twi l l and in teract ing wi th o ther ent i t ies in order to serve thei rcommuni t i es" (Walsh 1993 : 742) . Th i s se rv ice cons i s t s o f so lv ingsocia l problems, providing unavai lable informat ion, heal ings , rescuesand the l ike. Ini t ial experiences that indicate one is able to experienceA SC u sual ly befa l l perso ns wh o are eff ec t ive in persona l in teract ion ,

supe r io r in ene rgy, con cen t ra t ion , m em ory , kn ow led ge and l eade r-ship. In ant iqui ty such persons had access to the realm of God, and inHel lenism they could be cal led sons of God, d iv ine men, those wi ththe power of god, d iv ine teachers , wise men, and the l ike (Gal lagher1982: 72) . P i lch was the f i r s t to apply ASC anthropological modelsto the Gospe l ep i sodes o f the t r ansf igura t ion and the r esur rec t ionappearances of Jesus (Pi lch 1995; 1998a; 1998b) . Malina applied this

pe r sp ec t ive in ex p la in in g the ecs ta t i c jo ur ne ys o f the au tho r o fRevela t ion (John took his sky readings whi le " in spi r i t , " 1 :10; 4 :2 ;17:3; 21:10; see Malina 1995, fol lowing Pi lch 1993b) .

F e l i c i t a s G o o d m a n , a f o r e m o s t r e s e a r c h e r in t o A S C s ( s e eG oo dm an 1988; 1990) has ident i f ied fou r e lem ents a lm ost invar iab lyfound in ASC exper iences ( summar ized in P i l ch 1993) . (1 ) Thoseexper ienc ing the v i s ion a re in i t i a l ly f r igh tened and (2 ) do no t

recogn ize the f igure . (3 ) The f igure in the v i s ion o ffe r s ca lming



assurance (e.g. "fear not") and (4) ident if ies self ("i t is I . . ." of tengiving a name) . Af ter th is opening gambi t , the v is ionary f igure thenproceeds to in teract wi th the v is ionar ies in terms of the purpose forthe ASC: p rov ide in fo rmat ion , hea l ing , r escue and the l ike . Forexample, in the Jesus t radi t ion, reports tel l of the f igure in the visionoffer ing informat ion sought by the one having the v is ion: a c learergrasp of the identity of the figure in the vision as in the Baptism orTr an sf ig ura t ion accou nt s , exp lana t ion o f a d i ff i c u l t p ro b lem (M at t11:25) , or the grant ing of a favor, most of ten heal ing (Acts 9:17-18) .

Why i s i t t ha t pe r sons f a l l ing in to ASCs, where these a re

inst i tu t ional ized, invar iably encou nter expecte d f igures of fer ing qui tere levan t in fo rmat ion , t imely r escue o r appropr ia te hea l ing? Good-m an o ffe rs data indicat ing that such exper ie nce s are a lw ays cul tura l lysigni f icant for the persons undergoing them because they have beensoc i a l i z ed i n AS C expe r i ences . Aga i n , she l i s t s f o u r r equ i s i t eco nd i t i o n s f ound am ong t he p e r son s she ha s s t ud i ed who hav eexper ienced ASCs and expect to have them: (1) The person needs to

know how to f ind the crack between the ear th , ordinary real i ty, andthe sky on the horizon, the al ternate real i ty. (2) The human body isan intruder in that al ternate real i ty, hence by bodily preparat ion andposture, the person must tune the physical self to the al ternate real i tyin order to proper ly perceive i t . (3) The person needs the readi lylea rnab le p roper ang le o f v i s ion . (4 ) The even t pe rce ived in theexper ience of the a l ternate rea l i ty i s sketched out very hazi ly ; hence

the exper ience mus t be f i l l ed in wi th e lements p rov ided by thegeneral cul tural story as well as by any specif ic story to appreciate apar t i cu la r expe r ience (Go odm an 1990: passim summar ized by P i l ch1994) . Goodman has , in fac t , demonst ra ted that i t i s not d i ff icul t toteach individuals how to access ASC states; she has done so in publicwi th r a ther inc redu lous Weste rn sub jec t s (g radua t ing German medi -cal s tudents) . But persons f rom socia l systems where ASCs are notinst i tu t ional ized f ind thei r exper iences to be vacuous, content less . I tseems the reason for this is that they br ing no cul tural ly signif icantand expected scenar ios to the exper ience (1990: 17) . In o ther words,as Walsh l ikewise notes , "[ASC] exper iences are consis tent wi th thewor ld v iew and ontocosmology of the t radi t ion . This suggests thatthe re is an in t r igu ing com plem enta r i ty be twee n a t r ad i t ion ' s wo r ldv iew and i t s t echno logy o f t r anscendence such tha t an e ff ec t ivetechnology (se t of pract ices) e l ic i t s exper iences consis tent wi th andsuppor t ive of the wor ld-view" (Walsh 1993: 158, c i t ing Walsh 1991) .



Consequen t ly, i f desc r ip t ions o f th i s exper ience a re so r i ch inact iv i ty and imagery, i t i s only because par t ic ipants were cul tura l lyprepared to have such exper iences and to know what i s lef t unsaid inthem. Hence any in terpre ta t ion of the ASCs in the Gospel requi resthat the in terpre ter delve in to the avai lable d imensions of personsencu l tu ra ted in ASC exper iences and compare them wi th f ea tu res inthe Jesus t r ad i t ion . ASC scenar ios migh t be equa l ly composed f romdata provided by Israel ' s t radi t ions that report events that took placein an a l t e rna te d imens ion o f r ea l i ty and tha t invo lved peop le o rbeings who s t raddled the two dimensions. For example , the s tor ies of

El i jah and El isha as wel l as descr ip t ions in the books of Ezekie l ,Z e c h a r i a h , D a n i e l , E n o c h a n d J o h n ' s R e v e l a t i o n a r e e x c e l l e n texamples of avai lable s tor ies .

C U L T U R A L F E AT U R E S IN T H E E P I S O D E O F

J E S U S W A L K I N G O N T H E S E A

The account of Jesus ' walking on the sea is reported in Matt 14:22-33 , M ark 6 :45 -52 and John 6 :16 -21 ( fo r a b r i e f l it e r a ry ana lys i sbased on " t r ad i t ion-h i s to r i ca l " c r i t e r i a , see Bul tmann 1968: 216) .In te res t ing ly, th i s inc iden t in te rvenes be tween the f eed ing o f the5000 and events at the other side of the sea in al l three sources. Theevents on the other side are heal ings at Gennesaret in Matt and Mark,seeking Jesus in John. The sequence presents a scenar io that covers"evening," "dark" (expl ic i t in John 6:17, "four th watch" in Mat t andMark) , and "the next day" (explici t in John 6:22, implici t in Matt andMark) . The sequence marks an ent i re n ight . Jesus thus comes to h isdisciples at sea on a stormy night .

The actors in the story include Jesus and his disciples as well as thewind and the sea. The fact alone that the wind and sea are actors isindicat ive of a society in which one might expect to f ind persons withA SC ab i l i ties . Jesu s had a lready bee n presented as a per son ca pa ble

of ASC exper ience . F i rs t , there was the sky voice a t bapt ism (Mark1:11; Luke 3:22; in Matt 3:17 the voice may be directed to the otherholy man in the story, John the Prophet; and in another context , thesky vo ic e in Joh n 12 :28) . Th en there wa s the in te r lud e in thewi lderness where Jesus ' loyal ty to God is tes ted by Satan/devi l (Mat t4 :1 -11 ; Mark 1 :12-13 ; Luke 4 :1 -13) , and where God ' s sky- se rvan t s ,the angels, minister to Jesus (note in Luke) . And the f i rst act ivi ty of

Jesus descr ibed in the t radi t ion i s h is abi l i ty to exorcize (Mark



1:23-28; Luke 4:33-37; not ment ioned a t th is point by Mat thew or a ta l l by John) . Along wi th exorc iz ing and hea l ing , Jesus l ikewisedemonst ra tes abi l i ty as an as t ra l prophet ( see Mal ina 1997) . In sum,he i s l ike one of I srael ' s prophets of o ld , for whom ASC exper ienceswere qui te normal .

H eav y win ds to rm s a re a com m on o ccur rence on the Sea of G a l i l eeat cer tain t imes of the year, and the suddenness with which they canarise is t ruly astonishing. In ant iqui ty, winds and seasons of the yearwere per son i f i ed , o r a t t r ibu ted to ce r t a in non-v i s ib le , pe r son- l ikecosmic fo rces o r powers .

I t is important to note that in al l three sources, we are told that"they ( the disciples) saw him (Jesus) walking on the sea" (Matt 14:26;Mark 6:49; John 6:19) . As Mal ina and Rohrbaugh note (1998) , thesea is an anim ate be ing, essent ia l ly d i ffe re nt ent i ty f ro m w ate r ( seeRenaud 1997) . To walk on the sea is to t rample on a being that canengulf people wi th i t s waves, swal low them in i t s deep, and suppor tal l sor ts of l iving beings. Given the structure of boats in the per iod,

people who t raveled over or worked on the sea l i tera l ly put thei rl ives in the hands of the spir i t (s) or dei ty that revealed i ts moods inthe varying movements of the sea , f rom stormy, to rough, to ca lm,and the l ike . The Greco-Romans ident i f ied the " l iv ing" sea wi th theimpor tant dei ty, Poseidon/Neptune (Semites ca l led th is dei ty : Tiamator Tehom), a dei ty noted for v io lent power. Jesus ' abi l i ty to walk onthe sea is evidence of his place in the hierarchy of cosmic powers.

The point is that in the world of Jesus, the wind and the sea, feversand unclean spi r i t s , were person- l ike ent i t ies who could be spoken toand who might obey or not . Jesus could command the wind and thesea (Mat t 8 :26-27 ; M ark 4 :39 -41 ; L uke 8 :24-25) , jus t as he co m m an d-ed unclean spi r i t s (Mark 1:25; Luke 4:35; and again Mat t 17:18;M ark 9 :25 ; Lu ke 9 :42) and hum an be ings Lu ke (4 :39) a l so r epor t stha t f ever s cou ld be commanded .

The story reports that the disciples were in a boat in the middle ofthe sea in the middle of the n ight . They exper ienced an ASC of awaking vision (as Matt 14:28 indicates this with: "Lord, i f i t is you. . .") . T ha t the discip les sho uld ha ve such v ision s is not su rpr isin g.Af ter a l l they were chosen to deal wi th unclean spi r i t s , thanks toJesus ' author izat ion (Mat t 10:1; Mark 3:15; 6 :7 ; Luke 9:1) . Perhapsi t is signif icant that while Matt 10:1 notes: "he gave them authori tyover unclean spir i ts to cast them out , and to heal every disease andevery inf i rmi ty"; and Luke 9:1-2 s ta tes : "[he] gave them power and



author i ty over a l l demons and to cure d iseases , and he sent them outto preach the k ingdom of God and to heal ," Mark has no ment ion ofJesus g iv ing h i s d i sc ip les hea l ing power. Mark ' s on ly in fo rmat ion ,repeated twice , i s that Jesus "appointed twelve to be wi th h im andhave author i ty to cast out demons" (Mark 3:14-15) , and again , Jesus"gave them author i ty over the unclean spi r i t s" (Mark 6:7) . And yetMark repor ts that the d isc ip les "cast out many demons, and anointedwi th o i l many tha t were s i ck and hea led them" (Mark 6 :13) . Theimpl icat ion i s that in the Markan t radi t ion , Jesus chose persons whoco uld hea l Fu r the r, the t r ip le t radi t io n rep or ts that the d isc ip le s

were no t a lways success fu l even in wha t they were empowered andau tho riz ed to do, that is exp el evi l spir i ts/de m on s (Ma tt 17 :16; M ar k9:18; Luke 9:40) . The point is that the disciples were no strangers tothe powers that normal ly were connected to persons capable a t ASCs.Whi le the t radi t ion notes the v is ionary exper ience of Peter, Jamesand Joh n a t the t r an sf igu ra t io n (M at t 17 :1 -9 ; M ark 9 :2 -10 ; L uk e9:28-36) , i t l ikewise te l l s of the v is ionary exper ience of a l l the

dis c ip les her e on the sea of G al i lee and af te r Je su s ' de ath (M at t28 :16 ; Lu ke 23 :36-4 3 ; r epea ted ly in John 20 :19 -23 , 24-29 ; 21 :1 -1 4 ;on ly in the long er en din g to M ark 16:9-20) .

T he acc ou nts repor t Je sus ' in i tia l in tent ion in the episo de. A gain ,for Mat thew and Mark, Jesus was walking across the sea to get to theother side, that is to reach the point toward which the disciples weret rav el in g (M ark 6:4 8b s ta tes that Jesu s w ishe d to pass them by ) .

Hence i t was only for tui tously that the disciples had their vision ofthe sea - t rav ers ing Jesus . In the G osp el nar ra t ive s? Jes us pre vio uslydemonst ra ted h is mastery over the sea (Mat t 8 :26-27; Mark 4:39-41) ,so th is episode comes as no to ta l surpr ise . On the o ther hand, Johnhas Jesus "walking on the sea and drawing near the boat" (6 :19) ;af ter prayer Jesus was s imply catching up wi th h is d isc ip les . In sum,the whole ep i sode focuses on the d i sc ip les and the i r v i s ionary

experience of Jesus on the sea. What sor t of cul tural sense would thisacc oun t hav e for i ts f i r s t -century Med i ter rane an aud ienc e?

W A L S H ' S M O D E L F O R M A P P I N G A S C E X P E R I E N C E S

Walsh has developed a model that provides for a mul t id imensionaldescr ip t ion and phenomenolog ica l mapping o f f ea tu res a l lowing fo ra compar ison of a l ternate s ta tes of consciousness based on ten years

of research and personal exper ience . He uses the model to h ighl ight



s ign i f i can t f ea tu res tha t chara c te r i ze the p rof i l es o f sch izop hre n icsdescr ibed in the Amer ican Psych ia t r i c Assoc ia t ion ' s Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental D isorders (198 0) . He then sets ou t thes efeatures in comparat ive ar ray a longside character i s t ics of shamans injourney t r ance s t a t es , Buddhis t Vipassana medi ta te r s and Pa tan ja l iyog ins (W alsh 1993 : 751-52 , Tab le I ). The comp ar i son dem ons t ra testha t A SC s a re no t pa tho lo g ica l , a s e thno cen t r i c W este rn ob serv er sm igh t th ink . His c ross -c u l tu ra l co m pa r i so n ind ica tes qu i t e c l ea r lythat the three ASC t radi t ions he c i tes have a lmost nothing in commonwith schizophrenia . His model runs as fo l lows:

Key Dimensions for Mapping Al tered Sta tes

1. D eg re e of redu ct ion of aw are ne ss of the exp er ie nt ia l con tex t orenvironment: ranging from complete to minimal or none

2. Abil ity to com mu nicate

3. Co ncen trat ion: important factor s here include:(a) The degree of concentrat ion and(b) Whether the a t tent ion is f ixed immovably on a s ingle objec t (e .g .

Bu ddh is t jha na s o r yog ic sama dh i s t a te s ) o r mo me nta ry o r f lu id ,where a t tent ion is a l lowed to sh i f t be tween se lec ted objec ts e .g . inshamanic jou rneys )

4. De gre e of control .Here there are two important types of control:(a) Ability to enter and leave the ASC at will(b) Ability to control the content of experience while in the ASC

5. D egr ee of arousal6 . D egr ee of ca lm . Th is refe rs to mo re than low arou sal , wh ich refe rs

simply to the level of activation, s ince calm also implies low levels ofagitat ion and distractibil i ty (Nyanoponika Thera).

7 . Sen si t iv i ty or subt le ty of sens ory perc ept io n . Th is m ay be e i th erreduced , a s in hypno t ic anes thes ia , o r enhanced , a s in Buddh is tinsight meditat ion.

8. Na ture of the sens e of self or identity

9. Af fec t: especial ly whe ther the exper ience is pleasura ble or painf ul

10. Out of body expe rience (O BE )Does the subject experience perceiving from a point that seems outsidethe body?

1 1. Co ntent of inner expe rience:He re man y fur the r diff eren tiat ion s can be made such as: Is the conten tformless or wi th form?

(a ) Formless , i . e . wi thou t d i ffe ren t i a t ion in to spec i f i c ob jec t s o r





Jesus - Yes

Disciples - No

Jesus - shift

Disciples - no shift

Jesus - NC

Disciples - fear, then

worship of Jesus

Jesus - mastery of sea

Disciples - vis ion

Jesus - Yes

Disciples - No

Jesus - shift


Jesus - NC

Disciples - fear, then

worship of Jesus


Disciples - vision

Jesus - Yes

Disciples - No

Jesus - shift


Peter - unsuccessful

Jesus - NCDisciples - fear, thenworship of Jesus


Disciples - vision

Peter - unsuccessful

master

6. Calm

7. Self-sense

8. Affect

9. Content

Content consistent with learned cosmology and traditions that shape culturally patterned wakingdreams or trances.

W e n ow cons i de r t he d i m e ns i on o f t h is phe nom eno l o g i ca l m aprelat ive to the episode in quest ion.

1. Degree of reduced awareness of the experiential context orenvironment

All three accounts var iously s ta te that the episode took place on"the sea." That i t was the sea of Gali lee can only be known from theg en e r a l na r r a t i ve con t ex t o f Ma t t h ew and Mar k , a l t ho ugh Joh nspeci f ies the locat ion in h is immediate context , not ing the a l ternatename of the sea, "that is the sea of Tiber ias" (John 6:1) . I t is diff icul tto assess how long the proposed t r ip across the sea was to take .However the accounts indicate the d isc ip les lef t la te evening ( i t was

a l r eady even ing when the f eed ing o f the c rowd took p lace Mat t14:15; cf . Mark 6:35; Luke 9:12) . I t was already the fourth watch ofthe n igh t whi le " they were mak ing hea dw ay pa in fu l ly, fo r the w indwas against them " (Mark 6:48; Mat t 14:24 s ta tes they were far f romland) . Thus the authors indicate the exhaust ing nature of the t r ip .Both the exhausted s ta te of the d isc ip les and the n ight t ime s i tuat ionare h ighly favorable to exper iencing an ASC.

In the exper ience i t se l f , the d isc ip les in Mat thew and Mark arefo cu sed exclusiv ely on thei r to il in a host i le env i ron m ent ; h en ce theywere qui te conscious of thei r envi ronment , not d i rect ly prepared forany v i s ionar y ex per ienc e . As fo r Jesu s , bo th M at th ew and M arkindicate that Jesus spend the n ight in prayer, enta i l ing h is in tensefocus on God . John s imply says Jesus wi thdrew a lone to " the"m ou n t a i n , p r e sum ab l y a l so t o p r ay a s Ma t t h ew an d Mar k i n f e r.

M od ern r esea rch ind ica tes tha t in the m edi ta t ive expe r ien ce "co n-sciousness of one ' s physical posi t ioning and envi ronment rapidly fade



away" (Forman 1993: 716) .

2. Ability to comm unicate

In al l accounts, the wind and sea take the ini t iat ive by threateningthe d i sc ip les wi th s t rong waves accompanied by heavy winds . Thewind and the sea in th is episode funct ion l ike the c loud in thet r ansf igura t ion account . In Mat thew and Mark , the d i sc ip les do no trecognize Jesus, but think a sea ghost of sor ts approaches them on thesea . Jesus does no t communica te wi th the d i sc ip le un t i l he comestoward the boat . In Mat thew and Mark, the d isc ip les cry out (Mat t14:26; Mark 6:49) . In John ' s account , the d isc ip les say nothing, butwere f r ightened (John 6:20) . But in a l l three repor ts , Jesus addressesthe fr ightened disciples with an "i t is I" message, features typical ofASC exper iences . I t i s because Jesus speaks to them that they f inal lyrec og niz e h im (exce pt , again , for John 6:19 whe re they knew it w asJesus walking on the sea) .

In M at th ew , there is a fu r th er da tum ; Peter speaks to the a pp ar i -t ion of Jesus (as in the t ransf igurat ion account) . However here Petertests the apparition ("if i t is you" Matt 14:28); to verify if i t in fact isJesus . He asks to be commanded to come to Jesus "on the waters ." I tis important to note that Jesus is not walking "on the waters," but "onthe sea ." Peter in terpre ts the ASC exper ience wrongly for when theappar i t ion invi tes h im to come, he s tep out "on the water" success-ful ly, but ev entu al ly "se es the w in d" (Ma tt 14:30) . T he win d with the

sea are an in tegra l par t of the envi ronment that a l low for the ASC.Pe te r ' s p resence "on the wate r, " a long wi th h i s "see ing the wind"cause him to fal l out of the ASC. He thus sinks "in the waters."

3. Concentration

Two th ings mus t be cons idered : the degree o f concen t ra t ion , andwhether i t i s f ixed immovably on a s ingle object or momentary andf l u i d , w i t h sh i f t i ng a t t en t i on . J e sus ap pea r s t o be i n t ense l yconcent ra ted on a s ingle object as he i s los t in prayer on " the"mounta in , God . In th i s concen t ra ted s t a t e , Mark exp l i c i t ly ( andMat thew impl ic i t ly) would have us bel ieve Jesus in tended to make hisway across the sea where he would catch up wi th h is d isc ip les ("Hemeant to pass by them" Mark 6:48; Mat t 14:25 s imply ment ions Jesuswas walk ing on the sea toward the boa t , wi thou t spec i fy ing h i s

in tent ion; John 6:19 descr ibes Jesus walking di rect ly to the boat ) . I t



i s the d isc ip les whose a t tent ion i s f lu id as i t moves f rom thei rs i tua t ion on the hos t i l e sea to the coming appar i t ion , wi th norecognit ion of Jesus unt i l he speaks. But even then Peter doubts (Matt

14:28) .

4. Control

Two elements of the ASC enter in to the considera t ion of cont ro l .F i rs t , can the subjects enter and leave the ASC at wi l l? S ince thetradi t ion of Jesus alone in prayer on "the" mountain is at tested to byal l three wi tnesses ( John indi rect ly) , then one might conjecture thatJesus was able to enter (and presumably leave) the ASC at wi l l aswel l as redi rect i t ( f rom prayer to crossing the sea) . The d isc ip les ,on the other, seem to sl ip easi ly into the ASC in their sleep-deprived,ex h au s t ed s i tua t i on , a co m m on expe r i en ce docum en t ed in c r o s s -cul tura l research.

Second , can the sub jec t s con t ro l the con ten t o f the ASC? InW al sh ' s m ode l , the ques t i on seeks t o de t e r m i ne w he t he r t he on e

exper iencing an ASC is able to employ the exper ience to h is or herown ends : to ob ta in answers to spec i f i c ques t ions , so lu t ions toproblems, abi l i t ies to heal , to rescue and the l ike . In Mat thew andMark, the d isc ip les ' request of Jesus to help them and the successfulou tcome of the r eques t po in t s to the i r con t ro l o f the i r ASCexper ience . Fur thermore , in Mat thew ' s accoun t Pe te r ' s t e s t ing o f theappari t ion and wil l ingness to step out of the boat on the sea could be

in te rp re ted as an a t t empt to manipu la te o r con t ro l the ASC. Th i sin te rp re ta t ion t akes on g rea te r l ike l ihood as Pe te r in f ac t wakensf rom his ASC exper ience when he "sees the wind." I t i s p lausib le thatthe au tho r en visi on s Peter in som e in-betw een state, not a dr ea m butnot fu l ly awake e i ther. In contemporary ASC exper ience , th is i s therea lm of "waking d reams," gu ided medi ta t ion , hea l ing s t a t es , andsimi lar v isual iza t ion s t ra tegies which a t ra ined person can manipula te

to sui t social needs and personal interest .At another level , i t seems each nar ra tor wishes to expla in the

nagging concern over Jesus ' t rue ident i ty that "br ings on" the ASC.Such indeed i s the case wi th the t ransf igu rat ion expe r ienc e , "br ou gh to n " by the co nc er n ove r Je su s ' iden t i ty ra ised jus t pr io r to theep isod e ("W ho do peo ple say I am ?" Mat t 16:13; M ark 8:27; L uk e9 :18 ) . Suc h a qu es t ion w ould w eigh hea v i ly on the co l l e c t iv i s t

m i n d - se t s o f pe op l e w ho li ve in g r o u p - ce n t e r ed r a t h e r t ha nindividual i s t ic cul tures ( see Mal ina 1994) . For Mark 6:52 says the



problem was that "they did not understand about the loaves, but theirhear ts were hardened"; Mat t 14:33 has a l l in the boat acknowledge:"Truly you are the Son of God." John, on the other hand, tel ls of thisevent in a context in which Jesus is proclaimed a prophet (John 6:14)and a k ing (John 6:15) . A vis ionary ASC l ike the t ransf igurat ionaccount would br ing enl ightenment and re l ief .

5. Arousal

Here Jesus ' he ightened arousal i s ref lec ted in the fac t that he canwalk over the sea at wil l in the ASC, as al l accounts agree. That thedisciples see this appari t ion of Jesus on the sea in the middle of as to rmy n igh t ind ica tes tha t someth ing abou t h im must have shonefor th . Th is is not unl ike the t ransf igura t ion acco unts wh ich m en t ionthat Jesus exper ienced heightened arousal ref lec ted in the change offacia l appearance (Mat t 17:2 and Luke 9:29) and gl i s tening garments(a l l three: Mat t 17:2; Mark 9:3 ; Luke 9:29) . This sounds s imi lar tothe con temporary ASC exper ience o f a pe r son ' s "aura . " Some peop lebel ieve that every person emanates an aura that i s v is ib le to thosewho know how to see i t . The aura g l i s tens or changes colors as thatper so n bec om es s t imula ted o r a roused . The d i sc ip les s imi la r ly expe r i -ence heightened arousal in al l three accounts: fear.

6. Calm

Throughout the account , Jesus remains qui te ca lm and in cont ro l .The disc ip les , on the o ther hand, are ra ther agi ta ted . Mat thew andMark best descr ibe th is condi t ion; John leaves i t impl ic i t in h isa s se r t i on t ha t t he d i sc i p l e s we r e f r i gh t ened . Bu t w i t h Je sus ' sassuaging word "have no fear" (Mat t 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20) ,the d i sc ip les p resumably f e l t a sense o f ca lm. Th i s f ee l ing i srepl ica ted in what happens when Jesus enters the boat . Mat thew andMark note how the storm ceased as Jesus took his feet off the sea andentered the boat (Matt 16:32; Mark 6:51) . For John, Jesus no soonerentered the boat than it hit the shore (John 6:21).

7. Sense of self, or identity

I n W a l s h ' s m ode l , t h is f ea t u r e l o o ks to w he t h e r t he p e r sonundergoing the ASC has a sh i f t in ident i ty, a "dis ident i f ica t ion f romthe convent ional egoic body-bound se l f - sense" (Walsh 1993: 758) . Inother words does the person in an ASC lose se l f - ident i ty, take up an



"out of the body" posture , or become enveloped in the some Al l orsomething s imi lar. Something of the sor t does occur in th is episodeof Jesus walking on the sea , but i t has nothing to do wi th Jesus '

ident i ty. Rather h is "egoic body-bound se l f - sense" loses i t s moor ingin the gravi ty determined, land bound l imi ta t ions of human being,enab l ing h im to walk on the sea . Th i s change in Jesus ' normalbear ing leads the d isc ip les to conclude that they do indeed see avisio n (exp lici t ly in M att 14:26; M ark 6 :49: "i t is a gh os t"; im plic i tin Jo hn 6:2 0) . Jes us ' d is t i nc t ive ide nt i ty is gra du al ly but c lea r lyd i s ce rne d by the d i sc ip les a f t e r he speaks to them . W hi le he i s

ini t ial ly confused with an appari t ion of some sea ent i ty, eventual ly heis pe rce ive d quite dist inct ly . Incid enta l ly, Ma tthe w repo rts that Peter,too , has an in-vis ion exper ience of a l tered physical bear ing. He i sin i t ia l ly successful , but h is "seeing the wind" snaps h im out of i t(Mat t 14:28-30) .

8. Affect

W as t h e expe r i ence p l ea su r ab l e o r pa i n f u l ? T he t h r ee acc o un t sindicate that the exper ience was in i t ia l ly to ta l ly f r ightening for thed i sc ip les , bu t even tua l ly qu i t e p leasurab le . The r eac t ion o f thedisc ip les d i f fe rs in each acco unt : in M at the w they show rev ere nce toJesus (Mat t 14:33) ; in Mark they show astonishment (Mark 6:51) ;whi le in John they are over joyed, "glad" ( John 6:21) . Yet these arenormal r eac t ions , typ ica l o f ASC cu l tu ra l pa t t e rns (Walsh 785) .

P eo p l e o f t en con f r on t f r i gh t en i ng expe r i ences , wh i ch a r e f o l l o wedby pleasant , ecstat ic , and bl issful experiences.

9. Content of the experience

I s the content formless or wi th form? The content of the exper i -ence of Jesus walking on the sea is surely not formless, al though thenature of the sea deities, l ike that of the sea itself , often is. On the

contrary, the content has d i fferent ia ted form: a person walking up tothe boa t , pe rce ivab le in the s to rm, hence g leaming in some way,giving words of assurance to the d isc ip les , then enter ing the boat .The disc ip les ' v is ion of Jesus walking on the sea as repor ted inMat thew, Mark and John i s we l l o rgan ized . The ep i sode f ea tu resJesus ' mastery over the sea and what i t represents in f i r s t -centuryM ed i t e r r an e an He l l en i sm . P e t e r ' s in ab i li ty t o dem ons t r a t e s i m i l a r

ma stery i s duly noted by M at thew . Th e m odal i ty of the p red om ina nt



objects (Jesus, the sea and wind, the disciples, their boat) is mixed:that i s , there are somat ic , v isual , and audi tory d imensions to th isA SC . Th e ob jec t s app ear to ha ve equ a l in tens i ty ( sou nd , c o lo r,appearance) , and the imagery of the v is ion i s cul tura l speci f ic ra therthan archetypal .

I n co nc l u s i o n , t h i s ove r a l l p h en o m en o l o g i ca l m ap p i n g o f t h erepor ts of Jesus ' walking on the sea conf i rms that the e t ic ca tegor ieso f W a l sh ' s m o de l have su f f i c i e n t b r ead t h t o en co m pa ss the em i cdescr ip t ions p resen ted by the Mat thew, Mark and John . What doesth is ana lys i s con t r ibu te to jud gm en ts o f au the n t i c i ty? Co ns id er therather abstract , general pr inciples used to evaluate the authentici ty ofs t a tem ents a t t r ibu ted to Jesus : c r it e r i a o f d i scon t inu i ty, em ba r ras s -ment , incongru i ty, mul t ip le a t t es t a t ion , exp lana t ion and coherence(Barr 1995: 467-73; Dul ing 1994: 520-23) . When these are appl iedto the deeds of Jesus , speci f ica l ly to the episode of the d isc ip les 'vision of Jesus walking on the sea, the fol lowing conclusions seem inorder. As for d iscont inui ty, repor ts of Jesus ac t ing as a shamanis t ic

holy man, a saddiq , sure ly d id not feed in to the project adopted byla te r Jesus Mess iah g roups . They would have Jesus as t eacher fo rthei r new f ic t ive k ins hip groups . S im i lar ly, the sent imen ts and v alue srepresented by Jesus as shamanis t ic holy man more bef i t a Hel lenis t icmagician than a Messiah or I srael i te son of God, a posi t ion awkwardfo r Jesu s M essia h gr ou ps. W hi le there is noth ing in th is ac t iv i ty intension with what Jesus is reported to have said to his fol lowers, the

incident i s found a t tes ted to in a number of ear ly sources , includingJohn. F inal ly the episode of Jesus walking on the sea does cont r ibuteto a cogen t por t r a i t o f a "be l i evab le" per son ( coherence) wi th acul tura l ly speci f ic socia l ro le : the shamanis t ic holy man, a prophetl ike John the Bap t i s t and o ther s wi th whom Jesus was compared"El i jah , Jeremiah or one of the prophets of o ld" (Mat t 16:14; Mark8:28; Luke 9:19) . Jesus ' walking on the sea f i t s in wi th the o ther

vis ionary exper iences we have noted as wel l as wi th h is heal ing andexorcizing and astral prophetic abi l i t ies (see Malina 1997) .

In sum , the Go spel t radi t ion of fe rs suf f ic ie nt indicat ion that bothJesus and his d isc ip les were capable of ASCs. Hence the v is ionaryexperience in the episode of Jesus ' walking on the sea is not total lyexc ep t io na l . B u l tm ann , am on g o ther s , o f f e r s a nu m be r o f pa ra l l e lincide nts (B ul tm an n 1968: 236 -37) . M add en presents a sam pl ing of

these repor ts , only to conclude that he could f ind no precise ancientliterary para l le l fo r the ep isod e (19 97: 49 -73 ) . A ga in , to c i te h is



conclusion: "There are no real para l le ls to the sea-walking nar ra t ivein the OT or in pre-Gospel pagan l i tera ture" (1997: 139) . But ASCexper iences are not l i terary or nar ra t ive forms, they are exper iences

that take cul tural shape and can be reported in a number of ways, infact in a l l the ways Madden has found in h is sources . As ASCexper iences , the ep i sode o f Jesus walk ing on the sea has manypa ra l l e l s As r ep or te d in the G os pe l s , the inc ide n t has a l l theha l lmarks o f h i s to r i ca l ve r i s imi l i tude and shou ld be r anked as ahis tor ica l ly authent ic episode.

Th e fo reg o in g app l i ca t ion o f a c ross - cu l tu ra l mo de l of a l t e red

s ta tes o f consc iousness exper ience on ly r e in forces wha t P i l ch hasnoted in his study of the t ransf igurat ion account:

[T]he social sciences reduce the number of plausible interpretat ions of textsl ike the transfiguration, but the choices that remain have a high degree ofMediterranean cultural plausibil i ty and would make perfect sense to i l l i teratepea san ts wh o const i tu ted 90 % of popu la t ion of f i rs t century Pales t ine . T heA SC is un do ubt edly an epip han y or theo pha ny fo r Jesu s and h is se lec tcompanions , even i f these words are not used . For people who have nocontrol over their l ives and who believe that God alone is in charge of l ife ,ASCs l ike ecstat ic visions are as essential to well being as aspir in or Tylenolis to mo dern W ester ner s. (Pilch 1995: 64)

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Barr, David L. New T estament Story: An Introduction. 2nd ed . Be lm ont : W ord s -worth , 1995.

Be t z , O t t o a n d We r n e r Gr i mm. Wesen und Wirklichkeit der Wunde r Jesu:Heilungen — Rettungen — Zeichen — Aufleuchtungen. AN TJ 2 . F ran kfu r t amMain/Bern/Las Vegas: Lang, 1977.

Borhek , James T. and Cur t i s , Richa rd F. A Sociology of Belief. N e w Yo r k :Wiley-In tersc ience , 1975.

B o u rg u i g n o n , E r i k a . Religion, A ltered States of Consciousness, and SocialChange. Co lum bus : Oh io Sta te Univers i ty Press , 1973.

—. C ulture and the Varieties of Consciousness. An Ad d i s o n - W e s l e y M o d u l e inAn th ropo logy, No . 47 . Read ing : Add ison-W es ley. 1974.

Brown, Co l in . Miracles and the Critical M ind. Gran d Rapids : Ee rdm ans, 1984.

Bu l t ma n n , Ru d o l f . History of the Synoptic Tradition. Rev. ed . Tra ns . John M arsh .

New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

De Lubac , Henr i . Surnaturel: Etudes historiques. Par is : A ubi er, 1946.

Du l i n g , De n n i s C . The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth andHistory. 3rd ed. Fort W orth : Ha rco urt , Bra ce, 1994.



Ga l l a g h e r, Eu g e n e V. Divine M an or Magician? Celsus and Origen on Jesus.SB L D S 64. Ch ico: Sch olars Press , 1982.

For ma n , Rober t K. C. "M ys t ica l K now ledge : K now ledge by Iden t i ty." J AAR 61

(1993) 705-38 .G o o d m a n , F e l i c i t a s D . Ecstasy. Ritual and Alternate Reality: Religion in a

Pluralistic World. Bloo ming ton and Ind ianapo l i s : Ind iana Unive rs i ty P ress ,1988.

—. Where the Spirits Ride the Wind: Trance Journeys and Other EcstaticExperiences. Bloo ming ton and Indianapol is : Indiana Univers i ty Press , 1990.

Hesse , Mary. "Mirac les and the Laws o f Na tu re ." Pp . 33 -42 in C. F. D. Moule ,ed . Miracles: Cam bridge Studies in their Philosophy and History. Lo n d o n :Mowbray, 1965 .

Jung , Car l G. The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings. Co l lec ted W ork s 18 .Pr inceton: Pr inceton Univers i ty Press , 1976.

Kel ler, Erns t and Marie-Luise Kel ler. Miracles in Dispute: A Continuing Debate.Phi lad elphia : For t ress , 1969.

Madden, Pat r ick J . Jesus Walking on the Sea: An Investigation of the Origin of theNarrative Account. B Z N W 81. Ber l in and New York : De Gru yter, 1979.

Mal ina , Bruce J . New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology.Rev. ed . Lou isvi l le : W estm inster /Jo hn K nox, 1993.

— . '"Le t Him Deny H ims elf ' (Mark 8 :34/ /) : A Socia l Psychologica l M odel of Sel f -De n i a l . " BTB 24 (199 4) 106-19.

—. On the Genre and Message of Revelation: Star Visions and Sky Journeys.Peab ody : Hen dr ickson , 1995 .

— . "R ead ing Theory Pe rspec t ive s ." Pp . 3 -31 . In The Social World of Jesus andthe Gospels. Lon don and Ne w York: Ro ut ledge , 1996.

—. "Jesus a s As t ra l P rophe t . " BTB 27 (1997 ) 83-98.

Nol l , Richa rd . "Shamanism and Sch izophren ia : A S ta te Spec i f i c Approach to the'S c h i z o p h r e n i a Me t a p h o r ' o f S h a ma n i c S t a t e s . " American Ethnologist 10(1983) 443-59 .

Pi lch , John J . "BTB Readers Guide: Unders tanding Heal ing in the Socia l World ofEar ly Chr i s t i an i ty." BTB 22 (1992 ) 26-33.

— . "Ins ights and Mod els for Un ders tandin g the Hea l ing Act iv i ty of the H is tor ica lJesus ." Pp. 154-77 in E. H. Lover ing , J r. , ed . Society of Biblical Literature1993 Seminar Papers. SB LS P 32. At lanta : Scholars , 1993a.

—. "Vi s i o n s i n Re v e l a t i o n a n d Al t e r n a t e Co n s c i o u s n e s s : A P e r s p e c t i v e f r o mCul tu ra l An th ropo logy." Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture 28 (199 3b)2 3 1 - 4 4 .

—. "The Transf igura t ion of Jesus : An Exper ience of Al ternate Real i ty." Pp. 47-64in Philip F. Esler, ed. Modelling Early Christianity: Social Scientific Studies ofthe New Testament in its Context. Lon don and New York: Ro ut ledg e , 1995.



— . "Al te r e d S t a t es o f Co n s c i o u s n e s s : A 'K i t b a s h e d ' M o d e l . " BTB 26 (199 6)133-38.

—. "Psycho log ica l and Psychoana ly t i ca l Approaches to In te rp re t ing the Bib le in

Soc ia l -Sc ien t i f i c Con tex t . " BTB 27 (199 7) 112-16.

—. "Appearances of the Risen Jesus in Cul tura l Context : Exper iences of Al ternateRea l i ty," BTB 28 (1998a) fo r thcom ing .

—. "A Window in to the Bibl ica l World : Walking on the Sea ," The Bible Today 3 6(1998b) 117-23.

Pr icket t , S tephen, Origins of Narrative: The Roman tic A ppropriation of the Bible.Cambridge: Univers i ty Press , 1996.

Re mu s , Ha r o l d . Pagan-Christian Conflict over Miracle in the Second Century.Patr is t ic Mon ogr aph Ser ies , No. 10. Phi ladelph ia : Phi ladelphia Pat r is t ic Fou n-dation, 1983.

Ren aud . Berna rd . "La 'Gr ande m er ' dans l 'Anc ien Tes tamen t : de la géogra ph ie ausym bo le ." Pp . 75 -101 in Augus t Bor re l l , Al fo nso de la Fuen te , and A rm andPuig, eds., La Bt blia i el Mediterrani — La Biblia y el Mediterrâneo — La Bibleet la Méditerranée — La Bibhia e il Mediterrâneo. Ac tes de l Co ng rès deB arc e lo na 18-22 de se te m bre de 1995 . Vo l . 1. A ba d ia de M on tse r ra t :

Associaciô Biblica de Catalunya, 1997.

