Teaching and Courses / Home Page / Syllabus
Synoptic
Gospels (A255-051
& A706-051)
MW 4:55-6:10 BO 208 Spring
2006
Professor Earl Richard (ext 3058)
Hours: MWF: 10:30-11:30; 2:30-3:30 & TTh: by
appointment
e-mail: richard@loyno.edu
Observations:
2. Mark
3. Matthew
4. Luke
A.
Introduction
Class 5:a-b
Brief Study of the Q-Source (Matthean/Lukan
Source: Eschatology)
(2/20/06)
For a brief summary of the basic facts concerning this early source (used
by Matthew and Luke), see Jesus, pp. 85-94. These
elements of our study should be clear enough, whether the nature of the
source (a written, sayings source) or its theological characteristics (focus
on apocalyptic concerns). Its contents might best be described as
focused on 1) the trials and privileges of discipleship, 2) the prophet
as God's messenger, 3) the importance of repentance and judgment , and
4) Jesus' role as revealer and agent of God's rule (as Son of man who has
come and will soon return).
In view of the above one might well ask why Q was assembled, composed,
and preserved? Who was responsible for this activity? Who made
use of the Q-Source prior to the activity of Matthew and Luke? For
such a discussion one might choose to reflect on the following statement
about the community responsible for Q: the community:
1. anticipated the imminent return of Jesus as the Son of man,
2. continued to preach the proclamation of Jesus by repeating his sayings,
3. considered Jesus still active within the community through the inspiration
of Christian
prophets who spoke in his name,
4. was engaged in preparing for his coming by fulfilling the demands placed
upon them
by the coming judge,
5. was conscious of the negative reaction which could result in persecution
for those who
spoke and acted as Jesus commanded them (Edwards, Theology of Q,
pp. 146-48).
Each of the above points merits some consideration
for proper understanding of the community that
employed this sayings collection.
1) The community can be characterized as an apocalyptic one which believed
that Jesus' return as Son of man (see Mark 13:24-27 & 14:61-61) was
imminent. The entire focus of its thinking was on the return of the
Messiah to act as warrior and judge. Its focus was on the shortness
of time before the end both for spiritual and missionary preparation.
The preaching mission was urgent and the demands of discipleship were absolute.
2) Presumably the document which members of the community produced consisted
primarily of
sayings of an apocalyptic nature, sayings
which they used repeatedly in their preaching. The imminence of the
end made even more relevant Jesus' prophetic and exhortatory sayings in
light of his earlier rejection and seeming promise of an early return (Mark
9:1).
3) Whether this community was a charismatic one in its imitation of Jesus
or more properly one that saw its role as that of prophets who spoke in
the name of its Master, it seemingly applied the sayings of Jesus to the
apocalyptic situation they assumed was in force at the time. Jesus'
prophetic and apocalyptic promises and warnings took on new life as these
early Christians prepared for the endtime and attempted to prepare others
for the same.
4) As noted in the first observation the community members were fully concerned
about fulfilling the demands of discipleship. Jesus had called and
had placed certain demands on his followers. Their morality was a
severe form of promised reward and punishment depending on one's response
to the absolute demands of discipleship (see Luke 6:20-49 & par: the
blessedness and obligations of
discipleship), especially in regards to
its itinerant character (see Matt 8:19-22//Luke 9:57-62, and
discussion in Jesus,
pp. 86-88). Indeed, the image of Jesus as returning judge looms large
for this community.
5) As Jesus had been rejected by his contemporaries (so other divine messengers
before him--the prophets, John the Baptist) so were they to expect a negative
reaction from their hearers and neighbors. True to their apocalyptic
vision of the world, their experience was one of alienation and persecution,
a situation which would only end with Jesus' return as Son of man.
He had come as a a preacher of repentance but had been rejected and persecuted.
So their experience was to be a similar one las they preached this rejected
Messiah and awaited his return and promised blessedness in salvation.
On the one hand, study of this early source of Jesus material gives the
modern student the opportunity to appreciate other, important features
of the early community's development. Here in this document one encounters
an early community that focused on the apocalyptic or eschatological features
of the Jesus tradition rather than upon its salvific and prophetic character
(much as did Mark's community). Additionally, Matthew and Luke valued
and used its content but basically rejected or modified its apocalyptic
perspecive when composing their own lives of Jesus. On the other
hand, we will do well to understand the document's perspective as we study
its parables, since the parables of the Q-Source focus on the community's
apocalyptic concerns: judgment, the imminent end, the challenge and vicissitudes
of discipleship, and the nature of the kingdom.
See Jesus, pp. 85-94. For a list of its forms, content, and concerns, see class handouts.
Class 5:c
Brief Study of the Sign Gospel or First Stage of Johannine Development
Adaptation of an earlier observation: "Study of First Stage: Criteria, Overview, Text"
By
focusing especially on the Fourth Gospel's positive use of the term "signs"
to designate Jesus' miracles and its identifying of the Jewish authorities
in traditional fashion as "Pharisees, chief priests, or rulers," one begins
to isolate a sizable proportion of what was originally the young community's
Gospel, usually referred to as the "Sign Gospel." Additionally, there
is in these texts a sense that "sign faith" readily leads to conversion
("they believed in him" as a result of his signs--see 2:11, 23, etc) and
that conversion readily occurs on witnessing or hearing Jesus' miraculous
power and persuasive teaching (see 3:1-2; 4:53-54). Each of these
criteria connotes a negative or terminological contrast with terms and
themes which appear in later editions of the Gospel (e.g., negative use
of "sign" or preference for the term "work" in referring to Jesus' miracles--see
2:18 where "sign" means "proof" not a means of faith and 5:36 where Jesus'
miracles and ministry more generally are called "works of the Father").
Also important as criteria are terms which denote a low, traditional christology
(Jesus is referred to as Messiah/Christ, Son, prophet--also opinion about
him is greatly divided) and repeated geographical or Palestinian references
as well as allusions to Jewish feasts and customs.
It was our
major focus to examine a long list of
criteria for identifying the "signs" material or "signs gospel."
We focused considerably on von Wahlde, Earliest Version,
chapter 2, where we examined in some detail the 22 criteria he presents
for that purpose, whether linguistic, ideological, or theological (and
other) differences between the sign stage of development and the later
stages of editorial work. The linguistic criteria, especially the
first two involving the nomenclature for religious authorities
(Pharisees, chief priests, rulers, etc versus the Jews) and that for
Jesus' miracle (signs versus works), were examined at length because,
in many ways, they are the clearest, most objective, and even important
for isolating the first and second editions of the Johannine
Gospel. Others, involving the nature of and growth of faith or
belief (chain reaction), of acceptance and opposition, or rapport or
lack thereof between the common people and the Jewish authorities,
between Jesus and the Jewish authorities and between the christologies
of the two earlier levels of development, also prove helpful as
criteria for discerning the editions and provide insight into important
characteristics of these developmental stages. Indeed, we might
look to von Wahlde's conclusions on pp. 63. One should begin with
the two sets of terms for the religious authorities, then relate other
criteria to either set of terms and associated material. These,
correlated with the numerous literary seams, help us to isolate the
material of the first or sign edition (of course the passion narrative
requires more careful examination of the framing devices of repetition,
of aporias and use of the term "the Jews"). Other caveats are
also of importance: not all uses of a term are germane (meaning and
usage of term are important); nuanced use of previous scholarship is
very helpful; one should rely more fully on the more objective criteria
and less on the subjective ones (especially alleged differences of
style and theology); and finally one should appeal especially to
criteria that tend to occur throughout the gospel.
From
a careful use of such criteria one is able to arrive at a fairly good
estimate of the original or "earliest version of the Johannine
Gospel." Such a lengthy process and reconstruction can be found
in von Wahlde, chapter 3. From such a text one should be able to gain a good sense
of the early community's thinking.
From such a
reading of the Johannine Gospel one discerns a "Sign Gospel" that
begins with the ministry of John (1:19f), as does Mark 1:2f, that
focuses
on Jesus' signs or miracles (seven that are presented as narratives:
changing
of water into wine at Cana--2:1f; the healing of the royal official
also
at Cana- 4:46f; the healing of the man at the pool--5:1f; the
multiplication
of the loaves--6:1f; the walking on the water--6:16f; the healing of
the
blind man--9:ff; and the raising of Lazarus--11:1f) and preaching in
Jewish
contexts, whether the Sabbath, Passover, Tabernacles or Booths, or
unnamed
Jewish festivals, and finally dwells on Jesus' last days, i.e., his
passion,
death, and resurrection. Indeed, the original Sign Gospel ends
with
a reference to Jesus' miraculous works and their role in eliciting
faith
in those who heard the good news (20:30-31). From this brief
Gospel
then one discerns a Jewish-christian community that sees in Jesus the
Messiah
or "sent one" of Jewish tradition. This Jewish-christian
community
focuses on Jesus' role as wonder worker
who displays God's power much as Moses did during the Exodus
event.
This miraculous power forms part of Jesus' story and underscores the
community's
interest in faith, conversion, and mission as the first steps of
discipleship.
Jesus' signs are the means of missionary expansion, for the community
is
an outward-directed missionary group within the Jewish community.
Thus, the community uses the story of Jesus as the basis for its
beliefs
and preaching, as it encounters the outside world with Jesus' words and
actions. Jesus is presented by them as God's Messiah or
messenger,
the one who invites listeners to become followers.
The
community is also focused on issues of christology, particularly stories
about seeking Jesus (7:25f, 31f, 40f) and debates about his identity (9:13f,
24f; 10:19; 11:55f). This concern is seemingly presented as a series
of debates with fellow Jews about who Jesus is, whether the Messiah, Son
of God, a prophet, or a sinner who violates the Sabbath, a man who is demon
possessed (9:16-17; 10:19-21). These debates suggest early inter-community
dialogues among Jews about Jesus' identity and role and perhaps an aggressive
mission to Jewish contemporaries. The community members presumably
considered themselves part of the Jewish community and sought to win others
to belief or faith in Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. Thus membership
in this group was fully focused on and the community was very concerned
with acceptance and rejection of Jesus--essential to its christology was
the acceptance of Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish messianic expectations.
But at the same time, belief in Jesus meant an acceptance also of his death
and resurrection, as the story of his life indicates.
Finally,
it should be noted that the text of the Sign Gospel itself, especially
9:24-34, gives evidence that a crisis was coming, for the claims made about
Jesus and continued membership in the synagogue would have become burning
issues in the relation between "Jews for Christ" and the rest of the Jewish
community. Thus from the above we venture to suggest that this first
stage of community development would correspond roughly with the development
one finds in the Synoptic tradition. One would find similar concerns
about Jesus' identity (in a low traditional christological idiom), a reflection
of the early Jesus movement's concern for mission and discipleship, and
a distinct reflection of its Palestinian origins. Further, one sees
here clear evidence of the community's Jewish origin and early development.
At this point I would refer you to von Wahlde, Earliest Version,
chapter 4, for an interesting overview of the thought and structure of
the Sign Gospel. The above comments help to describe what
the Johannine community possessed and produced as its first Gospel,
minimally a list of miracles or signs and a rough life of Jesus which
also focused on the death and resurrection. So much for an
introductory session on the Sign Gospel.
Class 5:d
Brief Study of the (Coptic) Gospel
of Thomas (Gnosticism)
First we begin with some basic facts. This text was discovered in
1945 at a site in Egypt called Nag Hammadi. It formed part of an
ancient codex of Coptic works which came from the library of an ancient
Christian monastery. Its text as well as that of the other works
contained in the codex was Coptic or late, ancient Egyptian (the term Coptos
being derived from the Greek form Egyptos).
Thomas itself is a "sayings" collection (improperly called a "gospel"),
consisting of 114 sayings or sayings complexes, most of which are introduced
by "Jesus said." The sayings are clearly a mixed collection of Synoptic-like
sayings and parables (sometimes in primitive form), of heterodox sayings
and discussions from various periods, and finally of many overt Gnostic
passages of a later period. Our present Coptic manuscript dates to
about 300 A.D. The work itself seemingly underwent a long period
of development. Its compositional history stems from the apostolic period
(either using the Synoptic tradition or a form similar to that used by
Matthew especially), when it was composed in Greek, in which form it made
its way to Egypt--note that Greek fragments of this text were discovered
about the turn of the century in Egypt. Sometime after its arrival
in Egypt it was translated into Coptic and was generously edited by a member
of a Gnostic community.
Thomas' major ideas might be described thus. 1) Jesus, in typical
Gnostic fashion, is the bringer of special knowledge (gnosis) to
intoxicated (blind or ignorant) humans. Indeed, he comes from the
heavenly realm to teach gnosis or knowledge to imprisoned souls.
2) Human beings are sparks of the divine that are emersed in corrupt matter
and need gnosis to liberate this spirit from its material ties. Thus,
for the Gnostic there are type types of humans: the enlightened Gnostic
(or spiritual person) who has received knowledge from Jesus and the psychic
or material being that is blind, drunk or sleep-walking. So the parables
of Thomas will tend to suggest the special concerns of their author or
Gnostic community. 3) Thus, "the Jesus of Thomas is a Jesus who answers
the Gnostic Christian's deepest desire, escape from a corrupt world and
a corrupt body and return to or reunion with the source of their being"
that they might become "so many divine sparks that return to the Divine
Flame" (see Yamauchi Lecture, 12).
Finally, we might say that this esoteric text from late Christian antiquity
has some importance for a course on the parables of Jesus, particularly
since it contains 13 parables allegedly spoken by Jesus (12 with Synoptic
parallels and one unique to Thomas)--see your class handout for a list
of these.
In minimal terms one must admit that Thomas
is important because it provides us with one more version of Jesus'
parables
and assist the modern reader in seeing how the Jesus tradition was
employed
by one more early (though heterodox) Christian community. In
maximal
terms, Thomas' version of several parables offer a stark contrast with
the usage one finds in the Synoptic writers. Indeed, Thomas
offers
the modern reader another fixed point in the hermeneutical trajectory
of
the early interpretation of Jesus' parables and for our purpose another
example of early/late Jesus tradition that survived outside of the
traditional gospels.
Class 5:e-f
Popular Texts and Images
No observations here!
Addition here for Class 5 (for Feb 20 on Q-Source and Other Jesus Tradition) --> see below--I have added Jesus: One and Many
chapter 13 on later Jesus tradition--so chapter 13 is found after
chapters 1-3 below. Note also that the "excursus" on the
Q-Source is also to be found below within chapter 3 of Jesus. Read especially the section from chapter 13 on the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. (2/17/06)
Class 4. Methodological Introduction to Synoptics (2)
Focus on Form & Redaction Criticism
1/18/06
We began class with concluding
remarks on source criticism, particularly the issue of Markan priority
(see earlier chart for Two-Source Hypothesis) and the argument from
order. An earlier handout had been given concerning Matthean and
Lukan use of Markan episodes from 1:1-6:16. The goal was to see
how the differences in the order of the two former were to be
explained, i.e., in terms of their modifications of that order.
a) From the chart (given in class) one sees five changes in the order
of blocks of materials or episodes in Matthew's use of the Markan
sequence. Three of these concern Markan miracles which are
removed from their Markan sequence and placed by Matthew in chapters
8-9, a construct which constitutes an extended miracle section of
the Matthean narrative. The last two modifications involve two
Markan episodes about the Twelve; Matthew brings these two
together. Note how Matthew favors groupings of material.
b) Another look at the chart also
reveals five obvious Lukan changes in order from the Markan sequence
(the changes clearly do not involve the same blocks of material that
Matthew changed). The first change involves Luke's use of a later
Markan pericope ("Jesus visits his hometown" 6:1-6) as a programmatic
episode which, in a greatly modified, expanded and Gentile-focused
form, serves as an introduction to the Lukan Jesus (placed at the
beginning of the Lukan story) and his concern for the lowly, "the poor,
the crippled, the lame, and the blind," and the Gentiles, of
course. The second change involves Luke's postponing Jesus' call
to his first disciples, i.e., after he has become known in the
story. Changes three and four involve Luke's rearranging the
Markan episodes so that crowds are in effect present for the speech,
which Luke places within that sequence of events (6:20-49). The
final major change involves Luke's placing of the pericope of "Jesus'
Kinsmen" in chapter 8, after Jesus' teaching in parables to underscore
who true believers and insiders really are, i.e., "those who hear the
word of God and do it" (8:21)--note that the underlined words
are added to the Markan text by Luke (see also Luke 8:18 which
emphasizes this topic of "doing" in far greater detail).
We concluded therefore that such
considerations (here about order or sequence of events) demonstrate
further the confidence one should have in the theory of Markan
priority.
Form Criticism. This
biblical discipline dates back to the mid-19th century when German
scholars lent their attention to the oral literature of Europe (the
Neogrammarians, the Grimms) and discovered and studied the various
shapes and forms of the units used by longer literary works or the
shape and form of smaller literary works, such as fables, fairy tales,
etc. These insights soon bore fruit in OT studies (work of H.
Gunkel--Genesis, 1901) and later in Gospel studies (see work of
R. Bultmann in 1921--also that of K.L. Schmidt and M.
Dibelius). Thus the discovery of "forms" came about through
the study of oral literature (first that of the popular literature of
East Europe, than that of early Hebrew narratives, and then the Gospel
as evidence of oral transmission before these works were put into
writing).
Scholars have isolated the
different "forms" employed by the Gospel writers, whether parables,
miracles, pronouncement stories, macarisms, etc. Each unit has a
form or shape and that form owes to its use and reuse during the
process of oral transmission (i.e., between the time of Jesus and the
writing of the Gospels). The method then deals not with the
structure, shape, or plan of the author's work or Gospel but rather
with the form or shape of the numerous small units (parables, miracles,
sayings) used by the evangelists to tell the story of Jesus.
Scholars became convince that the oral transmission of narrative and
discourse material invariably led to its acquiring formalized shapes;
see the examples given of miracles and their synoptic study. So,
miracles (whether cures, exorcisms, or nature miracles), call stories
(pronouncement stories really--"follow me"), parables, controversy
stories (see Mark 2:1-3:6 for five such consecutive forms, though the
first and last have been combined with miracles and the second with a
call story)--all have distinctive shapes called "forms." Form
criticism then aims to isolate, identify, and to study further the
shape of and role played by these traditional units or forms.
Gospel commentaries freely discuss the form characteristics of units a
Gospel reader would encounter in the text of an evangelist.
Remember; we surveyed much of Mark chapter 1 with the goal of
identifying the more obvious and recognizable forms. We looked at
the miracle ("he Stilling of the Storm," "the Healing of Simon's
Mother-in-law," etc). Note that we also focused on redactional
changes made by Matthew and Luke to the Markan text.
Redaction Criticism.
This relatively recent biblical method also finds its origin in German
scholarship, especially the post-Second World War work of Bultmann's
students: W. Marxen for Mark, G. Bornkamm for Matthew, and H.
Conzelmann for Luke. These scholars were duly impressed by the insights
gained from accepting the Two-Source Hypothesis and the brilliant work
of their mentor Bultmann on the forms used by the Synoptic
writers. They, however, became increasingly convinced that a
further step needed to be taken in Gospel analysis, namely, the
investigation of how the individual writers used the now-famous
literary units or forms of Bultmann.
Often also called composition
analysis, this method focuses first of all on how an author has used
specific units, forms, or elements of the tradition in composing a
scene or more generally in telling the life of Jesus. How does an
author edit or redact a text borrowed from Mark or Q?--the method is
somewhat problematic when applied to Mark since we do not possess that
writer's sources. What changes, additions have Matthew or Luke
imposed on the text of Mark? Do Luke or Matthew emphasize
different elements, reorganize the episode and place it in a different,
modified, or new context? For a study of Mark one must look more
closely at the presumed form and character of the received tradition,
e.g., see Mark's clear addition of 4:40 to the nature miracle of "the
Stilling of the Storm"--the lack of faith has no place in a miracle
story; its addition owes to the negative Markan presentation of the
disciples. Redaction criticism focuses on the evangelist as
author or writer rather than as collector of units (as does form
criticism). It is concerned about what the author does with
the tradition or unit of tradition being used and then seeks to explain
the reasons for the changes. By understanding the various,
numerous changes imposed upon the textual units and/or tradition
(especially for Mark), one begins to understand the various tendencies,
interests, and purpose of the Gospel writer. Beyond such a
comparative study (e.g., how Matthew's or Luke's version of an episode
or sayings unit compares with that of Mark?), redaction criticism or
composition analysis looks more broadly (as type of literary criticism)
at what the author is saying or claiming. It is concerned with
how the author organizes the material; in effect, it seeks to discern a
work's structure to understand why a writer wrote and what the work's
message might be. Redaction criticism or composition analysis, I
should note, is also interested in the author's style, purpose, and
plan.
Finally, we read in sequence a
series of contrasts between FC and RC, especially that the former deals
with the authors as collectors of forms or units, i.e., what we call
building blocks, while the later focuses on the Gospels and the
evangelists' use of form and tradition more generally as building
blocks to construct the overall works, both in terms of building and
structure.
In a series of notes (1-3) and
with further use of Throckmorton's synopsis, we examined the form as a
mold in which materials seemingly were poured (see # 1: "the Stilling
of the Storm" and "the Rebuking of the Unclean Spirit"). We
returned in note 2 to a lengthy form and redactional analysis of the
miracle, in this case again, "the Stilling of the Storm" (Mark 4:35-41
and parallels; see Harrington's discussion of this episode in Interpreting, pp. 100-105)--perhaps the preoccupation with storms and hurricanes indicates a post-Katrina syndrome!
We began a brief study of "the
Healing of Simon's Mother-in-law"--see note 3. While my
handout focused on Matthew's use of Mark, our attention, with the help
of Throckmorton, also took in an examination of Luke's redaction of the
same episode. We did not get to Luke's rewriting of the Markan
version of "Jesus' Baptism." It was also my intention to study
"the Healing of the Paralytic"--first Mark's combination of a
controversy with a miracle (2:1-12), then the Matthean and Lukan
rewriting of the episode (9:1-8 and 5:17-26, respectively). Time
permitting we would also have looked at "the Call of the Twelve" (Mark
3:13-19a and parallels), as well as the fourfold Lukan "Beatitudes" and
"Woes" (6:20-23 and 24-26, respectively)--the last would have involved
a look at Matthew's extensive list of "Beatitudes" (5:3-12) and quite
different and differently used sevenfold "Woes" (23:13-36).
Biblical scholarship, more
particularly Synoptic study and exegesis, involves all of the above
methods as they seek to understand the author, the audience, and the
message their text reveals to a modern, educated reader.
Next time (Monday--1/23), we will
begin a more lengthy study and focus on the Gospel of Mark. As
indicated on the presence sheet, please read Mark in its entirely
(using, consciously, the handout titled: "Mark: A Survey of Its Plot");
begin reading Jesus, chapter 4 (on webpage); begin
reading Harrington's treatment of Mark, both introduction and brief
commentary; and read pp. 1-9 of What Are They Saying about Mark?
For the last mentioned, I would especially welcome questions or
comments for our 10-15 minute discussion. We will focus on the
author, work, and audience in our first Markan encounter, a meeting I
am calling: "A General Literary Introduction."
Class 3. Methodological Introduction to Synoptics (1)
Literary Criticism, Other Literary Issues, Source Criticism
1/16/06
After a brief
discussion of historical, cultural issues, namely Jewish history,
Palestinian culture, and Christian beginnings (class 2), we now turn
our attention, also briefly, to literary issues, primarily the
principal methods employed in biblical scholarship to study or
elucidate the Synoptic Gospels. From the outset I would emphasize
the importance of reading D.J. Harrington, Interpreting the NT
(chapters 1-4 for literary criticism more generally, and 5, 6, and 8
for source, form, and redaction criticism, respectively) and more
briefly, E. Richard, Jesus: One and Many, chap. 2 (see
below). These two works will give you a good introduction to
methodological issues and to the use of literary methods.
1. Reading the Gospel Narratives
Reading itself
is an art. It is a craft we have learned over the years and one
which still baffles the lazy and inattentive. Actors are not
born; directors (of plays, etc) are the product of much labor and
insightful living and reading. Readers, likewise, must be mindful
of authors and readers, of tone, and style and logic. Readers
must be attentive concerning characters, points of view, and especially
of genre of text being read and of purpose and message being conveyed.
How does this
apply to the New Testament or the Synoptics in particular?
Despite much experience you may have had personally or see in others,
you must read the Gospel texts in the same manner--like literary texts,
an activity that requires the same skills and effort. These texts
are produced by a conscious author for a specific or intended
audience. Learning about all three is essential or at least most
helpful.
2. Literary Criticism
This
expression refers to the analysis, by modern scholar or student, of all
features of a literary text. What questions does one ask of a
text: who wrote it, why; what type or genre is it; what is its
structure; what images and other literary features does it
employ? Is it narrative (as the Synoptics are), epistolary, or
visionary literature? If it is a narrative, what characters does
it put into its plot? What role do these play in relation to
Jesus the main character? If one is dealing with a unit of a
larger work, such as a pericope, one needs to exam how it fits into the
larger work in terms of plot, of argument, or structure more
generally. How does the smaller unit contribute to the work's
more general purpose? Literary analysis presumes that an author
wrote a text for a hearer or reader and that the words, images, and
structural features used are the means chosen by the author to
communicate with the reader. All features of a literary work or
unit thereof are subject to literary analysis or scrutiny.
Finally, the expression "literary criticism" can include all the
methods used by scholars to examine texts (namely, the methods
discussed below; for this method as well as for the following ones, see
Harrington, Interpreting the NT; see especially chapters 1-4).
3. Source Criticism
This
expression designates the process whereby scholars search for and
discuss the sources or resources employed by an author to produce a
work or part thereof. While the Gospel writers made much use of
the Jewish Scriptures to formulate their stories about Jesus, they
nonetheless found the Jesus material they used in other sources; one
must admit that the main concern of the method in this case is the
resolution and explanation of what is called the Synoptic problem,
i.e., how does one explain the great similarities and the equally
enormous differences between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which have a
similar overall story of Jesus (i.e., a synoptic view of events).
Following upon the insights of nineteenth-century German scholars,
whether C. Lachmann, H.J. Holtzmann or others), scholarship has come to
a rather satisfactory solution for this problem. Almost all
scholars use the "two-source hypothesis" to explain the relation
between the three: Mark wrote first relying entirely on oral tradition
for the content of the story, while Matthew and Luke relied greatly on
Mark for the majority of their material as well as sequence of events
(Matthew uses c. 90% & Luke 50/60% of Mark). Also, they use
the Q source and additional oral material. In studying a unit of
Matthew's Gospel (or that of Luke) one needs briefly to establish the
source(s) of the passage and basically the relation of Matthew's texts
to the presumed source. The originality of Matthew's or Luke's
version is then examined by employing redaction criticism. See diagram
in class notes of "two-source hypothesis."
A further note
on the priority of Mark is needed here. We need to agree with the
following clear assessment of the issue: "The extensive parallels
to Mark in Matt. (90 per cent of Mark's verses) and in Luke (over 50
per cent), the high average of verbal agreement (above 51 per cent in
Matt. and 53 per cent in Luke), the relative agreement in order, the
stylistic and grammatical improvements in the later Gospels, the
softening or omission of bold Markan statements, and the vivid
character of Mark's Story, all combine to make it certain that Mark is
our earliest Gospel used as a source by Matthew and Luke," V. Taylor,
Mark, 1963, 11). Hopefully, we will have time next class period
to examine a number of the above statements concerning Markan priority,
especially the argument from order and other indications of Matthean
and Lukan use of Mark as their primary source for retelling the story
of Jesus to new audiences.
4. A Final Note
There are tools one might use. A good translation or two (the NRSV, the NAB as good literal, academic translation or more popular but satisfactory one, like the GNB)
might help the student to discern more fully the meaning of the
original (especially since the Greek is not directly accessible).
A synopsis (e.g., Throckmorton, Gospel Parallels, in effect our
textbook) will help the student to see in parallel columns the text one
might want to compare when dealing with the Synoptic Gospels and
especially to do some redaction criticism or textual analysis.
Also, one should be careful about important textual variants that might
occur for a text being read or studied (area of textual criticism--see
Mark 16:8 as discussed in class; also 1:1). Good solid, academic
commentaries are a must for insightful reading and pastoral and
personal use of texts (we will use short commentaries from the NJBC to be given later). Consult Harrington, Interpreting the NT and Richard, Jesus, chap 2, for further reading on the methods.
Next time we
will begin class with further comments, use of synopsis, on
source criticism , Markan priority, and a foretaste of redaction
analysis. We will then spend the remainder of class 4 on form and
redaction criticism. Again, see Harrington, Interpreting, chapters 6 and 8, and my own Jesus, chapter 2. Bring your Throckmorton and NRSV to class, as always.
Class 2. Historical, Social, Cultural Introduction to Synoptics
(1/11/06)
The Synoptic
Gospels, and surely the entire New Testament anthology, were
conditioned and produced by the complex and rich culture of the
time. It would be rather wise to acknowledge that these works are
culturally Jewish, Greek, Roman, and certainly Christian in character,
inspiration, and subject. It was our goal during today's class to
examine a number of historical, social, and cultural data to situate
the first three gospels in their proper setting.
1. Jewish History and Culture.
We presupposed here a brief, history of Palestine (from Alexander to
the first century AD or CE) by D.J. Harrington. Unexpressed, but
certainly presupposed was the long cultural, linguistic, and religious
history of Israel prior to 330 BC. In a world dominated by
Semitic culture, first Hebrew and then Aramaic during the dominance of
Persia throughout the Near East, Alexander the Great's eastern conquest
set in motion a radical change in Palestine and environs.
Avenging Greek pride, for deep humiliation in the past, by destroying
the hated Persian Empire, the young Macedonian ruler and conqueror
brought Greek culture to the center of the Persian conquered
territories and destroyed the Persian Empire completely. Not only
did Egypt, Syria, and areas east fall under the sway of Greek or
Macedonian dominance but so did Israel began a long hate/love
relationship with Hellenistic culture, so much so that many of its
inhabitants and rulers as well as later Christian writers and
communities adopted Greek as the lingua franca for the entire
region. Four centuries later the Synoptic Gospels, and the entire
NT, will be composed in koine or common Greek and will feature not only
the Semitic culture of Jesus, its main character, and of the host of
less dominant dramatis personnae but also a pronounced influence on
Jewish culture of Classical ideas, culture, and religious practices of
the Greek world and language.