Saler, Ben son. "Sup ernatu ra l as a W estern Cate gor y." Ethos 5 (1977 ) 31-53.

T h e i s s e n , G e r d . The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Tr a n s .Francis McDonagh. Phi ladelphia : For t ress , 1983.

Wa l s h , R o g e r. " P h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l M a p p i n g a n d C o m p a r i s o n s o f S h a m a n i c ,Buddh is t , Yog ic and Sch izophren ic Exper iences ." J AAR 61 (1993) 739-69.

— . " S h a m a n i c C o s m o l o g y. " ReVision 13 ( 1991) 86-10 0.





J E S U S A N D Z E C H A R I A H ' S M E S S I A N I C H O P E

Craig A. Evans

Jesus ' ent ry in to Jerusalem and his ac t iv i t ies dur ing the course ofthe Passion Week are marked by bibl ical symbolism, at least as theyare descr ibed by the evangel is t s : Jesus enters Jerusalem mounted onan animal , evident ly enact ing the prophet ic v is ion of Zechar iah . Inan t i c ipa t ion o f h i s approach to the Temple p rec inc t s h i s d i sc ip lesshout out some of the words of Ps 118:26 ("Blessed be he who entersin the nam e of the Lo rd W e bless you f ro m the hou se of the L ord ") .He encounters a f ru i t less f ig t ree and curses i t , perhaps echoing theprophet ic words of Jeremiah who laments that " there are no f igs onthe f ig t ree ," symbol iz ing that there are no r ighteous persons forGod to redeem (Jer 8 :13) . He enters the Temple precincts and dr ivesout merchants , perhaps in the spi r i t of Zechar iah ' s v is ion, and thenappeals to oracles f rom Isa iah and Jeremiah: "Is i t not wr i t ten , 'Myhouse shal l be ca l led a house of prayer for the a l l the nat ions '? Butyou have made i t a ' cave of robbers ' " (Mark 11:17; cf . I sa 56:7; Jer7:11) . Reviewing a larger par t of Mark 11 Deborah Krause , in arecent s tudy, f inds several points of contact wi th Hos 9 :10-17. Shebe l i eves the Hosean o rac le has in f luenced the Markan evange l i s t in

his se lect ion , ar rangement , and edi t ing of mater ia l .1 F inal ly, ment ionshould a lso be made of the Passion i t se l f . Jesus refuses the mixeddr ink (Mark 15:23, 34) , perhaps a l luding to Ps 69:21. The guardscas t lo ts fo r Je su s ' c lo th es (M ark 15:24) , pe rha ps a l lu din g to Ps22:18. Jesus i s mocked (Mark 15:29) , which probably a l ludes to Ps22:7. And in dying (Mark 15:34) , Jesus quotes Ps 22:1.

Many of these scr iptural al lusions are del iberate, or iginat ing in the

ear l iest stages in tel l ing the story and supplemented by the evangelists

1 D. Krause , "Na r ra ted P rophecy in Mark 11 .12-21 : The Div ine Author iza -t ion of Judgment ," in C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner (eds .) , The ospels and theScriptures of Israel ( J S N TS u p 1 0 4; S S E J C 3 ; S h e f f i e l d : S h e ff i e l d Ac a d e m i cPress , 1994) 235 -48. In a s tudy in the sam e volum e G. W . Bu chan an ("W ither ingTrees and Progress ion in Midrash ," 249-69) a t t empts to iden t i fy the p rophe t i cpas sag es that lay behind Jesu s ' (and the eva ng elis ts ') exp ectat ion to f ind fruit on thefig tree in the spring.



themselves (as compar ison of the la ter evangel is t s wi th Mark makesclear ) . The deta i l s f rom the lament Psalms are especia l ly compel l ingevidence of the intent ional blending of the story of Jesus with imagesand detai ls of Scr ipture. After al l , some of these detai ls are acted outby Roman so ld ie r s who cou ld hard ly be de l ibera te ly imi ta t ing thepat terns of the Jewish scr iptures.

Having sa id that , however, i t i s unjust i f ied to assume that a l l ac-t ions that ref lect bibl ical themes and images are the product of latertradents who wished to cast the stor ies of Jesus into a bibl ical l ight .As wi l l be show n below , there we re man y person s in the a pp rox im ate

t ime of Jesus whose act ions were c lear ly based on the pat terns ofScr ip tu re . Indeed , these ac t ions were in ten t iona l and pedagogica l ,meant to c lar i fy the agenda of the f igure . The embel l i shment of theGospe l na r ra t ives wi th words , phrases , and de ta i l s d rawn f rom thebibl ica l text d id not or ig inate wi th the evangel is t s and the t radentsthat pre ce ded th em ; it or ig inate d wi th Jesus h im sel f . Ear ly C hr is t iant radents and the la ter evangel is t s embel l i shed, formal ized, and made

explici t what in the Sitz im Leben Jesu was implici t and al lusive.What i s necessary, therefore , i s a nuanced approach in which the

embel l i sh ing and apologet ic tendencies of t radents and evangel is t s arerecognized, on the one hand, and the impl ic i t , symbol ic ac t ions ofJesus are uncovered, on the o ther. This approach recommends i t se l f ,for many features of the Jesus nar ra t ives are not readi ly expl icable asproductions of the ear ly Church (such as Jesus cursing the f ig t ree or

" t r iumphant ly" enter ing the Temple precincts , only to be ignored, orla ter becoming involved in an a l tercat ion in the precincts , the conse-quences of which are la ter mi t igated , or quot ing Ps 22:1 whi le dyingon the c ross , which hard ly pa in ted an impress ive por t r a i t o f theChurch ' s Mess iah and Lord) . Many of these f ea tu res a re no t eas i lyexpla ined as par t of Jewish eschatological or messianic expecta t ion . Iinvoke here, in general terms, the cr i ter ion of dissimilar i ty, a cr i ter-

ion which has been just ly cr i t icized. My appeal to i t is heurist ic andposi t ive, for i t is in i ts negat ive applicat ion ( i .e . because this is notdiss imi lar to Judaism Jesus could not have sa id or done i t ) tha t thecr i ter ion loses i ts val idi ty.

Whether o r no t Scr ip tu re se rves an apo loge t i ca l use may a l sod i s t ingu i sh be tween the Sitz im Leben Jesu and the la ter enr ichmentof the story of t radents and evangelists . In one way or another Jesus 'shamefu l dea th on the c ross was an embar rassment fo r Chr i s t i ans ,which needed explanat ion. Whereas the resur rect ion i t se l f may have



been suff icient for Gent i les , Jews would have required convincingarguments f rom Scripture. Scr iptural apologet ics are pronounced inM atth ew in Joh n, wh ich repeated ly ci te texts as fu lf i l le d by theevents that overtake Jesus. The appearance of al lusions to the lamentPsalms in the Markan Passion exemplifies this tendency.

So m e narrative tradit ions are com plex . Th e story of Ju da s' han din gover of Jesus is an interesting case in point . That Jesus was betrayedby one of his disciples is highly probable, for i t is very difficult toimagine why a tradit ion of this nature would have been invented bythe ear ly Church.2 The appearance of al lusions to Scripture (such as

the allusion to Zech 11:12 in Matt 26:15, and Zech 11:12-13 [withinf luence from Jer 18:2-3; 32:6-15] in Matt 27:3-10) test i fy both tothe authenticity of the story of Judas and to the need to explain it inprophet ic terms. But the scr ip tural t radi t ions themselves did notinvent the story. No one reading Zechariah 11 and Jeremiah 18 and32 would have dreamed up the story of Judas. But one searching thescriptures for clarification of this shocking story could have found in

these ancient prophecies helpful details and the sense that the actionsof this disciple were foreordained.Other events required no apologetic and, in the opinion of some,

no explanation. The so-called tr iumphal entry appears to be a case inpoint . The Markan evangelist narrates the story, without so much asan allusion to Zech 9:9 (in contrast to Matthew and John). For Markthe entry in to Jerusalem created no embarrassment . Jesus cut an

impressive figure. He does not ride on an ass, but on a colt (cf. Mark11:2, 5, 7: πώ λο ?) , entering the city am idst cries of ac clam ation .With these issues in mind, this study will focus on the apparent

al lusions to Zechariah clustered in the passion narrat ives of theGospels. I t is proposed that Jesus consciously patterned his entry intoand ministry within the city of Jerusalem in the light of themes andimagery found in th is prophet ic book. This proposal gains supportnot only from the observat ion of the many al lusions to Zechariah,but also from the observat ion that o thers f rom the approximate t imeof Jesus, apparent ly motivated out of hopes for Israel ' s restorat ion,acted out patterns found in Scripture.3

2 Th e im po rtan ce of the tradition of the Tw el ve apo stles is so stron g thatJudas must be replaced, even if there is no story of anything ever accomplished byhis replacement (cf. Acts 1:26).

3 M y ass um ptio ns here run squa rely cou nter to those of the North Am eric an



A C T I N G O U T S C R I P T U R E A S P H E N O M E N O N I N J U D A I S M

In a recent s tudy Jef f re y Tr um bo w er m ake s a com pel l ing ca se that

the prop hec ies of M alachi had a pro foun d inf luence on the career ofthe h is tor ica l John the Bapt is t . 4 The Bapt is t ' s d i re warning of thecoming judgment of f i re and the threat of an ax str iking the root oft rees (Mat t 3 :7-9 = Luke 3:7-9) echoes the language of Mai 3 :2-3 ,19-20. Of especia l impor tance i s Malachi ' s reference to one who iscoming. Trumbower notes that a l though other prophet ic texts , suchas Isa 5:24 and 33:10-12, make use of similar imagery, only Malachispe aks of a co m ing one. Indeed, M ala ch i ' s sharp a ttack on d ivor ce(Mai 2 :13-16) coheres wi th John ' s c r i t i c i sm of Herod ' s d ivorce andremarr iage (cf . Mark 6:18; Josephus, Ant. 18.5.4 §1 36 ).

The geographical se t t ing of the Bapt is t i s a lso in t r iguing. Hispresence a t the Jordan River may hint a t e i ther the s tory of thecrossing of the Jordan by Joshua or i t s crossing by El isha (2 Kgs2 :13-14) . John ' s compar i son e l sewhere wi th E l i j ah , E l i sha ' s p rede-cessor, possib ly favors the la t ter ident i f ica t ion . But h is reference to

the se sto ne s (M att 3:9 = Lu ke 3:8) m ay al lude to the tw elv e sto nesof Joshua 4. I t is possible that John had erected a memorial of twelvestones , taken f rom the Jordan, to recal l I srael ' s crossing in to thepromised l and and to r emind h i s con temporar i es o f the na t ion ' scommitment to the Lord (see my comments on pp. 7-9 above) .

For suppor t , Trumbower appea l s to the examples o f men l ikeTheudas whose act ions appear to be d i rect ly inspi red by the s tor ies ,as wel l as prophecies , of Scr ip ture . These men and thei r provocat iveclaims offer addit ional features of interest for the present study.5

Jesus Seminar, especial ly as seen in i ts most recent publication. See R. W. Funk(ed.) , The Acts of Jesus: Wha t Did Jesus R eally D o? The Search for the AuthenticDeeds of Jesus (San Francisc o: Ha rperC ol l ins , 1998) . Th rou gh out th is book thenarrated actions of Jesus are deemed inauthentic , i f they appear based in any way

on Israe l ' s scr ip tures .4 J . A. Tr um bo we r, Th e Role of M alachi in the Care er of John the Bap t is t ,

in Evans and Stegner (eds .) , The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, 28-41. Seealso J . D. G. Du nn, John the Ba pt is t ' s Use of Scr ip ture , in Ev ans and Stegne r(eds .) , The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, 42-54.

5 In ano ther study J . A. Tr um bo w er ( Th e Historical Jesus and the Spe ech ofGamal ie l (Ac t s 5 .35-9 ) , NTS 39 [1993] 500-517) r ecommends compar ing Jesuswith Th eud as and the Egypt ian Jew. See a lso C. A. Ev ans , As pec ts of Exi le and

Re stora t ion in the Proc lama t ion of Jesus and the G os pe ls , in J . M . Scot t (ed .) ,Exile: Old Testament Jewish and Christian Conceptions ( JSJS up 56 ; Le iden :



A cco rdin g to Josep hus, two Jewish m en in the f i r st centu ry pro m -ised fel low Israel i tes signs of salvat ion; one by par t ing the JordanRiver, the other by br inging down the walls of Jerusalem. We beginwi th Theudas (cf . Josephus, Ant. 20.5.1 §97-98):

97 During the per iod when Fadus was procura tor of Judaea , a cer ta inimpostor name Theudas persuaded the major i ty of the masses to take uptheir possessions and to follow him to the Jordan River. He stated that hewas a prophet and that at his command the r iver would be parted and wouldprovide them an easy passage . 98 With th is ta lk he deceived many. Fadus ,however, did not permit them to reap the fruit of their folly, but sent against

them a squadron of cavalry. These fel l upon them unexpectedly, s lew manyof them and took many pr isoners . Theudas h imself was captured , where-upon they cut off his head and brought i t to Jerusalem.6

Next we may cons ider the ep i sode o f the Jew f rom Egypt ( c f .Jo seph u s , J.W. 2 . 13 .4 - 5 §258 - 263 ; Ant. 20 .8 .6 §167-172) :

258 Besides these there arose another body of vil lains, with purer hands butmore impious intentions, who no less than the assassins ruined the peace of

the ci ty. 259 Deceivers and impostors, under the pretence of divine inspira-t ion fostering revolutionary changes, they persuaded the mult i tude to act l ikemadmen, and led them out into the desert under the belief that God wouldthere give them signs of free do m . 260 Against them Felix, rega rding this asbut the preliminary to insurrection, sent a body of cavalry and heavy-armedinfantry, and put a large number to the sword.

261 A st i l l worse blow was dealt at the Jews by the Egyptian false pro-phet . A charlatan, who had gained for himself the reputation of a prophet,th is man appeared in the country, col lec ted a fo l lowing of about th i r tytho usa nd du pes , 262 and led them by a circ uitou s route from the desert tothe mount called the Mount of Olives. From there he proposed to force anentrance in to Jerusa lem and, a f ter overpowering the Roman garr ison, to se thimself up as tyrant of the people, employing those who poured in with himas h is bodyguard . 263 His a t tack was ant ic ipa ted by Fel ix , who went tomeet him with the Roman heavy infantry, the whole population joining himin the de fence . The ou tcome o f the ensu ing engagement was tha t theEgyptian escaped with a few of his followers; most of his force were kil led

Bri l l , 1997) 299 -328 , esp . 300 -30 5, 324 -25. Also see R. A. Ho rs ley , Po pu larMess ian ic Movements a round the Time o f Jesus , CBQ 46 (1984) 471-95; idem,

Pop ular P rophet ic M ove me nts a t the Ti m e of Jesus : Their Pr inc ipal Features andSoc ia l Or ig ins , JSNT 26 (198 6) 3-27 ; idem , Le s grou pes ju i fs pa les t in iens e tleurs messies à la f in de l 'époque du second Temple, Concilium 245 (1993) 29-46.

6 Tran s la t ion , wi th som e mo di f i ca t ions , f rom L. H. Fe ldm an , Josephus IX

(LCL 433; London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard Univers i ty Press , 1965) 441,4 4 3 .



or taken prisoners; the remainder dispersed and stealthily escaped to theirseveral homes.7

167 With such pollution did the deeds of the br igands infect the city.Moreover, impostors and deceivers called upon the mob to follow them intothe desert. 168 For they said that they would show them unmistakable signsthat would be wrought in harmony with God's design. Many were, in fact ,persuaded and paid the penalty of their folly; for they were brought beforeFelix and he punished them. 169 At this time there came to Jerusalem fromEgypt a man who declared that he was a prophet and advised the masses ofthe common people to go out with him to the mountain called the Mount ofOlives, which lies opposite the city at a distance of five furlongs. 170 For heasser ted that he wished to demonstrate from there that at his commandJerusalem's walls would fall down, through which he promised to providethem an entrance into the city. 171 When Felix heard of this he ordered hissoldiers to take up their arms. Setting out from Jerusalem with a large forceof cavalry and infantry, he fell upon the Egyptian and his followers, slayingfour hun dred of them and taking two hun dred prisoners. 172 The Egyp tianhimself escaped from the batt le and disappeared. And now the br igandsonce more incited the populace to war with Rome, telling them not to obey

them. They also f ired and pil laged the vil lages of those who refused toc o m p l y.8

Th eud as and the Egy pt ian Jew were offe r ing the ir con tem por ar iesconfirming signs, in keeping with the tradit ions of the exodus.9 It isprobable that they were laying claim to the Deuteronomist ic promisethat som eda y Go d wo uld raise up a prop het l ike M os es (Deu t 18:15,18). Such a prophet would have to be confirmed by the fulfi l lment ofa prediction or sign.

The actions of Theudas are reminiscent of Joshua, the successor toM oses. Ac cord ing to Josep hus , th is man persu aded the m ajor i ty ofthe masses to take up their possessions and to fol low him to theJordan River. Theud as c la imed to be a p ro ph et( π ρ ο φ ή τ η ? ) a t

7 Tran slation, with som e mo dif ication s, f rom H. St. J . Th ack eray , Josephus

II (LCL 203; London: Heinemann; Cambr idge: Harvard Univers i ty Press , 1927)423, 425 .

8 Trans la t ion , wi th som e mo dif icat ions , f rom Feldm an, Josephus IX, 479 ,481 .

9 Th e word "sig ns" (σ η μ εία ) is very com m on in the exo du s story (som e threedozen occurrences) . Th e comb ination τέρα τα καί σ η μ εία ("won ders and signs"; cf .Ant. 20.8 .6 §168) is co m m on in the exo dus story, especially as retold in Deu tero-nomy (Exod 7:3, 9; 11:9, 10; Deut 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; 13:3 [in reference to false

"signs and wonders"] ; 26:8; 28:46; 29:2; 34:11) , while reference to "signs" takingplace "in the w ilde rne ss" is also attested in the ex od us tradition (N um 14:22).



w ho se co m m an d the r iver wo uld be par ted a l lowing for an easyp a s s a g e Ant. 20 .5 .1 §97) . Cal l ing himse lf a prop het coh eres w iththe Mosaic promise of Deuteronomy 18. Persuading people to gatherat the Jordan River, whose waters wil l be divided and which wil lthen be cross ed w ith ease, is surely p atterned afte r the exam ple of thegenera t ion of I s rae l i tes who crossed the Jordan , fo l lowing Joshua(Josh ua 1- 4) . Tak ing up possess ions he igh tens the para l lel , fo r theancient Israel i tes carr ied their possessions across the Jordan to thepromised land.

In the case of the Egyptian Jew the details are somewhat different,

but the Jos hu a-su cce sso r to-M ose s pattern is just as obv ious . Jo sep hu sspeaks of people being led out into the desert J.W. 2 .13.4 §259) . Asalready ment ioned, th is theme is common to the exodus s tory, but i talso is a feature in the story of the great Joshua, conqueror of thepromised land (Josh 1:4; 5 :6; 24:7) . Very reveal ing is Josephus 'refe ren ce to the c i rcu i tous rou te(περιάγω = " led around") . Thisword occurs in an important passage in LXX Amos 2:10 ("and I led

you up fro m the land of Eg yp t and led you aroun d [ π ερ ιά γω ] in thedesert [έν τη έρή μ ω ] forty year s . . .") . As the usage of the w or d inAmos shows, what Josephus seems to be descr ibing is a reenactmentof the exodus. Finally, in the later account in Antiquities, J o sep h u ssays that th is man "wished to demonstrate f rom there that at h isco m m an d Je r us a le m ' s wa l l s wou ld fal l dow n , th rough wh ich hepromised to p rov ide them an en t rance in to the c i ty" Ant. 20 .8 .6

§170) . Here we have an unmis takable reference to Joshua ' s f i r s tmajor conques t in the promised land—the co l lapse of the wal l ssurrounding the ci ty of Jer icho. Indeed, even the closing comment ,"the b rig and s . . . also fired [ έμ π ιπ ρ ά να ι] and pil laged the vil lage s ofthose who re fused to comply" Ant. 20 .8 .6 §17 2) , m ay very wel lrecall Israel 's burning (cf. LXX Josh 6:24: "And the city was burned[ έμ π ιπ ρ ά ν α ι] w i th f i re . . . " ; c f . 8 :19 ; 11 :11) and p lu nd er in g(11:14) of several ci t ies in Canaan. That the "br igands" did th is tothose who "disobeyed" (άπβιθβΐν) also coheres with the presentat ionof Joshua (cf. 1:18; 5:6).

Although Josephus did not discuss the biblical precedents and goalsof men l ike Theudas and the Egyptian Jew, we are able, nevertheless,to catch glimpses of their true purposes. I t is very probable that bothof these men promised a new conquest of the land, perhaps reflectinghopes of an eschatological jubi lee, in which the dispossessed couldreclaim their lost patrimony, and, in keeping with the requirement of



D eute ron om y 18, o ffe red con f i rm ing s igns .1 0 Thei r popular i ty andthe resu l tan t v io len t responses f rom the au thor i t ies tes t i fy to thebroad appeal of their message, as well as to i ts intell igibil i ty. Thepopu lace unders tood and iden t i f i ed wi th the p romised b ib l i ca ld el iv er an ce . Th e au thor i t ies und ers too d i t a l so and took s teps toeradicate i t .

J E S U S A N D Z E C H A R I A H

The scholarly l i terature that has investigated the extent, if any, ofZechar iah ' s in f luence on Jesus i s modest .1 1 Much of the discussionhas focused on the formal usage of Zechar iah , perhaps wi th theresul t of d iver t ing at tent ion away from the paral lels between Jesus 'behavior and themes in th is prophet ic book. Quotat ions and al lusionsto Zechar iah in the Gospels have been tabu la ted in the s tandardGreek New Testament edi t ions as fol lows:

U B S G N T:

Ze ch 1:1 Matt 23:35Ze e h 2:6 , 10 Mark 13:27Zech 2:6 Matt 24:31Zech 8:6 (LXX) M ark 10:27 = M att 19:26Zech 9:2-4 M att 11:21-22 = Luk e 10:13-14Zech 9:9 M att 21:5; John 12:15Zec h 9:11 M ark 14:24 = M att 26:2 8 = Luke 22:2 0Zech 10:2 M ark 6:34 = M att 9:36

Zec h 11:12-13 M att 27:9-10Ze ch 11:12 M att 26:15

1 0 Jo sep hu s ' descr ip t ion of the Egyp t ian Jew as a " fa ls e pro ph et" (ψ ευδό-προ φ ήτης· ) is consiste nt with and may even cons ciously ref lect Deu t 18:22, whichidentif ies the wicked prophet as one whose prophecies do not come to pass. In thecase of Theudas also the tradition of the test of the true prophet probably applied;after all, the promised parting of the Jordan did not take place.

1 1 F. F. Bruc e, "T he Book of Zec hariah and the Passion Na rrative ," BJRL 4 3(1960-61) 336-53; idem, New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes(G rand R apids : Ee rdm an s, 1969) 100-114; C. F. Ev ans , " Ί W ill G o be fore Yo uin to G a l i l e e ' , " JT S 5 (19 54 ) 3-18, esp. 5-8; R. T. Fra nce , Jesus and the OldTestament (Lo ndo n: Ty nda le, 1971) 103-10; R. M . Gra nt, "T he C om ing of theK i n g d o m , " JB L 67 (1948) 297-303; S . Kim, "Jesus—The Son of God, the Stone,the Son of Man, and the Servant: The Role of Zechariah in the Self-Identification ofJesus," in G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz (eds.) , Tradition and Interpretation in the

New Testament: Essays in Honor of E Earle Ellis for His 60th Birthday (Tiibin-gen: Mohr [Siebeck]; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 134-48.



Zech 12:3 (LXX) Luke 21:24Zech 12:10 Matt 24:30; John 19:37Zech 12:14 Matt 24:30

Zech 13:4 Mark 1:6Zech 13:7 Mark 14:27, 50 = Matt 26:31, 56; JohnZec h 14:5 Matt 25:31

N A2 7:Zech 1:1 Matt 23:35 = Luke 11:51Zech 1:5 John 8:52Zech 2:6 Mark 13:27Zech 2:10 Matt 24:31Zech 3:8 Luke 1:78Zech 6:12 Luke 1:78Zech 7:9 Matt 23:23Zech 8:6 (LXX) M ark 10:27 = M att 19:26Zech 8:17 Matt 5:33; 9:4Zec h 9:9 M ark 11:2; M att 21:5; John 12:15Zech 9:11 Mark 14:24 = Matt 26:28 = Luke 22:20Ze ch 11:12 M att 26:15

Zech 11:13 Matt 27:9Zech 12:3 Luke 21:24Zech 12:10, 12, 14 Matt 24:30; Luke 23:27Ze ch 12:10 Joh n 19:37Zec h 13:3 M ark 3:21Ze ch 13:4 M ark 1:6Zech 13:7 M ark 14:27 = Ma tt 26:3 ;J o hn 16:32Zec h 14:4 M ark 11:1 = M att 21:1

Zech 14:5 Matt 25:31Zech 14:7 Mark 13:32 = Matt 24:36Zech 14:8 John 4:10; 7:38Zech 14:21 Matt 21:12; John 2:16

To these one should probably add:

Ze ch 14:5 M ark 13:8; M att 27 :511 2

1 2

In an im agin ative retelling of 2 Ch r 26:16 -21 Jose ph us says that afte r kingUzziah's angry outburst in the Temple, "a great tremor shook the earth, and, as theSan ctuary [ό ναός1] was divided [δΰστημι] , a br i l l iant shaft of sunlight gleamedthrough it and fell upon the king's face so that leprosy at once struck him, while. . .half of the western hill was broken off and rolled four stadia until it stopped at theeastern hill . . ." Ant. 9 .10.4 §225). Josephus ' paraphrase doubtlessly draws uponZec h 14:5 ("A nd you shall f lee by the valley of the Lo rd 's m oun tain, for the valleybetween the mountains shall reach to Azal; and you shall f lee as you fled from the

earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah") . See R. Marcus, Josephus VI(LCL 326; London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937) 118



Ze ch 1:1 M att 23 :351 3

Besides specif ic quotat ions and al lusions, at many points themes ofZechar iah cohere wi th ac t ions and emphases in the min i s t ry andteaching of Jesus. We are par t icular ly interested in (1) the manner ofJe su s ' entry into Jeru sale m the we ek of his passion , (2) his sub seq uen tact ivi ty in the Temple precincts, and (3) his appeal to Zech 13:7 toexplain his ant icipated fate and the scat ter ing of his fol lowers. Mostinterpreters appear to be wil l ing to accept the f i rst i tem as histor icaland authent ic , but many dispute the h is tor ic i ty of the second andthird i tems. In my opinion when al l factors are considered, the bal-ance t ips in favor of the second i tem but is undecided with respect tothe th i rd . However, a nuanced in terpre ta t ion of the f i r s t two i temsmay tip the balance in favor of the third as well .1 4 Let us consider inorder these possible points of contact with Zechariah.

1. Mounted on a colt. Jes us ' en t r ance in to Je rusa lem m arks thebe gin nin g of passion we ek. Th e entranc e i tself , in w hich Jesu s m ou ntsa col t , app ear s to be del ibera te ly m ode led a f ter Zec h 9:9 : "Tel l the

daughter of Zion, Behold , your k ing i s coming to you, humble , andmounted on an ass, and on a col t , the foal of an ass." Mark's account(M ark 11:1-11) doe s not quote the passa ge f ro m Ze cha r iah , but theM at the an and Joh ann ine accou nts do (M at t 21:4-5; John 12:14-15) .Mark's fai lure to exploi t an important proof text argues both for hisGospel 's pr ior i ty and for the essent ial histor ici ty of the account . Theexpl ic i t and formal quota t ion of Zech 9:9 in Mat thew and John i s

consistent with their scr iptural apologet ic, an apologet ic i t seems thatis pr imari ly fashioned with the synagogue in mind.

The shouts of the crowd, which al lude to Ps 118:26 ("Blessed is hewho comes in the name of the Lord") , is consistent with the imageryof Jesus mounted on the royal mule , much as Solomon did shor t ly

n. e and marginal note on p. 119. Marcus notes that Zech 14:5 was associated with

2 Chr 16:19 in the Rabbis as well . The associat ion of an earthquake in the Templeprec incts , wi th eschato logica l ov er tones (see Zec har iah 14 in the Ta rgu m ), may insome way be ref lec ted in the Markan eschato logica l d iscourse , as wel l as in therending of the Sanctuary veil . This interpretive tradit ion may account for Matthew'saddition of the Easter story about the earthquake and the splitting of the rocks.

1 3 M at th ew 's "Zecha r iah the son of Barac hiah" may have in mind the prophet ,rather than "Zechariah the son of Jehoida the priest" (2 Chr 24:20).

1 4 Gran t ( "Th e Co min g o f the Kin gdo m ," 298) r igh tly com m ents tha t the

"evangel is t has not const ruc ted th is scene [ i .e . Mark 11] , for he is apparent lyunaware" of i ts relat ionship to Zechariah.



before the death of h is fa ther David (1 Kgs 1 :32-40) . The crowdinterpre t ive ly add s to Psalm 118 the wo rds: "Blesse d i s the k ing do mof ou r fa th er Da vid that is co m ing " (M ark 11:10). In the A ram aic ,Psalm 118 is unders tood to be speaking of David "who is wor thy tobe ru ler and king." The coherence of Aramaic Psalm 118 wi th Jesus 'Zechar iah- insp i r ed ac t ion o f mount ing the co l t a rgues fo r an t iqu i tyof the t radi t ion , probably i t s authent ic i ty. The expl ic i t quota t ion ofZech 9:9 in Mat thew points to la ter e laborat ion and apologet ic . Therephrasing of the shout of the crowd in Matt 21:9 draws the paral lelc loser to the text of Ps 118:26, chief ly through s impl i f ica t ion of

Mark ' s c lumsy vers ion, and expl ic i t ly ident i f ies Jesus as the "son ofD a v i d . "1 5

2. Interference with Temple trade. In the Te m ple inciden t , whi chChr is t ians have t radi t ional ly (and somewhat misleadingly) ca l led the"cleansing of the Temple" (Mark 11:15-19) , Jesus i s sa id to havet r ied t o "p r ev en t any one f r om ca r r y i n g an y t h i n g t h r o ug h t heTem p l e" ( Mar k 11 : 16 ) . Br uce Ch i l t on and o t he r s hav e r i g h t l y

suggested that Jesus may very wel l have been act ing out Zechar iah ' sv is ion that "on that day" everything in the Temple precincts wouldbe regarded as holy and that no merchant would be a l lowed in theho us e o f the Lord (Zech 14 :20-2 1 ) J6 Ch i l ton a rgues tha t Jesus 'ac t ions a re cons i s t en t wi th h i s concerns fo r pur i ty ; and he o ffe r ssevera l imp or tan t exam ples f rom Josephu s and ea r ly r abb in ic t r ad i -t ion that document similar act ions on the par t of rel igious teachers.1 7

E. P. Sanders 's dismissal of the histor ici ty of Mark 11:16 and i tsapp aren t a l lus ion to Ze cha r iah 14 am oun ts to l it tle m ore than specia lp l e a d i n g .1 8 Fai lure on our par t to unders tand the s igni f icance ofJe s us ' a c t i on does not p r ov i de wa r r an t f o r a nega t i ve j ud gm en t .

1 5 M ark 11:10 reads "Ble ssed is the k ing dom of our fa ther Dav id tha t i s co m -ing, " wh i le M at t 21:9 reads "H os an na to the son of Da vid Ble ssed is he w ho

comes . . ."1 6 J . J e rem ias , Jesus Prom ise to the Nations (SB T 24 : Lon don : SC M Press ,

1958) 65-70; C. Roth , "The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechar iah x iv 21 ," NovT4 (196 0) 174-81; B. Chi l ton , The Temple of Jesus: H is Sacrificial Program Withina Cultural History of Sacrifice (U nive rsi ty Park: Penn State Pres s, 1992) 135-36;cf . Grant , "The Coming of the Kingdom," 300; J . D. M. Derre t t , "The Zeal of thyHouse and the Cleansing of the Temple ," Dow nside Review 95 (1977 ) 79-9 4.

1 7 Ch i l ton , The Tem ple of Jesus, 100-110.1 8

E. P. San der s , Jesus and Judaism (Phi la delph ia : For t ress , 1985) 67 , wi th364 n. 1.



Jesus ' act ion not only ref lects Zechariah 's prophet ic hope, i t i s alsoconsistent with Josephus ' comment that "no vessel whatever might becarr ied in to the Temple" (A p i o n 2 .8 §106).

W ith Zechar iah form ing a scr ip tura l backdro p to Jes us ' ac t iv i tiesin the Temple precinct we may have at hand a clue to the s t rangesay ing , and i ts co ntex t, in M ark 11:23: "Tru ly I tell yo u, if yo u sayto this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea, ' and if you donot doubt in your heart , but believe that what you say will come topass, i t wi l l be done for you." Robert Gundry has suggested thatJesus is speaking of the Mount of Olives being cast into the Dead Sea

(wh ich i s v i s ib l e f rom the Moun t ) .1 9 He could be correct , butZ ec ha r ia h ' s p red ic t ion in 14 :4 sugg es ts a d i f fere n t d i rec t ion : "O nthat day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives, which l ies beforeJerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be spli t in twofrom east to west by a very wide val ley . . . " The Hebrew's "fromeast to west" can also read l i terally "from east to the sea" (i .e. theM e d i t e rr a n e a n ) .2 0 In o ther words, Jesus ' saying is eschatological ,

and not simply a lesson on faith, and again reflects the language andimagery o f Zechar i ah . I f h i s fo l lowers have fa i th , t hey wi l lpar t icipate in , perh aps even precipi tate the fulf i l lm en t of Z ec ha ria h ' sp r o p h ecy.2 1

3 The stricken shepherd F i n a l l y, f o l l o wi n g s ev e r a l v e r b a lalte rca tion s with the ruling prie sts and their al l ies (see Mar k 1 1 :2 7 -12:41) , Jesus demoral izes h is d isciples by speaking of h is death and

of their betrayal of him (Mark 14:7-8, 17-21, 26-31). Jesus is said tohave applied to himself the words of Zech 13:7: "I will str ike theshepherd, and the sheep wil l be scat tered" (Mark 14:27) . Again theMat thean and Johannine evangel i s t s exp lo i t the associa t ion wi thZe ch aria h. M atth ew al ludes to Ze ch 11:12-13, wh ich speak s of thethirty pieces of si lver cast into the house of God as part of hisdescription of Judas' betrayal of Jesus (Matt 27:3-10). John alludes to

Zech 12:10, which prophesies that "They shal l look on him whomthey have pierced" (John 19:37).

1 9 R. H. Gu ndry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (GrandRapids : Eerdmans , 1993) 649 , 654 .

2 0 . See Gra nt, "T he C om ing of the K ing do m ," 300 .2 1 W. Man s o n , Jesus the Messiah (Londo n: Ho dder & Stoug hton , 1943) 29-

40; Bruce, "The Book of Zechariah," 347-48. Bruce comments: "The logion is then

a picturesque way of saying, 'If only you have sufficient faith in God, the promisedDay of the Lord will come swif tly." '



Support of the authent ici ty of th is t radi t ion is found in thepresence of the Zechariah pattern. That is, i f Jesus entered Jerusalemto effect the prophecy of Zechariah, i f h is act ions in the Templeprecincts were in par t inspired by Zechariah 's eschatological v is ion,then he may have appl ied the image of the s t r icken shepherd tohimself as well . Further support for the authentici ty of this saying isseen in the improbabil i ty of the early Church applying this text toJesus. In context the stricken shepherd of Zechariah is the target ofG o d 's wrath: A w ak e, Ο swo rd, against my shephe rd . . . Str ike theshe ph erd , that the sheep m ay be scat tered . . . Ag ain , the A ram aic

paraphrase makes expl ici t the royal element implici t in Zechariah 'sorac le: O sword , be reve aled against the king and again st the princ e. . . slay the king and the princes . . .

But there are other indicat ions that Jesus understood himself asIs rae l ' s eschato log ica l shepherd . A say ing f rom Q, in which Jesuslikens his followers to sheep, may imply that he saw himself in therole of Is ra el ' s she ph erd : Se e, I am sen din g you out l ike sh eep in to

the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves(Matt 10:16 = Luke 10:3). In defending his policy of seeking out thelost , Jesus i l lustrates i t with the Parable of the Lost Sheep, againim plyin g that he is the sheph erd: W ha t do you th ink? If a shep her dhas a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he notleave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the onethat w en t as t ra y? (M att 18:12 = L uk e 15:4-6) . In w ha t m ay be

M at thea n no t Jesuan ic u t terances , the ins t ruct ions to G o n ow he reamong the Gent i les , and enter no town of the Samari tans, but gorath er to the lost sh eep of the ho us e of Isr ael (M att 10:6), the ex pia -natio n I wa s sent only to the lost shee p of the ho use of Isra el (M att15 :24) , and the halak ic argument about heal ing someone on theSabbath by comparison to rescuing a sheep that has fallen into a pit(Matt 12:11) probably do represent Jesus ' d isposi t ion.2 2 L ikewise we

shou ld regard the evan gel i s t s ' ed ito r ia l com m ent , he had com pas -s ion for them, because they were l ike sheep wi thout a shepherd(Mark 6:34 = Matt 9 :36) , as a reminiscence of the kind of languageJes us used to describ e his mission to Israel , lang uag e that su gg estiv ely

2 2 See Bruce, The Book of Zech ar iah , 342-46; Ν . T. W right , Jesus and theVictory of God (Christ ian Origins and the Question of God 2; London: SPCK;

M inne apo lis: Fortress, 1996) 533-34 . Lu ke 's Fe ar not, l i tt le f lo ck (Luk e 12:32)may also be genuine dominical tradition.



al luded to Old Testament imagery and themes (cf . Num 27:17; Zech10:2; 1 Kg s 22:17 ) .2 3 Final ly, according to Pss Sol 17:40 the scionof Dav id was expe cted to shep herd fa i th fu l ly and r igh teou sly theL o rd ' s f loc k . Th is exp ecta t ion i s onc e again con sis ten t wi th theesc ha tolo gy of Ze cha riah : On that day the LORD their G od will savethem, for they are the f lock of h is people . . . (9 :16a) .

Je su s ' wo rds in M ark 14:24, Th is is my blood of the co ve na nt ,ech o tho se in Ex od 24:8 , wh ere Mo ses says, Se e the blood of thecovenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with al lthese w or ds , and those in Zech 9:11: As for you also , be cau se ofthe blood of my cov ena nt w ith you, I wi l l set you r pr ison ers f r eefr om the water les s p i t . Th e eschatolo gical persp ect ive of Ze cha riah ,especial ly i ts ant icipat ion of the gather ing of Israel ' s exi les , againsui ts wel l Jesus ' program.2 4 However, Jesus has in terpreted the bloodof God's covenant in the l ight of the words that speak of str iking theshepherd. Jesus ' b lood wil l restore Israel ' s covenant relat ionship withGod and wil l make possible the nat ion 's renewal .2 5

C O N C L U S I O N

The three principal points of contact with Zechariah that have justbeen reviewed lead us to consider the possibil i ty that the theology ofthe prophet Zechar iah may have in formed Jesus ' unders tand ing ofhis mission to Jerusalem. In act ing out the entrance of the humble

mess ian ic k ing by r id ing on the donkey—right up to the Templep rec inc t s—Jesus may very wel l have been gu ided by Zechar i ah ' svis ion of d iarchic restorat ion, of the anointed royal f igure servingalong side the fai thful anointed pr iest.26 The shouts of Hosanna, whichare drawn from Psalm 118, are consistent with th is expectat ion. Foraccord ing to the Aramaic vers ion of th i s Psalm, the pr ies t s (o rbu i lders) are to w elc om e the app roac hing Da vid, wh o as a boy had

2 3 T. W . Ma nson, The Servant Messiah (Cam bridge: Cam bridge Univers ityPress, 1953) 70; Bru ce, Th e Book of Zec haria h, 344.

2 4 Eva ns ( Ί will Go bef ore You into G ali lee ', 6) suspec ts that Jes us ' sayin ghas in mind the words of Zechariah, more than those of Exodus.

2 5 Gran t , The Com ing of the Kin gdom , 301. Ze cha riah 's b lood of myco ve na nt alludes to the great Sinai cove nant. Bec ause of this cove nant Israel mayexp ect redem ption in the day when the LOR will appear over the m (Zech 9:14).