The long
sweep of Greek and Roman culture in conjunction with the Hebrew
and Aramaic culture of the Jewish population is a fascinating
study. Indeed the role played by the following, among others,
also makes for fascinating study: the Seleucids in the guise of the
influence of Hellenizing Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the reaction of the
(Jewish, priestly) Maccabees, the evolving Jewish, nationalistic but
Hellenizing Hasmonean descendants of the Maccabees, the arrival and
long-felt influence of the young Roman Empire (the Greek East, less
than the Latin West at first) from the intervention of Pompey the Great
to the domination of Rome for centuries, the fascinating, subsequent
role played by the Idumean, Jewish members of the Herodian family as
Roman allies (Antipater, Herod the Great [37-4 BC]. Antipas, Archelaus,
and Phillip and even the Herodians of Mark 3:6; 12:13), and other
Greco-Roman influences and events, whether the long list of provocative
and corrupt governors, wars, and the pax romana itself. A brief,
repeated reading of the Harrington handout ("Jewish History from
Alexander") will not fail to provide new historical and cultural
insights into the background and character of the Synoptic
stories. Important to note here is that these Greek and Roman
influences and variety of cultural factors come into play in a Semitic,
Jewish milieu. These various cultural factors are superimposed on
one another to form the multifaceted cultural mix which we find in the
Synoptic Gospels.
At this
point in our discussion of Jewish culture and history, I introduced the
concept of dynamism (see handout part 1b). One can and should
review the entire sweep of Jewish history by paying close attention to
the dynamic interrelationship between the figures, forces, and
institutions involved in the development or evolution of Jewish
history. We look at the variety of reactions to the monumental
changes or crisis brought about by the Babylonian exile: from
successful economic and cultural absorption into Mesopotamian culture
and society to creative resistance to that culture by religious and
nationalist figures that led not only to the preservation of Jewish
traditions but also to the eventual return to Israel of the ψmen of the
exileδ with the approval and encouragement of the Persian
overlord. Comments were also made about the aristocratic, lay
Tobiads and the priestly, theocratic Oniads in the culture of the
post-exilic and Hellenistic periods. Such observations were a
prelude to a study of the dynamism involved in the interrelations
between Jewish groups during the time of Jesus, especially the concerns
of the politically-conscious, aristocratic Sadducees as they ruled the
country with the assistance of the Roman authorities and the relatively
contrary focus of the far more spiritual Pharisees whose influence was
more popular and personal (as opposed to political and public).
The former saw the temple and its various activities and traditions
(including the written Torah) as the center of Judaism, while the
latter insisted that Judaism was a religion of Torah, both written and
oral. The former had a far more political, economic, and
functional role in the ruling of the country, a role especially
personified in the high priestly functions (note the importance of the
Annanus family during the time of Jesus). The latter focused less
on temple worship and far more on synagogue activities of Torah reading
and preaching and fostered the role of scribes and sages who
specialized in the interpretation of the Torah and its application for the people of Israel.
Other groups
like the apocalyptic, monk-like Essenes of Qumran, the various groups
of revolutionaries and even Hellenistic factions played important roles
in the multicultural makeup of the Judaism of Jesusβ time. Of
course a great deal of this complex makeup of Israelite society
disappeared in 70 AD with the destruction of country and temple. Also,
it is clear that the group that continued to exist and began to assert
an even greater influence upon Jewish life were the Pharisees whose
heritage was carried forward by the activity of Rabbis and particularly
the Rabbinic Academy of Johann ben Zakkai in Jamnia.
Finally, it
should be noted that while the dynamics between Jewish tradition and
the early Jesus movement was multifaceted, as seen in the Pauline
correspondence, for our purpose it is important to stress that much of
Matthew's anti-Jewish sentiment and rhetoric (see especially chapter
23) owe to the dynamic conflicts between the post-70 Pharisees of
Palestine and the Jewish Christians of Matthew's community. Not
only was there dialogue between Matthew's church and "the synagogue
across the street," but there was the frequent exchange of bitter
sentiments and language.
2. Greco-Roman History and Culture.
It was my intention, via a handout on the Hellenistic and Roman periods
in Palestine, to review Jewish history first from the time of
Alexander and the Ptolemaic period to the long rule land influence
of the Hasmonean dynasty, even to the marriage of Herod to a prince of
the family in the late first century BC. We would have spoken of
Greek cultural influence in Palestine, economic and social structures
(especially seen in the Zenon papyri), the early Hellenization during
the Seleucid rule and the effect this had on Jewish history and thought
(especially the growth of apocalyptic ideology as related to the Book
of Daniel circa 164 BC), and especially the cultural and religious
history of the first century BC (see the growth of the Pharisee and
Sadducee parties and evolution of the Dead Sea community of
Qumran). Much would have been said here about the Greek
translation of the Jewish Scriptures, the Septuagint (LXX), c. 200 BC
in Egypt (perhaps under the sponsorship of some Ptolemaic figure), of
the importance of the works of Josephus (though later and of the Roman
period but all written in Greek) and of Philo Judaeus, a Jewish
Platonic philosopher from Alexandria (also of the Roman period).
Next we would have turned
to Jewish history from a Roman perspective, beginning even with Roman
interventions during the Maccabean period (c. 167f) but especially with
the intervention of Pompey in 63 BC to settle a Hasmonean
dispute. There is of course the interesting history of the
Herodian family (father, son, and grandsons--even great grandsons) as
their histories and political activity relate to the current Roman
Emperors (see handout). Also of interest, and seen briefly in
class were the lists of procurators or governors first of Judaea and
later of Palestine more generally and especially the list of high
priests from 6-41 AD and the dominance of the Annanus family (see the
gospel references to Annas and Caiaphas--Luke 3:2; John 18:13, 24; Acts
4:6--see also Matt 26:3, 57). We could then have discussed the
sad history of the war years between Rome and the struggling,
disintegrating Jewish state, whether the first or the second Jewish
revolts (66-70 and 132-35, respectively).
We mentioned briefly the
large variety and pervasive role of ("pagan") religion in Greco-Roman
society and the role and influence these played in the lives of
converts to Christianity. Even the prominence of healing and
medicine in the Roman Empire exerted influence on the gospel stories,
especially Mark, who presents Jesus prominently as a miracle
worker. Also, we commented repeatedly on the existence of the
four languages of Palestine and their importance for Jewish daily life
and presumably in the life of Jesus: the Hebrew of the Jewish
Scriptures and probably of the speech of many Jewish authorities and
learned men, the Aramaic of the majority of the Palestinian population,
whether of Jesus and his compatriots, of the more traditionalist
elements of the city and country folk and priests, religious and
political functionaries, the Greek of the Roman authorities, government
officials, and forward-looking and energetic entrepreneurs who
participated wholeheartedly in the economic , political, and cultural
life of the region, and the Latin of the ever-present soldiers and
lower government functionaries. The polyglot situation of
Palestine, no doubt, had deep effects on the society of Jesus' day and
certainly that of the early communities, whose members eventually put
the Jesus tradition into writing in the form of lives of the Master or
gospels.
3. Beginnings and Spread of the Jesus Movement.
As we approached the end of the class period we were only able to note
the rapid growth of the movement as it went from all Aramaic-speaking
Jewish membership to include Greek-speaking Jews also (see Acts 6:1f)
and then turned to Greek-speaking Gentiles--for the last mentioned we
presented Paul the Apostle as a model of Greek-speaking members setting
out throughout the Empire to preach to the Gentiles first of the Greek
speaking world then of the lands within and beyond the Roman Empire
(see discussion of Paul's ministry in Romans 15).
4. The Synoptics.
Without neglecting to underscore the importance of the year 70 AD and
the radical divide between the time of Jesus (20s-30s) before 70 AD and
that of the gospel writers (60s-80s) mainly after 70 AD, I insisted
that the culture of first-centuries BC and AD Palestine are of capital
importance for our understanding of Mark, Matthew, and Luke since they
are clearly Jewish, Greco-Roman documents written for the instruction
and edification of specific fellow-Christians whom we presume heeded
the teaching, preaching, and perspectives of these well-known
evangelists.
We turn our attention in
the next classes to the literary character of the Synoptics. We
will spend two days on this methodological issue--see Harrington, Interpreting (all ten chapters really) and Jesus,
chapter 2. We will focus on literary criticism and its many
concerns and then on the principal literary methods used by biblical
scholarship to study both the NT and in particular the Synoptics:
literary criticism (textual criticism, translation, literary theory and
practice in general), source criticism (important here as "two-source
hypothesis), form criticism, redaction criticism and literary and
textual analysis and exegesis more generally.
Class 1. Introduction to Synoptic Study
(1/9/06)
After viewing the course's
syllabus, particularly the focus on the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and
Luke, we turned our attention to Synoptic studies. The first
three gospels form part of our NT anthology. They along with John
are ancient narratives that have as their goal the presentation of the
figure of Jesus and are placed at the beginning of the NT list
(canon). These works are of course ancient, religious literature
that require considerable attention to ascertain their character,
purpose, and message.
There is a sizable amount
of ancient literature on Jesus, even in the NT itself and in roughly
contemporary but non-canonical texts, but our course will focus on the
three gospel narratives which we label the "syn-optics" ("see
together"). These works have roughly the same narrative format
and employ, for the most part, the same narrative and discourse
material to tell the story of Jesus. Early in the history of
scholarship it was recognized that these three texts were literarily
dependent, that is, that the narrative sequence was derived from Mark
and that the authors of Matthew and Luke rewrote and expanded that
story for new audiences. At this point we examined briefly a few
examples of synoptic texts: the baptism of Jesus, his first preaching,
his healing of Simon's mother-in-law, and the temptation (see Mark
1:9-15, 29-31 and Matthean and Lukan parallels). Such detailed
comparison introduced us to source, (form) and redaction
criticism. We will focus greatly on the last mentioned and will
make great use of Throckmorton's synopsis (Gospel Parallels).
In this way we will focus greatly on each text and author and will seek
to discern the author's message for the intended audience.
We next turned our
attention to epistemological, other methodological, and hermeneutical
issues. Such serious and partly unfamiliar terms introduce us to
some important, preliminary considerations. First, we must
consider the nature of the material we are examining
(epistemology). We may be focusing on the figure of Jesus but we
are further removed from him in historical and narrative terms.
We must recognize that the historical figure who lived, acted, spoke in
first-century Palestine is known to us only through mediated, later
documents of followers who put some of the traditions about him in
writing. We must see both that these various documents (Mark,
Matthew, Luke, etc) vary greatly from one to the other and that their
material and/or sources were the product of a length and formative oral
period. From this we insist that the Jesus or historical level is
accessible, in a limited way, only by the careful examination of the
material found in the written or gospel level, that that written level
is a complex amalgam and end product of a creative period of the early
community's activity and thinking, and that the focus of our study is
that written level in the guise of its three principal documents, the
Synoptic Gospels. One can attempt to reconstruct a picture of the
historical Jesus since these documents have retained a variety of
historical data but the Jesus of history or real Jesus is well beyond
our limited sources and certainly, clouded by the strangeness,
distance, and difference of the ancient and multifaceted culture of
first-century Palestine.
Secondly, there are two
very important methodological areas of concern for us to
consider. The first is of a historical nature, whether the
historical issues raised by the Synoptic texts, the history contained
therein, or the history and culture presupposed and contained by these
Jesus narratives; the second is of a literary nature. The first
is often focused on a quest for the historical Jesus (a third quest by
the latest count) but by far more important is the quest for an
ever-better understanding of the culture of first-century Palestine,
whether that within which Jesus lived (the 20s-30s) or that addressed
by the Synoptic writers (the 60s-80s). The second methodological
issue is literary since we are dealing ultimately with texts, literary
documents produced by conscious authors, employing contemporary
literary conventions, reflecting on community tradition and stories,
and addressing community concerns. We will indulge (or should) in
the use of any literary method that sheds light on the texts, authors,
messages, and audiences of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Of
course we will focus on source, form, and redaction criticism (see
Harrington, Interpreting, esp. chapters 5,6, and 8, as well as Jesus: One and Many,
chap. 2). We will of course be interested in obtaining a better
grasp of why each of these Synoptic writers wrote, what their message
was to their intended audiences, and other related concerns, such as
the portrait each presents of Jesus.
Thirdly, in hermeneutical
terms we will be interested in "meaning then," namely, the message each
writer formulated for the benefit of their respective communities.
For this class session you would do well to read Jesus: One and Many,
chap 1 and begin to peruse the chapters of Harrington, whether on
textual criticism (2), on translation (3) or on literary criticism more
generally (1 and 4)--for some early discussion of "meaning now" see
Harrington, chapter 10. Finally, reading about ancient Jewish and
Greco-Roman culture and history will be of great assistance for our
next class period; see Harrington, chap 9; Roetzel, The World That Shaped the NT, chapters 1-3, and again Jesus: One and Many, chap. 2.
Jesus: One and Many, Earl Richard
***********************************
*************************
****************
********
Richard, Jesus: One and Many
JESUS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Chapter 1
The central figure of Christianity is a person
named Jesus Christ, a man who lived centuries ago in Palestine and who,
Christians insist, was God's son. From the beginning, according
to the sources, perceptions of him differed from community to
community. Even within orthodox Christianity that perception has
varied considerably from generation to generation. Furthermore,
since the rise of critical scholarship during the last two and a half
centuries, theories about him, images of him, and claims concerning him
have proliferated. Now, nearly twenty centuries after the fact,
the Christian believer must still read the New Testament to find out
who Jesus of Nazareth was, what he was like, what he did and taught,
and what happened to him.
"Jesus of Nazareth"
To the Christian, exposed annually to the
liturgical cycle and its dramatic enactment of Jesus' life, it may come
as a surprise that there is controversy concerning what happened to
Jesus. Instructed about these matters as a child and having
recited passages from the ancient creeds ("suffered under Pontius
Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried"), the believer takes it for
granted that the Jews, or, more specifically, the Jewish authorities,
were responsible, with the assistance of the Roman governor, for the
trial and death of Jesus.
If it is an established fact that Jesus was
executed during the procuratorship of Pilate (c. 25-35), the
circumstances, motivation, and varying degrees of participation and
responsibility of actors in the drama are unclear. Who condemned
Jesus to death; was it Pilate or the Jewish authorities? During
Roman rule did the religious leaders of Jerusalem or Sanhedrin have
jurisdiction over cases involving capital punishment?
Furthermore, what role did Pilate play in the whole affair? The
relatively sympathetic portrait given of him in the gospels has always
puzzled scholars, for Pilate did not have good press among ancient
historians, particularly the Jewish writer Josephus, who is certainly
not anti-Roman in his sympathies. Perhaps NT authors tipped the
scale toward Rome at the expense of Jerusalem. Also one finds in
individual gospels varying treatments of both Jewish and Roman
authorities, whether in terms of content (episodes underscoring plot,
complicity, or the reticence of different characters of the story) and
of attitude (sympathy, antipathy, polemics, or patronage). Thus,
at the very least, one is forced to distinguish between the attitudes
and views of members of the early church and those manifested by Jesus
himself, if one reads different gospel accounts with a degree of
seriousness.l
Besides one might ask: why was he
executed? Was it because of blasphemy (was this sufficient cause
for capital punishment in Jewish law?), because of seditious royal,
messianic claims (the gospels offer conflicting evidence), or because
of some power play involving a miscarriage of justice (armed
resistance, religio-political acts such as driving out of merchants in
the temple area, or abrogation of due process by some of the actors
involved)?2 Should we accept these factors as the motivation for
the trial, we would be forced to adjust our image of Jesus
accordingly--a misunderstood, unlucky man or a mistaken dreamer--in any
event one deserving not respect but sympathy or pity.
What happened to bring about his death?
If we admit that the whole episode of Jesus of Nazareth was fully human
in its dimensions then we are led to seek the cause for his death in
the circumstances of first century Palestine and in his life and
teaching. To view his death as the mechanical working out of a
divine plan is to belie the intrinsic human character of the
drama. The ambiguity of the evidence leads modern scholars and
believers to diverse interpretations of Jesus' life and therefore to a
large variety of images of him. The understanding and focusing of
these images of Jesus of Nazareth will occupy us throughout this volume.
Anyone who inquires in some detail concerning
what Jesus did and taught is in for a surprise, for the matter is
neither simple nor the solution ready at hand. The
complexity of the issue is to a great extent due to the diversity of
the sources. The hallmark of Jesus' teaching according to the
Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) is the parable and aphoristic
saying;3 however, the Gospel of John presents no parables and portrays
Jesus as one who teaches in long, repetitious discourses.4
Furthermore, Paul, the earliest and most prolific writer of the New
Testament, betrays no knowledge of Jesus' parables and relatively
little of his other teachings.5
What was the content of his teaching? If
the central concern of his message was "the kingdom of God" why is this
expression rarely found outside the Synoptics and hardly ever in the
literature of the early Church? Did Jesus preach a future or
present, a spiritual or social, a human or heavenly kingdom?6 How
much did his message differ from the best that Judaism had to
offer? Did Jesus come to abolish, to fulfil, or to replace
Judaism and its Torah? Did Jesus offer a new vision of the
world and its social order? Was he a prophet, a lawgiver, a
revolutionary? What did he offer his audience: a fresh
understanding of life, society, and God, a new vision of history, of
religion, or of human responsibility?7 Of the various concepts
found in the New Testament, which are owing to Jesus of Nazareth, to
various early Christian communities, or to the writers themselves?8
There is similar ambiguity concerning Jesus'
activity. For example, the length of his public ministry is
unknown. If one were to follow the Synoptics or John one could
conclude that his public activity lasted a few months (Mark) or three
years (John). Did his ministry include the Gentiles or Jews
only?--either response causes difficulty to the NT reader. Did
Jesus baptize; did he found or intend to found a new community, one
distinct from historical Israel?9 Did Jesus predict, stage, or
resist his death? Did he drive out the merchants from the temple
at the beginning of his ministry (John) or just prior to his arrest
(Synoptics)? Did this episode bring about his death, as implied
by the Synoptics (contra John)?
Students of the New Testament agree that the
unifying subject of these writings is Jesus the Christ and what he
means to or demands from his followers. But precisely what he was
like or what his background was is not easily discerned. It is
unclear whether Jesus had any education although there are hints of
surprise at his knowledge. To what class or social group did his
family belong? Was Jesus of royal or priestly lineage? Did
he belong to or was he influenced by any of the religious or political
groups of the time? Was he Galilean or Judaean in outlook and in
sympathy? Was he influenced by the apocalyptic, the political, or
the Hellenizing (Greek) tendences of first century Palestine? How
similar or different was Jesus from contemporary Jewish teachers?
Was he primarily a rabbi, a teacher, a wonder worker, a charismatic
holy man (a Hasid), or a member of the Dead Sea community, all of which
had prototypes in contemporary Judaism?10
Was Jesus a man limited in power and knowledge
(Mark 6:5 and 13:32) or one who avoided public disclosure of his
messianic role (e.g., Mark 3:12)? Did he claim to be a new Moses
or "God with us" (Matthew)? Was he severe and demanding (Matthew)
or kind and gentle with the poor and lowly (Luke)? Was his power
such that at the sound of his voice opponents were struck down (John
18:6)? Was he antagonistic toward or friendly with the Sadducee
and Pharisee authorities (Mark 2:1f. and Luke 14:1f.)? Was he a
religious Jew or a less than observant Galilean?
If we were able to answer all of the above
queries with satisfaction, we would still have to grapple with the
question: who was he; what claims were made in his name; what did he
claim to be? Undoubtedly, Jesus was a man, despite repeated
claims through the centuries to the contrary. But was he God's
son? If he was, in what sense must this term be understood?
This expression is predicated of Jesus on numerous occasions in the New
Testament. But what did the readers of these works understand by
that term or other titles (Son of Man, Christ, Lord, Savior, Son of
David, etc.) used by or about Jesus?11 Would Jewish and Gentile
Christian readers interpret titles or sayings of Jesus in the same way?
Our understanding of who Jesus was is
complicated both by the process which produced the early communities
and their literature and by centuries of evolving christological
tradition. Jesus was a Jew who lived in a Palestinian milieu,
used Jewish concepts and modes of expression, and preached to Jewish
audiences. A century later, however, the Jesus movement had
spread beyond Palestine; its members consisted primarily of Gentile
Christians; and its language and culture were those of the Greco-Roman
rather than of the Semitic world. Sayings and stories once at
home in Palestine and communicated in Aramaic to Jewish audiences were
now transposed into a new language and addressed to unfamiliar
hearers. With the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army in
70, there disappeared the original ideational and geographic center of
both Judaism and of the fledgling Jesus movement.
"Modern Scholarship and Our Knowledge of Jesus"
While one can isolate occasional remarks
regarding the ambiguous historical character of the NT books (e.g.,
Celsus on the virgin birth, Origen concerning textual problems, Clement
of Alexandria on the nature of John's gospel, Dionysius of Alexandria
on the authorship of the Book of Revelation, or Julian the Apostate on
inconsistencies in the scriptures),12 one must wait for the eighteenth
century before critical attention is directed to the study of the
gospels. The intellectual revolution of the Enlightenment saw the
flourishing of scientific research. Since all areas of human
endeavor were being submitted to critical investigation, it was to be
expected that the bible and the gospels in particular should receive
their share of attention. The writings of John Locke in England
(1632-1704), Richard Simon in France (1638-1712), and Hermann Reimarus
in Germany (1694-1768), initiated the critical approach to the
bible. Basic questions, initially concerning miracles, inerrancy
of the biblical record, and historical accuracy, caused interest and
anxiety in scholarly and ecclesiastical circles. The study of
mythology, ancient Semitic languages, and Classical culture and
literature intensified the investigation of the NT books as literature
of their time. The development of scientific inquiry also
influenced the critical study of Jesus of Nazareth.13
Earlier, theologians had been content,
following the second century Diatessaron or Tatian, to produce
harmonies of the life of Jesus by interweaving gospel episodes within
the Johannine framework. This presumably achieved both a unified
picture of Jesus' life and ministry for the believer and countered
doubts raised by skeptics concerning inconsistences and contradictions
in the gospel record.
Critical scholarship, however, began to
distinguish between the Synoptic gospels and John and to base its
inquiries concerning Jesus upon the former since the latter was
obviously more theological than historical. It became
increasingly clear that the first three gospels were not independent
versions of the life of Jesus but instead that there was a literary
relationship between them. Eventually this led to the generally
accepted theory that Mark was the first written gospel and that Matthew
and Luke borrowed freely from it to compose their own texts.14
Because of critical inquiry Jesus was situated
in his Palestinian context and cause and effect relations were sought
between his life and the socio-political currents of that time.
Explanations of gospel sayings were sought in Jesus' Jewish background,
whether messianic, apocalyptic, or Pharisaic. Such concerns
marked the beginnings of modern historical research and contributed to
the development of biblical scholarship. Another legacy of the
Enlightenment was an increased awareness of science and order in the
universe, an attitude labeled of rationalism. Scholars as a
result adopted a skeptical attitude toward an uncritical past for which
miracles and the intermingling of the natural with the supernatural was
commonplace. Instead, researchers sought a type of religion,
therefore a Jesus, compatible with the dictates of reason.
A last, crucial development should be
mentioned, namely, the distinguishing by scholars between the facts
about Jesus (what he taught and did during his lifetime) and the
beliefs of his early followers (what they taught about him in their
preaching and writings). This insight, usually attributed to the
eighteenth century scholar H. Reimarus, led to the classic formulation
of the problem at the end of the nineteenth century by M. Kahler as
"the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith." On the one hand,
scholars inferred from this distinction that the goal to unravel the
actual plot of Jesus' life using clues derived from the data of the
gospel narratives. On the other hand, many, concluding that the
gospel texts were entirely the product of the believing community,
either despaired of reaching the historical Jesus and settled for the
teaching of the early church or sought in this distinction a basis for
explaining the human and divine elements of the early credal formulas.
The late eighteenth, the nineteenth, and now
the twentieth centuries have seen numerous attempts to reconstruct the
life of Jesus, each as much the product of its author's presuppositions
and imagination as a genuine look at the data. Albert Schweitzer,
in his clasic work, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, noted that each
generation found in the biblical text or created from its clues a Jesus
according to its own image and need (although he himself did not heed
his own advise). Rationalists (Thomas Jefferson included) had
been busy excising the miraculous from the gospel story so as to
produce a natural, but noble religious ideal, one which recent liberal
theologians would qualify as "the quintessential religion" (e.g., A.
Harnack or P. Tillich). Authors of varying intellectual
backgrounds began to seek in the biblical text the scenario for
countless romanticized lives of Jesus: of a loving but misunderstood
man (E. Renan), of a mistaken, apocalyptic visionary (A. Schweitzer),
of a revolutionary earthly messiah (S.G.F. Brandon or A.B. Cleage), or
a messianic schemer (H.J. Schonfield). Others treated the
biblical text as a challenging puzzle from which to draw clues for
understanding Jesus' life. As a result fictionalized lives were
published claiming that Jesus had been a member of an Essene community
(from K.F. Bahrdt in the eighteenth century to wild speculations after
the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s), the founder of a
secret society (M. Smith), or a law-abiding married Jew (W.F.
Phipps). Still others, either because their outlook could not
countenance the miraculous or because they viewed the Jesus of the
gospels as a creation of the early church, sought to portray him as a
great moral teacher whose followers soon came to regard as more than
human, but whose teaching was of a natural, spiritual character.
This list is incomplete both because it is
schematic and because such attempts to portray Jesus persist.
Just as revolutionary lives of Jesus were common in the past, so one
continues to find Marxist and liberation portraits in the
present. There seems to be no limit to imagination or need.
Believers and theologians continue to view Jesus of Nazareth in a
variety of ways, from one extreme to another, from "Son of God to Super
Star."15
"Quest for the Historical Jesus"
As a result of his extensive survey of
19th-century lives of Jesus and their philosophical underpinnings,
Schweitzer concluded that each modern writer created a Jesus according
to that writer's expectations, and further insisted that it was
impossible to discover with any assurance the Jesus of history.
Early 20th-century German biblical scholars, Rudolf Bultmann in
particular, added their considerable weight to Schweitzer's negative
evaluation of the data. Little could be known about Jesus;
instead attention could be more profitably directed to the Christ of
faith, that is, the content of the kerygma or preaching of the early
church. The results of form-critical work,16 seemed to confirm
Schweitzer's conclusion since the gospels were thought to be composed
almost entirely from traditions of the early church's preaching.
Bultmann has often insisted that faith then
and now is based on the commitment of Jesus' followers, not upon the
facts of the Master's life. The gospels and Christian faith
itself were fundamentally kerygmatic and not historical. The task
of the biblical scholar, as Bultmann saw it, was to investigate the
preaching of the early community and its development in the NT
writings. While it should be noted that such skepticism
with regard to the quest was not shared by French and English speaking
scholars, the issue came to a head in the post-war years when a student
of Bultmann, E. Kasemann, issued a call in 1954 for a new quest for the
historical Jesus, a quest which dominated 1960s scholarship.
Numerous books and articles were produced to examine the philosophical
and theological basis for such an endeavor and to formulate criteria to
discern within the biblical literature elements relating to Jesus of
Nazareth.
A variety of criteria for authenticity have
been proposed. Since it is readily agreed that none of the
gospels, even Mark the oldest, is prima facie a document of historical
intent, scholars endeavor to work with evidence which has multiple
attestations. Sayings or events which seem to occur in different
strands of the tradition (e.g., Mark, Matthean-Lukan source, John) gain
a greater degree of probability, although even at this level the
tradition could reflect early Christian concerns rather than facts from
the life of Jesus. The criterion of uniqueness or discontinuity
is often proposed. If, for example, some element in the gospel
record cannot be attributed to either contemporary Judaism or to the
interests of the early church then it must relate to the Jesus
level. There is an obvious weakness in this kind of criterion
since Jesus would have assimilated elements from his Jewish background
and have had a profound influence on his followers. Another
criterion stresses the influence of eschatological and apocalyptic
views on the sayings and thinking of Jesus. As a result of the
research particularly of J. Weiss, A. Schweitzer, and Dead Sea Scrolls
scholars, it is commonly recognized that Jesus' sayings are embued with
apocalyptic eschatology. Constant tension is felt between the
present and the future, the divine acting within the human sphere, and
the "already and not-yet" character of Jesus' ministry. Along
with these criteria scholars apply a variety of literary methods to
investigate the Jesus tradition in the quest for the historical figure
behind the NT writings.
The results of the quest (old or new) have
been variously assessed. Recently book-length portraits of Jesus
have been produced (e.g., G. Bornkamm17), re-creations of his teaching
attempted (e.g., N. Perrin18), and gospel portraits proposed (e.g.,
H.C. Kee and J.D. Kingsbury19). The picture of Jesus of
Nazareth can be expansively drawn as Bornkamm does or it can be as
tersely, and reductively, given as in the following:20
His name was Jesus (Yeshu); he was the son of Mary
and his putative father was Joseph. He was probable
born in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great
(therefore before 4 B.C.). He grew up in Nazareth as
a carpenter, was a Galilean who presumably had little
education, and had brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3).
He exercised a brief, itinerant Galilean ministry of
preaching and healing--Jewish sources accuse him of
sorcery. He used parables and eschatological pro-
nouncements in his preaching, concentrated on the
imminent coming of God's kingdom, enjoyed a certain
popularity, and created an inner group of followers.
He offered a severe critique of the Law and preached
repentance as a means to covenant fellowship for rich
and poor alike.
He traveled to Jerusalem, where, after a brief
ministry (involving a meal with his followers and
confrontation with the religious authorities), he was
brought to trial at the instigation of the Jewish
leaders and executed by the Roman authorities during
the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. In the face of
death he showed real anxiety (Mark 14:33f; 15:34).
After his death, some of his followers claimed he had
been raised from the dead and had been seen by some
(gospels and 1 Cor 15:3-7).
The quest has provoked a serious ideological
battle. Some theologians opt for a less critical approach to the
question. By minimizing the role played by the early community in
the formation of the tradition, this option sees little difference
between the Jesus of history and the Christ preached by the early
Christian missionaries. One does not expects serious theological
activity from such a stance, since it does not acknowledge the
existence of the problem. Another option is to pursue the quest
in all earnestness and to posit its historical reconstruction as the
basis for christology. Opposed to this position is the choice to
abandon the quest and to opt for some formulation of the earliest
Christ-kerygma, i.e., the fundamental belief of the first Christian
followers of Jesus. This then becomes the foundation for
christological speculation. The last two options present serious
challenges to theological inquiry. On the one hand, the latter
opts for a theology of the word which confronts the hearer but which
also deemphasizes the historical Jesus. There seems to be a
concern that faith may be compromised by overly historical
considerations, a posture which L.E. Keck advisedly calls "a Protestant
understanding of faith."21 Granted that faith should not seek its
object in the reconstructed life of Jesus by the biblical scholar, one
must still seek the relationship of the person presented in the gospels
to the faith claims made in his name by early followers. On the
other hand, the option for the quest betrays an excesive concern for
history and historicity. Faith and history are by no means the
same and often make strange bed-fellows. Frequently implied in
such an historical approach is that the Jesus of history, if known
correctly, will reveal the fullness of christological
development. Such an option reads too much into the historical
level and tends to rob faith of its dynamics. In reponse to both
positions, we might cite Keck's conclusion: "though the historical
Jesus is but a part of the whole of Christology, it is the crucial part
without which nothing else has validity or significance in the long
run."22
"'Historical Jesus' or 'Jesus in the New Testament'?"