2 6 Ze ch ar iah 's tw o sons of oi l (Zech 4:14) were exp ected to adm iniste rjustice over a restored Israel.



been ear l ier rejected.2 7 But Jesus receives no such greet ing from theHigh Priest or from any of the ruling priests. He enters the precinctsbut is ignored. Such a scenario makes sense of the awkward con-

elusion of the tr iumphal entry, at least as i t is depicted in Mark'sG osp el : A nd he entered Jeru salem , and went in to the T em ple ; andwhen he had looked around at everything, as i t was already late, hewen t out to Bethan y with the twe lve (M ark 11:11) . Th e abru pt con-elusion of the entry contrasts sharply with the careful preparat ionsthat earl ier had been made (Mark 11:1-6).

The an t ic l imact ic conclus ion of th i s t r iumphal parade i s a lmost

painful . Was the whole point s imply to enter the Temple precinctsand loo k aro un d ? It i s m or e likely that a pr iest ly rece pt io n w asant icipated. But none occurred. From this point on tension betweenJesus and the rul ing pr iests escalated. The High Priest ' s refusal toacknowledge and cooperate with Jesus ' eschatological agenda t r iggersdenunciat ions, which escalate in a ser ies of chal lenges and threats ,culm inat in g in Jesu s ' execut ion. Jesu s is crucif ied by R om e as kin g

of the Je w s (M ark 15:26) , a charge that m akes no sense apart f r omthe presence of royal messianic sayings or actions.

Given the correlation with ideas in Zechariah, i t is possible thatJesus ' en t ry in to the Temple p rec inc t s and h i s exp ress ions o fauthori ty were in tended to forge the messianic diarchy envisioned byZechariah (see esp. Zech 4:14) , and evident ly presupposed by theauthors of some of the texts f rom Qumran, whereby the anointed of

David and the anointed of Aaron serve the Lord s ide-by-side and2 7 Th e Ta rgu m of Ps 118:21-26 reads: 21 I will give thanks bef ore Yo u, for

You have received my prayer and You have become for me a Savior. 22 The boywhich the builders abandoned was among the sons of Jesse and he is worthy to beappointed king and ruler. 23 'From before the Lord this came about, ' said thebuilders. 'I t is marvelous before us, ' said the sons of Jesse. 24 This is the day theLord has made, ' said the builders. 'Let us rejoice and be glad in it, ' said the sons of

Jes se. 25 'If it pleas e You , Ο Lord, <save us> no w ,' said the build ers. 'If it pleaseYo u, Ο Lord , prosp er (us) no w , ' said Jesse and his wife . 26 'B less ed is one w hocomes in the name of word of the Lord, ' said the builders. They will bless youfro m the hou se of the sanc tuary of the Lo rd, ' said Da vid . For furt he r details of theexe getic al an d l i turgical fea ture s of Psalm 118 and how they m ay relate to thefunc tion of Psalm 118 in the entranc e narrative, see J . A. Sand ers, A Ne w Te sta-men t Herme neutic Fabric: Psalm 118 in the Entrance Narrative, in C . A. Evan s andW. F. Stinespring (eds.) , Early Jewish an d Christian Exegesis: Studies in Mem ory

of William Hugh Bro wnlee (H om age 10: Atlan ta: Sch olars Press, 1987) 177-98,esp. 179-85.



inaugurate the anticipated era of restoration. Jesus' allusion to Isaiah56, which envisions the day when all nations will worship at Jerusa-lern's Temple, is consistent with this proposal.28

Finally, given the observation that other Jewish figures in the latesecond Temple period acted out scriptural patterns and oracles, weshou ld resist the critic al impulse to assign scriptural co rrela tions inthe Gospel narratives to the theological and literary creativity of theevangelists (or tradents before them). In my judgment it is probablethat Jesus' behavior while in Jerusalem was guided by elements andthemes in Zechariah, only one of which the Markan evangelistclearly exhibits—and only then because it was part of a dominicalutterance. The other Zecharian elements in Mark appear withoutspecial notice and give no indication of resulting from Christiantheology or apologetic. Thus, we may have attested here and there inthe Markan Gospel important clues to Jesus' self-understanding andmission.

2 8 C. A. Evan s, From 'H ous e of Praye r' to 'Ca ve of Ro bb ers ' : Jes us 'Prophetic Criticism of the Tem ple Establish me nt, in C. A. Eva ns and S. Talmon(eds.), The Quest for Context an d Mean ing: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality inHonor of James A. Sanders (BIS 28; Le iden : Brill, 1997) 41 7-4 42 . Just as theoracle of Isaiah 56 expected all peoples to come to Jerusalem to worship the Lordso also Zec hariah sp eaks of an ecum enica l gathering: Th en all wh o survive of thnations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship thKing, the LOR of hosts, and to keep the festival of boo ths (14:16).



TH E A U TH EN TI CI TY O F J U D A S ' PA RTI CI PA TI O N I N TH EARREST OF JESUS

William Klassen

THE STATE OF THE QUE STION

The role of Judas in the arrest of Jesus is a matter of somecons iderable d isagreement among scholars . There i s probably nclearer case of the confusion New Testament scholars spread amonthe people than our answer to the quest ion: What act did Judacommit? What role did he play in the death of Jesus? Few scholarshare James Charlesworth 's confidence that anything can be said wicertainty about Judas. He describes the betrayal of Jesus by Judas bedrock his tor ical fact .1 Others have affirmed that no one in the

ear ly chu rch wo uld invent such a s l im e bal l , as Pro fess or RutTucker recently called him.2 John Do m inic Crossa n acce pts Jud as asa historical f ollow er of Jesus w ho betray ed him . . . Ju da s ' existe ncand betrayal are historical because Christians would never have maup such a cha racter . . . He is too bad to be false.3

Others , perp lexed by the problems crea ted by the nar ra t ive ,4

1

J . H. Cha rlesworth , Jesus within Judaism (AB RL ; New York: Dou bleday,1988) 14. Later he avers that Jesus suffered through the betrayal of Judas, whialon g with the denial of Peter, app ears am on g a list of items which are rela tivetru stw ort hy (p. 169). N o clue is given on how w e kno w that Jesu s suffe red acc ou nt of the betray al or wh at indee d the wo rd be tra y m ean s in the cas e ofdisciple doing what the Master said he would do. So also M. J. Borg, Jesus: ANew Vision (San Fra ncis co: Harpe r & R ow , 1987) 177: H e had been bet ray ed bone of his own.

2

On the Arts and Entertainm ent netw ork special in the series, M yste ries the Bible on Jud as aired in early De cem be r, 1997. She conclud ed that he wa s quplausible.

3 J . D. Cro ssan , Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism inthe Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995) 75,71.

4 For exa m ple, how can a person predict on e' s own betrayal and even poiout the individual who will betray? Why did the arresting party need someone

help them find a person who daily taught in broad daylight in the Temple and wwas surely known by face to many people?



assume that the character of Judas was a construct of the imaginatioinvented in order to feed the Jewish Christian controversy. BishoSpong, a good Anglican from the circle of the Jesus Seminar, urgus to read the Bible thro ug h Jew ish ey es and as w e realize that thPas sion nar rative s of the G osp els w ere written w ith their He breBible open be fore th em we wil l recog nize that ev ery thing ab outhe Judas narrat ive screams that this was a la te-developing legencreated out of the midrashic method to serve the apologetic needs the Christians in the last half of the first century in order to transfthe guilt and blame for Jesus ' death from the Romans to the Jews.5

Spong, l ike many of his contemporaries, knows that the word usein the New Testament to describe the action of Judas does not meabe tra y but literally m ean s han d ov er but that do es not in the lea

inhibi t him fro m using the wo rd be tray to desc r ibe his act ion6

5 J . S. Spo ng, Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible With Jewish Eyes.(San Francisco:Harper Collins, 1996). He deals with Judas on pp. 257-276. Salso his article, Did Christian s invent Jud as ?The Fourth R (March\April 1994) 3-11, 16. He re w e learn that certain stories fro m the H ebre w scrip tures sug ge st tm ost of the details abou t the life of Jud as may not be literal at all (p. 8). Pr ésu mbly one cannot have similar stories in Hebrew scriptures and the New Testamwithout one of them beco ming inauthentic. More judiciously R aym ond Brown TheDeath o f the Messiah: From Gethsem ane to the Grave. A Com mentary on thePassion Narratives in the Four Gospels [2 vols. , A B R L 7; New Y ork: Do uble day ,1994] 1.61) allows for the possibil i ty that in Matthew's account of the death Judas, the OT backgro und may have actually generated the stories. He rejects notio n that a pers on like Ju da s w as crea ted at a later level. Att enti on to all evidence supports the thesis that one of the Twelve named Judas gave Jesus ovethe auth orit ies . In the tradit ion, Brow n believes l i t tle mo re than that may habeen known about Judas, except that he died a sudden, violent death and that name was associated in the Jerusalem area with ' the Field/Acreage of BlooDeath, 2 .1396-97).

6 Indee d it wo uld seem that readin g the Bible with Jew ish ey es leads him co nclu de that we reco gniz e that the Jew ish word for betra yal m ean s to hand ovNot a clue is given to which Je wi sh word [He brew ? A ram aic? ] he has in m i(Spong , Liberating the Gospels, 267). Unfo rtunate ly he cites not one instance inwhich a Jew of the first century hands over a fellow Jew to the High Priest , ndoes he draw a dist inct ion between handing someone over to the High Prieaccording to Jewish bel ief , God's instal led servant , and Pi la te a pagan rulappo inted by Ro me . Perhap s most insult ing is his assum ption that the m idra shmethod is well-known and understood but that we need an Anglican bishop to h

us read the Bible with Jew ish eye s. Ironical also is the fact that the leaders of Jesus Seminar who pride themselves in their independence from all ecclesiasti



Sp on g is r ight in trying to con nec t with the Jew ish ne ss of Jud as andof Jesus. Unfortunately he fai led to do his homework.

There is no doubt that Judas has been of special interest as a histor-ica l p rob lem to many Jews. Symptomat ic , perhaps , i s tha t HyamMaccoby cannot decide whether Judas was a h is to r ica l f igure o r amyth ica l f igure .7

The t radi t ion about Judas went i ts own way in Judaism and isinvariably connected with the treatment of the tr ial of Jesus.8 Jewishinterpreters tended to t reat Judas or the act of betrayal as ei therunhistor ical or with a cer tain predi lect ion for th is d isciple.9 In any

case, al though some Jewish sources are aware that al l the discipleshad left Jesus in the lurch during his last days, as far as one can tell,they be tray no kn ow led ge of an actual betraya l by an ind ivid ua ld i sc ip le . 1 0 This is a s ignif icant h is tor ical observat ion and bears onour reading of the New Testament sources as well .

Th e ev iden ce that 1 have o ffer ed elsew here on th is point need notbe repeated here.11 I s imp ly reaf f i rm that every bo ok wri t ten abo ut

the death of Jesus and certainly Judas' role in i t wil l be different ifyou take the translation of that one word seriously. One reviewer hassuggested that I have not paid suff icient at tent ion to three occur-ren ces of the wo rd π α ρ α δ ίδ ω μ ι in M ark 13:9 , 11, 12, w he re it i sarg ue d the translation be tra y fi ts the si tuation.12

But look at each of them briefly: In the first the disciples arew arn ed to look out fo r those eag er to han d them over to the co ur ts

authority are delighted to have a bishop in their midst . Spong seems to have saidfarewel l to any concern about scholar ly in tegr i ty, shows no awareness of themethods of research used to deal with an issue like the historicity of Judas (Vogler,Klauck, and Dieckmann do not appear on his horizon). Nor is any attention paid tomanners in how one treats Jews as partners in dialogue. All in all a sad spectacle.

7 W . Klassen , Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus (Minneapol is : For t ressPress, 1996) 197-98. M ac co by 's term s are, the story of Jud as is alm ost entirely

f icti t ious (cf . W ho was Judas Iscar iot?Jewish Quarterly [1991] 8); Ju da s Iscar-iot, the Betrayer of Jesu s never exis ted (cf. Judas Iscariot and the Myth of JewishEvil [Ne w Yo rk: Free Press, 1992] 153). Yet he af fir m s that to so m e ex ten t thehistorical Jud as can be reco ver ed (Ju da s Iscariot , 137).

8 E. B am m el, J udas in der jüdischen Überl ieferung, in Bam me l, Judaica etPaulina: Kleine Schriften II (WUNT 91; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1997) 24-33.

9 Ba mm el, Jud as in der jüdisch en Üb erliefe run g, 33 n. 73.1 0 Ba mm el, Jud as in der jüdisch en Üb erlieferu ng, 24.1 1

See n. 7 ab ov e.1 2 W . Brau n in The Men nonite Reporter (Fall 1996).



and they will be f log ge d in the syn ago gu es. Surely the m ean ing ofha nd ed ov er or arrested m ak es goo d sense here, bet ter sens e thanbe t ra y. It m ay invo lve bet ra yal . I sug ges t it need no t if the

provisions of the Jewish pract ice of rebuke are fol lowed.Lik ew ise in M ark 13:11 being arrested and taken aw ay m ake s an

adequate t ranslat ion. In v. 12 th is act ion moves to the inner familycircle and wh ile it i s po ssib le that betraya l is inv olv ed , a w arn ingw ou ld m ost l ikely prec ede such a han ding over.'1 In any case Markuses the same verb for al l three instances. Had he wanted to saybe tra y as the N E B doe s only in the last instan ce he surely cou ld

hav e used the Gre ek wo rd π ρο δίδω μ ι. Ob viou sly, the quest ion of au-thentici ty of the act of Judas hinges to some extent on the translationof π α ρ α δίδω μ ι.

This essay seeks to arr ive at some histor ical conclusions on thematter of Judas' role in the arrest of Jesus. I consider as authentic thetradit ion that Judas was a disciple of Jesus, indeed one of the Twelve,a group which I also consider as authentic,1 3 facts wh ich are reco rded

by all the fou r Go spe ls afte r the eve nt of Je su s' arrest . I also co ns ide ri t l ikely that Judas served as t reasurer of the group (John 12:6)wh ich t r ave led wi th Jesus .1 4 Since there is only one witness whode scri bes him as a th ie f ' (John 12:6) w e will al low that to stand as arumor and not necessar i ly a fact ; indeed we take i t as a rumor fromthe pen of one who seeks wherever possible to d iscredi t Judas. Weare, moreover, convinced that the category of rumor might serve us

wel l in analyzing the progressive blackening of Judas ' character.Perhaps also since we have two accounts of Judas' death we have at

least two al ternat ives. Ei ther Luke sought to sof ten the rumors aboutJudas ' demise by prov id ing h is vers ion in which Judas does no tcommit suicide (Acts 1 :15-22) . Indeed i t i s s ingular ly s t r ik ing thatLuke puts in to Peter 's mouth a speech in which Peter descr ibes whatJu da s did as a m ini str y (δ ια κ ο νία , Ac ts 1:17), the im plic atio ns of

which are too seldom noted.1 5

1 3 As dem ons tra ted by R. P. M eye, Jesus and the Tw elve (Grand Rap ids :Eerdmans , 1968) . See my Judas , 34 -37 : and also J. P. M eie r, Th e Cir cle of theTw elve : Did it Exist Du ring Jesu s ' Public M in ist ry? '75 L 116 (1997) 6 35-72.

1 4 D . Sch i rmer, Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Johannes-Evangelium [Berlin: Ernst Re uter G ese llsch aft, 1964] 191-93) note s that Joh n doesnot report that money is a factor in Judas 's task. According to Schirmer the purse

carrier was responsible for paying toll and taxes for the group which travelled.1 5 No te , how ever, H an se ' s com me nt: Th e two word s together [κλήρο? and



Or Matthew sought to depict Judas ' demise in a negat ive manner.At the same time in telling us this story, it is quite explicitly statedthat Judas was the one disciple who stood before the High Priest andm ade a rem arkab le con fessio n about Jesus: I handed over an inno-cent m an (Matt 27:4) . To be sure, th is aff i rm at ion was mad e af te rCaiaphas had already consigned Jesus to Pilate; nevertheless i t standsas part of the recorded tradit ion. In ei ther case we must assume thatsuicide was considered blameworthy, a r isky assumption.1 6 There issimply too much that we do not know to make a firm judgment.

But modern study of rumor should help us to be wary of treatingas accurate Gospel narratives that put anyone in a bad l ight. Thatwould apply, i t would seem to s tor ies about Peter, Thomas, Jamesand John, or Judas. At the same t ime we must take the cri terion ofembarrassment ser iously. I have, for example, no doubt that at onetime or another the relatives of Jesus came to take him away becausethey thought he was daf t (Mark 3:21) .1 7 I canno t im agine M ark o ranyone else in the early church inventing such a story when every

effor t was bent upon present ing Jesus in a good l ight . So too myhistorical sense leads me to believe that Paul did curse the HighPriest, as Luke reports, because it does not put Paul in a good lightand Luke's contemporar ies , especial ly the Stoics and Cynics, wouldhave l i t t le respect for Paul 's heated reaction or for his strange dodgethat he did not recognize the High Priest (Acts 23:1-5).

διακονία] express the fact that Judas, like the others, had not grasped the office forhim se lf, but that it has been allotted to him by G od throu gh C hr ist (T D N T 4[196 7] 2) . Eve n mor e strongly Fo erster says: Ju da s ελ α χεν τό ν κλ ή ρο ν της•δια κο νία ς- τα ύ τη ? (Ac. 1:17); this ministry is som ethin g which w as as sign ed,κλήρο? and λαγχάνειν both emphasise the freedom of the divine will(TDNT 3[1965 ] 763); κλ ήρ ο? deno tes the heaven ly gif t which God has allotted to eachcalle d belie ver in fell ow sh ip with all the saints, not so mu ch as a lot, but as apresent benefit which God apportions to each, thus giving him a share, his

individual s hare, in that which is prepare d for the co m m un ity (p. 764) . On theoverall meaning of διακονεΐν and cognates, see Beyer, TDNT2 (1964) 81-93.

1 6 It is not likely that M atth ew viewed suicide sim ply as a nob le de ath , norindeed did the deed carry the heavy connotation of sin often associated with ittoday. One can only conclude that one who commits su ic ide is p rofoundlydep ress ed and leave to God all final jud gm ent s. It may be fruitfu l how eve r, to viewthe reaction of the church to Judas's death as the response of suicide survivors. Forfurther discussion, see Klassen, Judas , 160-76.

1 7

Th is issue as we ll as sev eral othe rs is very ably dealt with by J. W . M iller ,Jesus at Thirty (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997).



O ne ins tance in respect to rum or and Judas m ust su ff ic e. In thevarious accounts of the anointing of Jesus by the woman (Mark 14:3-9; Matt 26:6-13; John 12:1-8) the oldest account (Mark 14:4) statessim ply that cer tain peo ple (τίνες· ) wh o w ere stand ing aro un d wereangry and expressed their anger among themselves.1 8 Jesus rebukedthem in a spiri ted way. A later account, Matthew's, tel ls us simplythat his disc iples we re ang ered by i t .19 By the time John tells thestory he has thickened the narrative down to a much simpler stage inwhich it is Judas and he alone who questions this prodigious waste ofmoney. Moreover, according to John and he alone, the complaint has

nothing to do with Judas' concern for the poor but rather arises fromhis own greed and desire for money. I t is most l ikely that John'ssource did not specify who did the complaining and that the latestredactor o f John ' s Gospel wanted someone named and a l so had agrudge against Judas.

Which story has carried the day since then? John's of course. Forone thing i t is more dramatic and can be used to frighten children

into goodness more effect ively for the good woman and the bad manare sharply contrasted. In addit ion the stories of Jesus were alwaysconflated, st i l l are, before the Gospels were viewed as separate andindividual documents. But, in this case, tragically, we face if not aperverted view of Judas, cer tainly one based on only one person 'saccount and therefore must be t reated as rumor. When, however, anaccount is so f i rmly embedded in folklore, legendary accret ions and

homilies i t is more difficult to decide: Which one is authentic?My historical instincts would lead me to give the nod to Mark. So

if people ask, Did Judas complain at the anointing, the answer, frommy pe rsp ect iv e, has to be, Pe rh ap s, alon g with oth er d isc iple sstanding aro un d (M ark 14:4) .

Once we take the evidence seriously that Judas handed Jesus overand did so with Jesu s' f ull kn ow ledg e, perh aps even at his direc tion2 0

1 8 It is a difficult construction ; see Β A G D .1 9 Both Mark and M atthew use the strong term ά να να κ τεΐν. By contrast , in

John Jud as merely asks the ques tion: W hy w as this ointm ent not sold and them one y given to the po or? (John 12:5). Th ere can be no blam e in raising the ques -tion, nor does Jesus rebuke Judas for raising it.

2 0 So G. Schw arz (Je su s unci Judas: Aramaistische Untersuchungen zur Jesus-Judas-Überlieferung der Evangelien und der Apostelgeschichte [BW A NT 123;

Stuttgart : Kohlhammer, 1988] 12-31) interprets John 13:27: Jesus says to JudaW hat you do, do quic kly. Brow n (Death, 2.1 403 ) rejec ts that pos it ion as



the issue of Jesus's own participation in the act of handing over hato be addressed. Simply put, Jesus increasingly saw himself as thesuffering servant who had to lay down his l ife for his people. Theagony this created for him is vividly portrayed in the wrestling withthe will of God in Gethsemane, the utter loneliness he experienced ithose hours and the total desertion he felt on the Cross as revealed ithe cry of dereliction. Even God whom he sought to obey desertedhim and left him in the lurch.21

Is it too much to assume that he preferred to be handed over byone he loved, whose feet he had washed and with whom he hadexperienced many meals, including his last one? At first the Gospelindicate that God would be handing him over.2 2 In the Paulinetheology of this act this is first enunciated for it is God who handedJesus over (Rom 8:32), or Jesus who handed himself over (Gal 2:20Paul certainly did not hesitate to use the handing over terminology2 3

and he can even use the exp ression , on the night w hen Jesu s w aha nd ed ov er (1 Co r 11:23), to desc ribe the wh ole passion of the

Lord. Paul sees no need to name Judas, and from his perspectiveJudas may have been simply God's chosen instrument.24

This essay builds on a book published on Judas several years agoOn the whole i t has had an encouraging response.2 5 Chapter three of

idiosy ncra tic. He had himself described it as a co m m an d, and as a pe rm issi on(The Gospel according to John (2 vols. , AB 29 and 29a: Garden City: Doubleday,

1966-70) 2 .575, 579. Indee d, having recognized the i rrevocabi l i ty of Jud asma lice, Jesu s hastens him on (p . 578). Brown also warns us of too m uchske ptic ism w ith regard to Jo hn 's addit ions, when trying to sort out his bettestorytelling sense and historical m em ory{Death, 1.244-45).

2 1 Th e them e of the rem oten ess of Go d, in on e's hour of greatest need , ifound in many stories of the Hebrews. On its importance for the arrest narrative, sKlassen, Judas, 86-8 8; and abo ve all R. Feld m eier, Der Krisis des Gottessohnes:Die Gethsemaneerzählung als Schlüssel der Markuspassion (W UN T 2 .21 ;

Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987).2 2 See Klasse n, Judas, 52-53.2 3 No te that it is the sam e term which is alw ays translated bet ray wh en use

in connection with the act of Judas.2 4 Ac cordin g to Ba mm el ( Judas in der jüdisc hen Überlie ferun g, 30), in th

Aramaic Toledoth Yeshu Judas is portrayed as the one who acts for God and he isdesignated as the one sent by the Most High God.

2 5 See n. 7. Th e mo st disce rning review s have been by W . Brau n, Mennonite

Reporter (October 1996); J . M urph y-O 'Co nno r, in RB 105 (199 8) 151-52; D. M .Scholer, in Christian Century (Au gust 1997); M. De sjardin s, in Conrad Grehel



that book seeks to establish a l inguist ic basis for our understanding ofthe act of Judas. I t has received the most widespread approval; to myknowledge no author-scholar has t r ied to refute i t or indeed offerednew evidence to show that mine is f lawed. In that chapter evidencedemonstrated that the word to describe Judas's act could not by anystretching or d is tor t ion be taken to mean be tray . I t i s gra t i fy ing ,not only that scholars have accepted that point but also that othersunaware of my work reached similar conclusions alongside of andprior to my work.2 6

M art in Dibe l ius, m aintains that Juda s 'b et ra ye d ' nothing exceptthe m eeting p lace; rather, he 'han ded ov er. '2 7 He explicitly states thatthe actual meaning of the word which we usually translate 'betray '

is to ' sur rend er or extra di te . '2 8

Wolfgang Reinbold in his s tudy of the death of Jesus concludedthat the wo rd π α ρ α δίδω μ ι mean s 'hand ove r ' (a u s l i e f e r n ) not thecommonly used term 'be t ray ' (v e r r a t en ) . . . Th e wo rd av ailab le f o r'be tra y ' (π ρο δίδω μ ι) never app ears in the New T estam ent (except the

var ian t read ing M ark 14 :10 D and the des ignat ion , π ρ ο δ ό τη ? forJud as in L uk e 6:1 6) . Precisely beca use of th is it has nev er bee npossible to determ ine wh at Judas actually betrayed. As an exa m ple

Review; L. H oul den , in the Times Literary Supplement (O ctob er 1996) and in theTheological Book Review (Februa ry 1997); G. W igod er, in the Jerusalem PostMagazine (De cem ber 1997); P. Co ckb urn, in The Independent (M arch 1997); F.Kermode, in the London Review of Books; K. A rm stro ng , in the Guardian; P.Perkins, in Bible Review (D ece m ber 1997) ; Prof esso r Ca ne, in Reviews inReligion and Theology (A ugu st 1997); and W . M cC read y in Studies in Religion. Iam grateful also to Raymond Brown (J B L) who took the bo ok 's thesis ser iously ,even though he could not agree with my conclusions. His rejoinder to my criticismof some of his positions is deeply appreciated. I f ind it quite impossible to acceptthe notion that Jesus cursed Judas (Brown, Death, 2.13 99), or to acce pt the viewthat Matthew attributes guilt to Judas for the death of Jesus. Nevertheless, I share

his confidence that the traditions about Judas existed early and that he had a criticalrole in the arrest of Jesus.

2 6 W . Reinbold , Der älteste Bericht über den Tod Jesu: Literarische Analyseund historische Kritik der Passionsdarstellungen der Evangelien (BZ NW 69; Berlinand New York: de Gruyter, 1994).

2 7 M . Dib el ius, Jud as und der Jud ask uss , in Dibe l ius, Botschaft undGeschichte: Gesammelte Aufsätze I (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1953) 277. Manyothers have followed Dibelius in this specification of the meeting place with

heeding his caveat about the meaning of the word πα ρα δίδω μ ι.2 8 Dibelius, Jud as und der Jud asku ss, 273.



he cites G nilk a w ho , to be sure, correc tly translate s ha nd ov er butsti ll con clude s: W hat Judas betrayed, rem ains unce rtain.2 9

Re inbo ld con tinues: O nce more it should be spec ifically pointe dout that paradidonai canno t be translated betray.3 0 He is aware thatBa uer has mis led us here and wri tes : Th at Bau er (ibid. 1243)nevertheless speaks of the 'betrayal, ' of Judas, is in my opinion onlyexplainable from habit [ist meines Erachtens nur wirkungsgeschicht-lieh erklärbar]. 3l He add s that the trans lation 'b e tr ay ' is in spite ofi ts widespread usage a s traightforward mis translat ion [eine glatteFehlübersetzung]. 32 Matti M yllykosk i also con clude s: Histo rically

speaking it is [sachgemäss] mo re app ropriate to speak of a han dingover by Judas rather than a betrayal.3 3

W iard Po pk es wh o has m ade a thor ou gh s tud y of the term ,likewise concluded: Judas is always joined to his deed. The traditionof the handing over of Judas originated in the Gospels, mainly in thepre-Markan and pre-Johannine mater ials and is general ly s tereo-typical. Ce rtainly the dim ensio n of faithles sness , false ho od , enters

from the general context [Sachzusammenhang] perhap s also fro m thenickname (Iscariot) given him.3 4 M oreo ver he suggested that Bo ththe stereoty pical desig nation , the one w ho han ded him ov er as wellas tha t h e w as on e of the T w el ve po int in the dir ec tio n of anapocalyptic horizon. Perhaps one can even say with Lightfoot that'Judas represents the anti-Christ—shall we say?—of the first advent ' ;but the analogy should not be pressed.3 5 With respect to theau then ticity of the act of Jud as he ca ution s that W e can no t de du cethat there is an original or early connection between the deed ofJudas and the 'handing over of the Son of Man.'3 6

2 9 Reinbold, Der älteste Bericht, 137 η. 137, citing J. Gnilka, Das Evangeliumnach Markus 2 vo ls . , EKKNT 2 .1 -2 ; Z i i r ich : Benz iger ; Neuk i rchen -Vluyn :Neu kirchener Ver lag , 19 78)2 .23 0 .

3 0

Reinbold , Der älteste Bericht, 23 5 n. 28.3 1 Reinbold, Der älteste Bericht, 235 n. 28.3 2 Reinbold, Der älteste Bericht, 137, 235.3 3 M. M yllykoski , Die letzten Tage Jesu: Markus und Johannes, ihre Tradi-

tionen und die historische Frage, vol. I (Annales Aca dem iae Scientiarum FennicaeB/256; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1994) 172 n. 7.

3 4 W . Popkes , Christus Traditus: Eine Untersuchung zum Begriff derDahingabe im NT(ATANT 49 ; Zü rich: Zw ing li, 1967) 174-89, here 178.

3 5 Popkes, Christus Traditus, 179 n. 49 2; cf. p. 181.3 6 Popkes, Christus Traditus, 181.



Two monographs on Judas , by scholars of f i rs t rank of recetimes, both arrive at s imilar conclusions. So for example, Hans-JoKlau ck states: Th e con nota tion, be tray al associated in the Ch rtian tradition with this vocabulary with Judas has to be considervery much on the fr inges of the semantic f ield.3 7 For Klauck thetexts see the action of Jud as as a delive ring up or a su rre nd eri nThe express ion 'betray ' is more eas i ly designed to dis tor t i

co nte nt . Th e term that be co m es s trongest for Klauc k is dese r(•Überläufer).38

He perceives as the his tor ical kernel of the legendary Judtradition of the New Testament the following:

Judas turned away from Jesus, externally as well as internally, and duringthe events of the arrest of Jesus in some manner played an unpraiseworthyrole . . . Independent of all that he may have been or become he was aboveall this: a disciple of the Lord, like the rest a loyal and true fellow traveler ofJesus. The least speculative reason still would seem to be to base his defec-tion on a deep disappointment with his presumed messianic expectations.3 9

Finally Werner Vogler in the f irst s tudy based on modern souranalysis, concludes:

A totally different understanding of the word (from the prediction ofsu fferin g and 1 Co r) come s in conn ection with Judas. A forma l diffe ren ce isnoticeable: the verb is always active and never passive. The subject, Judasis always expressly named. Never is Judas named without reference to thisdeed. Before all the other disciples did, Judas separated himself from JesusHe transferred his loyalties to the other side and it was on the side of Jesus'enemies that he was found when Jesus was arrested. That, and only thatcould have been the historical deed of Judas.4 0

Two scholars of Jewish faith, may be cited: Hyam Maccoby stathat π α ρα δίδω μ ι need not mea n betray. It can s imply me an 'han dedover ' wi thout any connotat ion of betrayal .41 David Flusser l ikewisecon clude s: To hand over never m eans betray but alwa ys to del iver,ausliefern. If Jesus has commanded Judas to do so, there is no blame

3 7 H.-J . Klauck, Judas (Freibu rg: He rder, 1987) 45 -48 , 53-5 4, here 45.3 8 K lauck , Judas, 46, 48-49 .3 9 Klauck , Judas, 55.4 0 W. Vogler, Judas Iskarioth: Untersuchungen zu Tradition und Redaktion

von Texten des Neuen Testaments und außerkanonischer Schriften (2nd ed., Th eo-logisch e Arbe iten 42; Berlin: Ev ang elische Verlagsan stalt , 1985): Th e De e

Jud as, 30-36 , here 35.4 1 Maccoby, Judas Iscariot, 36.



in i t . Naturally if one 'ausliefert ' to the colonial power or to theenemy then it is a crime for which there is no pardon.4 2

One of the more ingenious treatments of Judas appears in the work

of H ug h Sch on fie ld. He argu es that Jesu s himse lf w as in fac t theco m pre he nsi ve eng ineer of the Passo ver Plot, that he set up his ow nscenario for the passion, and that he was in complete control of theeve nts leading to his cruc ifixion . W ha tev er tem ptation Jud as had , i tcame in the guise of his Master.4 3 Furthermore he suggests thatrevealing the traitor must have been one of the most painful tasksJesus had to perform. Although on one level he sees the betrayal of

Judas as preceded by Jesus ' betrayal of Judas i t is the strength ofSchonfield's position that he views Jesus' action in the light of Jewishapocalypticism of his day and that Jesus acted fully in the belief thatthe prophecies of the Messiah, including the Pass ion, were beingfulfilled in his actions. He concludes:

It was a singular, fantastic and heroic enterprise, though in the strangeapocalypticism of the t ime perfectly comprehensible. It called for intense

messianic faith, acute perceptiveness, an iron will, and a very high order ofintelligence.

He depicts vividly the high state of tension during the last days inJer usa lem and sugg ests that Juda s ma y well hav e been the m os tsen sit iv e and high strung of the dis cip les and nea r the bre ak ingpoint. W hile we ma y question terms like con spira cy or plo t w hatSchonfield affirms is that Jesus is in control of his own destiny. All,

including the traitor, respond to the orchestrations of Jesus, based onhis understanding of the scriptures.

What is missing in this as well as in virtually all presentations ofJudas is the lexicographical dimension. What are we told about theact of Judas? In order to answer that question we must pay attentionnot only to the history of research but above all to that lowly disci-pline of examining words and their meaning in the various contexts

in which they appear. It is the thesis of this paper that apart from onetext in Luke there is no assertion that Judas betrayed Jesus. What hedid is still open to debate. But for now we must simply retire the

4 2 See Klassen, Judas, 74. Citin g a letter fro m Da vid Flus ser and his article,Ein Sendschreiben aus Qumran (4Q MMT) und der Ketzersegen,Bulletin der

Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Judaistische Forschung (Beiheft für Judaica) 3(1995) 6-57.

4 3 H. J. Sch onfie ld, The Passover Plot (New York: Bantam, 1965) 125.



notion that Judas betrayed Jesus.Nearly a hundred years ago, B. F. Westcot t , one of the leading

scholars to s tudy cr i t ical ly the New Testament in Greek, noted thatthe rendering, 'betray ' adds something to the force of the or iginal

(G reek ) w or d. T hu s at the very beg inn ing of the cr i t ical s tud y ofthe New Testament in the or ig inal Greek language, i t has beenreco gn ized that the renderin g bet ray is incorrect . T he exact wo rd' t rai tor ' (προδότη?) is appl ied to Judas only in Luke vi .6 . Elsewherethe word used of h im is some part of the verb ' to del iver up '(παραδιδόναι), and not of the word ' to betray ' (προδιδόναι).4 4

To be sure , some, l ike Raymond Brown, concede the l inguis t icpoint , but do not yield on the historical question: Did Judas betrayJesus? That is st i l l answered in the affirmative on the basis of theoveral l p icture der ived from reading the Gospels . That is a pointwhich can be discussed. We then explore other evidence and evaluateit be fo re we reach a con clusio n. That con clusio n ho we ve r mu st notbe contaminated by ev idence which no longer ex is t s , such as the

meaning of the word used always to describe the act of Judas. But welose a vital m etho do log ical p oin t— an d I am not will ing to co nc ed e it—if we do not take the meaning of words ser iously, indeed, wherepossible, l i terally.

T H E ME A N I N G O F BE T RAYA L

I rem ain ada m ant tha t be t ray m ust have i ts o rd in ary m ean inginvolving the fol lowing:

Betrayal can only take place in the context of a relat ionship oftrust , even friendship. In the case of Judas and Jesus there is simplyno evidence that ei ther mistrusted the other so we can assume thatthere was t rust and warmth between them. Moreover the betrayal tobe such must have harmful resul ts or a harmful effect upon the onewho i s be t rayed . These condi t ions hav ing been met the ac t o f

betrayal involves the fol lowing three elements:1. Th e Betray er does some th ing h arm ful , dam agin g or hur t fu l d i rected

against the betrayed and against the will of the Betrayed. There is abreach of a spoken or unspoken bond or trust between them.

2. The Betrayer does something that comes as a hurtful surprise to the

4 4 B. F. W estcott , The Gospel according to St. John: The Authorized Version

with Introduction and Notes (2nd ed. , Lon don: M urray, 1881 repr. Grand Rapids:Ee rdm ans , 1973) 192. See my book, Judas 41-61.



Betrayed or is not expected by the Betrayed.

3. The Betrayer does something that benefits the self and harms theBetrayed.

On the face of i t , none of these condit ions are met in the Passionnarratives. I t is therefore consistent with sound translation techniquesand the reproduction of historical records that Raymond Brown doesnot on ce use the term be tra y or trai tor wh en he pro vid es us witha new translation of the Passion narrative in his magisterial book onthe death of the Messiah.45

It is especially appropriate to speak of the Judas act as an authenticdeed of Jesus. I t is only to be remembered that this is not so muchsomething Jesus did as something he elici ted in order to be done onhis behalf . Canon Vanstone in his book, The Stature of Waiting, hasreminded us that Jesus was a thoroughly passive person af ter thewr es t l i n g i n Ge t h seman e .4 6 He hardly l if ted a finger on his ownbehalf and during his interrogations before both Caiaphas and Pilatedid not t ry to vindicate h imself . Modern rel ig ious protesters , e .g .

Daniel and Phi l ip Berr igan and many others have refused to dignifythe system by part icipating in i t when they were in court . So i t ishighly likely that both Judas and the disciple who hacked off the HighPriest ' s servant 's ear were taken aback when Jesus reacted in thethoroughly non-v io len t way he d id . Before Gethsemane Jesus com-m and ed them to acquire swords (Luke 22:36) . Af ter Ge thsem ane , herefused to al low them to use them, even to defend him (Luke 22:51).

Th e ex i s t ence o f Jesus a f t e r G e ths em an e was def ined by w ha t

4 5 Brown , Death 2.1583 -1608. His section on Judas, Ove rall View of Jud asIsca riot, is a very valuable con tribution, m arred only by a sha rp ed ge of ju dg m en tagains t Jud as , who fa i led def in i t ively (1 .49) , whi le the o thers suc cee de d(1 .141) , som e excess ive name cal l ing , a myster ious v i l la inous f igu re (1 .242) ,idle, otiose , iniqu itous, w ho acted against Jesus (1.241). His critique of my bo ok

that I have not made a sharp enough dist inction between the various layers oftradition is cor rect. But I w on de r wh eth er he has not allow ed h ims elf to be toodeeply inf luenced by a profound theological aversion to the character of Judas sodeeply ingrained in virtually all layers of Christian history.

4 6 S ince my Judas was publ ished W. H. Vanstone 's The Stature of Wa iting(London: Dartman and Long, 1982, of ten reprinted) was kindly given to me byHeather M cKa y. Va nston e's intr iguing study of the term παρα δίδω μ ι focuses on thechange from active to passive mode in Jesus ' l ife af ter Gethsemane. The net effectis to minimise the role of Judas, al though in Vanstone's theory he retains hisposition as traitor.



happened to him and not by what he did. How could the disciples st i l lth ink of h im as king or Messiah? If Jesus was handed over byCaiaphas to Pilate, what was there left for Judas to l ive for?

I have never argued that i t was impossible for Judas, as one of theTwelve, to betray Jesus and even for a pal t ry sum of money. Thepoint at issue is f irst whether the l inguist ic evidence of the Gospelsallows us to conclude that Judas was a trai tor. We argue that i t doesnot; or at least only in one text , Luke 6:16 where the word fort rai tor προδότης stands in contrast to πα ρα δί,δω μ ι. Wh y Luk e use s

this term only here and never elsewhere in the Gospel or in Acts todescribe the action of Judas, if he had access only to tradit ions thatportrayed Judas as a classic trai tor, is hard to understand.

I rest my case with three observations:

1. Th is s ingle occ urre nce of the wo rd m ean ing to betray can surely notoverr ide all the other occurrences in which Luke says not that Judasbetraye d him but that he han ded him ov er (Luke 9:44; 18:32; 20:20 ; 22:4,6, 21, 22, 48; 24:7, 20). At the very least we must recognize this discrep-

ancy.2. Th e fact that Lu ke alon e use s the wo rd traito r is sig nific an t for bothMatthew and Mark could have done the same. Are we not forced to invokeonce more the legal principle: It takes more than one witness to provide aplausible case. Here we have only one.