The quest is a thing of the past, a popular
topic of the l960s. While some scholars were formulating criteria
for discerning the authentic sayings of Jesus (ipsissima verba), others
were studing the evangelists as writers on their own terms. Less
attention was given to the pre-gospel level of the material and more to
the gospels themselves. Instead of seeking the Jesus behind the
NT documents, these scholars directed their attention to the image of
Jesus which the evangelists presented in their works.
The quest for the historical Jesus is a
legitimate endeavor. It is an area which should receive the
attention of critical scholarship, but whether it should be, negatively
or positively, as central to scholarly endeavor as it was a generation
ago is questionable.23 Theologians have come to realize that the
New Testament presents not one but rather a diversity of theologies and
christologies, all within the NT canon or official list.
Attention should be given to these responses occasioned by the life and
teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. Who he was, what he was like, what
he did and taught, and what happened to him are important items both
for the scholar's agenda and the believer's overall perspective.
This, however, constitutes only the background for christology, since
christology, properly speaking, begins with the diverse responses of
Jesus' followers in light of his death and resurrection.24
The goal of this study, therefore, will be to
survey the variety of images which NT writers present of Jesus of
Nazareth. He was many things to many communities. What
twentieth-century Christians have at their disposal in the New
Testament are many "mediated images" of the one who is the object of
faith. Since, as is generally agreed, a balanced christology and
spirituality should be based on that person and what he means, biblical
scholarship holds out a challenge to the modern reader to be aware of
the rich diversity which the believing community's books present,
whether overtly or between the lines.
The quest of this book is not the historical
Jesus but the pictures or images of Jesus which exist in the New
Testament. After a brief introduction to the issues (part I),
attention will be given to Jesus as presented in the gospels and Acts
(part II), as perceived by Paul and his disciples (part III), and as
viewed in the remaining books of the New Testament (part
IV). The study will conclude with observations on Jesus in
early post-NT times (part V).
As diverse forces within the early communities
vied with one another for allegiance, credibility, and authority, the
variety of interpretations of Jesus succumbed to the historical
process. Some became normative; others were forgotten; and still
others were modified in subsequent theological development.
Realizing that the historical process, as it affects the developing
tradition, tends to synthesize differences and to impose uniformity on
the whole, it is important that, in examining the development of the
Jesus tradition, one consider the diversity which the ages either
forgot or judged nonmainstream. The insights of early believers,
the images of Jesus from different communities, and the many responses
elicited by the man from Nazareth merit our attention for they are both
the witnesses on which faith is based and the path (via the NT
writings) to Jesus of Nazareth, "the paradigm for man and the parable
of God."25 We turn our attention, therefore, to the early
church's books since they enshrine the movement's earliest images of
the Master and contain the clues which we need to understand and
appreciate this precious legacy.
NOTES
l. See J.A. Fitzmyer, A Christological
Catechism: New Testament Answers (NY: Paulist, l982), for an
easy-to-read and balanced treatment of such "historical issues" as "who
was responsible for the death of Jesus?" (58-62), "do the gospel
stories present an accurate factual account of the teaching and deeds
of Jesus of Nazareth?" (7-l0), "how are we to understand the reference
to the brothers and sisters of Jesus in the New Testament?" (7l-73), or
"after the resurrection was Jesus proclaimed unambiguously from the
start as Son of God, equal to the Father?" (89-9l).
2. Among the many works on this topic, one
might consult E. Rivkin, What Crucified Jesus? The Political
Execution of a Charismatic (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984) or the more
technical Jesus and the Politics of His Day, eds, E. Bammel and C.F.D.
Moule (London: Cambridge University, l985) and The Trial of Jesus:
Cambridge Studies, ed., E. Bammel (London: Cambridge University, l970).
3. Consult Fitzmyer's answers to two basic
questions concerning Jesus' preaching: "what themes in the gospels are
accepted as representing the teaching of Jesus himself?" and "what did
Jesus teach about the kingdom of God?" A Christological Cathecism,
23-29; see also J. Fenton, What Was Jesus' Message? (London: SPCK,
l97l) and R.H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus' Teaching
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978).
4. D.M. Smith, John (Philadelphia: Fortress, l976) 2-18.
5. L.E. Keck, Paul and His Letters
(Philadelphia: Fortress, l980) 37-42 and J. Murphy-O'Connor, Becoming
Human Together: The Pastoral Anthropology of St. Paul (Wilmington:
Glazier, l982) l9-32.
6. M. Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist?
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) and B.D. Chilton, ed., The Kingdom of
God in the Teaching of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
7. E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).
8. For a short discussion of the three types
of materials contained in the gospels and the corresponding stages in
the development of the Jesus tradition (the Jesus, oral, and gospel
levels), see our discussion in chapter 3, as well as Fitzmyer, A
Christological Catechism, l8-23.
9. G. Lohfink, Jesus and Community: The Social
Dimension of Christian Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
10. See G.S. Sloyan, Jesus in Focus: A Life in
Its Setting (Mystic: Twenty-Third Publications, 1983) or the more
technical Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms,
eds. J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nickelsburg (Chico: Scholars, 1980) and G.
Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (NY:
Macmillan, 1974).
11. See A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints
of History (Philadelphia: Westminster, l982), especially chaps 6 and 7
on "Christ" and "Son of God," l20-73; also Fitzmyer, Catechism,
82-9l. One might still consult the older but insightful
work of O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963).
12. The opinions of these various authors are discussed in chaps 7, ll, and especially l3.
13. For brief surveys of this topic, see H.C.
Kee, Jesus in History: An Approach to the Study of the Gospels (NY:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, l977), chap l: "The Rise of Historical
Criticism in the Study of the Gospels," pp. 9-39 and J.H. Neyrey,
Christ Is Community: The Christologies of the New Testament
(Wilmington: Glazier, 1985), 7-26. For a different
perspective on the rise of modern criticism, see H.G. Reventlow, The
Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1985), who maintains that Deism rather than the Enlightenment
was at the core of this development.
14. Biblical methods are discussed briefly in the following chapter.
15. J.H. Hayes, Son of God to Super Star:
Twentieth-Century Interpretations of Jesus (Nashville: Abingdon, l976),
devotes entire chapters to the various theories (mainly sensational
ones) noted above.
16. See a discussion of this method in the following chapter.
17. Jesus of Nazareth (NY: Harper & Row, l96l).
18. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (NY: Harper & Row, l967).
19. Jesus in History and Jesus Christ in
Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, l98l),
respectively. We should also note here a "story of Jesus"
series by Fortress Press: of Matthew (R.A. Edwards, 1985), of Mark (W.
Kelber, 1979), of Luke (O.C. Edwards, 1981), and of John (R. Kysar,
1984).
20. See Kee, Jesus in History, 298-99 and
Fitzmyer, A Chrsitological Catechism, l6-l7, for different summaries.
21. A Future for the Historical Jesus: The
Place of Jesus in Preaching and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, l98l)
37.
22. Ibid., 38.
23. The current scholarly and pastoral project
known as the "Jesus Seminar" headed by R. Funk, a project attempting to
classify sayings of Jesus according to probable historicity, is a good
example of the continuing interest of many in the quest for the
historical Jesus.
24. Some scholars propose the expression
"incipient or implicit christology" to describe what is presumed to
have been Jesus' critical stance vis-a-vis God, the Law, and the
kingdom. See for example, I.H. Marshall, The Origins of New
Testament Christology (Leicester, InterVarsity, 1977), who, after
asking: "Did Jesus have a Christology?" responds in the affirmative,
namely, that "the origins of the church's Christology lie in the use of
Jesus' own Christology" (57).
25. Future for the Historical Jesus, 265.
***********************************
*************************
****************
********
Richard, Jesus: One and Many
BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Chapter 2
Before initiating a study of individual NT
authors and their respective images of Jesus, it is helpful to consider
the rudiments of NT study. Since this "book" is in reality an
anthology of early Christian works, i.e., ancient, religious, Christian
literature of the first century, it is necessary to dwell on each of
these facets. The writings are the product of creative voices
within the early communities and of the interaction of these leaders
with the social and cultural forces in their society. We address
first the historical-cultural matrix of the beginnings of the Jesus
movement in order to see the movement's self-understanding.
Secondly we will consider the principal literary methods which biblical
scholars employ to discern the communities' varying portraits of their
founder.
Since biblical studies developed as a result
of the intellectual revolution set in motion by the Enlightenment and
more recently by the astounding rediscovery of the Near Eastern and
Hellenistic cultures that produced both the Old and New Testaments, the
modern reader is confronted by the fundamental problem of the nature of
the methods and the wisdom of employing these relatively new approaches
to the study of Jesus and of NT literature.l On the one hand,
scholars attempt to rediscover the historical and cultural matrix of
the literary productions under discussion and have increasingly more
data and sophisticated tools at their disposal to pursue this
goal. The first part of this chapter will focus upon this
cultural matrix. On the other hand, the large quantity and
variety of ancient literary texts discovered throughout what are called
the "bible lands," the increasing sophistication of modern theories of
literary (biblical) interpretation, and the vast collections of
materials and the reconstructions of these ancient cultures in
political, cultural, and sociological terms have forced current readers
to take seriously the axiom that ancient texts should not be isolated
from their cultural and literary milieu. They are compelled to
examine literary conventions, forms, and narratives comparable to those
encountered in the biblical text, to reconstruct the historical and
cultural forces that were brought to bear on these authors and
audiences, and to employ the insights of literary critics to delve into
the structure and meaning of these writings. The second part of
the chapter will address these literary concerns.
Before proceeding to the principal topics of
this chapter a final problem requires attention. While many
routinely refer to the approach described above as the
"historical-critical method" and thus find therein much to criticize,2
it is this writer's contention that the label itself is a
misnomer. Instead one should speak of the "literary-critical
method," since one is dealing first of all with texts, conventions and
forms of verbal expression, and various literary genres. Even
historical works are by definition literature and participate in
varying degrees in the conventional modes of literary expression.
Biblical methods are not essentially, nor primarily historical in
perspective or goal. Instead they are defined by the objects to
be studied, namely, ancient, religious, literary texts from a variety
of backgrounds and with considerable range of complexity in literary,
historical, and religious terms. The goal of NT study is not the
rediscovery and recreation of what happened in Jesus' life, though this
can be a consideration, but rather the explication and appreciation of
literary works which present specific perspectives on Jesus of Nazareth
and are the products of the creative voices within the early
communities which professed him to be God's agent and son.
"Social, Historical, and Cultural Milieu"
The New Testament reflects the period in which
its writers formulated their images of Jesus and their advice to
communities throughout the Greco-Roman world. The authors were
concerned about a Palestinian Jewish preacher who had lived a few
decades earlier and whose life, teachings, and faith claims formed the
basis of their way of thinking and living. Their communities,
whether Jewish, Gentile, or mixed, were spread throughout the Roman
empire, particularly among its Greek-speaking citizens. The
social and cultural heritage of these early Christians, especially that
of the writers was indeed a rather complex one.
The proclamation of Jesus as the Christ did influ-
ence the way [they] envisioned their world, but that
world itself gave the church its own language and
literary forms for expressing that belief. Its
scriptures were Jewish; its language, Greek; its ur-
ban setting, hellenistic; its political and legal
forum, Roman--and its mythology of evil a curious blend
of each. Thus all were integral parts of the world
that influenced these writers and their audience.3
In social and cultural terms one must conclude that the NT books are at once Jewish, Greek, Roman, and Christian.
To understand properly the social, historical,
and cultural milieu of the NT books one must again reflect upon the
nature of the inquiry. Since these books, particularly the
gospels, represent the end-product of a lengthy process of oral
transmission of stories about Jesus and his disciples, one should
distinguish methodologically between the several levels of the
material, namely, the original movement, event, or speech then the
transmission of that "historical" item, and finally its recording in a
document available to posterity. In the case of the first level
one can speak of the historical Jesus, Pilate, Pharisees, etc. In
each instance one must interrogate the sources available to catch a
glimpse of that person, event, or movement. In general terms one
speaks of the historical, cultural, and social background into which
these persons or events fit and thereby gains a better perspective of
these. The process, however, is more complex still since scholars
are forced to be both literary historians and critics. The quest
for the historical Jesus is one of many challenges to NT scholars
since, along with Judaic and Classical researchers, they must, for
example, seek to understand the nature of and role played by the
Pharisee movement in the first centuries B.C. and A.D., and the
character and quality of Pilate's procuratorship. As literary
historians and critics they are forced to come to grips with the NT
documents, the Mishnah, and other contemporary works as historical
resources. Only by understanding the evolution these documents
have undergone and by evaluating the data they contain can they be
properly employed as historical resources.4 Not only do NT
critics need to know what the gospels say about Jesus but how the early
church formulated its beliefs concerning him and how and why eventually
the gospel writers put together lives of the founder. The social,
historical, and cultural milieu of these books, therefore, requires a
historical panorama of the period in which Jesus and his contemporaries
lived, a reconstruction of early Christian history (especially its
varied relationships with Judaism and Greco-Roman culture), and an
analysis of the pastoral and literary relationship between the authors
and audiences of the various NT books.
With this in mind we offer the following
historical outline to assist the reader in understanding the historical
and cultural background of the New Testament.
BC 587 Fall of Jerusalem & Babylonian Exile
539 Fall of Babylon, Persian Rule & Edict of Cyrus
333 Alexander's Conquests
300 Ptolemaic (Egyptian) Control of Palestine
198 Seleucid (Syrian) Control of Palestine
167 Maccabean Revolt against Antiochus IV
63 Roman Intervention
37 Rule of Herod the Great
4 Death of Herod
4 BC-39 AD Antipas: Galilee
4 BC-34 AD Philip: Transjordan
4 BC-6 AD Archelaus: Judaea
AD 6 Roman Procurators in Judaea
30 Death of Jesus (approx.)
66 First Jewish Revolt
70 Fall of Jerusalem
132 Second Jewish Revolt.
Jewish Background and Character. The New
Testament, while Christian in content, is a collection of Jewish works
and commands a place in the history of Jewish literature and culture,
since its principal hero is a Jew of first century Palestine and since
many of its authors are Jewish. Some of its authors (Paul surely)
did not view the Jesus movement as separate from Judaism; others (at
least some members of the Matthean and Johannine communities) probably
considered themselves as belonging to an estranged subgroup; while
still others (James and Hebrews) clung vigorously to their
Judaeo-Christian culture. Judaism furnishes the cultural,
historical, and religious background of the New Testament and the
thought world of its authors and first readers. Hence we explore
three areas in the development and character of Judaism in order to
gain a better perspective about Christian origins: the political and
historical evolution of Israel, the diversity of the first century
Judaism and its relationship to the early Jesus movement.
l) Following upon the momentous events of the
Babylonian exile, which provoked both a religious and a political
crisis, there began to develop within Judaism the institutions and
scriptures of the pre-NT period. Owing to the idealism and
enthusiasm of the returnees ("men of the exile"), recounted in the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah, a small, viable Jewish territory was
established around Jerusalem, an area which for the next six centuries
was to serve as the religious and political center of Judaism.
Under the watchful eye of its Persian overlords, the territory of Judah
remained a quiet backwater limited in power and resources and governed
by aristocratic high priests. It was at this time that Aramaic, a
Semitic sister-language of Hebrew and the lingua franca of the Persian
rulers, became the language of Judah as well.
In 332, however, the political make-up of the
area changed drastically following Alexander's whirlwind military
campaign against the Persians, Greece's bitter enemies. The
importance of these events for world and Palestinian history should not
be underestimated, since Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt
entered the Classical world, first of Greece and several centuries
later of Rome. This change became evident in political and
cultural terms, for these areas passed from Persian domination to some
form of Greek rule and became increasingly subject to Hellenization in
cultural as well as in religious and linguistic matters.
Palestine welcomed the young liberator but
later, because of its geographical position, became once more an area
contested by the two neighboring superpowers, the Ptolemies of Egypt
and the Seleucids of Syria, the two major heirs to Alexander's
non-Greek, conquered territories. During the first two centuries
of Greek rule, Judaism underwent a period of consolidation and
diversification. After the peaceful and tolerant rule of
the Ptolemies (c. 300-200), Hellenization became a burning issue for
the Jews when the Seleucid ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, resolved to
abolish tolerance of non-Greek cultural and religious groups among his
subjects. There resulted the well-known Maccabean revolt in 167,
as a result of which the Jews under the Maccabean revolutionaries and
later the Hasmonaean rulers gained political independence.
Ironically, what began as an anti-Hellenistic movement became a
stronghold and patron of Greek culture and influence, thereby provoking
further opposition among Jewish thinkers.
In 63 B.C. as a result of civil strife between
two Hasmonaean princes, Rome under the leadership of Pompey the Great,
intervened in Jewish affairs, thereby establishing control over the
once independent territory. A few decades later (37 B.C.) a local
Judaeo-Idumaean politician, Herod was appointed as vassal king over the
whole of Palestine.5
2) As a result of the exilic experience
pronounced differences within Judaism arose in regard to one's
adherence to the God of Israel. Following upon the unambiguous
affirmations of monotheism by the exilic prophets (see Isaiah 40f) and
upon the conviction that Yahweh was the lord of history, the energies
of Judaism were channeled in many directions. If it is true that
"any group that holds unusual views [such as exclusive monotheism] is
inevitably under pressure to establish their plausibility, not only to
win the respect of outsiders, but primarily to maintain the allegiance
of its own members,"6 then one can appreciate the variety of literature
generated in Palestine and the Diaspora, i.e., the Hellenistic Jewish
communities of the empire. This literature, particularly that
generated outside of Palestine, had an apologetic quality "directed
simultaneously to those within and to those outside."7 The
concept of one God became a binding force within Judaism itself and a
bridge to the surrounding non-Jewish cultures.
Some saw the belief in the one God as a
precious possession which, along with the great revelation expressed in
the Law (Torah), the privileged holy place (temple), and kosher or
purity laws, must be fostered and protected that a holy people might be
produced. Attention focused on the role which Jerusalem, the
temple there, and its priesthood played in Jewish religion.
Others instead became convinced that monotheism led to a universal
outlook which encompassed all knowledge and wisdom. The same God
was the source both of the wisdom of the Torah and that of the
philosophers and pagan religions. The influence of Hellenism was
felt as Jewish writers viewed the Torah as universal law and divine
wisdom. Still others professed a more practical piety which saw
its duty to be worship of the Lord in the temple or synagogue and
humane treatment of fellow believers. The little book of Tobit is
an admirable example of such a spirituality, where prayer, fasting, and
almsgiving were the cornerstone on which many centered their response
to the God of Israel. There also developed an important spiritual
movement which saw Judaism's ideal in the just sufferer. For
many, Job the innocent became the model of religious conduct. They held
that doing God's will, whether in martyrdom or persecution, was
possible since God provided for his elect (throne mysticism).
Other groups "set up the sage, the wise teacher and expounder of the
Torah, as the ideal pattern" of Jewish life.8 Also popular
during this period was a mentality and a literature which we today
classify as apocalyptic. Convinced that God is lord of history
and source of knowledge and of victory and that the world is totally
beyond human help, the apocalypticist believed that God would intervene
on behalf of the righteous chosen ones to give them ultimate victory, a
victory that would come as a result of a cataclysmic battle between the
forces of God and those of evil. It is in such a context that the
concept of afterlife and reward after death was introduced into Jewish
literature. The intertestamental period (c. 200 B.C. and
following) abounded in this type of religious and pious
literature. These approaches to belief in God contributed greatly
to the diversity of religious and political thought which existed in
first century Palestine.
At this point we are confronted with a
methodological impasse, namely, the quest for an assessment of the
situation in Palestine prior to 70 A.D.
This period is crucial for an understanding of the
history of Judaism and the rise and development of
Christianity, for at this time the types of Jewish
religion were many, and the social settings in which
they developed and received formulation were complex.
The literature of this period allows us to perceive
this richness and diversity. The subsequent course
of political events led to the destruction of the
temple (70 C.E.), with the loss of national indepen-
dence and the exile of many Jews. This in turn
brought about a certain withdrawal, consolidation,
and conscious delimitation of variety, and as a re-
sult, many of the types of Jewish thought and piety
that were earlier vital and living disappeared.9
Thus, since both Judaism and the young Jesus movement underwent radical
changes due to that catastrophic episode and since most of our
literature on the Judaism of that period comes either from the New
Testament or later Jewish works, such as the Mishnah and Talmud, the
view that we have, particularly of the Pharisees, is very suspect.
Because of Josephus' descriptions of the three
major Jewish groups of the time,10 and relying on the extensive
research of recent years, we are in a good position to appreciate the
dynamic, diverse character of Jewish thought and life then
current.11 There were the politically liberal but conservatively
religious Sadducees whose outlook fostered cooperation with the
Greco-Roman rulers and established control of the temple and
priestly-oriented cult. Along with this priestly aristocracy,
there existed the important Pharisee movement whose approach to the
Torah and oral tradition was considerably more liberal. As
reputed interpreters of the Law (especially their scribes), the
Pharisees, under the influence of Hillel, became a major force for
renewal, which stressed the application of the Law to daily life and
the practice of piety.
Here one enters the current debate concerning
the Pharisees. The issue might be summarized thus:
While Neusner believes that Pharisaism in Jesus'
day was quietistic and apolitical, concerned
primarily with matters of ritual, Rivkin takes
the opposite view--that Pharisaism was revolu-
tionary and concerned with a wide range of
issues beyond ritual purity. The Pharisaic
concern for the rites of cleanliness, Rivkin
claims, was subordinated to Pharisaic concern
for the two-fold law (i.e., oral and written)
and a strenuous political effort to impose
that law on society. Rivkin maintains that
...the Pharisees were popular with the masses,
served as a scholar class interpreting both
oral and written traditions, believed in indi-
vidual immortality, and promulgated new law.12
Whether one agrees with Neusner or Rivkin, the picture that emerges
from the NT books is quite different from the above. Further, it
is the Pharisaic group which survived the catastrophic destruction of
Jerusalem, became the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism, and left its mark
on the polemical NT descriptions of the Judaism of the period.
While these were the two dominant groups in
the power structure of first century Palestinian Judaism, there existed
other groups whose existence and influence are vaguely or indirectly
attested. Herodians and God-fearers are mentioned in our sources
and presumably represented, political and religious stances vis-a-vis
Judaism. We also hear of revolutionaries both in the New
Testament and at length in Josephus. These were called Zealots,
Sicarii, or messianic pretenders (see Acts 5:35f). A growing
number of armed bandits and revolutionary groups arose during the time
of Herod the Great, under the Roman procurators, and later under the
leadership of Bar Kochba.13
Finally we are led to discuss more heterodox
forms of Judaism. While various groups continued to produce works
of piety inspired by traditional forms of thought (such as wisdom
speculation, mysticism, and halakic/haggadic concerns), there
flourished in Judaism such movements as the apocalyptic covenanters of
Qumran, also known as Essenes, whose library was discovered in the
l940s along the Dead Sea,14 as well as others which generated the vast
literature of the intertestamental period: apocalypses, testaments,
messianic oracles, reinterpretations of the Torah, and biblical
narratives. The abundance of apocalyptic literature and other
writings of the intertestamental period alerts us to the diversity of
first century Judaism, the period contemporary with the life of Jesus
and with the production of the New Testament.
3) Under the rubric of "the relationship of
Judaism to the early Jesus movement" one could consider a wide array of
issues, such as the Jewish culture of Jesus and his early followers,
their dependence on the religion of Israel for ideas and language, the
role played by the Jewish leaders in the trial and death of Jesus, or
the social and religious intercourse between Christians and Jews.
While all of these topics claim our attention it is the last which will
be developed briefly. The Jesus movement began as an outgrowth of
Jewish messianism. Its earliest members were Jewish followers of
the man from Galilee, whom they professed to be the fulfilment of God's
promises to Israel. As we survey the NT books in the following
chapters, it will become clear that the new movement's relationship to
its parent varied greatly from community to community and from period
to period. In some cases the interchange seems to have been
pacific while in others polemics and mutual recrimination were
common. The relationship of pre-and-post-70 Judaism to the
budding Jesus movement, whether to individual communities or to the
movement in general, is not an easy one to discern owing to the nature
of the resources at our disposal and to the complexity and diversity
within Judaism and early Christianity. This is further
complicated by the limits of our knowledge of
Judaeo-Christianity. Thus each NT work must be examined to
discern what in it is tradition, rhetoric, or the attitude of its
author and community toward Judaism. It is important, in
methodological terms, for the modern reader to realize that the
attitudes and judgments conveyed in the Christian scriptures are those
of a later period, when the two movements were beginning to diverge
structurally and theologically, when the religio-political situation of
the early years was a faint memory, and when Jewish and Christian
authorities and missionaries were vying with one another for adherents,
for tolerance from the Roman populace, and for the right to claim for
themselves the perduring traditions of Israel.
Greek Milieu of the New Testament. The
legacy of Alexander was far-reaching, not the least being the influence
which Greek language and culture had on Judaism and on early
Christianity.15 As the Near East was brought under Greek
domination, it adopted the conqueror's language which, in its
Hellenistic form (often called koine), became the lingua franca of the
new territories. Thus, a standardized form of Greek, greatly
influenced by local speech, became the language of commerce and
cultural pursuits. Soon the Jews of Egypt felt the need to
translate their scriptures into Greek, a translation known as the
Septuagint (LXX)16 and began to compose works in Greek, some of which
today are incorporated within the Catholic and Orthodox canons of the
Old Testament.17 It is also a consequence of these conquests that
NT authors, adjusting to the language and culture of their readers,
employed the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures as their bible
and composed their works in Greek, a language which was to remain the
dominant means of communication of the early Christian movement for two
more centuries, until indigenous languages (e.g., Syriac and Coptic)
and Latin (in the western part of the Roman empire) emerged as the
idiom of most Christian communities.
Greek influence upon Judaism and Christianity
extended far beyond the use of language, for during the Ptolemaic and
Seleucid as well as during the Hasmonaean and Herodian periods Greek
culture and religion or Hellenism, deeply affected the entire Near
East. The language and culture of the upper classes of the
Mediterranean world became increasingly Hellenistic as these were
adopted as the medium of diplomacy, commerce, travel, and
education. Under the aegis of Greek rulers who fostered a common
language and standard political structures, there developed a
universal, hybrid culture in the Mediterranean area. Similar
systems of taxation and commerce, styles in art and architecture, and
philosophical and religious outlooks became widespread as Greek culture
affected all areas of life.18
In Egypt Ptolemy, inspired by Alexander's
brilliant cultural accommodation, created an impressive administrative
system out of indigenous and Hellenistic elements.
Throughout the Greek world the word went out: Pto-
lemy needed Greeks of every sort--clerks, accountants,
masons, engineers, artists, doctors, actors, scholars,
and of course, able-bodied men to serve in his army.
Ptolemy intended that the Egyptian economic system
should continue as before, staffed at the lowest bu-
reaucratic levels by the Egyptians, but at a certain
point, every channel of authority, every chain of com-
mand should become Greek, or Macedonian, and continue
to the upper levels where an entirely Graeco-Macedonian
elite would exist and operate in an artifically created
Greek world, a thin veneer riding upon and wholly insu-
lated from the great mass of Egyptian peasants.19
To the Egyptian capital came vast numbers of Jews who found there
occupational opportunity and cultural challenge. So successful
was this venture that by the time of Philo (c. 40 A.D.), two-fifths of
Alexandria was Jewish. Just as successful was the Jewish
participation in the Ptolemaic educational culture of Greek gymnasia,
theaters, and the famous Museum of Alexandria. If in that city,
"the more pious Jews founded a quarter and stayed in it, keeping their
faith and their customs,...the young and adventurous joined youth from
a hundred other races in taking Greek names and mastering the Greek
language, for this way lay advancement."20 Egypt by its
cosmopolitan approach to culture and economy, provided an ideal
situation for the preservation and enhancement of Jewish culture and
for the great Hellenizing adventure. Philo of Alexandria,
philosopher, writer, and statesman, represents a fine example of
mediation between the two cultures.21
There also arose in other parts of the Greek
world "Hellenistic Greek megalopoleis" such as Antioch on the Orontes,
Seleuceia, and Pergamon. To these "Hellenistic super-cities"
flocked large numbers from the newly conquered areas, populations that
gradually underwent Hellenizing assimilation. "That such blending
of populations did nothing to hinder continuing intellectual
development was conclusively demonstrated by such Graeco-Syrian
literary figures as the philosopher-polymath Posidonius, the poet
Meleager of Gadara, St. Paul, the authors of the Gospels, and that most
stylish humorist of the Roman period, Lucian of Samosata."22
Jewish communities arose throughout the Greek-speaking areas and, owing
to Judaism's strong religious and ethnic character, fared well as they
set up cohesive mechanisms and acquired imperial privileges to foster
external advancement and internal solidarity.23
Contrary to earlier assumptions that Palestine
was isolated from the Hellenistic world, it is now commonly held that
there also the process of Hellenization was widespread. Even
before the time of Alexander contacts with the Greek world were not
infrequent. After the Macedonians conquests Palestine joined
others in welcoming the cosmopolitan culture of the new rulers.
In all some thirty towns of the area have been counted
that were either Greek foundations or transformed po
leis. These Hellenistic cities dotted the countryside
of Palestine for several centuries prior to the first
Christian century and were clearly centers from which
the Greek language spread to less formally Hellenistic
towns, such as Jerusalem, Jericho, or Nazareth.24
However, Palestinian Judaism, never the enthusiastic proponent of
foreign cultures, reacted in varying ways to the influx of Hellenistic
influence, from outright hostility and rebellion (during the Maccabean
revolt and later), to peaceful coexistence, and even to considerable
Hellenization under the Hasmonaeans and Herodians.
Christianity in its turn adopted concepts from
Platonic, Stoic, and Cynic thought and from the popular mystery cults
(e.g., the Greek Eleusian and Dionysiac mysteries) as its preachers and
writers conveyed the meaning of the Christ-event to their disparate
audiences throughout the Greco-Roman world. It was to that
cosmopolitan world that early missionaries addressed their message of
salvation through the prophet from Nazareth. Initially Semitic in
character the young movement found its home in the Hellenistic domain,
first of Judaism and then of the Gentile world. Thus the
Christian scriptures must be considered, in varying degrees, the
product of Hellenistic Judaism, but a literature that increasingly
addressed the problems and concerns of the Gentile Greek population of
the empire.