3. In 2 Maccabees there are a number of actions clear ly described asbetrayals and in none of the cases is the word used which is always attachedto the act of Judas. Simon the traitor (ένδείκτης·) slandered the High Priest,

Onias (2 Macc 4:1). Jason was hated by all, betrayed (προδότης) both thelaws and his country, and was an apostate showing the way to Antiochuswho plundered the temple (2 Macc 5:15) . A Jewish soldier Rhodocus byname betrayed secrets to the enemy (2 Macc 13:21). In none of these casesis the word, πα ρα δίδω μ ι used. In the M artyrdo m of Polycarp, about 155 E

refere nce is ma de to Po lyc arp 's being handed over παρ αδί,δω μι (1:2) , andthat Polycarp patiently waited for that to happen even as our Lord had done.He doe s not co m m en d those who give them selv es up, s ince the Go spel

does not give this teachin g (4:1). Those who betrayed πρό διδω μ ι Polyca rpw ere of his own ho use (6:2) , and those who betrayed (προδόντες) himsho uld und erg o the sam e pun ishm ent as Ju da s (6 :2) . On e has the

imp ressio n that the autho r know s a diff ere nc e although it is not w hollyconsistent.

While the conclusion that the l inguist ic evidence of the NewTestament cannot sustain the freight of the t rai tor theory has been

found convincing by many scholars now, i t has been more diff icul tto come up with an alternative explanation for the action of Judas.



T he action wh ich I at tr ibute to Jud as is that he ha nd ed Jesus ove r toJew ish autho ri t ies and that such a hand ing over wa s s tandard prac-tice in Judaism of the time. To be sure we have very few sources thati l luminate i t and we have apparent ly few cases in which the onebeing handed over has consented to it . That is the critical point.

Short ly af ter my book was publ ished a German col league, LuiseSchot t roff , provided me with a copy of the doctoral thesis preparedfor Ethelbert Stauffer and Leonard Rost by Dietrich Schirmer on thelegal aspects of the arrest of Jesus as portrayed in John.4 7 Wi threspect to the Old Testament , Schirmer observed that in the many

concrete cases of betrayal where money is not explici t ly mentioned i tis surely to be explained that it is not needed since it is simply takenfo r g ran ted .4 8

Th is is the mo st thoro ugh study of Jew ish pract ices of ha nd ingov er, betraya l , and info rm ing avai lable to me. Sch irm er co nclu de sthat the fourth Gospel contains sections in which Jewish legal rela-t ionships appear which can be found in later rabbinic sources. The

jur is t ic character of these texts and their martyrological narrat iveelements d is t inguish them as a specif ic l i terary genre.4 9 Sch i rmernotes that John 11:53 in troduces a formal process which seeks tobring Jesus to his death. Moreover he notes that the encounters ofJesus with the Jewish authorit ies in al l of the Gospels make visible ap rov oca t ive , agg ress ive and unco m prom is ing e l emen t . W e mu s ttherefore ascr ibe basic h is tor ical in tegri ty to those passages which

de scr ibe Jesu s as fleeing fr om the aut ho ri t ies again and ag ain ,especially in the fourth Gospel. ',5°

The study of the Jewish organs of policing is especially important.His chapter on the interpretation of Judas in the Fourth Gospel andindeed his total treatment of Judas is very important even though i tl ies almost entirely in tradit ional categories. For example he suggeststhat in al l l ists, Judas' name appears last and that he is always de-scribed as the on e w ho han ded him ov er sign ifies that Jud as seenfrom the perspective of his deed stands on the outer edges of theapostolic circle.51 Schirmer concludes that not once is the word ,

Schirmer, Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen esp. 179-97.Schirmer, Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen 61.Schirmer, Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen 164.

Schirmer, Rechts geschichtliche Untersuchungen 175.Schirmer, Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen 180.



which corresponds to i t most c lose ly, t rans la ted in the LXX asπ α ρ α δ ίδω μ ι. T his was a theo log ica l express ion for a mi l i ta ry ac t ,

su m m ariz ed in 2 Ezr a 9:7: Th ey will be han ded over to the violen ceof the kings of the lands, to the sword, to prison, to plundering andto dep r iva t ion .5 2 ' He gives the ex am ple s of Ju dg 16:23 and 1 Kg s23 :12 -14 and conc ludes : Th ese two cases i l lust rate that the hand ingover of one person by others at t imes is understood as a processwh ich seen theo log ically is actually carried out by G od . Th at nee dsto be considered for a theological understanding of the deed of Judasdescr ibed as π α ρα δ ίδω μ ι.5 3

In 1 Sam 22:9; 23:1 9-23 to hand ov er m eans to reveal wh ere thew an ted pers on is. Th at is also the case in 2 M acc 14:3 1-33 . W he nthe L X X trans lates this proc ess with π α ρ α δίδω μ ι i t is to be o bse rve din t ry ing to clar i fy the m ean ing of π α ρ α δίδω μ ι in con nec t ion withJu d as . 5 4 I t ha s to be treated as of high est certainty that the in fo rm -er is paid mo ney (p. 187) mo stly to the Ro m an s in any case.

W ha t π α ρ α δίδω μ ι s ignif ies is that Jud as bro ug ht Jesus un der thepower of his enemies (p. 190). I t designates a two-sided act: Judasrevealed some in format ion which made i t poss ib le fo r the Jewishauthorit ies to arrest Jesus and that Judas actively part icipated in thatarrest . Al l fou r Go spels support th is und erstand ing of π α ρ α δίδω μ ι.5 5

Dietr ich Schirmer 's book studies the record of John 's Gospel—theonly one who tel ls us that the Jews were looking for an informer tohelp them arrest Jesus. This publication makes i t clear that in Juda-

ism of the Seco nd Te m ple per iod the inst itu t ion of in fo rm in g w aswell established and that John may well have been aware of certainprocedures which later Jewish sources ful ly document . In any caseboth Luke and John report that the authori t ies were looking for anin fo rm er (Joh n 1 1:57; Lu ke 19:47-48; 20:1 9-2 1; 22 :2; 1 Co r 10:28).

The evidence from Josephus has been t reated by Ceslas Spicq in adetailed study of the word, which carefully classified many usages of

the word. With the fourth category however he concludes that thepred om inan t sense of π α ρα δίδω μ ι in the Old Testam ent is pejorat ive.When God does the handing over the outcome is general ly bad. Hefur t her con cludes tha t the New Testam ent inher i t s th is theo logy .

Schirmer, Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 184.Schirmer, Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 184.

Schirmer, Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 185.Schirmer, Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 190.



Spicq notes that the term becomes a technical term in the passion ofJes us . T he term is to be taken first in its legal and jud icia l sense , buti t conveys moreover a moral or psychological nuance and a theologi-cal value. Paradosis wa s also used fo r treaso n prodosia) . JudasIscariot is always called ho paradidous, ' the trai to r, ' the on e w h obetrayed or betrays Jesus.5 6 Spicq states that the verb rath er of tenco nn ote s this nua nce of crim inali ty . . . betraya l of so m eo n e's trust ;and in a footnote to Josephus he claims to support that .

W he n Spicq then aff i r m s tha t the ear ly Ch r is t ians saw C hr is t ' sde ath as less of pain and tortu re and mo re as a result of pe rf id y

and that the w ho le han din g ov er m eans that he was betra yed , hehas departed far from his evidence. He insists that the shame of thecross was betrayal rather than torture and again his conclusions arenot verifiable. They surely cannot be buil t on the evidence he cites.He has strayed very far indeed from lexicography.

No reference is made to the absence of th is meaning in thep ap y r i5 7 and all the usages he cites from Josephus prove exactly the

oppo si te . Apparent ly he hopelessly con fuse s the two wo rds, π ρο δίδω -μ ι, me aning bet rayal and π α ρα δίδω μ ι mean ing hand ove r. On ecan only say that theology here determines lexicography not theother way around.

In the case of Raymond Brown the matter is more complicated. Hewrites: I insisted that the verb π α ρα δίδο μ α ι, applied to Jud as, m ean s' to give over, ' not ' to betray. '5 8 He noted that there is a Greek word

fo r be tra y and that i t app ears only onc e in the Ne w Te stam ent w ithre fe re nce to Judas . The t endency to t r ans la t e π α ρ α δ ίδ ω μ ι wi thbe tray blurs the paral lel ism to the agency of o thers exp resse d by

th is verb . 5 9 He there fore pre fers the verb to give ov er or han d

5 6 C. Spicq, πα ρα δίδω μ ι, in Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testa-ment (3 vols . , Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994) 3 .13-23, here 21.

5 7

See J . H. M oulton and G. M ill igan, The Vocabulary of the Greek NewTestament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London:Hodder & Stoughton, 1930; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); F. Preisigke,Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkund en vol. 2 (Berl in: G. Preisgke , 1927);H.-A. Rupprecht and A. Jördens , Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkund en(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz , 1991) , who provide not one ins tance where i t mightme an be t ra y. See a lso G. H. R. Ho rs ley, (ed .) , New Docum ents IllustratingEarly Christianity vol. 4 (North R yde : M acqu arie Un iversi ty, 1987) 165 (§73).

5 8

B r o w n , Death 2.1399.5 9 B r o w n , Death 1.211.



ove r and if I m istak e not nev er uses the wo rd be tra y or t rai to r inhis careful t ranslat ion of the passion narrat ive at the end of his twovolume work. Indeed Brown deals wi th the theor ies of bet rayal andde sign ates as their fatal ob jec t ion the fac t that Jud as did not ap pe aras a witness at the t r ial of Jesus. At the same t ime Brown states that

because Jesus was g iven over (nay6 0, betray ed) to his ju dg es b y hist rusted f r iend and because Jesus was innocent , there i s a s t igma ofgui l t in the human chain of those who gave Jesus over : Judas gavehim over to the chief priests, the chief priests gave him over to Pilate. . . Pi late gave him over to the soldiers to be crucif ied. In t rying to

asse ss w ho m Joh n 19 :11 de s ign a tes as the p r im ary perp e t r a to r,Br ow n leave s the quest ion op en a l though co nside rs it poss ib le tha tthe Satanic Prince of the world, the agent behind the scene, may wellbe meant as well as Caiaphas.6 1

He con clud es: Pete r w as not respo nsible for Jes us ' death and Jud aswa s . . . Jud as had don e som ethin g so heino us that no ordinary re-pentance affects i t . 62 G od 's punishm ent for that gui lt wa s evidence d

in Ju da s ' suicide .6 3

A most impo r tant book in th is area is by Bernha rd D iec km an n.6 4

Dieckmann 's mastery of l i tera ture and ar t in th is area i s ext remelyi l luminat ing even though the history of Judas in the church is onlyone par t of his larger t reatment .

In the h is tory of Chr is t ian ar t a more posi t ive aspect of therelat ionship between Judas and Jesus comes out in the scene of Judas

get t ing h is fee t washed. Only one por t rayal i s known to exis t inwhich Judas has h i s f ee t washed by Jesus . Dieckmann presen t s aw oo dc u t dep ic t ing tha t ac t , f ro m jus t be fore 1485 .6 5 In cont ras tmany por t rayals of the Last Supper f rom the Middle Ages have onlyeleven disciples present .

Quite different is the case of the ear l iest ( fourth century) depict ionof Jesus on the Cross with Judas by his side, also hanging from atree. Only the tree of Judas has l ife in i t and in the leaves above Judasa bird is feeding i ts young. This ivory carving which is in the Bri t ish

6 0 M ean ing , not this , but also.6 1 B r o w n , Death 1.211.6 2 B r o w n , Death 1.641.6 3 B r o w n , Death 1.836.6 4 B . D i e c k ma n n , Judas als Sündenbock: Eine verhängnisvolle Geschichte

von Angst und V ergeltung (M unic h: Kös el , 1991).6 5 D i e c k ma n n , Judas als Sündenbock 105.



Museum could wel l come from those ci rcles of the Chris t ian churchwhich praised the role of Judas in the death of Christ. We will neverknow. But i t could, being the earl iest depiction of Jesus on the cross,and probably the ear l iest depict ion of Judas, remind us that Judasdied with Jesus and that their solidari ty in death should not neces-sari ly drive us to conclude that Judas was evil and Jesus was good.Per hap s the han din g over of Jes us, the ministry to wh ich Ju da s w ascalled and which he faithfully performed can be seen as an authenticact; an act which to be sure was deeply misunderstood and continuesto baffle us.

The evidence allows us to conclude that Judas acted in obedience toChrist 's will and that in his act of handing over could have been obe-dient to God's will for there is no doubt that eventually Jesus came tobelieve and then the early Christ ians all believed that the handingover of Jesus was God's will if not God's act . Perhaps the greatestNew Tes tam ent in terpreter of the twent ieth century con clud ed: T heone who 'handed him over ' and condemned him to death is none

o ther than God .6 6

In tha t s ta tement the profoundes t read ing ofJudaism and Chris t iani ty come together. What God achieves on th isearth is eventually brought about by the people of God who l ive incovenant fai thfulness.

Klauck concludes h is book by deal ing wi th the prob lemat icinterpretations of the Judas act:

Already in the New Testament the traditions have taken different ways. The

oldest at tempts to explain we can see in the explanation of the word,π α ρ α δίδω μ ι, und ers tood as handing over, o r tu rn ing in the proph et icw arn ing and wo e stateme nt of M ark 14:21. Both w eld into a unity ofunders tanding [Gesamtdeutung] which rema ins strongly theologically or i-ented and therefore not least for this reason provides us most easily withacc ept able aspe cts or dim ens ions . This prediction of ju dg m en t rests onadapting an apocalyptic speech pattern and in content s tands under aneschatological reservation. This presumption [Vorbegriff] of the final ju dg -

ment must be eventually honored by God and it remains for him whether hewill do it and how.

The term ausliefern sets a theologic al paradox wh ich in the figu re of Judasis driven to its high point. The debate centers in the not resolvable dialecticaltension between human action and the Divine Will . What God wishes toaccomplish, the giving up of his son on the cross to save the world, one

6 6 A. Schla tter, as Evangelium Lukas (2nd ed. , Stuttgar t: Ca lwe r, 1960)445-46 .



person freely decides to transform into an act .

Here we are in the presenc e of problem s very d i ff ic ul t to so lve . Like wisethe secre t which surrounds and protec ts Judas is formula ted theologica l ly

and the r e fo re is p ro tec te d bo th f ro m the b lac k-w hi te p a in t ing o f theecclesiast ical orthodoxy as well as from a f lat rat ionalism. Nothing is moreprecar ious or r i sky here than the presumed s imple so lu t ion . The charac terportrai t of Judas is muddied in the synoptics increasingly by psychologicalinser t ions . From the handing over they make a long p lanned despicablebetrayal . As dr iv ing mot ive they d iagnose greed for money. Satan whispersin Judas ' ear in Luke. The Jewish authori t ies in Luke and the Jewish peoplein Matthew come ever closer to Judas and his actions then devolve on their

shou lde rs .

The logical conclusion to all this is found in John. Early on Judas is a devil.Al l ove r ture s of love tow ards h im from Jesu s ma ke no imp ress io n . T heonly reason he remains a follower is to take more money out of the treasury.He belongs to the opposit ion, the Jews, to the world, to the personificationof the evil one, That t ies him to his Jewish people which, as is well known,belongs to the devil since he is their father (8:44).

The narra t ives ' h igh point [Glanzstueck] of the Ju da s trad ition s is the deathaccounts offered by both Matthew and Luke. His death is portrayed after anOld Testament pattern as a horrible and revolt ing death. I t had undoubtedlynothing to do with the place mentioned in Jerusalem. Thus i t is apparent thatwe cannot take the accounts of Judas found in the New Testament na ivelyand leave them untes ted wi thout do ing a grave in jus t ice to the h is tor ica lJudas whatever he may have done. Rehabil i tat ion does not necessari ly meana declarat ion of freedom from all guil t or responsibil i ty. I t is quite adequateto push back his deed to.an intel l igent and historically plausible degree. We

must deal with the sources critically in which the question is more importantthan the answer. The New Testament i tself gives contradictory portrai ts ofJ u d a s .

In the mean-time hate against Judas has to be curbed. A drast ic course cor-rection has to be undertaken. For the hatred of Judas leads too quickly to ahatred towards the Jews and the nourishment for that hatred must be cut .

There fo re one may be a l lowed to make one sugges t ion tha t we guardourselves against call ing Judas a trai tor or at least to put those words intofootnotes which explain that we are dealing here not with a historical realitybut a qu es t io na ble in terp re ta t ion to wh ich ear ly Chr is t ian w ri ters w erecaptive. Judas was neither the hero that the Toledoth Jeschu and the Gospelaccording to Judas thought he was , nor the v i l la in some church fa thersconsidered h im. Bet ter to confess to know too l i t t le than too much. Noanswer is better than a false one. Just remove the extremes and then let therest s tand in mystery.

We do not need psychodynamics to unders tand Judas . But we need i t toun der s tan d ourse lves , e spec ia l ly wh en it com es to the scap e go a t ing



technique agains t someone who fe l l f rom fa i th or became hardened agains ti t . Daub and Hengstenberg 's verdic t over Judas has been taken over bymost the sys temat ic theologians . We need to remember tha t no humans can

draw the l imi ts of G od 's mercy and forgive ness . . . . W e should accept andrespect Judas as he encounters us in the cri t ical analysis of the texts , as adisciple of the Lord, snarled up in a deep contradict ion, which can at anyt ime become ours as wel l .6 7

We have made considerable progress when we read in Dieckmannthat i t is not permissible to demonize Judas and that i t is not helpfulto t reat our portrai t of Judas as ident ical to the ant i judaism of the

Chr is t ians . Hard as they may be to separa te f rom each other i t i sn ec essa r y t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e be t w een t hem . E v e n o u r i n t e r e s t inopposing ant i judaism is not adequate access to the form and problemsof Judas . Dieckmann reminds us that in our s tudy of Judas we aredeal ing in the f i r s t ins tance wi th a brother who was a d isc ip le ofJesus who went his own way. It is already a sign of hardening if he ist reated as an outsider, a foreigner.6 8

C O N C L U S I O N

Our study leads us to the conclusion that Judas was a disciple ofJesus , he was one of the Twelve. We consider h is def in ing deed theact of handing over Jesus to the Jewish authori t ies. He served as a gobetween and brought about a meet ing between the Temple author i t iesand Jesus. Since this act was ful ly ant icipated by Jesus and Judas was

po in ted ou t a t the Supper Tab le and s ince Jesus warmly g ree tedJ u d a s6 9 in the garden during the arrest , we have no reason to bel ievethat Jesus considered the act of Judas sinful or wrong. I consider i tpro ba ble that Jesus d id expre ss a wo e, a com m isera t ion to w ard s the

6 7 Th e abo ve materials are taken fro m Klauck, Judas , 144-47.6 8 D i e c k ma n n , Judas als Sündenbock , 262.6 9

J e ro me M urp hy -O 'Co nn or (in h i s r ev iew) ques t ions my use o f the t e rme mb r a c e ( Kl a s s e n , Judas, 111) for that enc ou nte r. I shou ld have spelled out the

way in which a fervent k iss was executed then. Again Raymond Brown Death,

1.1531 , 1584) in his transla t ion of this text has it r ight wh en he tran slate s: hekissed h im war m ly. Both M at thew and M ark use the te rm κ α τεφ ιλ ε ΐν (M ark14:45; cf . v. 44; Matt 26:49; cf . v. 48) , s ignall ing a warm or affectionate kiss(co m pa re Lu ke 7:38; 22:47 ; 15:20; Acts 20:37). The usual w ord is φ ιλείν. On thispoint, see W . Klasse n, Th e Sacred Kiss in the Ne w Testam ent: An Ex am ple of

Socia l Boundary Lines ,TS

39 (19 93 ) 122 -35. Th e kiss is an ex pre ssi on ofαγάπη and of peace.



one who had been selected to do this task. The authenticity of this actwo uld be fur ther enha nced if more exam ples of similar acts could beadduced. There remains then the task of trying to understand that actand to examine its historical roots before we begin any theologizingabout i t . Since our understanding of that event impinges upon ourunderstanding of the death of Jesus and the role so often imputed toJuda s has had such disastrous effe cts on Jew ish Christian relations wecan be gratef ul that the lexicographical base for a classical betr aya ldoes not exist . Altogether a stronger incentive for further study andfurther questioning about the role of Judas cannot be imagined.



DI D JE S US WA S H HIS DI S C I P L E S ' F E E T ?

Richard Bauckham

Few nar ra t ives in the Four th Gospe l have made as s t rong animpression on i ts readers over the centur ies as that of Jesus washinghis disciples ' feet (John 13:2-11) . Does i ts symbolic power stem from

Jesus ' own prophet ic dar ing, as most readers have assumed, or f romthe evangel is t ' s creat ive imaginat ion? The legacy of the n ineteenth-cen tu ry l ibe ra l s ' d i s t inc t ion be tween h i s to r i ca l ly r e l i ab le , ea r lysources (Mark and Q) and la te , theological f ic t ion (John) endures ,even i f only subl iminal ly, in the minds of many New Testamentscholars and s tudents . Uniquely Johannine nar ra t ives are s t i l l of tenat tr ibuted to narrat ive creat ivi ty in the service of theology, at somestage in the Four th Gospel ' s h is tory of development . At least , thebu rde n of proof tends to be thrust onto any w ho wo uld m ain ta inotherwise in any speci f ic ins tance . That John i s indebted to Gospelt radi t ions independent of the Synopt ic Gospels (whether or not he i sa l so dependen t on one o r more o f these ) i s now very wide lyaccepted, but st i l l rarely ensures a level playing f ield between Johnand the Synoptics when i t comes to evaluat ing the histor ical value oftheir narrat ive t radi t ions.1 The issue has to be tackled both in general

and in par t icular. In the case of the footwashing, the h is tor ica lquest ion is rarely discussed in more than a few sentences.2 For manyJohannine scholars the quest ion i s , in any case , of l i t t le in teres t .Others perhaps assume that , in the nature of this case, there is l i t t leto be said on either side of the issue. Must i t not hang largely on ageneral judgment of the h is tor ica l value of Johannine nar ra t ives ingeneral? In fact, there is a good deal more to be said.

1 Joh ann ine crea t iv i ty in a t t r ibut ing wo rds to Jesu s ca l ls for qui te d is t inc tt rea tment f rom Johannine crea t ion of narra t ives about Jesus . For a recent summaryof Johannine scholarship , t rea t ing many of the issues ra ised here , see R. Kysar,

John, the Gospel of ABD 3 .912-31.2 Subs tantial argu me nts for the historicity of the foo twa shin g are pro vide d by

C. H. Dodd , Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g eUn ivers i ty Press , 1963) 59-63 ; J . A. T. Robin son , Twelve More New TestamentStudies (Lo ndo n: SC M Press , 1984) 77-80.



F O O T WA S H I N G I N A N T I Q U I T Y

In the f i rst place, i t is important to be clear about the nature and

socia l s igni f icance of footwashing.3

For the ancients footwashing wasas necessary and regular a chore as brushing tee th i s for mostmodern people . Feet were protected by no more than open sandals ,and so, after walking in the heat and in the dust and dirt of countryroads or town s t ree ts , washing feet was necessary both for comfor tand fo r c l ean l iness , e spec ia l ly before s i t t ing down to a mea l .Footwashing appears in the l i tera ture most of ten as preparat ion for ameal , and also as a duty of hospi tal i ty, ei ther to expected guests or topass ing s t r anger s , who needed bo th to be r e f r eshed a f t e r the i rjourney and to be proper ly prepared for shar ing a meal wi th thehost . But i t was cer tainly not a host ' s duty to wash his guests ' feethimself . Ei ther a slave or a servant would do i t , or the host wouldprovide a basin of water and a towel for the guests to wash their ownfeet . Washing someone e lse ' s fee t was an unpleasant task which noone except a servant or slave could be expected to do. So menial atask was i t tha t in a household wi th a h ierarchy of s laves andservants, i t would be the duty of the slaves, not of the servants whoperformed less demeaning tasks such as wai t ing a t table .4 It was, infact , the quintessent ial ly servi le task, the one thing that no one elsewould do. In a household wi thout servants , everyone washed thei rown feet .

Excep t ions in anc ien t l i t e r a tu re a re a l l r ecorded p rec i se ly asexceptional cases. In most , i f not al l , such cases i t is clear that theperson washing another ' s fee t i s del ibera te ly p laying the ro le of aservant or s lave . This i s expl ic i t ly the case wi th Abigai l (1 Sam25:41) , Asene th (Jos. Asen. 13:15; 20:1-5) , and Fav oniu s (Plutarch ,Pomp. 73 .6 -7) . In som e other exce pt iona l cases , the foo tw ash ing i sc lea r ly an excep t iona l ac t o f devo t ion o r f l a t t e ry (Ar i s tophanes ,Vespae 605 - 61 1 ; M e l eage r in Anthol. Pal. 1 2 .68 ;5 P lu ta rch Mor.

3 For the evi den ce on wh ich th is sec t ion is base d, see esp ecia l ly J . C.T h o m a s , Footwash ing in John 13 and the Johannine Com munity ( J S N TS u p 6 1 ;Sh eff ie ld : JS O T Press , 1991) chap . 3 . T ho m as h imself i s mu ch ind ebted to B.Kö t t i n g , F u s s wa s c h u n g , RAC 8 .743-59 .

4 Cf . P. K. Nelso n, Leadership and Discipleship: A Study of Luke 22:24-30(SBLDS 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 164.

5

Th e poin t in this case , not brou ght out by T ho m as , is that poet re no un ce sany c la im on the boy he loves because he sees h im as cupbearer to Zeus on



12 .249d) .6 Even when the person washing the feet is not actually aservant or slave, the social significance of the act remains the same.In a society highly conscious of relat ive s tatus, i t would beunthinkable for th is uniquely servi le act to be performed for aninferior by a superior in the social scale. Exceptionally an inferiorwho is not actually a servant or slave may perform the act as a kindof extravagant expression of their wil l ingness to be subject to thesuperior, but for a superior to perform the act for an inferior wouldbe an incomprehensible contradiction of their social relat ionship.

Abraham was famous for h is hospi tal i ty to s t rangers , on the basisof Gen 18:1-8. Even though he treats his visi tors as his socialsuperiors (18:3), he has water brought for them to wash their ownfeet (18:4), or, in the Septuagint, for his servants to do so. No doubt,the t rans la tors , knowing f rom the tex t i t se l f tha t Abraham hasservants, thought i t , in those circumstances, more hospitable for theguests not to be left to wash their own feet (cf. the similar differencebetween Hebrew and LXX texts in Gen 43:24). But according to the

Testament of Abraham i t was Abraham himself who washed thethree guests ' feet (A6:6; cf . B3:9) , and who performs the same actwhen one of the three, the archangel Michael, visits him again (A3:6-9) . Of course, these angel ic v is i tors real ly are Abraham's socialsup erio rs, and it is only the Β recen sion (3:6-9 ) that implies i t wasAbraham's regu lar p rac t ice h imsel f to wash the fee t o f v i s i t ingstrangers. This might be a Christ ian touch (since, as we shall see

belo w in Histo ry of a Pra ctice, early Ch rist ian hosts did wa sh theirguests ' feet themselves) ,7 though in general it is the A recension thatshows most s igns of the Chris t ian t ransmission of the text .8 But inany case the social significance of footwashing is not lost . Abraham,exceptional in his hospital i ty to strangers (Al:5; 4:6; B2:10), is the

Olympus, thus too superior for anything other than the poet's metaphorical washing

of his feet to be appropriate. The image is the extravagant opposite of a homosexualact, whose social significance would be the inferiority of the boy.

6 All these texts are quoted and discusse d in Th om as, Footwashing 37-40,52-55 .

7 No te that Origen , Horn in Gen. 4 .2 , treats Abraham's example of washinghis guests ' feet as one which Christians should follow.

8 E. P. San ders ( Tes tame nt of A bra ha m , in J . H. Ch arlesw orth [ed.] , TheOld Testament Pseudepigrapha [2 vols . , A B R L 13-14; New York: D ou ble da y,

1983-85] 1 .879-80) does no t include B3:6-9 among passages he suspectsChrist ians may have reworked.



except ional ly humble host who t rea ts a l l h is guests as h is socia lsuper io r s .

T H E J O H A N N I N E I N T E R P R E TAT I O N O F T H E F O O T WA S H I N G

T he me an ing o f the fo o tw as h in g in John 13 has bee n m uc hd e b a t e d .9 Lacking the space to rehearse the debate, I can here argueonly br ief ly for my own view, as a pre l iminary to consider ing theissue of histor ici ty. The passage (13:1-20) provides the ini t ial state-ment of the theme of Jesus ' lordship in self-humil iat ion and service,

which i s the major overa rch ing theme of John ' s pass ion nar ra t ive .That nar ra t ive culminates wi th Jesus ' dying the death of s laves andcriminals, while designated king of the Jews for al l the world to see(19:19-21) and subsequent ly bur ied wi th the honour due to a k ing(19 :39 -41 ) . I t beg ins wi th the s t a rk pa rad ox o f 13 :3 -5 : Je sus ,knowing that the Father had given him the uniquely d iv ine lordshipover a l l c reat ion , under took the ro le of a s lave , per forming for h isdisciples the act most expressive of servi le status. The one who canclaim the highest status in al l real i ty, sovereign over al l creat ion,humbles h imsel f to the lowest human s ta tus , expressing his lordshipi n se l f - hum i l i a t i ng se r v i ce f o r h i s so c i a l i n f e r i o r s . A r ad i ca lover tu rn ing o f common cu l tu ra l va lues wi th r espec t to s t a tus i simpl ied .

There can be no doubt that John unders tands the footwashing inre la t ion to the cross , where the Jesus who in chapter 13 under takesthe role of a slave f inal ly dies the death of a slave. The footwashingboth provides an interpretat ion of the meaning of the cross, as Jesus 'voluntary se l f -humil ia t ion and service for o thers , and a lso gains i t sown ful lest meaning when seen in the l ight of the cross i t pref igures.In this res pe ct it par allels the Sy no ptic acc ou nts of the institu tion ofthe L or d ' s Su pp er, acco unts wh ose funct ion in these Go spels is not

9 See the surve y of interpreta t ions in Th om as , Footwashing, ch ap . 1; and theas se ssm en t o f the ma in type s o f in te rp re ta t io n in R. B. E dw ar ds , T heChris to log ica l Basis of the Joha nnine Foo twas hing, in J . B. Green and M. Turn er(eds . ) , Jesus of Nazareth Lord and Christ ( I . H. M arsha l l Fes t sch r i f t ; GrandRapids : Eerdmans; Car l is le : Pa ternoster, 1994) 367-83. See now a lso the cul tura lanth ropo logica l interpretat ion in J . H. Ne yrey , Th e Fo otw ash ing in John 13:6-11:Tra nsfo rm at ion R i tua l or Ce rem ony ?, in L. M. W hite and O. L. Yarb rough (eds .) ,

The Social Wo rld of the First C hristians (W. A. M eeks Fes t sch r i f t ; M inneap o l i s :A ugs bur g For t res s , 1995) 197-213.



to record the insti tution as such (only the disputed verse Luke 22:19bindicates that the rite is to be repeated by the disciples), but rather toprovide an in terpretat ion of Jesus ' coming death . John 's omission ofsuch an account must be due, not only to the fact that he has alreadyspoken of Jesus' death in eucharist ie language in chap. 6, but also tothe fact that he gives Jesus' death a sacrificial interpretation in hisnarration of the death i tself (19:34, 36). This leaves him free tonarra te a d i fferen t symbol ic ac t ion a t the Supper, supply ing adifferent perspective on the meaning of Jesus' coming death.

As has freq uen t ly been argued, Joh n 13 prov ides two interpreta-

t ions of the act of footwashing, one in Jesus' dialogue with Peter (vv.6-1 1) , the other in Je su s' sp eech to the disc iples after res um ing hisseat (vv. 12-20).10 The two interpretations are related, but dist inct .Both are christological , taking their meaning from the fact that i t isJesus the Lord who serves as a slave, but the first is christologicaland soteriological , the second christological and exemplary. The firstis a meaning which the disciples will not be able to understand unti l

after the resurrection (13:7; cf. 2:22; 12:16), a clear indication that iti s a meaning connected with Jesus ' death . This meaning is conveyedby Jesus ' words only in a way that to the disciples within thenar ra t ive h ides i t (vv. 8 -10 ) , i nc lud ing the charac te r i s t i ca l lyJo ha nn ine doub le enten dre of v. 8b: Un less I was h you, you have noshare in me [μέρος μ β τ' έμ ο ΰ ]. At the l i teral level , this can m ea nthat unless Peter 's feet are washed he cannot share the meal withJesus. At the level of true significance, i t means that without thecleansing to be effected by Jesus' death, Peter cannot part icipate inthe eternal life to be had in union with Jesus' life. Whereas this first,so ter io log ica l in terpre ta t ion of the meaning of the foo twash ingcannot be understood by the disciples within the narrative, as Peterdemonstrates, there is nothing about the second interpretation whichcould not be clear to them. It portrays Jesus' act as an example thedisciples are to follow. If he, their Lord and Master, serves them as aslave, so should they serve each other. What is not beneath hisdigni ty can cer tainly no longer be considered beneath theirs . Herethe social ly revolut ionary nature of Jesus ' act is evident in the

1 0 D. A. Carso n The Gospel according to John [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press;Gr and R apid s: Eerdm ans , 1991] 465 ) sees a distinct, third interpretation in vv. 10-11, but if his exegesis is correct, it would be more appropriate to see these verses asproviding a second development of the first interpretation.



abol i t ion of re la t ionships based on s ta tus which i s i t s consequenceamong the d isc ip les . I f footwashing i s not beneath anyone ' s d igni ty,then nothing is . A social group in which each washes the feet of theothers can have no social hierarchy, at least of the type symbolizedby the limitation of such menial tasks to those of lowest status.11

The quest ion ar ises whether the command in vv. 14-15 is meant tobe fo l lowed l i t e ra l ly o r whe ther foo twash ing here func t ions as asymbol o f humble se rv ice . In the l igh t o f the p rac t i ce andsignif icance of footwashing in the ancient world, this is surely a falsed i l emma. There i s no ind ica t ion tha t the command i s no t mean tl i teral ly, but l i teral footwashing is a concrete instance of the pract iceof humble service in ordinary l i fe . The reference i s to the regularwashing of feet which the disciples, l ike everyone else, must pract ise.This ordinary, dai ly chore i s what they should do for each other.Since i t is the most menial task, which noone but a servant or slavewould ordinar i ly think of doing, i t is the extreme case which carr ieswi th i t every less humil ia t ing k ind of service for each other that

might arise. If this is not beneath them, nothing is.Those exegetes who see in vv. 14-15 the inst i tut ion of a special

re l ig ious r i te of footwashing1 2 miss the ordinar iness of footwashingas one o f the mos t f r equen t o f l i f e ' s chores . To conf ine mutua lfootwashing to a r i tual context whi le cont inuing to t rea t ordinaryfoo twash ing as the t ask on ly o f s l aves would c rea te a sca rce lyto lerable cont radic t ion in the socia l s igni f icance of the ac t . This

1 1 J . M a s s y n g b a e r d e F o r d Redeem er - Friend and Mother: Salvation inAntiquity and in the Gospel of John [Minneapol is : Augsburg For t ress , 1997] chap.8) unders tands the footwashing as an ac t of r i tua l ized f r iendship . Fr iendship ispro bab ly the best ancie nt model fo r the kind of radically non- hiera rchic al relat ion-ships which m utual footw ashin g would symb ol ize and enact . In 13:13 Jesu s saysthat the disciples rightly call him Teacher and Lord, for so he is (cf. also 16), but in15:15 he says that he no longer calls them servants but friends.

1 2 T h o m a s Footwashing) of fe rs the fulles t recent arg um ent for such a view .He l is ts earl ier views of this kind on pp. 14-16; for more recent advocates, seeEd wa rds , Th e Chr is to logica l Bas is , 378-79 ; M. F. Con nel l ,Nisi Pedes, Exceptfor the Feet : Footwashing in the Communi ty of John 's Gospel ,Worship 7 (1996 )517-31. Many of the arguments for a r i te of footwashing depend ra ther heavi ly onthe hyp othe s is tha t the Four th Gospel ref lec ts and addr esses a Joh ann ine c om -m un ity with dist inctiv e practices not necessari ly foun d in other chu rch es. Ag ains tth is genera l hypothes is , see R. Bauckham (ed .) , The Gospels for All Christians:

Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Ed in burgh : T. & T. Cla r k ; Gra nd R ap ids :Eerdmans, 1997) .



r i tu a l ( o r s ac r am en t a l ) unde r s t and i ng of t he f o o t w as h i n g— f o rex am ple , a s a r i te o f r em iss ion o f po s t -ba p t i sm al s in— is o f t enco nn ec ted w i th a b lu r r in g o f the d i s t inc t ion be tw ee n the twointer pre tat ion s of Je su s ' act pro vide d in Joh n 13.13 Something of thesoter iological signif icance of Jesus ' act of washing his disciples feet iscarr ied over into the pract ice of footwashing as the disciples are tocontinue it , as was the case in the repetit ion of the eucharistie acts inthe Lord ' s Supper. But here the analogy of the Lord ' s Supper hasproved mis lead ing . The euchar i s t i e ac t s would have no par t i cu la rmeaning wi thout thei r c lose connexion to the soter io logical s igni f i -

cance of Jesus ' death , but mutual footwashing has a c lear meaning asthe key to a reject ion of social hierarchy and a new form of socialrelat ionships based on Jesus ' example. There is no need to carry overthe soter iological focus of the f i rst interpretat ion in order to makesense o f vv. 13-20 , which themse lves con ta in no so te r io log ica lal lusion and are ful ly intel l igible in their own terms.

The kind of exegesis which blurs or abol ishes the d is t inct ion

between the two in terpre ta t ions , usual ly by th inking of footwashingin the church as a r i te with salvif ic signif icance, is par t ly motivatedby a d issa t i sfact ion wi th the idea of two di fferent in terpre ta t ionsmerely placed side by side, especial ly as this idea has of ten beenconnec ted wi th theor ies o f sources and r edac t ion1 4 which see theevangelist or the f inal redactor as in less than ful l control of hismater ia l . However, re jec t ing the r i tual meaning of mutual footwash-

ing does not mean that the two interpretat ions are unconnected. Bothare deve loped f rom the fundamenta l mean ing o f Jesus ' ac t : h i sexpress ion o f h i s lo rdsh ip in se l f -humi l i a t ing se rv ice . Moreover,both can be seen in re la t ion to Jesus ' death , which for the f i r s tinterpretat ion is the act of salvif ic service for others to which thefoo tw ash ing points , whi le for the second in terpre ta t ion i t wo uld bethe culminat ing act of Jesus ' se l f -humil ia t ing service as an examplefor the d isc ip les to fo l low. Those who fol low Jesus in ac t ing l ike aslave for others may also, l ike Jesus, incur a slave 's death for others.T h e d i f f e r en ce be t w een t he t wo i n t e r p r e t a t i ons i s t ha t on e i s

1 3 Th u s Th o m a s (F oo tw ash ing , chap. 4) argues forcibly against the view thatthere are two different interpretat ions.

1 4 On e of the most recent discu ssions of this type is M. C. de Boe r, Johannine

Perspectives on the Death of Jesus (C on t r ibu t io ns to Bib l i ca l Ex ege s i s andTh eolo gy 17; Ka mp en: Pharos , 1996) 283-9 2.



concerned wi th the unique soter io logical s igni f icance of Jesus ' se l f -humi l i a t ion and se rv ice , whi le the second p resen t s these as anexample h is d isc ip les should fo l low.

Th is jux tap os i t io n o f the un iq uen ess and the ex em pla r ine ss o fJesus ' self-giving service is not at al l incongruous. I t is found else-where in the New Testament , notably in Mark 10:43-45 (a passagethem at ical ly c lose to John 13: see John and the Sy no pt ic s belo w)and in 1 Pet 2:21- 24 .1 5 The wel l -known chr is to logical passage in Phi l2 :5 - 11 , w hic h s t r ik ing ly r esem ble s John 13 in i ts fu nd am en ta lthemes , a l so combines these two aspec t s . In the passage o f t en

identif ied as a hymn (vv. 6-11) , Jesus ' self-humil iat ion in service andservi le death are envisioned as unique, at least insofar as they lead tohis unique exal ta t ion to the posi t ion of d iv ine sovereignty over a l lthings (cf . John 13:5) , but the funct ion of this passage in i ts widercontext (vv. 3-5) i s to exempl i fy the k ind of se l f -denying humil i tytowards each other that the Phi l ippian Chr is t ians are encouraged topract i se . That the four th evangel is t should h ighl ight both aspects in

re la t ion to the footwashing i s not a t a l l surpr is ing , and needs notheories of sources and redact ion to explain i t . This also means thatno confidence can be placed in at tempts to argue that one of the twointerpretat ions is older and the other added. While this may be thec a s e ,1 6 we have no way of knowing i t . Our considera t ion of thehis tor ic i ty of the footwashing must manage wi thout such specula t ionsabout Johannine t radi t ion history.