Roman Political Context. If Greece
provided the cultural and linguistic background of early Christianity
and Judaism its religious matrix, it was Rome that furnished the
historical, political, and structural foundation. With expansion
of the Roman republic to the west and east and especially its
intervention in Jewish internal affairs in 63 B.C., the history of
Judaism and its Christian offspring became inextricably linked with the
vicissitudes of Roman politics. As it became ruler of the
Mediterranean basin, Rome provided it with political, military, legal,
and cultural unity. For Palestine this meant the stable rule of
the Herodian family in the political sphere and of Sadducean
aristocrats in the religious domain. Herod the Great, the
wily vassal king of Palestine, while despised by many of his subjects
for his cruelty and foreign origin (an Idumaean whose Judaism was
rather superficial), was nonetheless an energetic builder and competent
ruler. Under his administration the city of Jerusalem underwent a
Hellenistic and religious renaissance. At his death the kingdom
was divided among his sons: Herod Antipas as tetrarch of Galilee and
Peraea (4 B.C.-39 A.D.), Herod Philip as that of Ituraea, Trachonitis,
and Paneas (4 B.C.-34 A.D.), and Herod Archelaus as ethnarch of Judaea,
Samaria, and Idumaea (4 B.C.-6 A.D.).25 Only the last mentioned
proved troublesome and so the Judaean area was provided with a series
of surprisingly incompetent Roman governors, one of whom was
responsible for the death sentence carried out against Jesus. It
was due in large measure to such government agents that Palestine
during the 50s and 60s was in constant turmoil resulting in the futile
revolt against Rome and destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in
70.26 Thus, these events were significant for the history both of
Judaism and of the budding Jesus movement.
Events of the Roman period are relatively well
known due to the writings of an important participant, Josephus, the
statesman and historian (c. 37-l00 A.D.). After having led the
Jewish forces in Galilee against Vespasian's troops, Josephus was
compelled in defeat (67) to become an interpreter for the Romans.
After the war he returned to Rome with Titus, the conqueror of
Jerusalem and son of the newly acclaimed emperor Vespasian. There
Josephus received citizenship, a generous pension, and an estate,
circumstances which provided him leisure to compose a work on the
Jewish war as well as a history of his people, titled "The Jewish
Antiquities." These and his other works are crucial for an
understanding of this period.27
While most of the NT writers were Hellenistic
in language and culture, or greatly influenced by it, they were either
citizens or wards of the Roman empire whose benefits they
enjoyed. Christian missionaries traveled with relative ease and
safety (see Luke's accounts in Acts). The laws of Rome improved
the lot of all, as did its commercial, military, and governmental
structures. It was within such a universal community that
Christianity spread through the Roman empire and produced the books of
the New Testament.
However, Roman citizens and non-citizens, men
and women of diverse ethnic, cultural, and religious background, and
peoples of all classes, were alienated as a result of immense cultural
turmoil of empire building and the disintegration of old world
views. This process began during the Hellenistic and greatly
accelerated during the Roman periods. Thus people sought meaning
and goals for their lives in the many philosophical and theological
movements of the period. Arrival of the Jesus movement upon the
scene must have provoked curiosity and interest as well as opposition,
ostracization, and in some cases persecution.28 Of importance to
us is that the movement both survived and succeeded and that it
produced an anthology of works which allows us to examine the
communities' many perceptions of their founder.
Christian Character. To say that the New
Testament is a collection of early Christian works is to underscore the
importance of understanding the historical and cultural dynamics of the
period during which these works were written. The sequence of
events and their bearing upon these writers are crucial to our analysis
of the literature.
Jesus was born some time before 4 B.C. and
died around 30 A.D.29 This is as precise as the sources will
allow us to be. Another consideration is the conclusion of
scholars that Mark, the first gospel, was not composed until c. 65-70;
Matthew and Luke are dated somewhat later, c. 80-90. Within this
long gap, between 30 and 70, only the letters of Paul of Tarsus can be
situated with any confidence.30 How the teaching of Jesus and the
stories about him survived is the subject of discussion, since there
was a lengthy period during which nothing was recorded. This
material is presumed to have been handed down by word of mouth from
believer to believer and from preacher to convert.
During this period one must also envision the
spread of the Jesus movement beginning from Jerusalem. The
passion narratives shows that Jesus died alone and abandoned.31
His immediate followers were without exception Palestinian Jews from
Galilee and Judaea, whose language, like that of Jesus, was
Aramaic.32 It is around this nucleus that the early community
evolved, having Jerusalem as its center. At the beginning it must
have appeared as no more than a Jewish subgroup whose allegiance was to
the teacher from Nazareth. The sources imply that the movement
soon spread to the Greek-speaking Jews of Palestine and the
Diaspora. These new members were called Hellenists (Greek in
language and culture--Acts 6:l) and were more open to non-Jewish
influences.33 The movement appears to have spread rapidly among
these outward-looking Greek-speaking Jews who had already become
accustomed to the religious thinking of their Greco-Roman
neighbors. It is among Hellenistic Christians, since there
existed an intensive Jewish missionary movement in the Diaspora, that
the admission of Greek-speaking Gentiles into the movement became
widespread. By the time of Paul of Tarsus (late 40s and 50s) the
mission to the non-Jews (whether Law-observant or Law-free) was
extensive and the cause of tension within the early communities.
Expansion of the movement in terms of time and
geography was considerable and rapid. This meant increased
membership, greater diversity of cultural and ethnic background, and a
multiplicity of stances vis-a-vis Greco-Roman culture and
religion. As communities grew, so did the need for organization,
unity, and information. Among their pagan and Jewish neighbors
Christians experienced peaceful coexistence and successful proselytism,
as well as social and religious ostracization, persecution, and
cultural adaptation. These experiences produced much
diversity. Early Christians, in various parts of the Roman
empire, adjusted to contemporary culture in a rich variety of
ways--both as internal and external strategy. These communities
and the Jesus movement itself survived and prospered in terms of
membership and ideological continuity (christology and
ecclesiology).34 Thus, one of the principal goals of this study
is the examinantion of the NT works to discern the manner in which
different writers, in their portraits of Jesus, adapted the
Christ-event to contemporary culture in their efforts to communicate to
and dialogue with believers and non-believers.
In the final analysis, this NT anthology is
Christian by virtue of its central concern, Jesus of Nazareth.
The role he plays in God's grand design, belief in him as God's agent
and son, and the hope placed in his community of fellowship are at the
core of these writings.
"Literary Approach to the Christian Anthology"
Since the books of the New Testament are
products of their time, they need to be examined in the light of what
scholars know about the literature of that period. The student of
the New Testament should employ the insights of literary criticism and
theory to situate these early Christian works in their religious and
literary context, to inquire about their author and audience, and to
investigate the structure and message of these documents. The New
Testament consists of 27 literary works, some of which are related to
one another in some way (common authorship, same subject) but most of
which are independent creations by authors whose theological
backgrounds and literary abilities were diverse. They are works
of literature whose goal is the communication of a message, obviously
inspired by the Christ-event, to an audience in need of their advice
and information. The reader, separated from these by centuries of
historical and theological evolution and by a different language and
culture, is obliged to employ a combination of artistic sense and the
tools of literary criticism to understand the New Testament since its
works are ancient, religious, canonical literary texts. So one
should inquire about these significant factors if one wishes to gain a
sound interpretation of these works.35
Methodological considerations, however, take
us further. Since the proper approach to these books is a
literary-critical rather than a historical-critical one, the focus of
the reader and scholar's effort should not be the quest of a historical
event or authentic saying but rather appreciation of early Christian
works and comprehension of their message. Whatever authors say
about past events or however exact they are in recording a saying or
episode, these are secondary considerations in the analysis of
literature. Of primary concern is the work's narrative world or
rhetorical construct. An author's point of view, purpose, and
strategy along with the reader's perception of these are crucial in
textual analysis. The literary work, author, and audience are at
the core of the process called biblical criticism or
interpretation. Beyond general literary considerations, however,
there exist a number of important methods which scholars over the years
have developed to assist the reader with these ancient religious
texts. The remainder of this chapter, therefore, will introduce
the reader to the basics of biblical criticism.
Literary-Critical Methodology. Picking
up the New Testament is like reading a newspaper or an anthology of
20th-century literature. One must be aware of the variety of
literary items and of the proper questions to be addressed to
each. Reading is an art or a learned ability, an ability acquired
over years of repeated and corrective action. The normal reader
has learned to ask appropriate questions of specific types of reading
materials and has acquired the give-and-take of reader response to most
texts encountered.36 Thus, one does not expect a cartoon to be as
factual as a headline story or a sports column to be as thought
provoking as an editorial, nor does one read a five-line poem with the
same intensity and purpose as one does a short story or play. A
discriminating sense operates when one reads a newspaper, textbook, or
bulletin board; it should be likewise when one reads various NT
books. So one does not read an incidental note to a friend
(Paul's letter to Philemon) with the same intensity or purpose as a
foundational document (John or Matthew).
Furthermore, reading requires that the
audience enter another's world, that originally of an author (who
produced a text) and now, from the reader's perspective, that of the
text being read. Distance, objectivity, and respect for the
integrity of the text are necessary. So the methods examined in
this chapter focus on the text, its world, structure, and
strategy. Also, there is an effect on the consciousness of the
reader as the text and its content are engaged; thus "the incorporation
of the new requires a re-formation of the old."37 Hence we
consider such issues of modern literary theory as reader response and
author/text interaction with reader/audience. In this last
category we will speak of strategy, rhetoric, and author/audience
horizons.
In terms of genre or literary type there is
much variety within the NT canon. There are four gospels or
biographies which present the Christ-event as narrative, i.e., stories
about Jesus constucted on a time-line. These documents are
stories and need to be read as such, since they have beginnings and
endings, climaxes, a cast of characters, and other typical literary
conventions. There is another type of narrative, like the
Classical monograph, which relates the spread of Christianity from
Jerusalem to Rome, namely the Acts of the Apostles. Here too one
encounters a narrative world with a logic and strategy of its
own. Further, this text is related to the Gospel of Luke and
should be read in conjunction with it if one is to do justice to the
author's strategy and understand the audience's response. One
also finds 21 letters and pastoral documents by Paul and others on a
variety of subjects, many of which follow closely the epistolary genre
of the period. Study of Hellenistic letters sheds light upon
these early Christian creations and allows ones to delve into the
authors' purpose and message and to comprehend the original readers'
horizon and the interaction between author and audience.
Additionally, letters have specific issues and readers in view while
other pastoral documents may envision more general life-situations and
ideal audiences. Lastly, there is a visionary document called an
apocalypse, the Book of Revelation. Much work, of late, has been
devoted to this type of literature which is concerned with the end of
the world and the plight of small but righteous communities of
believers. It too presents its challenge to the reader who has no
acquaintance with this ancient genre. Each type described here,
therefore, has its own literary conventions and requires of the reader
a minimal familiarity with the peculiarities of that type of
text. Genre criticism, a much neglected area of study until
recently and one still in flux, is fundamental to biblical
interpretation.38
Literary criticism prompts the reader to
inquire not only about a book's genre but also about the ability and
background of its author and about its structure, purpose, and
message. It leads the interested student to seek information
concerning the author's style and artistry, about the events narrated,
about its author's and audience's cultural and religious milieu, and
about a host of other pertinent issues. These questions, then,
should be asked of any literary text if one wishes to obtain a better
understanding and appreciation of its artistry and message.
Such considerations lead the reader to examine
each of the NT books as separate entities produced by authors who lived
in concrete situations during the first century and who wrote to
specific audiences whose needs they addressed. By approaching
each work on its own terms it becomes possible to understand what the
author wished to communicate (to an implicit reader) and from this to
benefit from the writer's wisdom, a wisdom which the church (the
extended audience) judged to be normative of its beliefs. Thus,
one becomes increasingly aware of the individuality of each author and
of the uniqueness of each portrait of Jesus.
Following upon initial pointed criticism of NT
methodology,39 recent trends in literary analysis have supplemented
more traditional approaches. More attention is given to
rhetorical matters and therefore to the author's strategy and the
audience's interaction with the text. Analyses of ancient
rhetorical handbooks and practice have provided greater appreciation of
early writers' ability and success in persuading readers and
influencing their thought and behavior. Study of Classical norms
for composing speeches, scenes, and narrative links, presenting
characters, and developing time and space considerations have made
modern readers more conscious of the art of narration or
story-telling. Rhetorical analysis has also lent its attention to
the peculiar conventions of poetry, the rhetoric of persuasion (the art
of composing defense speeches, use of traditional arguments and
commonplaces or topoi, etc.), and in general the writer's strategy.40
Related also to biblical criticism's interest
in an author's strategy and its concern for the nature and use of
language are two other methods, reader-response criticism and
structuralism.41 The first focuses upon the audience's
interaction with the text. Relying upon reader-response and
narrative theory, scholars examine the characteristics of successful
strategy (closure, character portrayal, setting, point of view), the
relation of narrative and rhetorical prose to real and ideal readers,
and in general subscribe to the Greek rhetorical axiom that a text has
"the ability to influence human behavior in a direct and practical
manner."42 This method, therefore, focuses upon the reader's
response and the author's ability to influence thought and behavior by
literary means.43
The second method pays greater attention to
the nature of language, the processes of human communication, and the
participation of specific texts in this intelligibility-enabling
process. Lending attention to the minute symbols and stuctures of
speech, scholars maintain that language and anthropology are intimately
linked and so all texts participate in specific patterns: time-space
complexes, communicative system or semiotics (and thus its decoding),
and surface and depth structures. These scholars, therefore,
relying upon theories of opposites (and the inversion of functions) or
actantial and functional constants (and the relation of actor to
receiver) propose to analyze author and reader relationships to text,
the ultimate means of human communication.44
Principal Literary Methods. Over the
years scholars have developed several important methods for the
elucidation of scriptural texts.45 l) The first important one is
source criticism, which elucidates a biblical work by examining its use
of traditions, quotations, and its relation to other contemporary
works--did an author borrow some facts, ideas, or traditions from other
documents? Scholars propose that Matthew and Luke made generous
use of the Gospel of Mark and a now lost, written sayings collection
usually referred to as the Q-Source (for German Quelle).46 Source
critics also discuss the relationship of John to the Synoptic gospels
or to oral Jesus tradition, the dependence of 2 Peter 2 upon Jude 3-l6,
and the relationship of Colossians and Ephesians. They also
investigate the extent to which an author like Paul or that of Hebrews
made use of contemporary philosophical thought. The isolation of
such influences are of concern to the source critic who also inquires
about Luke's sources for the composition of Acts and about the origin
of the esoteric images and world view of the Book of Revelation.
For most NT writers one is obliged to inquire about their use of the
Jesus tradition. One often detects early kerygmatic (preaching)
formulas and liturgical fragments in various NT passages. The
source critic is interested in isolating OT citations, themes, and
vocabulary, as well as contemporary Jewish tradition, since most of
these writers were either Jewish or familiar with Jewish Christian
materials. Besides, the Jewish scriptures were the basis for
early Christian theology and Judaism the matrix of both the life of
Jesus and the early attempts at formulating and explaining the
Christ-event. Source criticism then, in seeking to discover a
particular author's resources, is invariably drawn into an examination
of the thought world of the New Testament, its communities, and its
writers.
If at the turn of the century the almost
exclusive concern of source critics had been to discern written
documents behind NT works, particularly the Synoptic gospels and Acts
(for the former: Aramaic Matthew, Urmarkus, Proto-Luke, or Q and for
the latter: Aramaic Acts, Jerusalem and Antiochene sources), more
recent scholars, while still inquiring about sources, are more
concerned about the entire range of influences which were brought to
bear upon specific authors. More attention is given to NT
authors' use of the Jewish scriptures and methods of biblical
interpretation then current,47 their knowledge and use of contemporary
history, mythology, literature, and philosophy, and especially their
use of the Jesus tradition.