O R I G I N A L C R E AT I O N O R I N T E R P R E TAT I O N O F T R A D I T I O N ?

In consider ing the h is tor ic i ty of the footwashing, we shal l fo l lowthre e lines of inqu i ry : the f i r s t co nsi de r ing ev ide nc e wi th in theFour th Gospel , the second the evidence of the re la t ionship betweenJohn 13:1-20 and sayings of Jesus in the Synopt ics , the th i rd theev i dence o f t he Chr i s t i an p r ac t i ce o f f oo t wash i ng ou t s i de t he

Gospels .As far as the in ternal evidence of the Four th Gospel i t se l f i s

concerned, much depends on our general v iews about the Johanninenarrat ives of which this is one. A remarkable fact , though i t is rarely

1 5 See also 1 John 4:10 -12 and 3:16 , as poin ted out by de Bo er, JohanninePerspectives, 291-92.

1 6

But the parallel with M ark 10:43-45 (see Joh n and the Sy no ptic s be low )tends to suggest o therwise .



remarked on, perhaps because i t i s considered too obvious to mer i tco m m en t , is the re la t ively smal l num ber of even ts in Je sus ' minis t rywhich the Four th Gospe l r ecoun t s . Compared wi th the Synopt icG o s pe l s , Jo h n ' s na r r a t i ve s a r e cha r ac t e r i s t i c a l l y m u ch l o ng e r,invi t ing the reader or hearer into a more ref lect ive par t icipat ion in anar ra t ive whose fo rm of ten p rov ides s ign i f i can t ind ica t ions o f them ean i n g o f t he even t r eco un t ed , wh i l e m any n a r r a t i v e s a l soincorporate or precede passages in which Jesus himself draws out themeaning of the events. In select ing rather few events to include in hisGo spel , John has lef t h imsel f the space to expo und their s ign i f ican ce

at length . Whatever might be the re la t ionships between John and theSynoptic Gospels, i t is scarcely credible that John did not have farmore s tor ies about Jesus avai lable to h im than he includes in theGospel (cf . 20:30) . This being so , h is se lect ion i s no doubt deter-mined by the potent ial of the stor ies for the kind of interpretat ionthey receive wi th in the Gospel . But g iven the scope for se lect iv i tywhich he must have had and given that some of the s tor ies most

important to him (such as the cleansing of the temple or the feedingof the f ive thousand) were, as we can tel l f rom their paral lels in theSy no pt ic s , cer ta in ly t rad i t ional , an easy resor t to f re e cre at ion ofnar r a t ive s , which has o f t e n been a t t r ibu ted to h im , w ould see munnecessary. John ' s genius as a nar ra tor and in terpre ter of the s toryof Jesus seems to l ie in tell ing the traditional stories in such a way asto ind ica te and incorpora te p ro found and ex tens ive r e f l ec t ion ontheir meaning. Since he undoubtedly does this in some cases, the onusof proof would seem to l ie with those who at t r ibute to him in othercase s a k ind of theologica l f ic t ion , con sciou sly invent ing s tor ies ascarr iers of the theological meaning he wishes to propound.

Of course , an argument that a l l John ' s nar ra t ives have a basis intradi t ion cannot show that al l such tradi t ions are histor ical ly rel iable,but i t can dispel the residue of suspicion about specif ical ly Johanninenarrat ives that the scholar ly t radi t ion of emphasizing John's theologi-cal crea t ivi ty has lef t . Th at susp icion de r ives f r om the olde r view ofthe four th evangel is t as dependent on a l l three Synopt ic Gospels andhaving no other Gospel t radi t ions avai lable to him. This view is heldby few today. Without i t there i s no good reason to a t t r ibute toJo h n 's theologica l creat iv i ty the f ree creat ion of nar ra t ives ex nihilo,as d is t inct f rom and in addi t ion to the in terpre ta t ion of exis t ingstor ies.

A fur ther considera t ion i s more speci f ic to the footwashing. Jesus '



statement that Peter cannot understand what he is doing but will doso late r ( μ ετά τα ύ τα : 13:7; cf. 13:36), i .e. af ter the resu rrec tion ,is paralleled earl ier in the Gospel by two statements of the evangelistto the effect that the disciples did not understand at the time, but didso af ter Jes us ' resu rrect ion (2 :22) or af te r h is g lor i f ic at ion (12 :16) .In one case the reference is to a saying of Jesus which was alreadyknown in the tradit ion (2:19; cf. Matt 26:61; Mark 14:58), in theother case to an event , Jesus ' entry in to Jerusalem on a donkey,which was al ready known in the t radi t ion (12:14-15) . The proba-bility is that in chap. 13, as in the other two cases, John sees, with

post-resurrection hindsight, a deeper significance in a feature of thetradit ions of Jesus' words and deeds, rather than creating an event towhich he attr ibutes such significance.

J O H N A N D T H E S Y N O P T I CS

There is a saying of Jesus well-attested in the Synoptic traditions tothe effect that the greatest among the disciples must be their servant.It is found in a variety of contexts, of which those closest to John 13are Luke 22 :24-27 and Mark 10 :41-45 = Mat t 20 :24-28 . WhereasM a t t h e w1 7 has fo l lowed Mark ' s vers ion of th i s per icope c lose ly,L uk e ' s ve r s ion d i ff e r s cons id erab ly and p robab ly der ives f r omano ther sou rce .1 8 The two versions of our saying (the Greatest asServant : Luke 22:26-27a; Mark 10:43-44) show l i t t le verbal corres-pondence but close resemblance in sense. The same is t rue of the

sayings of Jesus which are placed before and after i t and to which inboth cases i t is very closely l inked. The sequence must represent anearly tradit ion which we have in two pre-Lukan forms:

Luke 22:24 27 Mark 10:41 45 = Matt 20:24 28

Th e disciples dispute which Th e disciples indignant at the request of

is the greatest Ja m es and Joh n to sit bes ide Jes us

(A) Kin gs of the G entile s (A) Ru lers of the Ge ntiles

(B) Grea test as Serva nt (B) Greatest as Servan t and Slave

(C) Jesu s as Serv ant (C) Jesus as Serva nt

(D) Ransom

1 7 The following discussion assum es M arkan priori ty.1 8 So, e.g. , I . H. M arsh all, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Exeter : Paternoster,

1978) 811; J. Nolland, Luke 18:35 24:53 (W BC 35C; Dallas: W ord , 1993) 1062-63.



In both versions of this sequence, the fact that saying (B) is related tosay ing ( C )— so that expl ic i t ly or imp l ic i t ly it i s bec au se of Je su s 'example of service that greatness among the d isc ip les i s def ined interm s of serv ice— bring s th is sequ ence m uch c loser to John 13:12-20than other occurrences of saying (B) . Moreover, in both vers ionsJesus ' service i s probably to be unders tood as culminat ing in h isdeath. This is explici t in the Markan version in the close l ink between(C) and the ransom saying (D). In Luke the placing of the sequence,at the Last Supper fol lowing the inst i tut ion of the eucharist and thepred ic t ion o f the be t r aya l , sugges t s tha t say ing (C) shou ld be

co n nec t ed w i t h Je su s ' c l o se l y ap p r oach i ng dea t h , j u s t as Jo h n ' splacing of the footwashing a t the Last Supper suggests the sameconnexion. However, in nei ther the Markan nor the Lukan vers ion i si t c lear in what Jesus ' service pr ior to h is death consis ts .1 9 T h egenera l image o f se rvan t o r s l ave in Mark ' s ve r s ion becomes themore speci f ic image of the servant who wai ts a t table in the twoquest ions which are unique to Luke ' s vers ion of (B) (v. 27a) . This

coheres wi th a s t r ik ing occurrence of the same image e lsewhere inLuke (12:37) and wi th the Lukan se t t ing a t the Last Supper. Butwhether Luke ' s vers ion i s meant to imply that Jesus ' serving i s h isactual wait ing at table at the Last Supper is unclear, especial ly as in22:14-21 Jesus is recl ining at table, not wait ing at table, and indeedpresiding at the meal , not serving. In both versions i t is probablybest to think of Jesus ' whole ministry as one of self-giving service,culminating in his death as the giving of his l ife for others.

I t is Luke's version of this sequence that has usual ly been seen asesp ecia l ly c lose to Joh n 13:1-20.2 0 Luke ' s vers ion i s par t of Jesus '

f a r e w e l l d i s c o u r s e 2 1 a t the Last Supper, as John 13:12-20 is thebe ginn ing of the mu ch longer farew el l d isco urse in John (w here asMat thew and Mark have no such discourse) . But i t i s doubtful howmuch signif icance can be at tached to this. Luke or his t radi t ion hashighlighted the relat ionship of this mater ial to Jesus ' death by placingit on the last occasion on which Jesus teaches his disciples prior to hisdeath , jus t as John has done wi th the footwashing and i t s in terpre ta-t ion . But Mark ' s p lacing i s funct ional ly s imi lar, s ince he locates i taf ter the third of the three passion predict ions (Mark 10:32-34) and

1 9 For Luk e, see the full discus sion by Ne lson, Leadership 160-71.2 0 For variou s view s of the relat ions hip, see Ne lson , Leadership 161-65.2 1 Ne l son , Leadership 97-119.



closely preceding Jesus entry in to Jerusalem. Moreover, whereas thetab le sett ing is exp lici t with in L u k e s vers ion of sayin g (B) i tself(22:27a) , the correspondence with John is not as close as might atf i rs t app ear. L uk e re fers to wai t ing at table as the se rv an t s ro le .This is a d ifferent ro le f rom washing feet , and a less menial one,which, in a household with a number of s laves and servants , wouldbe performed by the servants , whereas footwashing would be lef t tothe slaves. The image of wait ing at table, while i t evokes a humble,serv ing ro le , i s ra ther less shocking ly demeaning than tha t o ffootwashing. While i t i s tempting to classi fy Luke 22:24-27 and John

13:1-20 among the rather numerous instances of shared t radi t ionexclus ive to Luke and John , i t i s doubt fu l whether the con tac tbetween John and Luke at this point is in fact significantly greaterthan that between John and Mark 10:41-45.

Saying (B), the Greatest as Servant, also occurs in another contextrepresented in all three Synoptics:

Luke 9:46 48

Disciples dispute whois the greatest

Jesus takes a child

Mark 9:33 37


(B) First as Servant

Jesus takes a child

(F) Receiving Child isReceiving Me

(B) Greatest as Least


Matt 18:1 5


Jesus takes a child

(E) Enter ing Kingdomlike a Child

(B) Greatest like a Child


The core of th is t radi t ion consists of the narrat ive mater ial andsaying (F). I t may well be Mark himself who has added saying (B),in a form which looks l ike an abbreviated form of the version in

M ark 10 :43-44 (which lacks π ά ντω ν έσ χατος but has all the othervocabulary of the version in Mark 9:35). I t is unlikely to be anindep ende nt vers ion of the say ing . M at th ew s and L uk e s chan gesstem from the recognit ion that , whereas the saying is appropriate tothe context in that i t speaks of the reversal (or aboli t ion) of socialstatus among the disciples, i t is inappropriate to the extent that achild, though lacking social status, is not a servant. Both thereforetran sfe r the sayin g in to Jes us wo rds subse qu ent to h is taking thechi ld and adapt i t to the example of the chi ld by removing the



se rv an t t e rmino log y. The Mat thean and Luk an ver s ions o f say ing(B) a re no t inde pen den t ve r s ions , bu t su ff i c i en t ly ex p la ine d asadapta t ions of Mark 9:35 to the context . F inal ly, Mat thew has a lsotransferred saying (E) to this context f rom i ts Markan context in theo ther Synopt ic per i cope f ea tu r ing ch i ld ren , where Mark and Lukehav e it but M at the w om its it (M at t 19:13-15; M ark 10:13-16; L uk e18:15-17) . I t fo rms an appropr ia te companion to Mat thew ' s ver s ionof saying (B) which fol lows i t in Matt 18:3-4. The conclusion mustbe that i t is unlikely that any of the three Synoptic versions of saying(B) in this t radi t ion are independent versions, but al l s tem original lyfr om the fo rm in M ark 10:43-44.

Final ly, one more Synoptic version of saying (B), the Greatest asServant , occurs in Mat thew 23:11 in a qui te d i fferent sequence ofsayings. Whether th is i s Mat thew's abbrevia t ion of the vers ion inM ark 10 :43-44 = Mat t 20 :2 6-27 o r an inde pen den t ve r s ion f ro mMatthew's special t radi t ion, i t is impossible to be sure. I t is l ikelyenough that such a saying should circulate widely and appear in more

than one col lected sequence of sayings, as is the case with the sayingthat follows it here (Matt 23:12; cf. Luke 14:11; 18:14).

Thus we have two independent vers ions of sayings (B) and (C)connected within a sequence of sayings that contrasts kingship amongthe Genti les with service among the disciples of Jesus and roots thiscon trast in Jes us ' own ex am ple:

The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them;

and those in authority over them are called benefactors.But not so with you:rather the greatest among you must become l ike the youngest ,and the leader like one who serves.For who is greater, the one who is at table or the one who serves?Is it not the one at table?But I am a mo ng you as one wh o serves (Luke 22:25-27) .

You know that those who are considered rulers over the Genti les lord i t over

them,and their great ones tyrannize over them.But it is not so among you;but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant,and whoever wishes to be f irst among you must be slave of al l .For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve,and to give his l ife a ransom for man y (M ark 10:42-45).

There is also another plausibly independent version of saying (B):



The greatest among you will be your servant (Matt 23:11).

It should be noted that in John 13:1-20 there are no verbal parallels

at al l with these Synoptic sayings, except that δούλο? occurs both inJohn 13:16 and in Mark 10:44 (= Matt 20:27). But John 13:16 is asaying paralleled in Matt 10:24, where δούλο? occurs.

Though verbal ly unre la ted , John 13 :1-20 has s t rong themat icsimilar i t ies with Luke 22:25-27 and Mark 10:42-45. How are theseto be understood? The quest ion ar ises whether John is dependent onno thin g m ore in the t radi t io n than a ver sion of the se Sy no pt i c

sayings, and has created the narrative of the footwashing as a vividillustration of the point made in these traditional sayings of Jesus. Ithas not seldom been suggested that the footwashing is an imaginativeconstruct ion on the basis of Luke 22:27.2 2 Such a process seems tolack paral lels . While Gospels scholars sometimes suggest that theevangel is ts or their t radi t ions have created narrat ive set t ings fortraditional sayings, the creation of a narrative to replace a tradit iona lsaying has been suggested with any plausibility at all only in the caseo f pa rab les ,2 3 where the t radi t ional saying could not have beenretained in the context of the narrat ive. There is no convincingexample in John .2 4 In the case of the footwashing, there is no reasonwhy John should not have included a version of the sayings in Luke22 :25 -27 and M ark 10:42-45 as Jes us in terpretat ion of h is act ion,had these say ings been the source f rom which he crea ted thenarrative. That he has created, not a sett ing for the sayings, but a

2 2 E.g. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John (2nd edit ion; London:SP C K , 1978) 436 ; for ear l ier sup por ters of this view , see J . A. Bailey , TheTraditions Com mon to the Gospels of Luke and John (N ov TS up 7; Leiden : Brill ,1963) 36 n. 7.

2 3 N otab ly, the sugg estion that the para ble in Lu ke 13:6-9 is the origin of thestory of the barren fig tree (M ark 11:12-14, 20-21 ): see W. R . Te lfor d, The arren

Temple and the Withered Tree (JS N TS up 1; She ffield: JS O T Press, 1980) 13-14.2 4 The sugge stion (e.g . by M. Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth

Gospel [JS NT Su p 69; She ff ield: JS O T Press, 1992] 256) that Jo hn s narrative ofthe raising of Lazarus (11) is based on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus(Luk e 16:10-31) is entirely unconv incing. L azarus (Eleazar) w as one of the mos tcommon Jewish names of the period, so that the coincidence of the name is of nosignif ica nce. Jo hn s Lazarus is not raised so that he may warn unrep entant Jew s ofthe pun ish m ent that aw aits them in the next life, as it is sug geste d L uk e s La zar us

sho uld be ( though the request is refu sed ) . It is imp ossib le to see how L uk e sparab le could hav e generated Joh n s narrative.



nar ra t ive r ep lacement o f the say ings i s implaus ib le . Moreover, i tshou ld be obse rved that in Je su s ' in terpre ta t ion of the foot w as hin gJohn does in fact ci te two tradi t ional sayings of Jesus, highl ighted bythe A m en , am en, I say to yo u fo rm ula wh ich John of te n uses tomark out t radi t ional logia . These have para l le ls in the Synopt ics(John 13:16; cf . Mat t 10:24-25; Luke 6:40; John 13:20; cf . Mat t10 :40 ; Lu ke 10 :16) ,2 5 but in d i ffe re nt con tex ts , un re la ted to theGreatest as Servant sayings.

I f the Synopt ic say ings a re no t a source o f John ' s foo twash ingnarrat ive, then they can be invoked in support of the histor ical valueo f Jo h n ' s na r r a t i ve by t he c r i t e r i on o f coh e r ence . T he t woindependent vers ions Luke 22:25-27 and Mark 10:42-45 provide th isseries of sayings with good attestation in the tradition, indicating thatJesus both spoke of leadership among his disciples as the role of theslave or the servant of all ,2 6 and a lso spoke of h is own example tothem in the same terms. The embodiment of these ideas in a str iking,even ext reme instance of what he meant—washing the d isc ip les ' fee t

—is coheren t wi th the Synopt ic say ings , wi th Jesus ' p rac t i ce o fenact ing symbol ic and demonst ra t ive i l lus t ra t ions of h is teaching,widely evidenced in the Gospel t radi t ions , and wi th the hyperbol icstyle character ist ic of Jesus ' teaching.

HI S TORY O F A P RAC TI CE

O utsid e John 13 there is only one New T esta m ent re fere nc e to a

Ch r is t ian prac t ice of wa shing the fee t of fe l low -Ch r is t ians . In 1 T im5:10, the good works expected of a widow include that she hassho w n hospi ta l i ty, wa shed the sa in ts ' fee t , he lped the aff l ic ted . Th e

associa t ion wi th hospi ta l i ty i s not unexpected in the l ight of thegenera l ev idence abou t foo twash ing f rom the anc ien t wor ld , andtends to p rec lude the poss ib i l i ty tha t the foo twash ing here i s are l ig ious r i te . Rather, among the good works expected of widows, i s

2 5 Cf . also M att 18:5 = M ark 9:37 = Lu ke 9:46, wh ere a version of this say ingmakes reference to the child Jesus takes as an example of the lack of status requiredof disciples. In Luke 9:46 this brings i t into combination with a version of theGreates t as Servant saying. But th is i s the vers ion of the la t te r fur thes t f romres em blin g John 13 (since it m ak es no refere nce to servan t or serv ing), wh ile John13:20 is similarly closer to Matt 10:40 than to Mark 9:37 or Luke 9:46.

2 6 Th e subv ersion of social s tatus in the com mu nity of the disciples is a the m e

also mo re wide ly at tested in the tradit ion of the saying s of Jesu s: e .g. M ark 10:31and parallels; Matt 23:12 and parallels.



tha t they shou ld pe r fo rm for the i r hou se gues t s the fo o tw ash ingwhich, had they not been Chr is t ians , they would have expected aslave or the guests themselves to perform. Besides hospi tal i ty in theirow n hom es , ano ther poss ib le con tex t fo r the w ido w s ' foo tw ash ing ,suggested by a passage of Tertul l ian we shal l ci te below, is the agapemeal , at which the feet of al l who arr ived for the meal would have tobe washed in some way. That footwashing i s here ment ioned amongthe good works o f widows in no way impl ies tha t on ly widowsprac t ised i t in the context add resse d by 1 Tim oth y.

T h i s pa s sage j o i n s the sca t t e r ed ev i denc e f r o m th e f o l l ow i ngcentu r ies for Chr is t ian pract ice of foo twa shin g. Ex cept in conn exio nwith this other evidence, i t might not be especial ly signif icant , whilethe later evidence alone could not be presumed to refer to a pract icego ing ba ck to the Ne w T est am en t per iod we re it not for 1 Tim 5:10 .To geth er the evidenc e i s suff ic ie nt to indicate a wid espre ad pract ice ,highly dist inct ive to ear ly Christ iani ty, which or iginated at an ear lydate. T he fa ct that 1 Tim 5:10 i tself clear ly pre sum es an e stab l ishe d

pract ice should be noted, and makes i t very unl ikely that i t i tselfref lects the inf luence of the Fourth Gospel .

J . C. Thomas has col lec ted and discussed the re levant pat r i s t ice v i d e n c e ,2 7 but his discussion is marred by his view that , l ike hisin te rp re ta t io n o f John 13, th i s ma te r i a l ev ide nc es a w ide sp rea drel ig ious r i te of footwashing in ear ly Chr is t iani ty. On the cont rary,most of the evidence is best understood as referr ing to the pract ice of

washing the fee t of fe l low-Chr is t ians (or o thers) on occasions whenfootwashing would take p lace in any case . There need be no specia lsignif icance in the footwashing i tself , only in the fact that Christ iansare per forming the act .

Ter tu l l i an wr i t es o f the way a non-Chr i s t i an husband migh t beexpected to regard h is Chr is t ian wife , especia l ly the good works andrel igious meetings for which she would leave his home:

For who would suffer his wife, for the sake of visi t ing the brethren, to goround f rom s t ree t to s t ree t to o ther men 's , and indeed a l l the poorer,cottages? Who will wil l ingly bear her being taken from his side by nocturnalconvocat ions , i f need so be? Who, f ina l ly, wi l l wi thout anxie ty endure herabsence a l l the n ight long a t the paschal so lemni t ies? Who wil l , wi thoutsome suspic ion of h is own, d ismiss her to a t tend the Lord 's Supper which

2 7 T h o m a s , Footwashing, cha p. 5. His treatm ent of the patr is t ic ev ide nc e is

also criticized by R. B. Edwards in a review in EvQ 66 (1994) 278-80.



they de fa m e? Wh o wil l suf fer her to creep in to pr ison to k iss a m ar ty r ' sbonds? Nay, truly, to meet any one of the brethren to exchange the kiss? toof fe r water for the sa in ts ' fe e t? to snatch (s om ew hat fo r them ) f ro m her

food, f rom her cup? to yearn (af ter them)? to have ( them) in her mind? I f api lgr im brother ar r ive , what hospi ta l i ty for h im in an a l ien home? AdUxorem 2 . 4 )2 8

Th e hus ba nd ' s concern i s p roba b ly env i sag ed as p r imar i ly fo r thed i shonour such ac t iv i t i e s by h i s wi fe would b r ing on h i s ownreputat ion. Some of the act ivi t ies are of dubious propriety or worse,espec ia l ly in v iew of the per s i s t en t pagan rumours abou t wha t

happened in secre t Chr is t ian meet ings dur ing the hours of darkness .But there is also evidently a concern about act ivi t ies that demean thewife (and thereby her husband) , such as enter ing the homes of thepoor and honour ing conv ic ted c r imina l s ( the mar ty r s in p r i son) .Washing the fee t of the sa in ts (perhaps a del ibera te echo of 1 Tim5:10) would be seen as a socia l ly degrading act . We cannot herethink of hospi tal i ty in the woman's home as the context , since the last

sentence of the quota t ion excludes what in any case would not beconce ivab le in the case o f the wi fe o f an unbe l i ever. P robab ly,therefore , the most p lausib le context i s the agape meal , a t which,Tertul l ian elsewhere notes, 'a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly '.Apol. 39) , though the la ter evidence associa t ing footwashing wi th

visit ing the sick (Apost. Const. 3 .19) suggests, al ternat ively, that thiscould be in v iew. Elsewhere Ter tu l l ian seems to imply that Chr is-t ians were known for pract i s ing footwashing in a re l ig ious contextDe Corona 8 ) ; r e fe ren ce to foo tw ash ing p reced ing the agape me a l

would be very plausible here too.

From the la te four th century come two references to washing thefee t o f those unab le to do th i s fo r themse lves . The Canons o fAthanasius instruct bishops to serve at meals with their pr iests , andto wash the fee t of those too weak to do th is for themselves . TheApostolic Constitutions instruc t de ac on s, as part of their m inis try ofvisi t ing the sick, to w ash the fee t of su ch of the bre thre n as are w ea kand i n f o r m ( 3 .19 ) .2 9 Whi le these r e fe rences may seem to min imizethe pract ice in envisaging i t only as a service to those unable to washtheir own feet, they also make clear that i t is no religious rite. I t is

2 8 Qu o t e d b y Th o ma s , Footwashing, 140, in the transla t ion by Ro ber ts and

Dona ldson Ante-Nicene Fathers).2 9 Th e two passag es are quoted by Th om as, Footwashing, 130-32.



the r egu la r foo tw ash ing fo r com for t and hyg iene , such as before ameal . Bishops and deacons are not to think i t beneath their digni ty to

per form th is ordinary but servi le ac t for those who needed i t donefor them.Other r e fe rences to the p rac t i ce , by Or igen , Chrysos tom, Pacho-

mius, Caesar ius of Ar ies , Sulpic ius Severus , Sozomen and Benedic tof Nursia c lear ly envisage hospi ta l i ty to s t rangers as the context ,whe t h e r i n p r i va t e hom es o r i n m o nas t i c co m m un i t i e s ,3 0 wh i l eCaesar ius a lso , l ike the Apostolic Constitutions, asso cia tes it wi thvisit ing the sick.31

Some of the ev idence Thomas c i t es fo r foo twash ing as a r i t esignifying forgiveness of sins is not real ly such. Some passages meantha t the mer i to r ious ac t o f wash ing the f ee t o f o ther s p rocuresfo rg iveness o f s ins fo r the one who washes (Ambrose , De SpirituSancto 1 .15) or procu res prayers for h is forg iven ess by those w ho sefeet he has washed (Cassian , Inst. 4 .19; Caesar ius , Serm. 202) , whi leAu g u s t i ne unde r s t ands Chr i s t t o be da i l y c l eans i ng ou r f ee t(metaphor ical ly) f rom sin by in terceding for us , wi th no apparentreference to an actual r i tual pract ice {In Joan. Ev. 56 . 5 ; 58 .5 ) .3 2

However, there i s good evidence that , f rom at least c . 300 onwards,in cer ta in par ts of the western church, there was a common pract iceof washing the fee t of the newly bapt ized.3 3 Ambrose , r e f l ec t ing onthe fact that this custom was observed in Milan but not in Rome, ci testhe v iew of some that footwashing was to be observed as a pract ice

of ho spi t a l i ty on ly, not as a r i tual e lem en t in the sac ra m en t ofbap t ism . His resp on se is that the for m er belo ng s to hu m il i ty, thel a t te r t o s an c t i f i c a t i o n De Myst. 3 . 5 ) .3 4 Th i s makes a c l ea rdist inct ion between the special soter iological signif icance at tached tothe footwashing that in some churches accompanied bapt ism, and thesigni f icance of the common Chr is t ian pract ice of footwashing as par t

3 0 The re levan t passages a re quo ted by Thomas , Footwashing, 132-3 4, 141,143-45.

31 Serm. 60 .4 , quo ted by Tho ma s , Footwashing, 145.3 2 Al l these passa ges are quoted by Th om as, Footwashing, 158-61.3 3 Th e e v i d e n c e , f r o m t h e S y n o d o f E l v i r a , Am b r o s e , Au g u s t i n e a n d

Caesar ius of Aries , i s quoted by Thomas, Footwashing, 142-4 3, 145, 178.3 4 Quo ted by Tho mas , Footwashing, 178. Ca esa rius Serm. 104.3, quo ted by

T h o m a s , Footwashing, 145) says of the baptize d: Le t them rece ive stran ger s and ,

in accord wi th what was done for themselves in bapt ism, wash the fee t of the i rg u e s t s .



of the hospitali ty offered to strangers and guests. The latter is not are l ig ious r i t e , bu t a f ea tu re of eve ryd ay l i f e w hich Ch r i s t i an s

exp r e s sed t he i r hum i l i t y—t he i r d i s r ega r d o f so c i a l s t a t u s— i nundertaking. As late as the sixth century it is clear that the practicewas a stumbling-block for some high status Christ ians, who fel t i t tob e d e g r a d i n g .3 5 The soc ia l ly r ad ica l s ign i f i cance o f Chr i s t i anfootwashing persisted throughout the patr ist ic per iod.

The pract ice of footwashing fol lowing baptism may well have beenbased on John 13:5-10, f rom which i ts soter iological signif icance andi ts connexion wi th bapt ism could have been der ived. The everydaypract ice of footwashing—in hospital i ty and visi t ing the sick—is alsoassoc iated in the texts with John 13, as obe dienc e to Jes us ' co m m an dthat his example be fol lowed (vv. 14-15) . These texts make i t clearthat the command was unders tood to apply to ordinary occasionswhen footwashing would be natura l and necessary, requi r ing thatChrist ians should not on these occasions hesi tate to perform the actwhich would otherwise be the duty of slaves. Though for the per iod

from the f i rst century to the third the only clear evidence is thatp ro v ide d by 1 Tim oth y, Ter tu l l i an and O r igen ,3 6 the incidenta lcharacter of these references i s indicat ive of a pract ice taken forgran ted and wel l -known, desp i t e i t s coun te r-cu l tu ra l na tu re . Thenature of our evidence for ear ly Chr is t iani ty in the f i r s t threecen t u r i e s m akes i t un su r p r i s i ng t ha t r e f e r ences a r e n o t m or eplent i fu l . The evidence we have i s suff ic ient to suggest a pract ice

establ ished already in the f i rst century independently of the inf luenceof the Fourth Gospel .

Footwashing was one of the most counter-cul tura l pract ices ofear ly Chr is t iani ty, symbol iz ing most radical ly the s ta tus- re ject ingideals of the ear ly Chr is t ian communi t ies . I t s or ig in ca l l s forexplanat ion. I t might be a pract ice ini t iated within ear l iest Christ iani-ty, under the inspirat ion of those sayings of Jesus which require hisdisciples to relate to each other by humble service rather than byse l f - aggrand iz ing lo rdsh ip . John ' s s to ry o f the foo twash ing migh tthen be an aetiological myth, projecting the origin of this distinctivepract ice back in to Jesus ' minis t ry. But such a specula t ion i s lessplau sible than the ob vio us al ternat ive : that , jus t as Jesu s dined withoutcasts and blessed chi ldren, so also he washed his disciples ' feet .

3 5 Caesa r ius , Serm. 202, quoted by Thomas, Footwashing, 133.3 6 Cf . also, less clearly, Cy prian , quote d by Th om as , Footwashing, 141.





W H E R E N O O N E H A D Y E T B E E N L A I D

T H E S HA M E OF JE S U S ' B UR I AL

Byron R. McCane

Recent s tud ies have posed provocat ive ques t ions about Jesus 'burial , as a s teady st ream of books and ar t icles has increasingly

raised the possibil i ty that the body of Jesus might have been disposedof in shame and dishonor.1 While some scholars st i l l hold that Jesuswas buried with dignity, i t is now quite common to read assert ions tothe contrary. Raymond E. Brown, for example, has argued that Jesuswas bur ied in a tomb reserved for cr iminals , and John DominicCrossan has concluded that no one real ly knew what became of thebody—it may have been th rown out to be ea ten by dogs .2 The

p ro b lem s su r roun d ing Jes us ' bu r i al a re ex t rem ely d i ff i cu l t , fo rreasons which are al l too familiar to scholars of the historical Jesus:the event took place long ago, the sources are scarce, and most of thetextual evidence is heavi ly shaded in Chris t ian ideologies . Al l thesame, in my judgment i t is possible to reach a very high degree ofhistorical confidence about the burial of Jesus. He was, after al l , aPalestinian Jew crucified by Romans, and quite a lot is known aboutJewish and Roman p rac t i ces r egard ing the dead . In add i t ion ,anthropologists and sociologists have thoroughly analyzed the waysin which societ ies and cul tures t reat the remains of the dead.Accordingly, th is chapter wil l draw upon evidence from archaeology

1 J. Blinz ler, Die G rable gu ng Jesu in historisch er Sich t, in Ε . D ha nis (ed.),surr xit (Vatica n City: Editr ic e Va tican a, 1974) 56-1 07; F. M . Bra un, La

s é p u l t u r e d e J e s u s , RB 4 5 ( 1 9 3 6 ) 3 4 - 5 2 , 1 8 4 - 2 0 0 , 3 4 6 - 6 3 ; A . Bu c h l e r ,L 'enter rement des cr iminels d 'après le Talmud e t le Midrasch,REJ 46 (1903) 74-88; H. Co usin , Sépu l ture cr imine l le e t sépul ture prop hét ique ,RB 81 (1974) 375-93 ; D. Daube , The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. ( Lo n d o n : A t h l o n e ,1956), 310 -11; E. Dh anis, L'e ns ev elis sem ent de Jésu s et la visi te au tom bea u d ansl ' évang i le de sa in t Marc (xv,40-xv i ,8 ) , Greg 39 (1958) 36 7-410.

2 R. E. Bro wn , Th e Bur ia l of Jesus (Mark 15:42-47) ,CBQ 50 (1988) 233-45 ; idem, The Death of the Messiah (New York: Do ubled ay, 1994) 1201-1 317; J .D . Cr o s s a n , The Historical Jesus (San Fran cisco: Ha rper , 1991) 391 -94 ; idem ,Who Killed Jesus? (San Fran cisco: Ha rper Co ll ins, 1995) 160-88. .



and l itera ture , a long wi th theory f r om anth rop olog y and socio logy ,to argue that Jesus was indeed bur ied in d isgrace in a cr iminals 'tomb. Based on what we know of Roman pract ice and Jewish custom,one or more members of the Sanhédr in must have obta ined the bodyof Jes us f ro m P il a te and a r ranged fo r a d i sh on ora b le in te rm ent .Fr om an ear ly date the Ch r is t ian t rad i t ion t r ied to co nc ea l th isunpleasant fac t , but the best evidence c lear ly shows that Jesus wasburied in shame.

I

Jesus was cruci f ied by Romans, and a t the t ime of h is death h isbody was in the hands of Romans, so any histor ical invest igat ion ofhis bur ia l must begin wi th the Romans. What would Pi la te and thesoldiers guarding the cross, who were in charge of the body of Jesus,have been most l ikely to do with it? There is a distinct possibili ty thatthey might have done nothing at al l with the body, but simply lef t i thanging on the cross . As Mar t in Hengel has observed, the Romansused crucif ixion not only as a punishment but also as a deterrent , andwh i le the pun i t ive e ff e c t o f c ruc i f ix ion may hav e ended w hen thevic t im died , the dete r ren t eff ec t d id not hav e to .3 The impac t o fcruci f ix ion could go on for days a t a t ime, as the body of one whohad crosse d the pu rpo ses of Ro m e was lef t hang ing in publ ic v iew ,rotting in the sun, with birds pecking away at i t .

Several Roman wr i ters ment ion that condemned cr iminals could bedenied a decent burial , and that vict ims of crucif ixion in par t icularcould be lef t on thei r crosses for days a t a t ime. Suetonius , forexample , wr i t es tha t when Augus tus avenged the murder o f Ju l iusCaesar, he not only took the l ives of Brutus and his supporters buta lso denied them customary r i tes of bur ia l . One vic t im who pleadedfo r a de ce nt burial w as told, T he ca rr ion -bird s wil l soon take careof that (Sue tonius , Augustus 13.1-2). La ter, in 31 CE, w he n Tib er iusmoved against Sejanus and his suppor ters , some of them commit ted

suic ide ra ther than be exec uted , bec ause people senten ced to deathfor fe i te d thei r prope r ty and we re forb idde n bur ia l (Tac i tus , Annals6.29) . Also f ro m the fi r s t century i s Pet ro nius ' am using ( to Ro m an s,a t leas t ) s tory about a so ld ier who was ass igned to guard somecro sses in orde r to pre ven t any on e f r om taking a bod y do w n forbur ia l (Pe t ron ius , Satyricon 111) . Th e un for tun ate sold ier loses on e

3

M. Henge l , Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Messag eof the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 86-88.



of the bod ies , however, when he d iver t s h i s a t t en t ion f rom thecrosses in order to pursue an amorous inter lude with a widow. Whilehe is thus distracted, parents of one of the vict ims take the bodydown and bury i t . The story is ful l of bawdy themes—it is f rom theSatyricon, af te r al l— but two incidental detai ls sugge st the ser ious nes swi th which Romans cou ld t ake the mat te r o f guard ing c ruc i f ix ionvict ims: the soldier guards the crosses for three nights, and he fearsfor h is l i fe when the thef t i s d iscovered. F inal ly, Horace ment ionsthat a slave wh o is inno cen t of m urd er need not fea r ha ng ing on across to feed cro w s (Horace , Epistles 1.16.48).

In each of these cases the central issue appears to be an assertion ofpower, and speci f ica l ly Roman pow er. In typical Rom an fashion, op-ponents and enemies are not merely subdued but u t ter ly vanquishedand even made an example of . Cer ta in ly the l imp, put refying body ofa cruci f ix ion vic t im would have d isplayed the might of Rome inviscera l ly graphic fashion. Something e lse was a lso a t work in theseprac t i ces , how eve r, som eth in g which had to do wi th the R om an

socia l order. Ordinar i ly, death i s an event which disrupts the func-t ioning of a social order, for the death of any par t icular individualtears away a member of a socia l network and forces the network toreconst i tu te i t se l f . Death r i tuals—i.e . , bur ia l customs and r i tes ofmourn ing—are soc ia l p rocesses which hea l the wounds which dea thinf l icts on the social group.4 By burying the dead and mourning theirabse nce , m em ber s o f a soc ie ty a ff i r m tha t som eone s ign i f i can t h as

been lost . When the Romans did not permit the burial of crucif ixionvic t ims, then, they were doing more than merely showing off thepower of Rome: they were a lso declar ing that the deaths of thesevict ims were not a loss to Roman society. Far f rom i t , the deaths ofco nd em ne d c r im ina l s ac tua l ly se rved to s t r eng the n and p r ese rveRome, protect ing and defending the socia l order of the Empire .

Cer ta in ly there were times when R om an off ic ia ls in Judea beh ave d

l ike thei r counterpar ts in the res t of the Empire . When Varus , forexample, the Roman legate of Syria, moved into Judea in 4 BCE toquell civi l unrest af ter the death of Herod the Great , he reportedlycruci f ied two thousand of those who par t ic ipated in the upr is ing inan d a r o und Je r u sa l em Ant. 17 .10 .10 §295 ) . La ter, as the Fi rs tJew ish Wa r wa s b rea k ing ou t in 66 CE, the R om an pr oc ura to rGessius Florus i s sa id to have ordered indiscr iminate cruci f ix ions ,

4 R. Her tz , Death and the Right Hand (New Y ork: Free Press, 1960).



inc luding among his v ic t ims even some c i t izens of equest r ian rankJ.W. 2 .14 .9 §30 6-3 07) . And in 70 CE the R om an ge nera l Ti tu s is

r epor ted to have c ruc i f i ed hundreds o f Jewish cap t ives a round thew al ls of Jer usa lem , in the ho pe that the spe ctac le mig ht pe rh ap sinduce the Jews to sur render J.W. 5 .11 .1 §450) . Jose ph us doe s notspe ci f ic a l ly s ta te that bod ies we re lef t han ging on cross es in th esecases, but that would be ent irely consistent with the general purposeof these crucifixions. I t is l ikely, then, that on at least three occasionsR om an au thor i t ies in Jud ea lef t v ic t ims of cru ci f ix ion ha ng ing o ncros ses in jus t the w ay descr ib ed by Petroniu s and H ora ce.

These ac t ions , however, a re ce r t a in ly no t typ ica l o f the wayRomans usual ly behaved in Judea. These mass cruci f ix ions , i t turnsou t , a l l come f rom t imes o f acu te c r i s i s , when Roman mi l i t a ryof f ic er s w ere bein g cal led in to stabi l ize si tuat ions wh ich ha d gottenout of co nt ro l . V aru s and Ti tus , for ex am ple , w ere put t ing do w narmed rebel l ions, and even before Florus ' act ion in 66, the legate ofSyria (Cest ius Gallus at the t ime) had already become involved with

the escalat ing t roubles in Judea J.W. 2 .14 .3 §280-28 3) . Th roug hou tmost of the f i rst century, by contrast , and especial ly at the t ime ofJesus ' death, Judea was not in open revolt against Rome and was notun d e r t he con t r o l o f Rom an gen e r a l s com m and i n g l eg i on s o fs o l d i e r s .5 I t was ins tead adminis tered by a prefect who had only asmall contingent of t roops at his disposal . Certainly the prefect couldmobi l ize those forces to suppress potent ia l rebel l ion , as Theudas and

t h e E g y p t i a n d i s c o v e r e d J.W. 2 . 1 3 . 4 - 5 § 2 5 8 - 2 6 3 ; Ant. 2 0 . 5 . 1§97-99; 20 .8 .6 §167-172; Acts 5 :36) , but such events were br ief ,intermit tent , and did not involve mass crucif ixions. Most of the t ime,in o ther words, the c i ty wal ls of Jerusalem were not r inged byhundreds of crosses. At the t ime of Jesus, in fact , the si tuat ion waspeaceful enough that events in and around Jerusalem were not a lwaysunder the direct control of the Roman prefect . Pi late did not residein Jerusalem, but at Caesarea on the coast in a palace bui l t by Herodthe Great , and he came to Jerusalem only on specia l occasions, suchas Passover. A smal l Roman force was s ta t ioned in the c i ty in thefor t r ess Anton ia , bu t the rou t ine day- to -day government o f Je rusa-lem was largely in Jewish hands, specif ical ly the High Priest and the

5 E. P. Sand ers, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Pen guin , 1993)

15-32; F. Millar, The Roman Near East 31 BC - AD 337 (Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1993) 43-56.



counci l , who were accountab le to P i la te fo r the main tenance ofpublic order. Pilate himself was accountable to the legate of Syria,and it was in the interest of all concerned to avoid disruption of thestatus quo. I t would be a mistake, then, to conclude that episodes l ikethose involving Varus, Florus, and Titus are typical of the si tuationsurrounding Jesus ' bur ia l . They were mi l i ta ry commanders pu t t ingthei r foo t down—h a r d —on open rebell ion against Rome. Pilate wasa bureaucra t t ry ing to keep the wheels o f government runningsmooth ly.

Roman prefec ts l ike P i la te , in fac t , o f ten a l lowed cruci f ix ionvict ims to be buried. Cicero , for example, ment ions a governor inSicily who released bodies to family members in return for a fee InVerrem 2 .5.45 ), and Philo writes that on the eve of R om an ho lida ysin Egypt , crucif ied bodies were taken down and given to theirfam ilies , be ca us e it was though t well to give them burial and allo wthem ordinary r i tes {In Flaccum 10.83-84). In add it ion, as Cr oss anhas pointed out , the famous case of Yehohanan, the crucif ied man

whose skeletal remains were found in a family tomb at Givc

at ha-Mivtar, proves that a Roman governor in Jerusalem had released thebody of a cruci f ix ion v ic t im for bur ia l .6 F inal ly, the Gospels '

6 Crossan , Who Killed Jesus?, 167-68. For the arch aeo logy , cf. V. Tz afe ris,Jewish Tombs a t and near Giv 'a t ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem,IEJ 20 (19 70) 18-32.

For two differ ing analyses of the skeletal remains—and two different reconstruc-

t ions o f the Rom an method o f c ruc i f ix ion — cf . Ν . Haas , An th rop o log ica lObservations on the Skeletal Remains from Givcat ha-Mivtar, IEJ 20 (1970) 38-59; and J . Zias and E. Sekeles , Th e Cru cif ied Man fro m Givcat ha-Mivtar : AReappra i sa l , IEJ 35 (1985) 22-27. Crossan, however, completely misunderstandsthe sig nifi can ce of this find wh en he writes , W ith all those tho usa nd s of peo plecrucified around Jerusalem in the first century alone, we have so far found only asingle cru cifie d skeleton . . . W as burial, then, the exce ption rather than the ru le?(168). The archaeological report plainly states that it was only an accident which

caused Yehohanan 's remains to be preserved in such a way as to identify him as acrucifixion victim. Only the nail through his ankle provided evidence of crucifixion.And why was the nail s t i l l in Yehohanan 's ankle? Because the soldiers who hadcrucified him could not extract it from the cross. When the nail had been driven in,it had struck a knot in the wood, bending back the point of the nail. As anycarpenter (or fisherman) knows, it is almost impossible to extract a nail with a pointthat has been bent back like the barb of a hook. Thus if there had not been a knotstrategically located in the wood of Yehohanan 's cross, the soldiers would haveeasily pulled the nail out of the cross. It never would have been buried withYehohanan, and we would never have known that he had been crucif ied. I t is not



assert io n that Pilate used to release fo r them one priso ner for w ho mthey ask ed (M ark 15:6 par.) is also relevan t here, fo r it sh ow s thatduring the first century CE one could plausibly tel l stories of Romanjudicial clemency, especially around religious holidays. Thus the fateof Jesus' body in Roman hands should not be regarded as automatic.The occasion of Jesus' death was a Jewish holiday, and Pilate was notin the process of suppressing a revolt , but rather simply trying toprotect public order.

On balance, then, the Romans involved with the death of Jesusnatural ly would have expected that the body would remain on thecros s , un less P i la te o rd ered o th erw ise . I t wa s so m eth ing of acommonp lace in the Empi re tha t v i c t ims o f c ruc i f ix ion wou ldbecome food for car r ion-b i rds , un less the c lemency of a governorintervened. Certainly Rome had i ts reasons for leaving i ts victims onpublic display. This fact can help to explain an interesting detail inMark's account of the burial of Jesus: Mark 15:43 says that Joseph ofAr im athe a dar ed (τό λμ η σ α ?) to approach P i la te and reques t the

bod y of Jesus. W hy dar ed? Beca use such a request wo uld indeedhave been dar ing in l ight of the fact that v ict ims of ten remainedhanging on crosses as symbols of Roman wil l .7 On the other hand, arequest by a Jewish leader for the body of Jesus would not have beenout of place, ei ther, since Roman prefects—including at least one thatwe know of in f i r s t -cen tury Jerusalem—did a l low the bur ia l o fcrucif ix ion vict ims. In the case of Jesus, such an al lowance was

likely, since Jesus was not caught up in a mass crucifixion, and hisdeath did not come at a t ime of revol t against Rome. The Jewishleaders of Jesus' day generally cooperated with Pilate in preservingpubl ic order in Jerusalem, and the occasion of Jesus ' death was aJewish religious holiday. I t may have taken a l i t t le nerve, then, butsomeone l ike Joseph of Arimathea could have reasonably expectedthat Pilate would grant his request for the body of Jesus.

II

But would a member of the counci l have approached Pi late aboutthe body of Jesus? Or would the Jewish leaders of f i rs t -century

surprising, in other words, that we have found the remains of only one crucifixionvictim: it is surprising that we have identified even one. Crossan's inference on p.

168 is quite misguided.7 Brown , The Death of the Messiah, 1216-17.



Jerusalem have been content to let Pi late do whatever he wanted withthe body? The evidence indicates that they would not have wanted the

body of Jesus to be lef t hanging on the cross. Based on what weknow of Jewish cul ture , they would have prefer red for Jesus to beburied, and promptly. Jewish burial pract ices in the days of Jesus arewel l -known: hundreds o f tombs have been excava ted , and manytex t s—from Josephus , the Mishnah , and the t r ac ta te Semahot8—explici t ly discuss the care of the dead. Indeed, the archaeological andl i terary evid enc e presents a rem arka bly co m plete p ic ture , and thefol lowing por t ra i t of a typical Jewish funeral i s based on thecombined witness of texts and tombs.9

8 Th e t rac ta te Semahot ( l it . rejo icin gs, certainly a eup hem istic t i t le) date sf rom the th i rd century E and is an earl ier for m of the Ta lm ud ic tra ctate cEhelRahhati. For this date and a discussion of the evide nce, see D. Zlotnick , trans., TheTractate Mourning (Semahot) (Ne w York: Yale Unive rsity Press, 1966).

9 C om m ent is called for here on current scholarly suspicion s regarding the v alue(or lack thereof) of the Mishnah as a historical source for the world of Jesus. Ofcourse one cannot naively assume that this third-century text preserves rel iableinformation about f irst-century Jewish l ife . In many cases i t demonstrably does not .On the specific topic of burial practices, however, there is s trong evide nce in fav orof using the M ishnah . First, at points whe re i t can be checke d against the arch aeol-ogical evidence the Mishnah has already been shown to be accurate, m. B. Bat. 6:8,for example, records a rabbinic discussion about the ideal dimensions for burialniches, and the dimensions given in the Mishnaic text correspond closely to theactual d im ens ions of so-ca l led locu lus n iches typica l ly foun d in f i rs t -centu ry

Jewish tombs in Palest ine, m. B. Bat. 2:9 st ipulates that tombs should be located atleas t f i f ty cubi ts outs id e of a town or c i ty, and arch aeolog y con f i rm s tha t th isprac t ice was typica l ly fo l lowed both in f i rs t -century Jerusa lem and a t Qumran.Second, i t i s an anthropologica l commonplace tha t bur ia l prac t ices change veryslow ly (see below ). Th eolo gica l ideas about death and the afte rl ife are typic allyvague and f luid, but burial practices and customs have a weight and mass al l theirown. From this point of view, there would be nothing part icularly remarkable abouta third-century text which accurately preserved information about burial customs

from two centuries earlier. For these reasons I do not hesitate to make critical use ofthe Mishnah—along wi th the t rac ta te Semahot—in con junc tion with other sou rcesof evidence on this specific topic. Cf . B. R. McCane, Jews, Christians, and Burialin Roman Palestine (Ph.D . diss. , D uke Univers i ty, 1992); P. Figue ras, DecoratedJewish Ossuaries (Leiden: Bril l, 1985); D. Go lden berg , Halakhah in Josephus andin Tannaitic Literature: A Com parative Study (Ph.D. d iss ., Drop sie U nivers i ty,1978); R. Hachli l i , Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel(Leiden: Bril l , 1988); S. Klein, Tod und Begräbnis in Palästina zur Zeit derTannaiten (Be rlin: Itzow ski, 1908); Ε . M. Meyers , Jewish O ssuaries: Reburial andRebirth (Ro me : Pontif ical Biblical Insti tute, 1971); L. Y. Ra hm ani , An cien t



The Jews of Early Roman Palest ine had a long tradi t ion of promptburial of the dead. Most funerals took place as soon as possible af ter

dea th , and a lmos t a lways on the same day.1 0

As soon as deathoccurred , preparat ions began: the eyes of the deceased were c losed,the corpse was washed wi th per fumes and o in tments , i t s bod i lyor i f ices were s topped, and s t r ips of c lo th were wrapped t ight lyarou nd the bo dy — bin din g the jaw c losed, holding the hand to thesides, and tying the feet together.1 1 Thus prepared, the corpse wasplaced on a bier or in a coff in and carr ied out of town in aprocession to the family tomb, usual ly a small rock-cut cave enteredthrough a nar row opening that could be covered wi th a s tone.1 2

Upon arr iving at the tomb, eulogies were spoken and the corpse wasplaced inside, ei ther in a niche or on a shelf , along with i tems ofjew elr y or o ther person al effe cts of the dec ease d.1 3 Expressions ofcondolence continued as the procession returned to the family home,

Je ru sa le m 's Funera ry Cus tom s and Tom bs , Par t Thre e , BA 44 (1981) 43-45 ; S .Sa fra i , H om e and Fam ily, in S. Saf rai and M . Stern (eds.) , The Jewish People inthe First Century (2 vols . , C R IN T 1.1-2; Ass en: Van Go rcu m ; Phi lad elph ia :For t ress , 1976) 2 .773-87.

10 m. Sanh. 6:5; Sem. 1 .5 . Cf . a lso M ark 5 :38 par. , wh ere funera ry prép ara-tions have already be gun a fter Jair us' d aug her has died earlier that day.

11 m. Sanh. 23.5; Sem. 1 .2-5; 12.10. On e prom inen t rabbi, Rab ban Ga m aliel ,is said to have disapproved of overly ostentat ious preparations for burial , and tohave ordered his body to be wrapped in f lax rather than l inen (b. Ketub. 86a; b.

Mo'ed Qat. 27b). Brown appears to misunderstand the point of this gesture whenhe wr ites that a cha nge in burial s tyle is reported to have been introd uc ed byGamal ie l {The Death of the Messiah, 1243). Ga ma liel did not , how eve r, introdu ceany change in Jewish burial practices: his body was wrapped in cloth like any otherJewish corpse. What Gamaliel changed was the degree of ostentat ion, by insist ingon plain simple f lax rather than f ine l inen. Such sentiments are rather common inthe anthropology of death r i tual . In the ancient world, Solon, Plato, and Cicero areall said to have urged l imitat ions on funerary display (Plutarch, Sol. 21 .5 ; Cicero ,

de Leg. 2 .23 .59; 2 .24 .60) .12 m. B. Bat. 2:9; cf . also A. Kloner, The Necropolis of Jerusalem (Ph.D.

diss . , He brew U nivers i ty, 1980) [Hebrew],13 Sem. 8 .2-7. Two kinds of burial niches typically characterize Jewish tombs

in Roman Palest ine: (1) the kokh or loculus, a deep narrow slot in the wall of thetomb, and (2) the arcosol ium, a broad arch-shaped recess a long the wal l of thetom b. A typical loculus cav e can have 5-8 nich es (cf . L. Y. Ra hm an i, A Je wis hTomb on Shah in Hi l l , J e rusa lem, 1EJ 8 [195 8] 101-10 5), while a typical arc o-solium cav e has only three (cf . idem, The Mah anay im To m b,cAtiqot 3 [1961] 91-120).



and f r iends and re la t ives d ispersed. The funeral was thus conductedwithout delay, and in most cases the body had been interred by sunseton the day of death. Once in a while a Jewish funeral might even be al i t t le too hasty : the rabbis to ld s tor ies of people who had beenmistakenly bur ied before they were actual ly dead.1 4

This preference for promptness was only heightened in the case ofcru ci f ix io n vic t ims, for the Torah sp eci f ica l ly co m m an ded that thosew ho had been hun g on a t ree should be bur ied a t sunset . Deu tero-nom y 21 :2 2-23 r eads : i f a man has com mi t t ed a c r ime pun i shab leby death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his bodyshal l not remain al l night upon the t ree, but you shal l bury him thesam e da y. V ic t ims o f exec u t ion cou ld be l e f t han g ing in pub l i cview, then, but only for a short per iod of t ime. In the book ofJoshua, the king of Ai is ki l led, hanged, and then buried at sunset(Josh 8 :29) , as are the f ive k ings who oppose the I srael i tes ( Josh10:27) . The apocryphal book of Tobit tel ls of a hero who r isked l i feand l imb to bury execution vict ims at sunset of the day of death (Tob

1:16; 2 :4) , and Jewish wr i t ings f rom f i r s t -century Pales t ine conf i rmthe ongoing vi tal i ty of this ancient cul tural norm. The Temple Scrol lf ro m Q um ran , for exam ple , quotes Deut 21:22-23 , and Jose phu s saysthat the Jew s in Jeru salem w ere so car efu l about fun era l r i tes thateven malefactors who have been sentenced to cruci f ix ion were takendown and bur ied before sunse t {J.W. 4 .5 .2 §317) . Th ese no rm scontinued to have currency long af ter the t ime of Jesus: m. Sanh. 6:4

q u o t e s Deu t 21 : 22 - 23 ve r b a t i m and no t e s t ha t J ews d i d no tcustomar i ly leave bodies of executed cr iminals hanging past sunseton the day of death . Jews in Pales t ine , in o ther words, had longregarded prompt bur ia l as the normal and decent way to t rea t thedead . The Jewish l eader s in f i r s t - cen tu ry Je rusa lem would havethought of i t as only natural and r ight to take Jesus ' body down fromthe cross at sunset.

They would not have thought i t na tura l and r ight , however, tobury Jesus l ike most o ther Jews. For there was a lso a long-s tanding

14 Sem. 8 .1: On e may go out to the cem etery for three days to inspect the deadfor a sign of l ife , without fear that this smacks of heathen practice. For i t happenedthat a man was inspected after three days, and he went on to l ive twenty-five years;st il l ano ther went on to have f ive children and died later. Such anec dotal acc ou nts

are more l ikely than rabbinic prescriptions to reflect the reali t ies of everyday l ife—and death.



Jewish tradit ion that some bodies ought to be buried differently fromothers . Some Jews were buried in shame and dishonor, because theywere gui l ty of cr imes which made them undeserving of a decentburial . The evidence for the practice of dishonorable burial begins inthe Hebr ew Bible. In 1 Kgs 13:21-22, for exa m ple, a prop het wh odiso be ys the co m m an d of the LORD is den ou nce d and to ld , Y ou rbod y shall not go into the tom b of you r fath ers. Later, in Jer 22 :18 -19 it is the king himself (in this case, Jehoiakim, son of Josiah) whois so thr eat en ed : T he y shall not lamen t fo r him . . . W ith the buria lof an ass shall he be buried, dragged and cast forth beyond the gatesof Je ru sa lem . Gra nted , these texts evin ce only the be gin nin gs of anout l ine of d ishonorable burial by suggest ing that there might beoffenders who would not be buried in their family tombs, and thatthere might be deaths for which Israel would not mourn; but th isear ly evidence is reinforced in later per iods. Josephus, for example,records a version of the biblical story of Achan (Joshua 7) and hisacco un t end s with the statem ent that Ac han w as stra igh tw ay put to

death and at n ightfal l was given the ignominious (άτιμο?) burialp roper to the condemned Ant. 5 .1 .14 §44) . Jos eph us does no tspe ci fy what igno m iniou s bur ia l wa s— app aren t ly he can safe lyassume that h is readers wil l know and understand. The Mishnah ismuch more specif ic , m. Sanh. 6 :6 says that cr iminals condemned bya Je w ish cou rt w ere not in terre d in the bu rial p la ce of theirfat he rs, but in separa te places kept by the court specif ically for that

purpose. Ri tes of mourning were not observed for these cr iminals ,e i ther. Fami ly members were supposed to keep the i r g r iev ing tothemselves:

Th e kinsm en c am e and greeted the jud ge s and the witne sses as if to say,W e hav e nothin g against you in our hearts , for you have ju dg ed the

ju dg m en t of truth. And they used not to ma ke open lam entatio n, but theywent mourning, for mourning has its place in the heart m. Sanh. 6:6).

Talmudic tex ts l ikewise argue tha t mourn ing should no t beobserved for those condemned by a Jewish cour t Sem. 2 .6) . Ev enthough these sources do not always spell out in full the exact detailsof dishonorable burial , certain elements do recur, and enough for usto reach at least one conclusion. From the Hebrew Bible through therabbin ic l i t e ra ture , d i shonorab le Jewish bur ia l meant two th ings :burial away from the family tomb, and burial without r i tes of

mo u r n i n g .Before proceeding any further, there is a point to be noted here



about bur ia l pract ices—not jus t Jewish bur ia l pract ices , but bur ia lpract ices in general . The point is this: they change very slowly. Forcentur ies on end Israel i tes and Jews had been burying thei r deadprompt ly, and bury ing the i r d i shonored dead in shame, and thesecustoms did not change much over t ime. Burial pract ices are in factamong the mos t t r ad i t iona l and conserva t ive aspec t s o f humancultures, and they are especial ly so in unsecular ized societ ies. When asociety is st i l l embedded in rel igion—i.e. when rel igious bel iefs st i l lserve as the foundat ion for socia l ins t i tu t ions and customs—bur ia lpract ices funct ion as r i tual vehicles for social and cul tural cohesionin the face of death. As such, they change very slowly. I t is impor-tant to note the signif icance of this fact for the burial of Jesus.1 5

Tradi t ions of prompt bur ia l , and of d ishonorable bur ia l , would haveexer ted a powerful inf luence on the Jewish leaders of f i r s t -centuryJerusalem. These customs had been handed down for generat ions andwere invested with the aura of sacred authori ty. The Jewish leaderswere devout ly r e l ig ious . To imagine tha t they cou ld have d i s re -

garded these t radi t ions , out of indi fference or inconvenience, i s tomisunders tand bur ia l customs in a fundamental way. Worse yet , i t i sto project post-modern secular ized ways of thinking back into an erawhere they do not belong.

The e lement o f shame in Jewish d i shonorab le bur ia l i s mos tvivid ly evident in the speci f ic d i fferences between bur ia l in shameand bur ia l wi th honor. Honorable bur ia l emphasized precise ly what

sh am ef ul buria l lef t out : the fam i ly tom b, and mo urnin g. B ur ia l byfamily groups in subter ranean chambers was the consis tent pat tern ,not jus t am on g Israel i tes and Jew s but throug hou t the anc ient neareast . Th e pract ice of seco nda ry burial i .e . the reburial of bo ne s af terthe f lesh of the body has decayed) was especia l ly prevalent , goingbac k as far as the M iddle Bron ze Age c . 20 00 -15 00 BCE) , w he nc i rcu la r underground chambers were used and the bones o f f ami lymembers were typical ly gathered in to a p i le on one s ide of thet o m b .1 6 S im i lar pract ices pers is ted through the Late Bro nze Age c .

1 5 For the socio logy and anth rop olog y of death r i tual , see P. M etcalf and R.Hunt ing ton , Celebrations of Death The Anthropology of Mo rtuary Ritual 2nd ed.,Ca m br idg e: C am bri dg e Unive rs i ty Press , 1991) ; M. Bloch and J . Parry eds .) ,Death and the Regeneration of Life New York: Ca mb ridge Universi ty Press, 1982);R. Ch ap m an , I . Kinne s , and K. Ran dsbo rg eds . ) , The Archaeology of Death

Cambridge: Cambridge Univers i ty Press , 1981) .1 6 S . Cam pbel l and A. Green eds .) , The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient



1500 -1200 B CE) .17 Later, during Iron Age II (esp. c. 800-700 BCE),benches were carved around the wal ls of the burial chamber, about

wa i s t - h i g h .1 8

Bodies were laid on these benches, and when decom-posi t ion of the f lesh was complete , the bones were moved in toreposi tor ies beneath the benches. Over t ime, these reposi tor ies cameto hold the bones of family members long dead, so that the bones ofthe deceased rested with those of their forebears . The recurrentbibl ical id iom , to be gathered to on e 's peo ple/ fath ers (Gen . 25:8etc.) , vividly depicts this ancient Israeli te burial practice. I t alsogives voice to the Israeli te preference for burial in a family tomb.

Secondary burial in family tombs was st i l l being practiced at thet im e of Jesu s. Tru e, the be nc h tom b had been rep lace d by the

loc ulu s tom b, in wh ich bod ies were placed not on ben ches but inloculus niches (i .e. deep narrow slots carved into the wall of thetom b) . Re pos i to r ies had a l so been rep lace d by os su ar ie s ( i .e .l imestone boxes), but the basic ancient pattern st i l l held true: bonesof fami ly members were rebur ied together in underground tombs.Archaeo log ica l ev idence demons t ra t es tha t secondary bu r i a l i nloculus tombs was by far the dominant burial pract ice among f i rs t -century Jews in and around Jerusalem, and inscr ipt ions show thatm ost of these tom bs we re used by fam ily grou ps. In the G oli athtomb from Jer icho, inscr ipt ions enabled the excavators to reconstructthree generations of the family tree.19 The fam ous Ca iap has tombdemonst ra tes tha t the fami ly of the High Pr ies t fo l lowed these

customs: in that loculus tomb there were 16 ossuaries, one of whichwas inscr ibed with the nam e Joseph Caiap has.2 0 Secondary burial isdiscussed at length in the Mishnah and Talmudim, and the t ractateSemahot is alm os t entirely d ev ote d to the topic . H ere too ther e is ast rong emphasis on t ies of k inship and family: Semahot 12.9, fo rexample, holds a son responsible for the reburial of h is father 's

Near East (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).1 7 R. Gone n, Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze ge

Canaan (ASOR Dissertation Series 7; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992).1 8 Ε . B loch-Smi th , Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead

(JS O TS up 123; Sh effie ld: JS O T Press, 1992).1 9 R. Ha chlili , Th e Goliath Fam ily in Jericho: Funerary Inscriptions fro m a

Firs t Century AD Jewish Monumental Tomb,B SOR 235 (197 9) 31-65 ; idemand P. Sm ith, Th e Ge neolo gy of the Goliath Fam ily,B SOR 235 (1979) 67-70.

2 0 Z. Gre enhut, The Caiapha s To m b in North Talpiyot , Jerusa lem ,

c tiqot

21 (1992) 63-71.



bones. Archaeological corroborat ion of the rabbinic sources is foundin the second and third-century catacombs at Beth Shecar im, wheresecondary bur ia l i s f requent and where inscr ip t ions show thatind iv idual bur ia l chambers were purchased and used by fami lyg r o u p s .2 1

The element of mourning which was included in honorable buriala l so emphasized t ies o f k insh ip and fami ly, and here too thetraditions reach far back into Israelite history. Jacob was said to haverent his garments and put on sackcloth after being told that Josephhas died (Gen 37:34), and Ba thsh eba first m ad e lam entation fo r herhus ban d befo re becom ing Da v id ' s wi fe (2 Sam 11 :26 -27 ) . Som e-times a specific length of t ime is mentioned: the people of Israelmourn the death of Aaron for thirty days (Num. 20:29), and Job si tswith his comforters for seven days and seven nights (Job 2:12-13) .References to the length of t ime spent in mourning also appear inJewish l i te ra ture f rom the f i r s t cen tury, as fo r example whenJose ph us wri tes that Arch elaus kept seven days of m ourn ing for h is

f a t h e r (J.W. 2 .1.1 §1), and Mary and Martha are said to have beenmourning their brother Lazarus for four days before Jesus arr ives(John 11:17-19). The rabbinic l i terature supplies details of a morehighly developed ri tual . Here the period of mourning unfolds in twostages: f i rs t a seve n-da y period of in tense gr ieving (cal led ) ,wh en family m em be rs s tay awa y fro m wo rk, s i tt ing at ho m e uponlow couches, heads covered, receiving the condolences of relat ives

and f r iends ,2 2

and then a thirty-day period of less severe mourning(cal led ) , dur ing which fami ly mem ber s st il l d id no t leavetown, cu t the i r ha i r, o r a t tend socia l ga ther ings . The rabbin icl i terature s t rongly emphasizes family t ies: the longest per iod ofmourn ing—an en t i re year—is sa id to occur when a son mourns fo rhis parents (Sem. 9 .15).

These customs of honorable burial expose an important feature ofthe Jewish cul ture of Roman Palest ine. When they tended to theirdead in this way, Jews were doing more than simply disposing of abody and dealing with their grief; they were also making a symbolics ta tement about the i r most bas ic cu l tu ra l norms and values .

2 1 M. Schw abe and B. Lifsh i tz , Beth She arim, Vol. II: The Greek Inscrip-Hons (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1974) 223.

2 2

L . Y. Rah ma ni , Ancien t Jerus alem 's Funerary Custom s and Tom bs, Par tO ne , BA 44 (198 1) 175.



An t h r opo l og i s t s have f ound t ha t dea t h r i t ua l s t yp i ca l l y f ea t u r esymbol ic representa t ions of the most cher ished values in a cul ture ,

be ca use the i ssue of death throw s in to re l ief the m ost im po r tan tcul tura l values by which people l ive thei r l ives and evaluate thei re x p e r i e n c e s . 2 3 For Jews, one of those values was the importance ofbe long ing to an ex tended fami ly g roup . The founda t iona l na r ra t ivefor Jewish cul ture was a s tory about a man whose descendants wereto be more numerous than the stars in the sky, and respect for thefam ily w as ensh r ined in the mo ral cha r ter of Jud aism : ho no r yourfa t he r and m oth er. Jew s in Je sus ' day typical ly l ived in exten de dfami ly g roups , and rou t ine ly iden t i f i ed themse lves in l ega l docu-m en ts, inscr ipt io ns, and l i terature as X , son (or dau gh ter) of Y . Atl i fe 's end, they thought i t best to be buried with their nearest kin. Tobe bur ied away f rom the f ami ly tomb—by des ign , no t by f a te—wasto be cast adr i f t f rom these cul tura l pat terns , and dis lodged f rom aplace in the fami ly. To be unmourned by one ' s nearest re la t ives wasto be effaced f rom the cul tura l landscape. I t was worse than unfor-

tunate; i t was a shame.H ow do es al l of this af fe ct the burial of Je su s? To be gin , it is

cer tain that the Jewish leaders did not want the body of Jesus lef thanging on the cross. Instead they wanted i t to be taken down andbur ied before sunset on the day of h is death . They would not haveplaced the body in a fami ly tomb, nor would they have fe l t anyobl igat ion to mourn, but fa i lure to bury Jesus would have been an

o ff en se aga ins t ev ery th in g dece n t and goo d . At the sea son o fPassover such sensibi l i t ies would only have been heightened. Thus i ti s to be expected that someone f rom the counci l approached Pi la teabout the body of Jesus. I t is not necessary to assume that most , oreven many, o f the counc i l members were invo lved in the even t swhich led to Jesus ' death. Nor is i t necessary to suppose that any ofthe co un cil m em be rs had any secret al le gia nc e to Jes us . I t is only

necessary to recognize that at least a few of them were involved inthe proceedings against Jesus, and that they were devout Jews. In thats i tuat ion , Jewish re l ig ious and cul tura l norms would have promptedthem to see that Jesus was buried in shame at sunset on the day of hisdeath. And to do that , someone had to approach Pi late about the bodyof Jesus.

Jewish burial customs, in fact , can explain a detai l in the Gospels

2 3 Metcalf and Hun tington, Celebrations of Death 25.



which has puzzled some interpreters: why does Joseph of Arimatheabury only the bod y of Jes us? W hy do es n' t he also bury the othe rscruci f ied wi th Jesus?2 4 Jewish t radi t ions of dishonorable burial canmake sense of this turn of events in the story, because burial inshame was re levant only to those cr iminals who had been condemnedby the act ion of some Jewish (or Israel i te) authori ty. Dishonorablebur ia l was r ese rved fo r those who had been condemned by thepeople of Israel. Semahot 2 .9, in fact , spec if ical ly exe m pts those w hodie a t the hands of o ther author i t ies . Mark ' s nar ra t ive conforms tothis t radi t ion. Since at least a few of the Jewish leaders had beeninvolved in the condemnation of Jesus, they had an obligation to buryhim in shame. But they were not necessar i ly responsible for Pi late 'sother vict ims.

Ill

In de scr ibin g the burial of Jesu s, John 19:39 says, N ico de m us ,who had a t f i r s t come to Jesus by n ight , a l so came, br inging am ix tu re o f myr rh and a loes , we igh ing abou t a hund red po un ds .This br ief sentence showcases the kind of problems which bedevil theChrist ian accounts of Jesus ' burial . In a word, the Christ ian stor iesare shot thro ugh w i th theolog y. Nico de m us , for ex am ple , i s notmentioned in any other Christ ian story about the burial , but hef igures prominently in the Gospel of John, both in the burial storyand in h is la te-night conversat ion wi th Jesus in chapter 3 . His

appearance in the bur ia l nar ra t ive has been l inked to a speci f ictheological agenda in the Four th Gospel : he represents those whobelieve but do not openly declare their fai th in Jesus.2 5 In addit ion,the refe ren ce to a hund red po un ds of sp ices i s a lso problem at ic .Th at m uc h m yrrh and aloes w ould f i l l a co nsid era ble space in thetomb and smother the corpse under a mound .2 6 Th i s exorb i t an tquant i ty of sp ices , however, can a lso be l inked to a theological

interest , s ince ancient texts of ten depict extravagant preparat ions forthe burials of important people. In both of these cases, John hasadded deta i l s which advance a theological purpose , and that in anutshel l is the basic histor ical problem with the burial narrat ives.

2 4 C r o s s a n , Who Killed Jesus? 173.2 5 R. A. Cu lpepp er, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel (Phi ladelphia : For t ress ,

1983) 136.2 6 B r o wn , The Death of the Messiah 1260.



These texts stand at the intersect ion between the death of Jesus andhis resurrect ion, and as such they are thickly woven with expressions

of ear ly Christ ian theology.I t is tempting to t ry to solve this problem in one of two ways.

First , i t is possible to t ry to ident ify a pre-Gospel t radi t ion whichunderl ies and precedes the wri t ten Gospels, and which can then beused to by pa ss the d i ff icu l t ies of the w r i t ten Go spe l na r ra t iv es .Bro wn of fe rs just such a recon struct ion in his m agister ial w ork, TheDeath of the Messiah. T he resul t s are of t en pe rsu asiv e , as fo rexample when Brown argues that the pre-Gospel t radi t ion probablyinc lud ed the de sign at io n that Jesu s w as bur ied on the day ofp r ep a r a t i on . 2 7 Yet reservat ions about such conclusions wi l l a lwaysper s i s t , s ince any e f fo r t to r eco ver a p re -G osp e l t r a d i t ion i sinevi tably beset by in t ractable theoret ica l problems. We s imply donot know enough about oral t radi t ion in general , or about the pre-Gospel burial t radi t ion in par t icular, to speak with confidence in thisarea. In the absence of any external confirmation i t is pract ical ly

impossible for us to know what preceded the burial narrat ive in theGospel of Mark.

I t is also tempting to go to the opposi te extreme and conclude thatthe Christ ian accounts of Jesus ' burial contain no histor ical ly usefulinformat ion a t a l l . John Dominic Crossan argues for th is v iew inWho Killed Jesus? Set t ing the burial texts against the bac kg rou nd ofear ly Jewish and Christ ian polemics, Crossan asser ts that the Gospels

tell us abso lutely nothing rel iable abou t the fate of Je su s ' body : Th eburial stor ies are hope and hyperbole expanded into apologet ics andp o l e m i c s . 2 8 Certainly there are elements in the burial texts whiche x p r e s s C h r i st ia n h o p e — N i c o d e m u s , f o r o n e — a n d t h e r e a r ee lem ents which obv ious ly der ive f ro m Chr i s t i an apo loge t i cs— theguard at the tomb, for another. Be that as i t may, Who Killed Jesus?st i l l reads l ike an exercise in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Even i f everything in a l l the bur ia l nar ra t ives has beencon st ructe d ent i re ly f ro m Chr is t ian theology and apolo get ics , thesetexts could sti l l be instructive. I t is precisely by looking closely at theways in which Christ ian theology has shaped these stor ies—what hasbeen changed, what has been emphasized, and (most especial ly) whathas been presupposed and even taci t ly admit ted—that we can turn up

2 7

B r o wn , The Death of the Messiah 1238-41.2 8 Crossan , Who Killed Jesus? 188.



a reveal ing clue about the histor ical circumstances of Jesus ' burial .I refer, of course , to the wel l -known fact that the Gospels embel-

l i sh and glamor ize the bur ia l of Jesus . Many scholars have a l readycommented on th is tendency in the Gospels .2 9 Because he held such aprominent p lace in the worship of ear ly Chr is t ians , thei r s tor iesnatural ly seek to ref ine, pol ish and beautify the circumstances of hisin term ent . A few bot t les of o in tm ent m ight suff ice for w ash ing anordinary corpse, but for Jesus, no less than one hundred pounds wil ldo. Examples of this sort can be repeated several t imes over. I t is notnecessa ry to r ehear se in de ta i l the s tud ies which have a l r eady

co ve re d this ma ter ial thoro ug hly and we ll ; it wil l su ff ic e m ere ly tosummarize thei r conclusions. Vir tual ly a l l s tudies agree that as thet r ad i t ion de ve lop s , every de ta i l in the s to ry i s en ha nc ed andimproved upon. Mark begins the wri t ten t radi t ion by saying that onFr iday ev en ing , Josep h of Ar im athea , a r espec ted m em be r o f theCouncil , requested the body of Jesus from Pilate, wrapped i t in l inenand sealed i t in a rock-cut tomb. Never again would the story be told

so s imply. Joseph of Ar im athea bec om es a goo d and r ighteous m anw ho did not conse nt to the act ion ag ainst Jesus (Lu ke 23:5 1 ) , a n d thenevolves into a secret disciple of Jesus (Matt 27:57; John 19:38) . The

r oc k - c u t t om b in M ar k bec om es a ne w t om b ( Ma t t 27 : 60 ) ,w he re no one had ye t been l a id (Lu ke 23 :53) . John no t on ly

com bines those descr ip t ions— the tomb is bo th ne w and wh ere noone had yet been laid (John 19:41)— but also add s that the tom b w asloca te d in a gard en . In M ark Joseph wr aps the bod y in l ine n—nothing m ore — bu t subsequ ent Go spels descr ibe the l inen as c le an(Matt 27:59) and claim that the body was bathed in vast quanti t ies ofperfume (John 19:39) . By the t ime of the Gospel of Peter during themid-second century CE, Christ ians were going so far as to asser t thatJesus had been sumptuously bur ied in the fami ly tomb of one ofJe ru sa lem ' s mos t po w er fu l and wea l thy f am i l i es . The t endenc y o fthis t radi t ion is unmistakable, and Crossan is r ight to descr ibe i t as

2 9 See, inter al ia , Blinzler, Die Gr able gun g Jes u, 74: Br ow n, Th e Burial ofJ e s u s , 2 4 2 - 4 3 ; Cr o s s a n , The Historical Jesus 393-94 ; Daube , The New Testa-ment and Rabbinic Judaism 311 ; R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium ( H T K N T 2 .1 -2; 2 vols. , Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 2.516; J . A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according toLuke (AB 28 and 2 8a ; Gard en Ci ty : Do ubled ay, 1981) 2 .152 3-25. R. Sch nac ken -burg , Das Johannesevangelium (H T K N T 4.1-3; 3 vols . , Fre iburg : Her der, 1965-75) 2 .346.



d am ag e con t r o l . 3 0

In v iew of th is c lear tendency, one character i s t ic of the bur ia lnarrat ives stands out as str ikingly signif icant : the canonical Gospelsdepict Jesus burial as shameful. Eve n thoug h they take ob vio us stepsto dignify the burial of Jesus, these documents st i l l depict a burialwhich a Jew in Roman Palest ine would have recognized as d ishonor-able. For in every Gospel up to the Gospel of Peter, Je su s is notburied in a family tomb, and he is not mourned. This fact is bothsurprising and reveal ing. I t is surpr ising because i t shows that evenwith a l l the i r embel l i shments and improvements , there was a l imi tbeyond which the ear ly stages of the t radi t ion would not go. Brown,for example, has demonstrated that the burial descr ibed in the Gospelof Mark i s a d ishonorable bur ia l a t the hands of a Torah-observantc o u n c i l m e m b e r.3 1 I n keep ing wi th Jewish cus tom, Joseph o fArimathea buries the body at sunset , probably in a tomb reserved forcr iminals . What has been shown for Mark holds t rue for the o thercanonical bur ia l nar ra t ives as wel l . The s tory i s s teadi ly improved

upon, but the two def in ing marks of shame cont inue and pers is t : nofami ly tomb, and no mourn ing . A de ta i l added by Mat thew, Luke ,and John is par t icular ly reveal ing in this regard. The tomb of Jesus,they al l say, is ne w , w he re not one had yet bee n laid (M att 27:60 ;Luke 23:3; John 19:43) . Many scholars have noted that this descr ip-t ion lends dignity to Jesus ' burial , because i t clear ly different iates hisres t ing p lace f rom a cr im inals ' bur ia l p lace l ike the one s m ent io ned

in the Mishnah. But as both David Daube and Josef Bl inzler havepo in te d ou t , a new tom b wo uld s t i ll be a sh am ef u l p la ce o fi n t e r m e n t .3 2 In fac t a new tomb, never before used by s inner orsa in t , would be the on ly cu l tu ra l ly accep tab le a l t e rna t ive to ac r imina l s ' bur ia l p lace , fo r i t would be the on ly o ther way toprese rve the boundary o f shame which separa ted Jesus f rom h i speople . By put t ing h im alone in a new tomb, Mat thew, Luke, andJohn do not deny the shame of Jesus ' burial ; they merely spare himthe disgrace of being placed in a cr iminals ' tomb. A residue of shamestil l clings to him as an executed convict.

Ri tes of mourning are absent f rom these nar ra t ives as wel l . When

3 0 C r o s s a n , The Historical Jesus 394.3 1 Bro wn , The Bur ia l of Jesu s .3 2

Bl inz ler, D ie Gra blegun g Jesu , 101-102; Da ube, The New Testament andRabbinic Judaism 311.





admit ted: Jesus had been buried in shame.This analysis is consistent with a fact which can al l too easi ly get

lost in the con fu sin g sh uf f le of the burial narrat ives: the peop le w hof i rs t to ld th is s tory were Jews f rom f i r s t -century Pales t ine . Theear l ies t layers of the Gospel t radi t ion or ig inated in f i r s t -centuryPalest ine—cer ta in ly Mat thew and possib ly a lso Mark and John werewri t ten there—and as such these ear ly stor ies of Jesus ' burial werenecessar i ly shaped by the bur ia l pract ices of that p lace and t ime,customs which belonged to the contemporary socia l system and theprevai l ing cul tural landscape. The ear l iest Christ ians l ived and died

by these customs, most of the t ime rather unref lect ively, and theirnar ra t ive s inevi tably presu pp osed them . Fro m a d is tanc e of twen tycentur ies we can now imagine al l kinds of reasons why their stor iesmigh t have t aken the shape they d id . There a re , fo r example ,possib le answers in l i terary cr i t ic i sm: perhaps the shameful bur ia lcompletes the ongoing conf l ic t between Jesus and the Jewish leadersin Mat thew, or maybe i t i s Mark ' s f inal s ta tement on the cost of

disc ip leship . On the o ther hand, an ideological explanat ion wi l l bemore p laus ib le to some: perhaps women did mourn the death ofJesus, but male Gospel wri ters, suspicious of what might happen ifwomen began meet ing in groups, expunged them f rom the wr i t tenrecord. Frankly, al l sor ts of possibi l i t ies suggest themselves, none ofwhich played any role at al l in f i rst-century Palest ine. In that placeand t ime, the answer was not so compl icated . A s tory about thehon orab le bur ia l of a cr iminal cond em ned by Jewish a uthor i t ies w assimply not plausible. Everyone knew i t did not work that way.

Certainly the ear ly Christ ians in Palest ine who f irst told the storyof Jesus ' burial knew i t , for when i t came to matters of death andbur ia l , they appear to have been ordinary and typical Jews. Thei rnar ra t ives c lear ly d isplay a thorough fami l iar i ty wi th most of theJewish bur ia l pract ices of f i r s t -century Pales t ine . They knew, forexample, that bodies were customari ly buried promptly on the day ofdeath , af t er being w ashe d with ointm ent and w rap pe d in l inen. The yknew that the dead were customar i ly bur ied in underground tombs,and that they were mourned by their nearest relat ives. And by thesubt le ways in which they digni f ied the bur ia l of Jesus wi thoutcrossing the boundar ies of Jewish custom, the texts show that theear l i es t Chr i s t i ans a l so knew tha t condemned c r imina l s were no tburied with their famil ies and were not mourned. I t is reasonable to

conclude, in other words, that the ear ly Christ ians in Palest ine buried



their dead no different ly from other Jews in that place and t ime.3 3

IV

E. P. Sanders, in at tempting to reconstruct the course of events atJesus ' t r ial , has pointed out that probably no single individual was ina posi t ion to know ful ly the exact course of events that night .3 4 Thepoint is well taken and should serve as a reminder that a degree ofunc er ta in ty wi l l a lw ays inhere in any e ffo r t to r eco ns t ruc t w ha thappened at the death and burial of Jesus. I t was, af ter al l , almosttwo thousand year s ago . John Domin ic Crossan , o f cour se , t akesscept ic ism a good deal fur ther and argues that n o b o d y knew whathad happened to Jesus body . . . With regard to the body of Jesus, byEaster Sunday morning, those who cared d id not know, and thosewho knew d id no t ca re . 3 5 There are reasons to agree wi th th issober ing assessment , a t l eas t in par t . Cer ta in ly f ew—if any—ofJesus ' fo l lowers d i r ec t ly wi tnessed h i s dea th and bur ia l , and theglamor ized Chr is t ian s tor ies of h is in terment cannot be t rusted to

d esc r i be wie es eigentlich war. Yet there are good reasons to stopshor t of com ple te scept ic ism abou t the fa te of Jes us ' bod y. Ind eed ,the evidence f rom Roman, Jewish , and Chr is t ian sources a l l coheresa rou nd a s ing le con c lus ion : Jesus was bur ied in sha m e. So m eo nefrom the Council approached Pi late about the body and put i t in anund erg rou nd tom b reserved for Jew ish cr im inals .

The evidence has shown that even though Roman author i t ies l ike

P i l a te migh t som et im es have l e f t c ruc i f ix ion v ic t ims hang ing , theyof ten a l lowed bodies to be bur ied . Such a l lowances , in fac t , were a l lthe more l ikely dur ing a re l ig ious hol iday, or when the cruci f ix ionw as not par t of a m ass opera t ion to sup pre ss an open a nd arm edrevol t , or when the request for the body came f rom a person whow as coo pera t ive wi th Rom e. The eviden ce has fur the r show n that theJewish leaders who par t ic ipated in the proceedings against Jesus had

st rong re l ig ious and cul tura l mot ives for seeking to bury h im inshame. Such mot ives came not f rom any secre t a l legiance to Jesus ,bu t f rom observance o f t r ad i t iona l l aw and cus tom. F ina l ly, the

3 3 T he abs enc e o f d i s t inc t ive ly Chr i s t i an fune ra ry a rch aeo logy in Ro m anPalest ine further reinforces this conclusion. For the detai ls of the archaeological andl i te rary evidence , c f. M cC ane , Jew s, Chr is t ians , and Bur ia l in Rom an Pales t ine .

3 4 E. P. San ders , Jesus and Judaism (Philad elphia : Fortre ss, 1985) 300.3 5 C r o s s a n , The Historical Jesus, 394 (his em pha sis) .



evidence has also shown that the early followers of Jesus describedhis burial in terms which were dishonorable. They dignified it asmuch as possible but did not deny its shame.

On the basis of the evidence, then, the following scenario emergesas a likely course of events for the deposition of Jesus' body: late onthe day of his death, one or more of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem—later personif ied by Christ ian t radi t ion as Joseph of Arimathea—requested custody of the body for purposes of dishonorable burial.These leaders, having collaborated with the Romans in the condem-nation of Jesus, had both the means and the motive to bury him inshame: means, in their access to Pilate, and motive, in Jewish law andcustom. Pilate did not hesitate to grant dishonorable burial to one ofthei r condemned cr iminals . Only the most rudimentary bur ia lpreparat ions were administered—the body was wrapped and takendirectly to the tomb, without a funeral procession, eulogies, or thedeposition of any personal effects. By sunset on the day of his death,the body of Jesus lay within a burial cave reserved for criminalscondemned by Jewish courts. No one mourned.

The shame of Jesus' burial is not only consistent with the bestevidence, but can also help to account for an historical fact which haslong been puzzling to historians of early Christianity: why did theprimitive church not venerate the tomb of Jesus? Joachim Jeremias,for one, thought i t inconceivable (u n d e n k b a r ) that the primitivecommunity would have let the grave of Jesus sink into oblivion.3 6

Yet the earliest hints of Christian veneration of Jesus' tomb do notsurface until the early fourth century CE.37 I t is a striking fact—andnot at all unthinkable—that the tomb of Jesus was not venerated untili t was no longer remembered as a place of shame.38

3 6 J . Jerem ias, Heilegengräber in Jesu Um welt (Gött ingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1958) 145.

3 7 Eusebius, Vita Constantini 3.25-32.3 8 I am grateful to my colleague at the Seppho ris Regional Project, Jonathan L.

Reed, and to my colleagues at Converse College, Robert J . Hauck and MelissaWalker, all of whom read an earlier version of this article and offered constructivecriticisms.



Gen 1:1-2 198 Nu m 6:20 242Gen 1:29-30 197 n. 7 N um 14:22 378 n. 9Gen 2:24 159 Nu m 20:29 44 3Ge n 3:24 197 Nu m 24:11 234

Gen 4 158 Nu m 27:17 386Gen 9:3 197 n. 7 Nu m 29:7-1 1 211

Ge n 14:19 23 4Ge n 18:1-8 41 3 Deut 4:34 378 n. 9Gen 18:3 41 3 Deut 6:13 199, 21 0Gen 18:4 41 3 Deut 6:16 199Gen 25:8 44 2 Deut 6:22 378 n. 9Gen 37:34 443 Deut 7:19 37 8 n. 9

Deut 8:3 199Exod 7:3 37 8 n. 9 Deut 11:3 37 8 n. 9Exod 7:9 37 8 n. 9 Deut 13:2-3 39Ex od 11:9 37 8 n. 9 De ut 13:3 37 8 n. 9Ex od 11:10 37 8 n. 9 Deut 14:8 293Ex od 16:2-8 199 Deut 15:15 171Exod 16:35 199 Deut 15:18 171Ex od 17:1-3 199 Deut 18 379Ex od 19-31 31 2 n. 36 Deut 18:15 170, 31 1, 312 ,Exod 22:18 25 2 n. 15 37 8Exod 24 31 2 n. 36, 31 4 Deut 18:18 170, 37 8Exod 24:8 38 6 Deu t 21:2 0 16, 16 n. 36

Exod 24:9-11 312 Deut 21:22-23 43 9Exod 24:16 312 Deut 21:23 26

Exod 24:18 202 Deut 24 159Exod 32 199 Deut 26:8 37 8 n. 9Exod 34 :29-35 31 2 n. 36 Deu t 28:46 37 8 n. 9Exod 34 :29-30 311 Deut 29:2 37 8 n. 9Exod 34:29 31 2 Deu t 34:11 378 n. 9

Lev 10:1-3 234 Josh 379

Lev 11:7-8 29 3 Josh 1:4 37 9Le v 16:29-31 211 Jos h 1:18 37 9Lev 20 :27 25 2 n. 15 Josh 4 8, 37 6Lev 23:3 2 211 Josh 4:7 8

Josh 5:6 379N um 6:6-12 242 Josh 6:24 379

Num 6 :18 242 Josh 7 440



25165, 308, 311373, 374

3737 0373202 n. 28173165383, 386, 387n. 27

159, 373, 382

376334333197 n. 7992391593769, 1599 n. 131591689 n. 131701379 n. 13170, 171, 335172172, 173, 33317238719

18, 3739 n. 139, 210, 345,3479 n. 139, 184, 334,345

159, 335

293

Ps 2Ps 2:7Ps 22:1

Ps 22:7Ps 69:9Ps 69:21Ps 75:28Ps 1 10Ps 110:3Ps 18

Ps 118:26

Isa 5:24Isa 11:1-5Isa 11:2-5Isa 11:7Isa 25:6Isa 26:19Isa 29:13Isa 29:18-19Isa 33:10-12Isa 35:5-6Isa 40:1-11Isa 40:1Isa 40:3Isa 41:21-29Isa 49:6

Isa 50:6Isa 52:7-12Isa 52:7Isa 52:14-15Isa 53

Isa 53:11-12Isa 56Isa 56:1-8

Isa 56:7Isa 60:1-7Isa 61

Isa 61:1-11Isa 61:1-2

Isa 61:1

Isa 65:4

379439439

379379167379

404

311 n. 31

404404412

25171165170165443

383440202 n. 29202, 2031982 2

202 n. 29, 203n. 29386404

376

171

165

382 n. 12158382 n. 13381

269

443

Josh 8:19Josh 8:29Josh 10:27

Josh 11:11Josh 11:14Josh 21:42-43Josh 24:7

Judg 16:23

1 Sa m 10:6

1 Sam 22:91 Sam 23:19- 231 Sam 25:41

2 Sam 72 Sam 7:12-132 Sam 7:122 Sam 7:13-162 Sam 7:13-142 Sam 11:26-27

1 Kg s 1:32-401 Kg s 13:21-221 Kg s 17:17-241 Kgs 191 Kg s 19:5-81 K gs 19:81 Kg s 19:19-21

1 Kgs 22:17

1 Kgs 23 :12-14

2 Kgs 2 :13-14

1 Ch r 12:13-141 Ch r 17:12-13

2 C hr 16:192 Chr 24:20-252 Chr 24:202 Chr 26:16-21

Job 1:6

Job 2 :12-13



Isa 65:2 5 197 η. 7 Zech 9:11 3 8 1 3 8 6Isa 66:17 293 Zech 10:2 3 8 0 3 8 6

Zech 11 375

Jer 7 :11 373 Zech 11:12-13 3 7 5 3 8 0 3 8 4Jer 8 :13 373 Zech 11:12 3 7 5 3 8 0 3 8 1Jer 18 375 Zec h 1:13 381Jer 18:2-3 375 Zech 11:27-32 34 0Jer 22:1 8-1 9 440 Zech 12:3 381Jer 32 375 Zech 12:10 3 8 1 3 8 4Jer 32 :6-1 5 37 5 Zech 12:12 381

Zech 12:14 381

Ezek 34:2 3-2 4 172 Zech 13:3 381Ezek 37:2 4 172 Zech 13:4 381

Zec h 13:7-9 172Dan 7 17 2 17 3 Zech 13:7 3 8 1 3 8 4Dan 7:9-27 170 Zech 14:4 38 4Dan 7:9-10 172 Zech 14:5 3 8 1 3 8 2 n. 12Dan 7:13 34 3 Zech 14:7 381Dan 7:14 251 Zech 14:8 381

Dan 7:27 172 Zech 14:20-21 38 3Dan 12:1-2 169 173 Zech 14:21 34 0

Ho s 9:1 0-1 7 373 Mai 2:13-16 376Mai 3:2-3 37 6

A mo s 2:10 379 Ma i 3:19-20 376A m os 9:11-1 2 240 Mai 3:22-24 319 η. 59

M ai 3:23-24 169H ag 1:1-2 165 M ai 4:5-6 20 3Hag 2 :20-23 165 171

To b 1:16 43 9Zech 1:1 3 8 0 3 8 1 3 8 2 Tob 2 :4 439Zec h 1:5 381Zech 2:6 38 0 38 1 W is 7:27 57 n. 32Zech 2 :10 38 0 38 1Zec h 3:8 381 M acc 1:47 29 3Zech 4:14 387Zech 6 :12 -13 165 171 2M ac c4 : l 402Zech 6:12 381 2 Macc 5:15 402Zech 7:9 381 2 M acc 6:2 293Zech 8:6 3 80 3 81 2 Macc 6:5 293Zech 8:17 381 2 Ma cc 6:18-7:42 293Zech 9:2-4 380 2 Ma cc 13:21 40 2Zech 9 :9 2 4 3 4 0 3 7 5 2 Macc 14:31-33 404

380 381 382

38 3 Matt 2:23 188 n. 33



Matt 3:2 6 72 Matt 8:18-22 192Matt 3:4 168 Matt 8:20 189M att 3:7-9 376 Matt 8:22 72

M att 3:7 104 Matt 8:26-27 359 360M att 3:8 6 Matt 8:28 29 4Matt 3:9 8 37 6 Matt 9:4 381M att 3:10 104 Matt 9:5 163Matt 3:11 56 n. 30 Matt 9:9-13 7 6Matt 3:14 6 M att 9:27-31 13 n. 25 20 9Ma tt 3:15 6 n. 58M att 3:16 7 123 Matt 9:32-33 299 30 0 n. 82

Matt 3:17 358 M att 9:32-3 4 13 n. 25M att 4:1-11 14 n. 29 195 Matt 9:36 380 38 5

358 Matt 10:1-2 158M att 4:3 13 n. 25 Matt 10:1 57 n. 31 163M att 4:12 171 359Matt 4:17 1 12 M att 10:3 92 n. 24M att 4:25 54 n. 19 Matt 10:5-16 14 n. 28M att 5:12 57 158 Matt 10:6 385

Matt 5:17 79 157 159 Ma tt 10:7 102169 171 M att 10:8 13 n. 25

Matt 5:20 79 Ma tt 10:11-14 192M att 5:21-4 8 157 M att 10:16 38 5Matt 5:21-22 159 M att 10:17 3M att 5:27-2 8 159 Matt 10:19-20 56 n. 30Matt 5:33-34 159 M att 10:23 192M att 5:33 381 Matt 10:24-25 425Matt 5:38-39 159 M att 10:24 71

Matt 5:43-48 72 M att 10:25 257 n. 34 258Matt 5:43-44 159 n. 34Matt 6:9 109 M att 10:33 173Ma tt 6:12 23 6 Matt 10:34-36 115 n. 67M att 6:24 72 Ma tt 10:40 425 425 n . 25Matt 7:6 29 3 M att 10:41 9 n. 12Matt 7:16 98 M att 11:2-19 14 n. 27M att 7:2 2- 23 14 n. 28 M att 11:4-5 9 13 n. 25

Matt 7:22 13 n. 25 Matt 11:5-6 14 n. 28M att 7:28 -29 229 Matt 11:5 159 165 169Matt 7:29 163 Matt 11:6 34 6Ma tt 8:5-13 14 n. 27 42 M att 11:7-19 72

112 M att 11:12 331M att 8:5-10 13 n. 25 M att 11:16-19 76

M att 8:10 133 n. 28 M att 11:19 10 16 23 4M att 8:11 170 Matt 11:20-24 13 n. 25 34 6

M att 8:13 13 n. 25 M att 11:21-24 14 n. 28



Mat 15:21 54 n. 19

Mat 15:24 385

Mat 16:4 157

M at 16:12 138 n. 51Mat 16:13 36 5

M at 16:14 356 36 8

M at 16:17 34 2 n. 49

Mat 16:24 71 72M at 16:25 72

M at 16:26 72

Mat 16:32 366

Mat 17:1-9 360M at 17:2 140 141 36 6

Mat 17:16 360

M at 17:18 35 9

Mat 17:24-27 13 n. 25 14 n.

27 239

Mat 18:1-5 422

M at 18:3 94

Mat 18:5 42 5 n. 25

Mat 18:10-14 77Mat 18:12 385

Mat 18:21-35 73

Mat 19:3-9 159M at 19:12 21 2 n. 80

Mat 19:13-15 423

Mat 19:23-24 72

Mat 19:26 380 381

Mat 19:28 8 21 172

M at 19:29 178 n. 5

Mat 19:30 8

Mat 20:1-16 77 262 n. 48

Mat 20:23 138 n. 51

Mat 20:24-28 420

Mat 20:26-27 423Mat 20:27 424

Mat 20:28 157 1 72Mat 20:32 138

M at 21:1 381Mat 21:4-5 382Mat 21:5 38 0

M at 21:9 383 38 3 n. 15

M at 21:11 9 n. 12

Mat 21:12-13 78

Mat 21:12 381

Matt 1:21-22 380

Matt 1:21 100 n. 35

Matt 1:25 345 357

Matt 2:1-8 79Matt 2:1 126 128

Matt 2:3-4 157

Matt 2:11 385

Matt 2:22-23 299 300 n. 82

Matt 2:24 299Matt 2:25-29 225

Matt 2:25-27 252 n. 15

Matt 2:25-26 164Matt 2:27-28 14 n. 28 164

Matt 2:28 56 n. 28 164

225 300 n.

78 345

Matt 2:29 164 345

Matt 2:39 157

Matt 2:41 10

Matt2:42 157 34 6

Matt 2:46-50 178 n. 5Matt 2:48 132

Matt 3:11 57

Matt 3:13 157

Matt 3:16-17 331

Matt 3:44-45 71

Matt 3:52 57 n. 32

Matt 3:54 178

Matt 3:55-56 178

Matt 3:55 179 n. 6

Matt 3:57 56 n. 28 177

178

Matt 4:15-21 157

Matt 4:15 363

Matt 4:22-33 351 358 362Matt 4:24 363

Matt 4:25 364Matt 4:26 359 367

Matt 4:27 366Matt 4:28-33 209 n. 58

Matt 4:28-30 367

Matt 4:28 359 363 365

Matt 4:33 367

MATT 14:66 36 6

Matt 15:3-9 238



4 5 8 AUTHENTICATING THE ACTIVITIES OF JESUS

M att 21: 14 13 n. 25 Ma tt 26:5 3 20 9 n. 58

Mat t 21 :23-27 165 Ma tt 26:5 6 381

M att 21:23 163 Matt 26:61 157 170 171

Mat t 21 :28-32 72 42 0

M att 21:28-3 1 95 Ma tt 26:6 3 165

Matt 21:31 95 Matt 26:64 159Ma tt 21:33-4 1 71 Matt 26:67 -68 56 n. 29 136

Ma tt 21:4 5-46 159 Matt 26:67 134

M att 21: 46 9 n. 12 M att 26:68 9 n. 12

Mat t 22 :1-10 71 77 Matt 26:71 188 n. 33

Mat t 22 :11-13 262 n . 48 Mat t 27 :3-10 375 384

M att 22:1 2 86 n. 7 Ma tt 27:4 39 3Mat t 22 :41-46 157 173 Matt 27:9-1 0 38 0

M att 23 75 Ma tt 27:9 381

Matt 23:11 423 424 Mat t 27 :37 165

M att 23:12 42 3 42 5 n. 26 Matt 27:40 157

Matt 23:13 77 78 Matt 27:51 381

M att 23:2 3-24 76 Matt 27:57 44 7

Ma tt 23:23 381 Matt 27:59 44 7

Mat t 23 :27 78 Mat t 27 :60 44 7 44 8Mat t 23 :29-30 78 Mat t 28 :16-20 11 n. 17

M att 23:3 2 159 Matt 28:16 36 0

M att 23:3 4-36 158 Matt 28:1 9-20 32 6 n. 10

Matt 23:34 3 57 n. 32

192 Ma rk 1 1 221

M att 23:3 5-39 192 38 0 Ma rk 1 2-4 267 n. 67

M att 23:35 381 382 Mark 1 2 188 n. 32

Mat t 23 :37-39 186 M ark 1 3 168

Matt 23:37 9 n. 12 M ark 1 4 6

M att 24: 30 381 M ark 1 6 381

Matt 24:31 38 0 M ark 1 8 6 56 n. 30

Mat t 24 :32-33 95 n. 29 Ma rk 1 9-11 30 4

M att 24:36 381 M ark 1 9-1 0 122

Ma tt 24:43 26 2 n. 48 Mark 1 9 124 134

Matt 24:45-51 71 M ark 1 10 344

Ma tt 25:1 -13 71 M ark 1 11 7 2 2 1 3 0 8

Ma tt 25:1 4-30 71 358Matt 25:31 381 Mark 1 12-13 195 196 198

Mat t 26 :6-13 394 199 207 208

Matt 26:15 375 380 381 208 n . 56

Mat t 26 :18 162 209 213 358

Matt 26:28 157 172 380 Mark 1 13 344

381 Mark 1 14 171

M att 26:31 381 Mark 1 15 9 n. 13 158

Matt 26:49 40 9 n. 69 M ark 1 16-20 21 2 nn. 77 -7 8



Mark 3:1 218M ark 3:2 133 n. 27 21 8

Mark 3:3 133 n. 27

M ark 3:4 24 8 n. 5

Mark 3:5 133 n. 27Mark 3:7-12 299

M ark 3:8 54 n. 19

Mark 3 :11-12 222

Mark 3:11 223

Mark 3:12 22 3

Mark 3:13-14 157

M ark 3:14-15 360M ark 3:14 8

Mark 3:15 163 35 9Mark 3:18 92 n. 24Mark 3:20-30 265 265 n . 62Mark 3:20-27 223

Mark 3:21 381 393

Mark 3:22-30 14 n. 27

Mark 3:22-27 15Mark 3:22-26 264 265 n.

62 276

Mark 3:22 20 9 n. 58

2 1 9 2 4 7 2 5 1252 253 263

n. 52 29 9

Mark 3:23-27 225Mark 3:23-26 247 25 0 n .

10 252 255

2 5 6 2 6 4 2 6 5

270 271

Mark 3:23 253

M ark 3:24- 26 14 n. 28 164

252 253 255

n. 25 25 7 n.

34 258 n. 34

271Mark 3:25 25 0 n. 9

Mark 3:26 15 252 253

257 257 n .34 258 258

n. 34

Mark 3:27 164 205 20 6

207 249 260

n. 42 261

M ark 1:16 202 n. 29Mark 1:21-45 268 n. 71

M ark 1:21-28 208 n. 56 209

11. 58 21 7

223 225 229

n. 32 232

287 289

M ark 1:22 163 219 299344

M ark 1:23-28 359

M ark 1:24 244 274 n.

86 287 299n. 76

Mark 1:25 244 359

M ark 1:27 163M ar k 1:29-31 9 20 9 11. 58

M ark 1:32-34 9 209 n. 58

299M ark 1:34 208 n. 56

222 223M ark 1:39 138 20 8 n.

56 222 223

299

Mark 1:40-45 9. 209 n. 58

M ark 1:41 86 n. 6

Mark 2:1-3:6 268 n. 71

M ark 2:1-12 9 14 n. 27209 n. 58

Mark 2:6 219

M ark 2:10 163

Mark 2:13 219

Mark 2:14 212 n. 78

Mark 2:17 344

Mark 2 :18-20 211

Mark 2:18 55 n. 25 212

Mark 2:19 144 248 n. 5

M ark 2:2 3 125 126 126

n. 6 127 n. 8

218

Mark 2:24 218

Mark 2 :25-26 157

Mark 2:27 218

Mark 2:28 218

M ark 3:1-6 9 14 n. 27

209 n. 58 22 0



192

208 n. 56 360

9 n. 12 56 n.

29 202 n. 29

209 n. 58

57 n. 31

144

219 380 385

9 157

363

131

148351 358 362

209 n. 58

150

145 148 150

360 363 364

359 363 367

366

366 367365

238 239

239

239

239

239

238

239

148

14 n. 27

20 9 n. 58 30 0

n. 82

54 n. 19 20 8

n. 56

131

209 n. 58

54 n. 19

219 n. 9

9

148

138 n. 51 139

209

157

112 209 n. 58

145 151 218

Mark 6:10-11Mark 6:13

Mark 6:15

Mark 6:30-44Mark 6:30

Mark 6:31

Mark 6:34

Mark 6:35-44Mark 6:35

Mark 6:37

MARK 6:41Mark 6:45-52Mark 6:47-52Mark 6:47

Mark 6:48

Mark 6:49

Mark 6:50

Mark 6:51Mark 6:52

Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7:6-7

Mark 7:8-9

Mark 7:10-12Mark 7:11-12Mark 7:11

Mark 7:13

Mark 7:17

Mark 7:24-31Mark 7:24-30

Mark 7:24

Mark 7:28Mark 7:31-37Mark 7:31

Mark 7:37Mark 8:1-10Mark 8:1Mark 8:7Mark 8:11-13Mark 8:12Mark 8:22-26

Mark 8:22

266 n. 65

270 271 n.

79 299

260 n. 42

178 n. 5 24 5

129 130 n.

16 131 132

22

149

126 n. 6

157

11110 n. 16

359 360

220

208 n. 56 209

n 58 222

223 279 280

n. 3 28 6 287

n. 34292

223 229 n .

33 287 294

241

54 n. 19 29 4

209 n. 58 44 9

212 n. 79

9

10 n. 16

438 n. 10

218

138 n. 51 139

133 n. 2822

178

145

178

9 n. 12 177

178

132 145

133 n. 28 21 9

8 57 n. 31

163 208 n.

56 359 360

14 n. 28

Mark 3:28-29Mark 3:31-35Mark 3:33

Mark 3:35

Mark 4:1

Mark 4:4

Mark 4:12

Mark 4:35-41Mark 4:38

Mark 4:39-41Mark 4:41

Mark 5:1-20

Mark 5:3-5

Mark 5:7

Mark 5:18-20

Mark 5:20

Mark 5:21-43Mark 5:27-28Mark 5:35-43Mark 5:35

Mark 5:38

Mark 5:40

Mark 5:43

Mark 6:1-7

Mark 6:1-6

Mark 6:1

Mark 6:2

MARK 6:3

Mark 6:4

Mark 6:5

Mark 6:6

Mark 6:7

Mark 6:8-11



Mark 8:24-26 342 Mark 10:26 221Mark 8:26-39 279 Mark 10:27 380 381Mark 8:27-9:1 304 Mark 10:28-31 212 n. 78

Mark 8:27-28 9 n. 12 Mark 10:29-30 178 n. 5Mark 8:27 365 Mark 10:31 425 n. 26Mark 8:28-34 279 Mark 10:32-34 421Mark 8:28 20 2 n. 29 Mark 10:35 10 n. 16

356 368 Mark 10:37 348Mark 8:29 131 229 n. 33 Mark 10:41-45 420 422Mark 8:34 212 n. 75 Mark 10:42-45 2 2 4 2 3 4 2 4Mark 8:38 173 425

Mark 9:1 170 Mark 10:43-45 418 41 8 n. 16Mark 9:2-10 360 Mark 10:43-44 4 2 0 4 2 2 4 2 3Mark 9:2-8 304 Mark 10:44 424Mark 9:2 140 141 Mark 10:45 157 172 347Mark 9:3 126 n. 6 36 6 Mark 10:46-52 139 209 n. 58

Mark 9:5 10 n. 16 131 Mark 10:46 150 151Mark 9:6 307 Mark 10:47-48 24Mark 9:10 220 Mark 10:47 188 n. 32

Mark 9:11-13267 n. 67

Mark 10:49 137 138Mark 9:14-29 208 n. 56 209 Mark 10:51 10 n. 16 131

n. 58 300 Mark 11:1-11 382Mark 9:14 307 n. 13 Mark 11:1-6 387Mark 9:15 220 Mark 11:1 381Mark 9:1 6 30 7 n. 13 Mark 11:2 375 381Mark 9:1 7 10 n. 16 Mark 11:5 375Mark 9:18 360 Mark 11:7 375Mark 9:1 9 131 Mark 11:10 383 38 3 n. 15MARK 9:25 149 359 Mark 11:11 387Mark 9:2 6 126 n. 6 Mark 11:12-14 424 n. 23Mark 9:31 173 Mark 11:14 131Mark 9:33-37 422 Mark 11:15-19 383Mark 9 :35 422 423 Mark 11:15 218Mark 9:37 425 n. 25 Mark 11:16 383Mark 9:38 10 n. 16 14 n. Mark 11:17 18 37 3

27 Mark 11:18 219 21 9 n. 9

Mark 9:40 272 Mark 11:20-25 14 n. 27Mark 9:43-48 212 nn. 75 Mark 11:20-21 424 n. 23

79; Mark 11:21 10 n. 16Mark 10:2-10 159 Mark 11:22 131Mark 10:3 131 Mark 11:23 384Mark 10:13-16 423 Mark 11:27-12:41 384Mark 10:17 10 n. 16 Mark 11:27-33 165Mark 10:20 10 n. 16 Mark 1 1:27 2 1 8

Mark 10:24 131 Mark 11:28-29 220



Mark 11:28 163 Mark 14:33 221Mark 11:30 24 8 n. 5 Mark 14:45 10 n. 16 4 0 9Mark 11:33 131 131 n. n. 69

19 132 220 Mark 14:48 132Mark 12:1 12 340 Mark 14:49 21 9Mark 12:8 30 7 n. 13 Mark 14:50 381Mark 12:9 22 3 Mark 14:53 146Mark 12:14 10 n. 16 Mark 14:58 157 165 170Mark 12:18 138 n. 51 171 4 2 0Mark 12:19 10 n. 16 Mark 14:61 27 165Mark 12:28 220 Mark 14:62 34 8

Mark 12:32 10 n. 16 Mark 14:65 9 n. 12 134Mark 12:34 131 132 22 0 135 136 137Mark 12:35 37 157 173 219 Mark 14:67 188 n. 32

n. 12 248 n. 5 Mark 15 23Mark 12:35 132 22 0 Mark 15:1 147 33 9Mark 12:38 218 22 0 Mark 15:2 27 132Mark 12:39 218 Mark 15:3 33 9Mark 12:41 44 239 Mark 15:6 436

Mark 12:41 149 Mark 15:9 27 132Mark 13 103 104 Mark 15:12 27 132Mark 13:1 10 n. 16 Mark 15:16 20 339Mark 13:8 381 Mark 15:17 148Mark 13:9 21 8 391 Mark 15:18 27Mark 13:11 39 1 39 2 Mark 15:20 146Mark 13:12 391 Mark 15:23 373Mark 13:14 20 102 n. 39 Mark 15:24 147Mark 13:14 223 Mark 15:25 151Mark 13:24 27 105 Mark 15:26 27 165 33 8Mark 13:27 380 381 387Mark 13:30 105 Mark 15:29 157 37 3Mark 13:32 381 Mark 15:31 14 n. 30Mark 14:3 9 394 Mark 15:34 37 3Mark 14:4 394 Mark 15:43 43 6Mark 14:7 8 384 Mark 16:5 221Mark 14:17 21 384 Mark 16:6 188 n. 32Mark 14:21 407 Mark 16:9 20 360Mark 14:22 25 20Mark 14:22 144 Luke 1:1-4 21 7Mark 14:24 157 172 380 Luke 1:2-4 55

386 Luke 1:5 186 η. 29Mark 14:25 17 34 8 Luke 1:26 178 η. 4Mark 14:26 31 384 Luke 1:78 381Mark 14:27 381 384 Luke 2:4 178 η. 4

Mark 14:30 363 Luke 2:3 9 178 η. 4



Luke 2:51 178 n. 4 Luke 7:9 133 n. 28Luke 3:4 168 Luke 7:11-17 9 13 n. 25Luke 3:7-9 376 202 n. 29

Luke 3:8 8 376 Luke 7:16 9 n. 12Luke 3:19-21 7 Luke 7:17 186 n. 29Luke 3:22 7 123 358 Luke 7:22-23 159 166Luke 4:1-13 195 358 Luke 7:22 9 13 n. 25Luke 4:14-15 185 n. 28 169Luke 4: 14 171 Luke 7:23 346Luke 4:17-21 184 Luke 7:34 10 16 234Luke 4:17-19 334 Luke 7:38 409 n. 69

Luke 4:1 8 13 n. 25 56 n. Luke 7:3 9 9 n. 1228 Luke 8:2 13 n. 25 30 0

Luke 4:19 184 Luke 8:10 157

Luke 4: 22 163 179 n. 6 Luke 8:24-25 359Luke 4:23-27 13 n. 25 Luke 8:26 29 4

Luke 4:2 3 178 n. 4 185 Luke 8:28 22 8185 n. 28 Luke 8:37 294

Luke 4:2 4 56 n. 28 177 Luke 9:1-6 11 n. 17178 183 184 Luke 9:1-2 57 n. 31 35 9185 187 190 Luke 9:1 163 359

Luke 4:25-26 202 n. 29 Luke 9:4-5 192

Luke 4:2 6 163 Luke 9:12-17 157

Luke 4:3 0 187 Luke 9:12 363

Luke 4:31-42 186 Luke 9:18 365Luke 4:31-37 229 Luke 9:19 356 368Luke 4:33-37 359 Luke 9:2 7 141

Luke 4:3 4 188 n. 32 22 9 Luke 9:28-36 360

Luke 4:35 359 Luke 9:28 140 141 30 4Luke 4: 44 138 n. 49 n. 3

Luke 5:1-11 13 n. 25 Luke 9:29 140 36 6Luke 5:2 0 86 n. 8 Luke 9:31 31 9Luke 5:24 163 Luke 9:40 360

Luke 5:33 55 n. 25 Luke 9:42 359Luke 6:1 126 126 n. 6 Luke 9:44 40 2

128 Luke 9:46-48 422

Luke 6:3- 4 157 Luke 9:46 42 5 n. 25Luke 6:6 126 n 6 Luke 9:51-19:44 56

Luke 6:13 158 Luke 9:51 188

Luke 6:15 92 n. 24 Luke 9:54 13 n. 25

Luke 6:16 402 Luke 9:57-62 192

Luke 6:17 186 n. 29 Luke 9:58 189Luke 6:23 158 Luke 9:61-62 202 n. 29

Luke 6:40 425 Luke 10:2-12 14 n. 28

Luke 7:1-10 13 n. 25 42 Luke 10:3 385



Luke 10:9 57 n. 31 Luke 13:32 13 n. 25 157

Luke 10:12-15 346 166 209 n.Luke 10:13-14 380 58 299

Luke 10:16 425 Luke 13:33-34 56 n. 28Luke 10:17-20 13 n. 25 Luke 13:33 162,189Luke 10:17 57 n. 31 Luke 13:34 9 n. 12Luke 10:18 207 267 345 Luke 14:1-6 13 n. 25 14 n.

Luke 10:21 34 5 27 209 n. 58Luke 10:23 331 Luke 14:5 79 24 8 n. 5

Luke 11:2 105 Luke 14:11 423Luke 11:4 23 6 Luke 14:16-24 77

Luke 11:14 29 9 Luke 15:1-10 72Luke 11:14-15 13 n. 25 Luke 15:3-6 77

Luke 11:15 299 Luke 15:4-6 385

Luke 11:16 209 Luke 15:7 72

Luke 11:17-22 13 n. 25 22 5 Luke 15:11-32 17 77 234Luke 11:18-20 164 Luke 15:11-24 77Luke 11:18 24 9 Luke 15:15-16 293Luke 11:19-20 299 Luke 15:20 40 9 n. 69

Luke 11:20 56 n. 28 105

Luke 15:25-327 7

164 225 300 Luke 15:31-32 7 7n. 78 345 Luke 16:1-8 71 262 n. 48

Luke 11:21 164 Luke 16:16 331

Luke 11:29 157 Luke 16:17 169

Luke 11:31 157 Luke 16:19-31 72

Luke 11:32 34 6 Luke 16:22 126 n. 6

Luke 11:49-51 57 n. 32 159 Luke 16:30 10

Luke 11:51 381 Luke 17:6 111 n. 54

Luke 12:8-9 343 Luke 17:11-21 13 n. 25

Luke 12:9 173 Luke 17:11-19 14 n. 27

Luke 12:32 172 Luke 17:20-37 275

Luke 12:35-38 71 Luke 17:20-21 105Luke 12:37 421 Luke 17:20 209Luke 12:39 26 2 n. 48 Luke 17:30 173

Luke 12:42-46 71 Luke 18:9-14 77

Luke 12:49-50 347 Luke 18:14 423

Luke 12:49 162 Luke 18:15-17 423Luke 13:1-5 71 Luke 18:32 402

Luke 13:3-5 10 Luke 18:37 188 n. 33

Luke 13:6-9 71 Luke 18:40 138

Luke 13:10-17 14 n. 27 Luke 19:1 77Luke 13:15 24 8 n. 5 Luke 19:10 77

Luke 13:29 170 Luke 19:11-27 71

Luke 13:31-33 14 n. 27 Luke 19:15 138 n. 51

Luke 13:31 186 Luke 9:42-44 94



Luke 19:47-48 404 Luke 23:53 447

Luke 19:47 19 Luke 24:7 402

Luke 20:1-8 165 Luke 24:19 13 n. 25 56 n.

Luke 20:2 163 29 188 n. 32Luke 20:7 138 n. 51 Luke24:20 402

Luke 20:9-16 71 Luke 24:23 138 n. 51

Luke 20:19-21 404

Luke 20:20 40 2 John 1:10 183 n. 20

Luke 20:41-44 157 173 John 1:11 183

Luk e 21:1-4 239 John 1:19-2:11 181

Luke 21:15 57 John 1:23 168

Luk e 21:24 381 John 1:28 181Luke 22:2 404 John 1:29 7 181

Luke 22:4 402 Joh n 1:35 181

Luke 22:6 402 John 1:37 7

Luke 22:14-21 421 John 1:43 181

Luke 22:19 21 415 John 1:45-46 243

Luke 22:20 157 380 381 John 1:45 179

Luke 22:22 402 John 2:1-11 20 9 n. 58

Luke 22:24-27 420 422 John 2:3 187 n. 30

Luke 22:25-27 423 424 425 John 2:1 2 181 182 n. 15

Luke 22:26-27 420 John 2:16 381

Luke 22:27 422 424 John 2:17 70

Luke 22:28-30 8 21 John 2:18-19 165

Luke 22:29 172 John 2:1 9 157 165 170

Luke 22:30 8 171

Luke 22:36-37 100 John 2:22 415 420

Luke 22:36 401 John 2:24-25 182 183

Luke 22:47 409 n. 69 John 3:22-26 171

Luke 22:48 402 John 3:22 7 182 n. 15

Luke 22:51 13 n. 25 401 John 3:25-30 7

Luke 22:63-64 56 n. 29 John 4:1-2 7

Luke 22:64 135 John 4:10 381

Luke 22:67 165 John 4:40 181

Luke 22:69 172 173 John 4 :43-46 183

Luke 22:70 159 John 4:43 93 n. 25

Luke 23:2 138 n. 51 John 4:44 56 n. 28 177Luke 23:3 448 179 179 n. 8

Luke 23:5 186 n. 29 181 182 184

Luke 23:8 13 n. 25 187 189 190

Luke 23:27 381 John 4 :46-54 201 201 n. 24

Luke 23:31 109 John 5:2-9 209 n. 58

Luke 23:37 13 n. 25 John 5:18 183

Luke 23:39 13 n. 25 165 John 5:23 183

Luke 23:51 447 John 6:1 363



John 6:14 157 366 John 2:15 380

John 6 :15 211 366 John 2 :16 415 420

John 6:16-21 351 358 362 John 2:1 9 162 n. 19 25 9

John 6:17 358 John 2:24-25 93 n. 25 177John 6 :19 359 360 364 n. 1

John 6 :20 364 366 367 John 2:28 358

John 6:21 366 367 John 2:31 25 9 n. 40

John 6:22 358 264 27 0 n. 77

John 6: 42 179 n. 9 John 2:34 25

John 6:5 1 157 John 3:1-20 4 1 4 4 1 8 4 2 1

John 7:3-4 187 42 2 42 4

John 7:7 25 8 n. 34 John 3:1 183John 7: 14 181 182 n. 15 John 3:2-11 411

John 7:18 183 John 3:3-5 414

John 7 :30 187 John 3:5-10 429

John 7:38-39 56 n. 30 John 3:5 418

John 7:38 381 John 3:6-11 415

John 7:4 0 157 John 3:7 415 42 0

John 7:4 1 179 n. 9 John 3:12-20 415 421

John 7: 52 179 n. 9 John 3:13-20 417

John 8:20 187 John 3:14-15 429John 8:23 258 n. 34 John 3:16 4 2 4 4 2 5

John 8: 24 189 n. 34 John 3:19 189 n. 34

John 8:2 8 189 n. 34 John 3:2 0 93 n. 25 177

John 8:39-59 258 n. 34 n. 1 42 5 42 5

John 8:5 0 183 n. 25

John 8:52 381 John 3:23 55 n. 24

John 8:5 4 183 John 3:36 420

John 8:5 9 187 189 n. 34 John 4:17-18 56 n. 30

John 9:1-12 209 n. 58 John 4:26 56 n. 30

John 10:39 187 John 4:30 25 9 n. 40

John 10:40 181 182 n. 15 John 5:18 190

John 11:1-44 449 John 5:20 257 258 n.

John 11:6 181 34 259

John 11:8 186 John 6:7 56 n. 30

John 11:9-10 187 John 6:11 25 9 n. 40 26 4

John 11:16 92 n. 24 John 6:16 162 n. 19John 11:28-44 209 n. 58 John 6:32 381

John 11:53 403 John 7:18 190

John 11:57 404 John 8:4 189 n. 34

John 12:1-8 394 John 8:5 188 n. 33

John 12:1 182 John 8:7 188 n. 33

John 12:6 392 John 8:15-16 55 n. 24

John 12:12-19 182 John 9:11 406

John 12:14-15 382 420 John 9:19-21 414



INDEX OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 4 6 7

Jo hn 19:19 165, 188 n. 33 Acts 10:37 26 7 n. 67John 19:26-27 55 n. 24 Acts 11:26 24 2John 19:34 4 15 Ac ts 11 27 190

John 19:35 55 n. 24 Acts 12:17 2 40John 19:36 41 5 Ac ts 13:1 38 , 190Joh n 19:37 381 Acts 13:33 326 η. 11John 19:38 447 Acts 15:13-35 237John 19:39-41 41 4 Acts 15:16-21 240John 19:39 44 5, 44 7 Acts 15:19 23 7John 19:41 44 7 Acts 15:21 237Joh n 19:43 44 8 Ac ts 15:22 190

Joh n 20 :1-1 0 55 n . 24 Acts 15:32-33 241John 20 :19-23 36 0 Acts 15:32 190 ,John 20 :24-29 36 0 Acts 16:17 234John 20:21 190, 326 n. 10 Acts 18:18 24 4Joh n 20 :24 92 n . 24 Acts 19:13-17 22 5John 20 :30 41 8 Acts 20:37 40 9 η. 69Joh n 21 :2 92 n. 24 Acts 21 23 8, 24 3Joh n 21:7 55 n . 24 Ac ts 21 10 190Jo h n 2 1 :2 1 -2 3 55 n. 24 Ac ts 2117-36 241John 21 :24 -25 55 n . 24 Acts 21 17-26 23 8

Acts 21 24 242A cts 1:8 32 6 n. 10 Acts 21 27 -28 :21 243Acts 1:12-26 24 0 Acts 21 27-3 6 238A cts 1:13 92 n. 24 Acts 22 42Acts 1 :15-22 392 Ac ts 22 8 188 η. 3 3Acts 1:17 392 Acts 23:1-5 393Ac ts 1:26 37 5 n. 2 Acts 25 :2 19Acts 2:22 188 n. 33 Acts 26 4 2Acts 2 :36 326, 327 Acts 26:9 188 η. 33Acts 2 :38-3 9 10 Acts 28:1 7 19Acts 2 :46 240Acts 3 :1-26 24 0 Ro m 1:3-4 324 , 326Ac ts 3:6 188 n. 33 Ro m 3:3 257 η. 34, 25 8Acts 3 :17-21 10 η. 34Acts 4 :1-3 7 240 Rom 3:7 257 η. 34, 258

Acts 4 :1-31 240 η. 34Acts 4 :10 188 n. 33 Ro m 4:2 253 η. 18, 259Acts 5 :1-11 240 Ro m 4:1 4 25 3 η. 18Acts 5 :12-42 240 Rom 5: 324 η. 5A cts 6:1 4 157, 170, 188 R om 5: 12-21 199

n. 33 Rom 6:17 55Acts 7 :56 342 Rom 8:32 395Acts 9 4 2 Rom 9 :3-5 324

Acts 9 :17-18 357 Rom 11 :28-29 325



326 n. 10241

330678257 n. 34, 258n. 34395253 n. 18, 324

37, 5537, 55

250 η. 10425, 426, 427

55

Gal 1:13Gal 1:15-16Gal 1:18-19

Gal 1:22Gal 2:9Gal 2:11-21Gal 2:17

Gal 2:20Gal 2:21

2 Thess 2:152 Thess 3:6

1 Tim 3:4-51 Tim 5:10

2 Tim 3:14

38324 n. 5105

324 n. 532434955

326 n. 8264

326 n. 8169312104324 n. 5326 n. 8

3

Rom 12:7Rom 14:9Rom 14:17

Rom 15:1Rom 15:7-13Rom 15:8Rom 16:17

1 Cor 1:11 Cor 2:8

Co r 7:1 0 32 5 n. 7 n. 5

Co r 8 238 Gal 3:18 25 3 n. 18Cor 8:11 324 n. 5 Gal 3:19 20 2 n. 28Co r 9:1 32 5 n. 7, 32 6 Gal 3:21 25 3 n. 18

n. 10 Gal 5:11 3, 25 3 n. 18Cor 10:28 404 Gal 6:6 38Co r 11 337 Gal 6:12 3Co r 11:2 37, 55Co r 11:23-25 21, 325 Eph 2:1 32 6 n. 8

Co r 11:23 55, 395 Eph 2:2 26 9Co r 12:3 39 Eph 4:11 38Co r 12:28 38Cor 15 104 Phil 2:5-11 41 8Cor 15:1-8 37, 32 6 n. 10 Phil 3:6 3Co r 15:1-3 37 Phil 4:9 37 , 55Co r 15:3-8 156Co r 15:3 55 , 324 n. 5 C o l l : 326 n. 8Cor 15:5 8 Col 2:6-7 37, 55Co r 15:13 25 3 n. 18 Col 2:14-15 26 4Cor 15:14 259Co r 15:15 25 3 n. 18 1 Th es s 4:1 37Cor 15:16 25 3 n. 18 1 Th ess 4:5 32 5 n. 7Co r 15:17 259 1 The ss 4:15 -17 105Cor 15:29 25 3 n. 18 1 Th ess 5:1- 13 104Cor 15:32 25 3 n. 18 1 The ss 5:10 324 n. 5Co r 15:21-23 199 1 Thes s 5:20-22 39

Co r 15:45-49 199

2 Cor 1:12 Cor 1:22 Cor 3:182 Cor 52 Cor 5:152 Cor 11:13

2 Co r 11:24



55

264

225, 245

418324 η. 5

307293

418 η. 153939418 η. 15

55190

35655 η. 2355 η. 23356207269356250356

Titus 1:9

Heb 2:14

Jas 2:19

1 Pet 2:21-241 Pet 3:18

2 Pet 1:16-182 Pet 2:22

1 John 3:161 John 4:11 John 4:2-31 John 4:10 -12

2 John 9-102 Joh n 10-11

Rev 1:10Rev 2:13Rev 2:24Rev 4:2Rev 12Rev 12:7-12Rev 17:3Rev 20:1-3Rev 21:10





Barrett, C. K., 209 n. 60, 241 n. 48,254 n. 23, 255 nn. 23-24; 256 ,256 n. 30, 274 n. 86, 424 n. 22

Barton, J., 168 n. 35Bauckham, R., 196 n. 4, 197 n. 11,

202 n. 27, 416 n. 11Bauernfeind, Ο . , 223 η. 21, 226 η.

26, 227 η. 28Beard, C. Α . , 50Behm, J., 166 η. 29, 212 η. 73Beasley-Murray, G. R., 16 n. 36,

103 n. 41, 107 n. 50Becker, C., 50, 50 n. 3Becker, J., 6, 18 n. 42, 212 n. 81,

326 n. 9Berger, K., 14 n. 26, 309 nn. 22-23Bernheim, E., 52, 53 n. 14Best, E., 198 n. 12, 303 η. 1Best, T. F., 303 η. 1Betz, O., 9 n. 14, 13 n. 22, 168 n.

34, 172 n. 47, 336 n. 34, 341 n.48, 353

Billerbeck, P., 332, 341 n. 47Blackburn, B. L., 13, 13 n. 23, 14,

300, 300 nn. 79-80Blinzler, J., 212 n. 80, 305 n. 6, 431

n. 1, 44 7 n. 29, 44 8, 448 n. 32Bloch, M., 441 n. 15Bloch-Smith, E., 442 n. 18Böcher O. 252 252 n. 16 26 3 n.

53 273 n. 85

Bockmuehl M. 243 n. 51

Bonner C. 227 nn. 26 28Borg M . J. 12 n. 21 83 n. 2 87

89 89 n. 17 161 161 n. 17 38 9

n. 1

Borhek J. T. 355

Boring M. E. 38 nn. 22-23Bornkamm G. 63 63 n . 2 304 n . 4

Boucher M . 107 n. 50

Bourguignon E. 354

Àalen S. 25 0 n. 9

Achtemeier P. J. 13 n. 22

Aland Κ ., 184 η. 26Allison, D. C., 8 η. 11, I 1 η. 17,

156 η. 1, 162, 162 η. 21, 198 η.14, 203 nn. 31-33, 212 nn. 74,79, 248 η. 2, 256, 256 η. 27, 261

η. 44, 273 ηη. 84-85; 275, 275 η.88, 276 η. 91

Ambrozic, Α . Μ . , 219 η . 10Anderson, G., 213 η. 82Anderson, Η ., 254 η. 23, 255 η. 23Annen, F., 222 η. 20, 223 η. 22, 227

η. 28, 232 η. 37, 279, 279 η. 2,280, 280 η. 5, 281 ηη. 7-8, 10-11;282 ηη. 12-17; 283 ηη. 18-22; 290η. 45, 293, 293 η. 59, 295, 295 η.66-68; 297, 297 η. 71, 298 ηη.72, 299 η. 76, 300, 300 η. 84,301 η. 86

Applebaum, S., 294 η. 60Arav, R., 233 η. 39Armstrong, Κ . , 396 η. 25Attridge, Η . W ., 275, 276 η. 91Aune, D. Ε ., 13 η. 24, 44 η. 34, 156

η. 1, 190 η. 37, 191, 191 ηη. 39-40; 262 η. 49

Avi-Yonah, Μ . , 294 η . 62

Baarda, T., 295 η. 66Bacher, W., 55 η. 23Bailey, J . Α . 424 η. 22

Bailey, Κ . Ε ., 42 η. 29, 107 η. 50,112 η. 63, 113 η. 65

Baltensweiler, Η . , 305 η. 6Bammel, Ε ., 24 η. 52, 391 ηη. 8-10;

395 η. 24Barbour, R. S., 103 η. 41Barr, D. L., 368Barr, J., 216 n. 4, 217 n. 6



Charlesworth, J. H., 4 n. 5, 35 n.16, 83 n. 2, 251 n. 13, 332 n. 25.389, 389 n. 1

Childs, B. S. 45 η. 36Chilton, Β . D., 10 η. 15, 18 η. 40,

21 η. 45, 22 η. 47, 35 η. 11, 84 η.2, 87, 103 η. 41, 107 η. 50, 164,168 η. 36, 169 η. 37, 210 η. 62,215 η. 1, 216 η. 5, 218 η. 7, 220η. 17, 225 η. 23, 235 η. 43, 237η. 44, 239 η. 46, 240 η. 47, 243

ηη . 51-52; 244 η. 53, 250 η. 9,303 η. 1, 311 η. 29, 312 η. 34,340 η. 44, 383, 383 ηη. 16-17;

Clark, S., 264 η. 56, 267 η. 68Cockburn, P., 396 η. 25Collins, J. J., 168 η. 33, 334 nn. 28-

29Colpe, C., 226 n. 26, 343, 343 n. 50

Commager, H. S., 50, 50 n. 3Connell, M. F., 416 η. 12Conybeare, F. C., 226 η. 26, 291 η.

48Conze, Ε. , 205 η. 40Conzelmann, Η . , 330 , 331 ηη. 21-

23; 336, 336 η. 36, 337, 338, 338η. 40, 341 η. 47

Cook, M. J., 220 η. 13Cousin, Η . , 431 η. 1Cranfield, C. Ε . Β . , 249 η. 8Crossan, J. D., 12 η. 19, 14 ηη. 25,

31; 22, 23 η. 48, 33 η. 9, 84 η. 2,87, 211, 211 ηη. 67, 71; 262 η.47, 275 η. 88, 389, 389 η. 3, 431,431 η. 2, 435, 435 η. 6, 436 η. 6,445 η. 24, 446, 446 η. 28, 447 η.29, 448 η. 30, 451, 451 η. 35

Cullmann, Ο . , 54, 54 η. 22Culpepper, R. Α ., 21 5 η. 1, 44 5 η.

25Curtis, R. F., 354

Dahl, Ν . , 207, 208 η. 53, 337 , 33 8,338 η. 39

Dalman, G., 166, 172 η. 45

Bousset, W., 23 η. 50, 329, 329 η.16, 330, 330 ηη. 17-18

Bowden, J., 33 η. 8Bratcher, R. G., 222 n. 20Braun, F. M., 431 η. 1Braun, W., 391 n. 12, 395 n. 25Brown, C., 352Brown, R. E., 55 n. 24, 179 n. 9,

195 n. 2, 390 n. 5, 394 n. 20, 396n. 25, 400, 401, 401 n. 45, 405,405 nn . 58-59; 406, 406 nn. 61-

63; 409 n. 69, 431, 431 n. 2, 436n. 7, 438 η. 11, 445 n. 26, 446,446 n. 27, 447 n. 29, 448 n. 31

Brownlee, W. H., 168 n. 34Bruce, F. F., 380, 384 n. 21, 385 n.

22Buchanan, G. W., 373 η. 1Buchler, Α . , 431 η. I

Bultmann, R., 14 nn. 26-27; 31, 34,43, 43 n. 33, 51, 51 n. 10, 52, 53,53 n. 16, 63, 179 n. 8, 180, 180nn. 12-13; 248 n. 5, 261 nn. 42,44; 262, 263 n. 51, 264, 264 n.58, 271 n. 79, 287, 287 n. 34,288, 288 n. 35, 306, 306 n. 9,307 n. 13, 336, 336 n. 37, 337,357, 368

Burkill, T. A. 228 n. 29, 310 n. 27Burridge, R. Α . , 44 n. 34Butts, J. R., 85 n. 4

Cadoux, C. J. , 206, 206 nn. 45, 48;207

Caird, G. B., 83 n. 2, 161, 161 n.16, 162

Calvert, D. G. Α ., 33 n. 7Cameron, R., 87, 231 n. 34Campbell, S., 441 n. 15Carlyle, 330, 330 n. 18Carson, D. A. 179 n. 9, 415 n. 10Catchpole, D., 23, 23 n. 50Cathey, P. Α . , 323Chapman, R., 441 n. 15



Eisenman, R. H., 243 n. 51Elliott, J. K., 138, 138 n. 50Ellis, E. E., 49 n. 2, 53 n. 17

Evans, C. Α ., 4 η. 5, 12 η. 20 , 19 η.43, 22 η. 46, 26 η. 54, 84 η. 2,117 η. 69, 158 η. 5, 196 η. 6, 210η. 62, 267 η. 65, 291 ηη. 47-48;299 η. 78, 301 η. 88, 333 η. 26,340 ηη. 44, 46; 375 η. 3, 376 η.5, 386 η. 24, 388 η. 28, 400 η. 44

Evans, C. F., 249, 249 η. 8, 380 η.

Falk, Ζ . W ., 238 η. 45Farmer, W. R., 83 η. 2, 155 η. *,

323 η. *Farrar, F. W., 50, 50 η. 7, 199 η. 17Fascher, Ε ., 197 η. 11Feldman, L. Η ., 377 η. 6, 378 η. 8Feldmeier, R., 395 η. 21Feuillet, Α ., 196 η. 6Flusser, D., 398, 399 η. 42Foerster, 393 η. 15Forman, R. Κ . C. , 364Fossum, J. E., 303 η. 1, 305 n. 5,

311 n. 32, 313 n. 38, 314, 314 n.43, 319 n. 62, 320, 320 n. 64

Fowler, R. M., 215 η. IFigueras, P., 437 n. 8Fitzmyer, J. Α ., 14 n. 25 , 171 n. 41,

226 n. 26, 351, 447 n. 29France, R. T., 158 n. 5, 219 n. 10,

380 η. 11Freyne, S., 83 n. 2, 235Fridrichsen, Α . , 227 n. 28, 261 n.

43, 262 n. 50, 267 n. 65

Frye, N., 176Fuller, R. H., 12 nn. 22, 23Funk, R. W., 12 n. 19, 17 n. 38, 20

n. 44, 27 nn. 55-58; 84 n. 3, 85 n.4, 86 nn. 6-10; 87, 87 n. 11, 88nn. 14-15; 89, 89 n. 17, 90 nn.18-19; 91 n. 22, 92 n. 24, 93 nn.25-26; 94 n. 27, 95 nn. 28-29; 98

n. 32, 99 nn. 33-34; 100 nn. 35-

Daniel, F. H., 303 η. 1, 308, 308 n.17, 309

Daube, D., 211 n. 69, 431 η. I, 447

n. 29, 448, 448 n. 32Davies, M ., 87 n. 12, 42 4 n. 24Davies, W. D., 8 η. 11, 11 n. 17,

212 n. 79, 248 n. 2, 256, 256 11.27, 261 n. 44, 273 n. 84, 275 11.88

Davis, J., 50, 50 11. 6de Boer, M. C., 266 n. 65, 417 n.

14, 418 n. 15Deissmann, G. Α . , 227 n. 26de Jonge, M., 15 n. 34de Lagarde, P., 328, 328 n. 12del Agua, Α . , 303 η. 1De Lubac, H., 352Deming, W., 212 n. 79Derrertt, J. D . M ., 3 40 11. 44 , 3 83 n.

1 6

Dhanis, E., 431 η. IDibelius, M., 53, 396, 396 nn. 27-28Dieckmann, B., 391 n. 6, 406, 406

nn. 64-65; 409, 409 n. 68Dinkier, E., 24 n. 52Dodd, C. H., 50, 50 n. 7, 56, 56 n.

26 , 63 , 63 11. 2, 67 , 107 n. 50 ,160, 160 n. 11, 161, 262 n. 47,275 n. 89, 41 I n. 2

Dods, M., 204 n. 36Douglas, M., 263 n. 52Downing, F. G., 33 n. 9, 166, 166

nn. 30-31Drury, J., 107 n. 50Dubnow, S., 272 n. 82Duling, D. C., 368

Dunn, J. D. G., 38 nn. 20-21; 41 n.27 , 4 7 n. 3 8, 2 1 0 11. 61 , 2 23 11.22, 228 n. 29, 376 n. 4

Dupont, J., 170 n. 39, 195 n. 3, 208n. 57, 209 n. 59

Edwards, R. B., 414 n. 9, 416 n. 12,426 n. 27

Ego, B., 319 n. 62



von) Ha rnack , Α . , 305 , 305 η . 6 ,315 η. 46

Ha rvey, Α . Ε . , 12 η. 21, 28 η. 61,35 η. 11, 83 ηη. 2-3; 210 η. 61

Hend ricks, Η . , 13 η. 22Heng el, Μ ., 26 η. 53, 35 η. 14, 231

η. 34, 323 η. 4, 325 ηη. 6-7; 326η. 11, 329 η. 15, 333 η. 27, 336η. 34, 338 η. 41, 340 η. 45, 341η. 48, 344 η. 53, 345 η. 54, 432,432 η. 3

Hengel, R., 231 η. 34Herder, J. G., 54, 54 η. 21Hertz, R., 433 n. 4Hesse, M., 353Himmelfarb, M., 313 n. 41H irsch , E., 180, 180 n. 13Hirschfeld, Y., 294 n. 62Holtzmann, H. J. , 328 n. 12, 336

Hooker, M. D., 37 n. 18, 52, 52 n.12, 306 n. 9

Hoover, R. W., 17 n. 38, 18 n. 42,20 n. 44, 84 n. 3, 86 nn. 6-10; 88nn. 14-15, 89, 89 n. 17, 90 nn.18-19; 91 n. 22, 92 n. 24, 93 nn.25-26; 94 n. 27, 95 nn. 28-29; 98n. 32, 99 nn. 33-34; 100 nn. 35-36; 102 n. 39, 104 nn. 42-43; 105n. 45, 106 nn. 46-49; 107 n. 50,II I nn. 54-57; 1 12 nn . 58-63; 113n. 64, 115 nn. 66-67; 119 n. 70,177 nn. 1, 3; 189 nn. 35 -3 6

Horgan, M. P., 168 n. 34Horrobin, P., 264 n. 56Horsley, G. H. R., 405 n. 57Horsley , R. Α . , 83 n. 2 , 275, 27 5 n.

91, 377 n. 5Horstmann, G. M., 308 n. 19, 309

nn. 23-24Hort, F. J. Α ., 135 n. 40Hoskyns, E. C., 182 n. 16Houlden, L., 396 n. 25Hu ck, Α ., 125 n. 3Hull, J. M., 227 n. 26, 269 n. 74,

273 n. 85

36; 102 n. 39, 104 nn. 42-43; 105n. 45, 106 nn. 46-49; 107 n. 50,111 nn. 54-57 ; 1 l2 n n . 58-63; 113n. 64, 115 nn. 66-67; 117, 118 n.70 , 177 nn. 1, 3; 189 nn. 3 5-3 6;218 n. 7, 226 n. 25, 235 n. 42,376 n. 3

Gallagher, Ε. V. , 356Garrett, S. R., 272 n. 8Ge rbe r, W ., 303 n. 1, 313, 3 13 n. 41

Gerhardsson, B., 50, 50 n. 7, 54, 54n. 22, 56, 199 n. 17

Gibson, J. B., 195 η. I, 196 nn. 5-6G las so n, T. F., 160, 160 n. 12, 162Gnilka, J. , 196 n. 6, 212 n. 79, 218

n. 8, 252, 252 n. 17, 253, 253 n.19, 254, 397, 397 n. 29

Goodman, F. , 354, 356, 357

Gonen, R., 442 n. 17Goppelt, L., 158 n. 5Gottlieb, J. , 263 n. 55Grant, R. M., 340 n. 44, 380 n. 11,

382 n. 14, 384 n. 20, 386 n. 25Gre en, Α . , 441 η. 15Green, W. C. , 269, 269 η. 73Greenhut, Ζ. , 442 η. 20G rim m , W., 13 η. 22, 353G ue lich , R. Α . , 130 η. 16, 258 η.

36, 260 η. 41G un dry , R. Η ., 127, 127 η. 11, 130,

130 η. 14, 132, 133 η. 27, 136,136 η. 44 , 137, 137 ηη. 45 -46 ;254 η. 22, 258 η. 35, 281 η. 7,282 η. 13, 285 η. 26, 289 η. 44,295, 295 ηη. 64, 66; 298 η. 72,310 η. 28, 311 η. 30, 313 η. 40,319 η. 60, 384, 384 η. 19

Haa cker, Κ . , 319 η. 62Haas , Ν . , 435 η . 6Hachlili, R., 437 η. 8, 442 η. 19Haenchen, Ε., 179 η. 9, 220 η. 14,

227 η. 28

Hahn, 309 η. 23, 330 η. 18



Klostermann, Ε ., 184 η. 26Kobelski, P. J., 335 η. 33Koch, D. -Α ., 221 η. 18

Koch, Κ , 101, 101 η. 37Koester, Η . , 92 η. 23Kollmann, Β ., 208 η. 55, 267 η . 65,

272 η. 81Koppen, Κ . -P. , 202 η. 27Kötting Β ., 412 η. 3Kraft, Η ., 306 η. 11Krause, D., 373, 373 η. 1

Krauss, S., 328, 328 η. 13Kümmel W . G. 53 53 n . 15 26 9

n. 75

Kundsin K. 336 n. 37

Kysar R. 411 η. 1

Ladd, G. E., 107 n. 50Lagrange, M. -J., 225 n. 24Lambrecht, J., 195 η. 1Lane, W. L., 249 n. 6Langlois, C., 53 n. 14Lebeau, P., 243 n. 51Lewis, I. M., 263 n. 54, 264 n. 56Liefeld, W. L., 303 n. 1, 319 n. 58Lifshitz, B., 443 n. 21Lightfoot, J. B., 397,Limbeck, M., 223 n. 22Lindemann, Α . , 201 η. 23, 336, 33 6

η. 36, 338, 338 η. 40, 341 η. 47Lohmeyer, Ε ., 21 8 η. 8, 22 7 η. 28,

303 η. 1, 307 η. 12, 309 η. 23Loisy, Α . , 180Lonergan, Β . J. F., 50, 50 η. 5, 175

η. 52, 232 η. 36Lord, Α . Β . , 195 η. 1

Louw, J. P., 125, 125 η. 2, 127, 127ηη. 9-10

Luz, U., 211 η. 68, 252 η. 15, 259η. 39, 273 η. 74, 313 η. 37

Maccoby, Η . , 391 , 391 η. 7 , 39 8,398 η. 41

Mach, Μ . , 317 η . 54

Huntington, R., 441 η. 15, 444 η. 23

Jacobson, Α . D. , 271 η. 79

Jeremias, J., 12 η. 19, 34, 49 η. 1,57, 62, 63 η. 2, 67, 107 η. 50,157 ηη. 2-4; 159 η. 8, 161, 161 η.14, 162, 166 η. 29, 170 ηη. 38-39, 173 ηη. 48, 50; 196 η. 6, 204η. 37, 206 η. 45, 383 η. 16, 452,452 η. 36

Johnson, L. T., 32 η. 6, 45

Johnson, S. Ε ., 197 η. 11Jordens, Α . , 405 η . 57Joüon P. 158 η. 7Juei, D. H., 254 n. 23, 255 n. 23,

260 n. 41Jülicher Α . , 67

Kahler, M., 45Kant, 354Käsemann Ε ., 32 η. 4, 52, 52 η. 13,

161, 161 η. 15, 332Katz, P., 203 η. 30Ke e, Η . C., 16, 16 ηη 35-36; 17, 17

η. 37, 226 η. 26, 227 η. 26, 303η. 1

Keller, Ε. , 353Keller, M. -L., 353Kermode, F., 396 11. 25Kesich, V., 204 η. 37Kierkegaard, S., 32 η. 3Kilpatrick, G. D., 129 n. 13Kinnes, I., 441 n. 15Kim, S., 380 n. 11Kingsbury, J. D., 215 η. 1Klauck, H. -J. , 248 nn. 2-3; 251,

262, 262 n. 49, 391 n. 6, 398,398 nn. 37-39, 407, 409 n. 67

Klassen, W., 391 n.7, 393 n. 16,395 n. 21-22, 399 n. 42, 409 n.69

Klein, S., 437 n. 8Kloppenborg, J., 87, 275, 275 n. 90,

276

Kloner, Α ., 438 n. 12



Meyers, E. M., 437 n. 8Millar, F., 434 η. 5Miller, J. W., 206 n. 45, 393 n. 17Miller, R. J., 85 n. 4, 164 n. 25Milligan, G., 405 n. 57Morgan, R., 28 n. 61Moses, A. D. Α ., 30 6 η. 10, 31 3 η.

39Moulton, J. Η ., 126, 126 nn. 7-8 ;

405 η. 57Müller H. P. 309 η. 23, 320 η. 63

Müller U. Β ., 20 6 η. 46 , 303 η. 1Murphy-O'Conner, J. , 213 η. 82,

305, 305 η. 7, 395 η. 25, 409 η.69

Mussner, F., 275 η. 88Myllykoski, M., 397, 397 η. η. 33

Nagel, P., 197 η. 11, 212 η. 76

Nardoni, Ε., 303 η. 1, 309Neirynck, F., 307 η. 16Nelson, P. Κ ., 41 2 η. 4, 421 η η. 19-

2

Neusner, J., 35 η. 15, 164 η. 26,237 η. 44

Neyrey, J. Η ., 263 η. 52, 41 4 η. 9Nida, Ε . Α ., 125, 125 η. 2, 127, 127

ηη. 9-10; 222 η. 20Niederwimmer, Κ . , 212 η. 79Niemand, C., 307 η. 14Noll, R., 353Nolland, J., 184 n. 24, 420 n. 18Nützel J . M. 303 η. 1, 308, 308 nn.

17, 20; 309, 309 n. 23

O'Conner, F., 267 n. 68Oesterreich, T. K., 263 n. 55Ohler, M., 303 η. 1, 310 n. 28, 313

n. 40, 314 n. 45, 315, 315 n. 47,318, 320, 320 n. 65

O'Neill, J. C., 250 n. 9

Parker, S. T., 294 n. 60Parry, J., 441 n. 15

Patterson, S. J., 91 n. 21

Mack, B. L., 33 n. 9, 86 n. 11, 101n. 38, 102 n. 38, 276 n. 92

Madden, P. J., 351, 352, 368, 369Maier, G., 13 n. 22Malina, B. J. , 263 n. 52, 351, 356,

359, 365, 368Maloney, E. C., 127 n. 8,Manson, T. W., 199, 199 n. 18,

204, 204 n. 38, 386 n. 23Manson, W., 384 n. 21Marcus, J., 158 n. 6, 206, 207 n. 49,

250 n. 9, 262 n. 48, 266, 267 n.66, 269 n. 74, 309 n. 24

Marcus, R., 226 n. 26, 381 n. 12Marshall, I. H., 420 n. 18Martin, A. D., 290 n. 46Martin, R. P., 52 n. 13Martyn, J. L., 203 nn. 29-30;Mascall, E. L., 52, 52 n. 12

Masson, C. , 30 3 n. 1, 30 8 n. 20,309 n. 23Massynbaerde Ford, J., 416 n. 11McCane, B. R., 437 n. 8, 451 n. 33McCready, W., 396 n. 25McGuckin, J. Α ., 303 η. 1, 307, 307

n. 15, 309Meeks , Α ., 198 n. 15Meier, J. P., 4 n. 6, 5 n. 8, 7 n. 10,

33 n. 7, 83 n. 2, 133 n. 28, 141,141 nn. 57-58; 249 n. 7, 261, 262n. 46, 265 n. 61, 280 n. 3, 295,295 n. 68, 298 nn. 72-73; 299 nn.75, 77; 300, 300 nn. 78, 81-83;392 n. 13

Meli, U., 196 n. 6Merx, Α . , 330

Metcalt, P., 441 n. 15, 444 η. 23Metzger, Β ., 135 nn 34, 36; 29 4 η.

61, 295 nn. 63, 65Meye, R. P., 392 n. 13Meyer, B. F., 12 nn. 19, 21; 14 n.

31 , 35 n. U , 59 , 59 n. 1, 83 n. 2,87, 87 n. 13, 157 n. 3, 160 n. 10,162, 164 n. 24, 165, 171 n. 40,

172 nn. 42-43, 47



Roberts, J. M., 90 n. 20Robinson, J. A. T., 55 η. 24, 160,

161 η. 13, 162,411 η. 2

Robinson, J. M., 31, 31 nn. 1-2; 52η. 13, 87

Rohrbaugh, R. L., 357Romaniuk, K., 199Rost, L., 403Roth, C., 383 n. 16Rousseau, J. J., 233 n. 39Rupprecht, H. -Α . , 405 n. 57

Saler, B., 352Sanders, E. P., 3, 3 nn . 1-2 ; 4, 4 n.

4, 5, 6, 10 n. 15, 12 n. 19, 13 n.22, 28, 28 n. 60, 34, 35, 35 nn.12-13; 37 n. 19, 45 n. 36, 47 n.37, 83 n. 2, 87, 87 n. 12, 109,109 n. 52, 166 n. 29, 203, 203 n.34, 316 n. 53, 383, 383 n. 18,387 n. 27, 413 n. 8, 434 n. 5,451, 451 n. 34

Sanders, J. Α ., 335 n. 32Schaeder, H. H., 227 n. 27Schäfer P. 319 n. 62

Schirmer D. 392 n . 14 40 3 40 3

nn. 47-51; 4 0 4 4 0 4 n n . 52-55Schlatter Α . , 343 , 343 nn . 51-52;

407 n. 66Schmidt, K. L., 56, 56 n. 27Schmithals, W. 5, 8, 255 n. 25, 256

n. 25Schnackenburg, R., 179 n. 9, 447 n.

29Schneider, G. 24 n. 52Scholer, D. M., 395 n. 25

Schölten J. H. 328Schonfield H. J. 399 399 n. 43

Schottroff L. 403

Schürer E. 294 n . 60 62

Schürmann H. 54 54 n . 20

Schwabe M. 443

Schwartz G. 394 n. 20

Schweitzer Α ., 101, 103, 106, 162,

275 η. 88

Perkins, P., 396 η. 25Perrin, Ν ., 13 η. 24, 36 η. 17, 52 η.

13

Pesch, R., 196 η. 6, 218 η. 8, 227 η.28, 228 η. 32, 229 η. 33, 256,256 η. 26, 280 ηη. 5-6, 284 η. 23,286, 286 ηη. 26-29; 287, 287 ηη.31-33, 35; 288 η. 35, 289, 289ηη. 43-44; 292 η. 51-54,56; 293ηη. 57-58, 295, 295 η. 68, 298 η.72, 447 η. 29

Pilch, J. J. , 354, 355, 356, 357, 362Pokorny, P., 196 η. 6, 201 η. 23Popkes, W., 397, 397 nn. 34-36Porter, S. Ε ., 123 η. 1, 126 η. 6, 128

η. 12, 130 ηη. 15, 17; 133 ηη. 29-30; 134 η. 32, 138 η. 48, 139 η.52, 252 η. 17, 257 ηη. 32-33; 258η. 34

Powell, Μ . Α . , 4 η . 3 , 5 η . 7Preisendanz, Κ . , 226 η. 26Priesigke, F., 405 η. 57Prickett, S., 355Priest, J., 15 η. 33

Raglan, L., 205 nn. 39, 43Rahmani, L. Y., 437 n. 8, 438 n. 13,

443 n. 22Rahner, K., 175 n. 51Raisanen, H., 225 n. 24, 226 n. 26Randsborg, K., 441 n. 15Rank, O., 205 n. 43Ravitzky, Α ., 268 n. 70, 277 n. 93Ray, W., 215 η. IReinbold, W., 396, 396 n. 26, 397,

397 nn. 29-32

Reitzenstein, R., 220 n. 15Remus, H., 352Rengstorf, K. H., 55 n. 25Richardson, Α ., 50, 50 η. 3Riches, J. K., 35 η. 1 1Riesenfeld, H., 54 n. 22Riesner, R., 54, 54 n. 18, 55 n. 22Robbins, V. K., 248 n. 4, 256, 256

nn. 28-29



Thomas J. C. 41 2 n . 3 41 6 n . 12

41 7 n. 13 42 6 n. 27 42 7 nn. 28-

29; 428 nn. 30-34; 429 nn . 35-36

Thomas K. 26 3 n. 52 271 n. 80272 n. 81

Thüsing W . 175 n. 51

Tomes R. 242 n. 49

Thrall M. E. 310 n. 26

Trocmé Ε ., 228 η. 32Tromp, J., 15 η. 33Trumbower, J . Α . , 376, 376 nn. 4-5

Tucker, R., 389Tuckett, C. M., 91 n. 21, 200, 200

n. 21, 242 n. 49, 275, 276 n. 91Twelftree, G., 12 n. 19, 223 n. 22,

228 n. 29, 252, 252 n. 16, 253nn. 20-21; 254, 261 n. 45, 262 n.49, 269 n. 74, 279 n. 3, 291 n.48, 292, 292 n. 49-50, 52 , 55-56;298 n. 72, 299 nn. 76, 78; 301 n.85

Tzaferis, V., 295 n. 64, 435 n. 6

Vanstone, W. H., 401, 401 n. 46Verheule, A. F., 330 nn. 18-19Vermes, G., 12 n. 21, 35 n. 11, 83

n. 2, 269, 277 n. 94Vielhauer, 333Vogler, W., 391 η. 6, 398, 398 η. 40Volkmar, G., 328

Walker, W. Ο . , 208, 208 η. 54Walsh, R., 354, 356, 357, 361, 362,

365, 366, 367Wansbrough, H., 42 η. 29, 65Wegner, U., 201 η. 24

Weiss, J., 162, 330 η. 18Weiss, W., 264 η. 58Wellhausen, J. , 24 η. 52, 337, 337

η. 38Wenham, D., 306 η. 10Westcott, Β . F., 135 η. 40 , 179 η.

11, 400, 400 η. 44Wigoder, G., 396 η. 25

Wilder, Α . Ν ., 166,167 η. 32

Schwemer, Α . Μ . , 3 2 3 η . 4Scott, Β . Β . , 85 η. 4 ,Segal, Α . , 294 η . 60

Seignobos, C., 53 η. 14Seitz, Ο . J. F., 8 η. 11Sevenich-Bax, Ε ., 20 0 η. 19Skarsaune, Ο ., 301 ηη. 87, 89Smalley, S. S., 55 η. 24Smelik, W. F., 314 η. 41Smith, J. Ζ ., 274 η. 86Smith, M., 12 η. 21, 13 η. 22, 28,

28 η. 59, 109, 109 η. 52, 248 η.2, 264, 264 ηη. 57, 59; 265, 265ηη. 60, 62; 269 η. 74

Smith, P., 442 η. 19Spanos, Ν . P., 263 η. 55Spicq, C., 405, 405 η. 56Spong, J. S., 390, 390 nn. 5-6Staerck, W., 330, 330 n. 20Stauffer, E., 403Steichele, H. -J., 309 n. 24Stein, R. H., 204 n. 38Strauss, D. F., 51, 51 n. 8, 204 n.

35, 313, 313 n. 39Streeter, B. H., 135, 136, 136 nn.

41-43; 137Strobel, Α . , 336 n. 34Stuhlmann, R., 158 n. 6Stuhlmacher, P., 172, 172 n. 45Suhl, Α . , 233 η. 38Sundkler, Β ., 170 η. 39Swete, Η . Β . , 206 η. 45, 228 η. 31

Taylor, V., 126, 126 ηη. 4- 5; 128,130, 130 ηη. 15-16, 18; 132, 132η. 26, 135, 135 ηη. 35, 37-39;

137, 138 η. 47, 141, 141 η. 56,223 η. 22, 260 η. 42

Telford, W. R., 424 η. 23Thackeray, Η . St. J. , 22 6 η. 26, 37 8

η. 7

Theissen, G., 13 η. 22, 83 η. 2, 261η. 45, 304, 304 η. 2, 356

Thielicke, Η ., 51, 51 η. 9



Willemse, J., 182 n. 16Wilson, B., 266, 266 n. 64, 267,

268 nn. 69, 72; 276, 277 n. 93

Wimber, J., 273 n. 85Winger, J. M., 253 n. 18, 258, 258

n. 33, 259 n. 37,Wink, W., 87Winter, P., 24 n. 52Witherington, B., 12 n. 21, 13 nn.

22, 24; 83 n. 2Wojciechowski, M., 243 η. 51

Wrede, W., 328, 328 η. 14, 329,330, 332, 332 η. 24, 348Wright, Ν . T., 5, 5 η. 7, 33 η. 9, 34,

37 η. 19, 41 η. 26, 83 η. 1, 85 η.5, 92 η. 23, 97 η. 31, 103 η. 40,104 η. 44, 109 η. 52, 110 η. 53,I 16 η. 68, 119 η. 70 , 161, 161 η.17, 163, 206 η. 45, 348 η. 55,385 η. 22

Yates, R., 223 η. 22

Zaehner, R. C., 207 η. 52Zeller, D., 13 η. 22, 303 η. 1, 304 η.

3, 311 η. 31, 312 η. 33, 315 η.48, 316 η. 50

Zerwick, Μ . , 253 η. 18Zimmermann, J., 334 η. 29Zlotnick, D., 437 η. 8Zorell., F., 158 η. 6



Documents

Bruce Chilton, Craig a. Evans Authenticating the Activities of Jesus New Testament Tools and Studies 1998 (1)