2) Another method which contributes to our
understanding of NT authors has received the name "form criticism"
(Formgeschichte) since it attempts to isolate, examine, and classify
the narrative and discourse units which the evangelists and other
writers employed in composing their works: e.g., miracles, parables,
doxologies, hymns, etc.48 Within the gospel narratives, for
example, a writer may use speeches, tell stories, use other types of
narrative, or make general summary or explanatory statements for the
reader. Within a letter an author may use moral examples from
various sources, employ invective or praise, or enunciate theological
principles. Noting the existence of many such literary units or
forms within the New Testament, scholars began to isolate and classify
them according to literary characteristics to which they had been
alerted by earlier studies of folkloric and oral literature.
Since oral tradition and folk literature, to a far greater degree than
conscious literary writing, tend to exhibit predictable patterns, to
employ standard conventions, and to manifest regular laws of
development, and since it became obvious that the decades which
separated the death of Jesus from the emergence of the New Testament
constituted an oral period, it was natural that the results of this
discipline should be applied to the gospel narratives. By
studying the standard features of various types of literary units,
e.g., the parable and its development during oral transmission
(increased allegorizing and moralizing characteristics),49 it became
possible to examine with some assurance the evolution of pre-NT
traditions and of the Jesus movement. As a result of such study
by scholars early in the century,50 it became clear that the gospel and
other tradition resulted from a complex, oral development within
communities and not from the verbatim recording of the events of Jesus'
life or the evolution of a unified point of view concerning the
Christ-event. Stories were remembered, retold, applied, and
eventually written down by authors, who, as members of worshiping
communities, wished to counter internal and external problems and
crises by appealing to the communities' traditions and wisdom.
Thus form criticism in its original usage
refers to the study of oral or pre-literary sense units which
scholarship distinguished and identified in typological terms. As
a result scholars became keenly aware of the importance of the oral
period in the development of Jesus tradition and ecclesial lore, prior
to and contemporary to the composition of the New Testament. If
originally form criticism was focused upon the analysis of Synoptic
tradition as the product almost exclusively of the community, more
recently scholars have broadened the scope of this method in
theoretical and practical terms. No longer viewing the gospels as
anonymous productions of specific communities (owing to the insights of
redaction criticism), scholars admit to a greater complexity for both
oral tradition and literary creativity. The term "form" is now
employed to include literarily conscious structures and defensive
strategies of these writers. Thus form criticism, in its more
sophisticated and recent practice, is often hard to distinguish from
rhetorical analysis and redaction criticism. Finally, it should
be pointed out that form criticism, whether in its older sense or more
recent practice, underscores the importance of literary rather than
historical methods for the analysis of ancient literature.
3) While earlier studies emphasized the
pre-gospel and early Christian tradition embedded in various NT works
and focused upon the quest for the historical Jesus, it has become
increasingly clear to later scholars that appreciation of the role
played by the writers themselves is of equal importance for
understanding this literature. Since the authors in question had
a number of sources at their disposal and a variety of traditional
units to draw upon, it seemed appropriate to investigate their choice
of episodes, sayings, and traditions, their organization of these,
their presuppositions, and their theology. So there developed a
new discipline called "redaction criticism,"51 i.e., a method whose
goal is the study of the writers as authors, authors with diverse
backgrounds, abilities, resources, goals, and points of view.
Initially, the new method gave particular attention to an author's use
of sources, peculiar vocabulary and idioms (use of word counts), and
sought structural indicators and characteristics. For example,
scholars noted that Matthew regularly modified the expression "kingdom
of God" from Mark (1:15) and Q (Luke 6:20) to "kingdom of the heavens"
(Matt 4:17 and 5:3 respectively), or that Luke preferred "lake" (8:22f)
to the Markan "sea" (4:39f). Thus, repetition of themes,
organization of episodes or arguments, redactional additions to
traditional elements, and omissions provided clues to the writer's
point of view (e.g., Matthew's grouping of similar forms or Luke's
addition of and insistence on the motif of prayer and journey).
Unfortunately the results were far from unanimous in discerning
individual authors' theologies.52
More recently the discipline has concentrated not
only upon the redactional features of the gospels and other works but
also upon the internal structure of these compositions, upon their
theological interests, and upon these works as overall stories or
unities. At this juncture the method becomes closely allied with
composition analysis and rhetorical criticism in its focus upon the
overall structure of the composition and upon its inner dynamics.
To illustrate in greater detail the methods
just described, we offer in parallel columns ("synopsis") the following
brief passage, using the RSV or Revised Standard Version, to facilitate
our comparative analysis.
Matt 13:1-3
Mark
4:1-2
Luke 8:4
That same day Again
Jesus went out he bagan to teach
of the house
and sat
beside the sea. beside the sea.
And
And
And
great crowds
a very large crowd
when a great crowd
gathered
gathered
came
together
and people from
town after town
about him,
about
him,
came to him
so that he got so that he got
into a boat into a boat
and sat there and sat in it
on the sea;
and the whole crowd and the whole crowd
stood
was beside the sea
on the beach. on the land.
And he taught them And he taught them
many things many things
in parables
in
parables,
he said
and in
his teaching
saying:
he said to
them:
in a parable:
Considering the literary interrelationship of such passages as well as
the sequence of events in all three gospels, most scholars conclude
that Matthew and Luke made independent use of Mark to compose their
narratives (the two-source hypothesis). From this example one
sees that Matthew is more faithful to the Markan text than is
Luke. Further, Matthew reproduces almost entirely Mark's
subsequent parable chapter and expands it with material drawn from
other sources, while Luke reduces the parable section and transfers
much of it to a later chapter.
The verses are transitional in form and
function and owe to Markan redaction; that is, they are composed by
Mark to introduce a traditional parable collection (4:3f). This
brief passage, while reflecting Markan style and themes, nonetheless,
adopts the form and function of what form critics call an "editorial
formulation" to make the broader narrative "coherent geographically,
chronologically and in part also materially."53 Matthew and Luke,
even while imposing changes upon these verses, also see them as a
convenient transition from narrative to discourse.
Matthean and Lukan editorial activity calls
for added attention. The former enhances both the temporal
introduction ("again'" becomes "that same day") and spatial element of
the passage ("Jesus went out of the house"--a link is established with
the preceding episode). Other features of Matthean editing are
the simplification of the Markan text (reduction of the seemingly
redundant stress given to the motif of teaching) and the improvement of
its style ("sat in it on the sea" becomes "sat there" and "was beside
the sea on the land" is reduced to "stood on the beach"). Luke,
as usual, imposes greater changes upon the Markan source. The
passage is simplified and reformulated into a complex sentence.
Both the temporal and spatial settings are eliminated: the
temporal owing to changes in the order of episodes before and following
the passage (see 8:1-3 and 8:19-21) and the spatial because of Luke's
refusal to use the term "sea" for the "Lake [of Galilee]." Also
since Luke only employs one parable at this point, the Markan "in
parables" is modified to "in a parable." Since there is no
surviving Markan source for comparison, it is more tenuous to estimate
that author's redactional activity. Nonetheless, after surveying
the entire gospel, it becomes clear that 4:1-2 are Markan in style and
theme. We would note especially the author's stress upon the
theme of teaching and liking of "began to teach," and lake
settings. For Matthew we should note the emphasis upon
Jesus' "sitting" position (see the setting of the sermon on the
mount--5:1 and contrast with Luke 6:17 where Jesus "stands" instead)
and for Luke we would point out the note of universalism ("people from
town after town").
4) While most scholars describe themselves as
practioners of redaction criticism or of its more evolved form,
composition analysis, few limit themselves to any one method in
analyzing NT literature. Instead, the scholar employs a variety
of literary, historical, sociological, and theological methods to
arrive at a better understanding of this literature. The complete
student of the New Testament should be acquainted with linguistic and
textual issues, since it is an anthology of literature written in an
ancient language (Greek of the post-Classical era) long before the
invention of the printing press. Thus, proper translation (reliable,
modern editions) and integrity of text are essential to proper
interpretation.54 Further, informative introductions and
footnotes as well as critical tools (handbooks and dictionaries)
greatly assist the interested reader. The production of such
tools constitutes another facet of biblical scholarship.
5) Finally, we might discuss a relatively
recent method which is gaining respectability in NT circles, namely,
the anthropological or sociological approach to the world and
literature of the New Testament. At first glance one might
presume that it should have been considered in the first part of the
chapter along with historical issues. One should distinguish,
however, between a method which has as its goal "social description and
analysis" (historical method) and one which attempts "the application
of social theory to New Testament texts"55 (literary approach).
Employing sociological models scholars attempt to discern leadership
roles, community structures, social dynamics, pivotal values, social
groupings, and other processes of interaction or restraint discernible
within NT literature.56 Such methodology shows promise on several
levels. It provides additional instruments to verify conclusions
obtained from purely literary criteria. Its structural models, if
employed judiciously, can fill in lacunae in the biblical data.
Finally, such an approach offers assistance for pursuing the
hermeneutical task of conveying the meaning of ancient texts to
extended readers.
Having surveyed the historical and literary
concerns of NT study, the reader is set to embark upon a journey
through that literature in search of the many images the early
communities had of their founder. It has become clear that, in
addition to a social and historical description of the NT world, one
should employ all suitable methods in the study of this anthology so
that it might reveal its meaning to a new audience and thereby continue
to have significance for new generations of believers who desire to be
serious students of the bible.57 Before moving on to an
examination of the first gospel, however, one last issue, that of the
pre-gospel development of the Jesus tradition, will be addressed in the
following chapter.
NOTES
l. See Fitzmyer, A Christological Catechism,
18-23, who responds to the following question: "Is not such an approach
to the historical Jesus and to the canonical gospels tantamount to an
implicit reduction in Christian faith and contrary to centuries-long
tradition of gospel-interpretation?"
2. Confer N.R. Petersen, Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), especially chapter l: "Literary Problems in the Historical-Critical Paradigm," 9-23.
3. C.J. Roetzel, The World That Shaped the New Testament (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985) viii.
4. See for example, D.J. Harrington, Interpreting the New Testament: A Practical Guide (Wilmington: Glazier, 1980), 85-95 and 108-23, as well as the more technical discussions of A.R.C. Leaney, The Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200
(London: Cambridge University, 1984) and "Sources" with contributions
by S. Safrai, M. Stern, M. de Jonge, and M. Avi-Yonah, l:1-77 in The Jewish People in the First Century, eds, S. Safrai et al (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).
5. For short overviews of Palestinian history,
with special attention given to the Hellenistic and Roman periods, see
E. Lohse, The New Testament Environment (Nashville: Abingdon, 1974) 15-54 and Roetzel, The World That Shaped the New Testament, 1-23.
6. J.J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (NY: Crossroad, 1983) 2.
7. Ibid., 9.
8. G.W.E. Nickelsburg and M.E. Stone, Faith and Piety in Early Judaism: Texts and Documents (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 3. For surveys and collections of the literature see: Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem; Nickelsburg and Stone, Faith and Piety; L. Rost, Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976); M.E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); J.H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (NY: Doubleday, 1983-85); and H.E.D. Sparks, The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984).
9. Nickelsburg and Stone, Faith and Piety, 5.
10. Josephus treats the Sadducees, Pharisees,
and Essenes in three places: The Jewish Wars 2:119-66; Jewish
Antiquities 13:171-73; and 18:11-22. In the last passage
(23-25) he adds a fourth group, the "Pharisee-like" revolutionaries;
see Josephus, eds, H.St.J. Thackeray et al (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1965-67).
11. See the brief treatments of Lohse, The New Testament Environment, 55-145; Roetzel, The World That Shaped the New Testament, 24-45; S. Freyne, The World of the New Testament (Wilmington: Glazier, 1980) 81-128.
12. Roetzel, The World That Shaped the New Testament, 27-28; see J. Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1973) and E. Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution: The Pharisees' Search for the Kingdom Within (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978).
13. R.A. Horsley and J.S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus (Minneapolis: Winston-Seabury, 1986).
14. G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981); J.T. Milik, Ten Years in the Wilderness of Judaea (Naperville: Allenson, 1959); R. de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (NY: Oxford University, 1973); J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament after Thirty Years," TD 29 (1981) 351-67; and D. Dimant, "Qumran Sectarian Literature," 483-550 in Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period.
15. J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D., CBQ 32 (1970) 501-31 and G. Massies, "Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora," 2:1040-64 in Safrai, The Jewish People in the First Century; see also C. Rabin, "Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century," 2:1007-39 in ibid.
16. The name "septuagint" or "seventy" (thus
LXX) derives from an old story purporting to be from a Ptolemaic Jewish
scholar (Letter of Aristeas) to the effect that 72 Jewish wise men (6
from each of the 12 tribes) translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek
for the great Alexandrian library in the second century BC.
See J.R. Bartlett, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, the Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus (London: Cambridge University, 1985) 11-34.
17. For literature on the LXX see E. Tov and R.A. Kraft, "Septuagint," 807-15 in IDBSup and P.W Skehan, "Texts and Versions," 2:561-74 in JBC.
18. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (NY: Atheneum, 1979); M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974); A.H.M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971).
19. F.J. Frost, Greek Society (Lexington: Heath, 1980) 145.
20. Ibid, 150.
21. For an excellent, brief discussion of
Philo, see P. Borgen, "Philo of Alexandria," 233-82 in Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period.
22. Frost, Greek Society, 155; see also H. Stern, "The Jewish Diaspora," 1:117-83 in Safrai, The Jewish People in the First Century.
23. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 296-333 and S. Applebaum, "The Organization of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora," 1:464-503 in Safrai, The Jewish People in the First Century.
24. Fitzmyer, "Languages of Palestine," 508; see also Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 90-116; and Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, especially chap. 10, pp. 226-94 and 446-69, revised by M. Avi-Yonah and H. Seyrig.
25. For a brief survey of the Herodian period see Leaney, The Jewish and Christian World, 99-120 and M. Stern, "The Reign of Herod and the Herodian Dynasty," 1:216-307 in Safrai, The Jewish People in the First Century.
26. M. Stern, "The Province of Judaea," 1:308-76 in Safrai, The Jewish People in the First Century.
27. See D.M. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution: 6-74 C.E.: A Political History Based on the Writings of Josephus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); H.W. Attridge, "Josephus and His Works," 185-232 in Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period; and Bartlett, Jews in the Hellenistic World, 72-191.
28. We will have several occasions to discuss
the Jesus movement's Roman setting; see especially chapter 13.
29. For a discussion of this chronology see J.L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965) 132-33 and 432-36 and J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton: Princeton University, 1964) 215-59 and 285-98.
30. For a brief, overall discussion of the relative dating of the NT books, see Harrington, Interpreting the New Testament, 146-47.
31. On the importance of this fact for the
relation of faith to the resurrection experience, see Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, 166-73.
32. On the language of Jesus and the early
Christian community, confer Fitzmyer, "Languages of Palestine;" J.N.
Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? (Leiden: Brill, 1969).
33. E. Richard, Acts 6:1-8:4: The Author's Method of Composition (Missoula: Scholars, 1978) 338-46.
34. Among others, see B.J. Malina, "Normative
Dissonance and Christian Origins," 35-59 in J.H. Elliott, ed., Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social World (Decatur: Scholars, 1986).
35. J. Barr, "Reading the Bible as Literature," BJRULM 56 (1973) 10-33; Harrington, Interpreting the New Testament; Petersen, Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics.
36. W. Iser, The Acts of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1978).
37. Ibid., 159.
38. The issue of genre will be addressed in
the following chapters as each new work or group of works is
introduced: gospel (chap. 4), acta (chap. 6); letters (chap. 8; also
7); pastoral documents (chap. 10; also 7); and apocalypse (chap. 11).
39. Among others, consult E. Guttgemanns, Candid
Questions Concerning Gospel Form Criticism: A Methodological Sketch of
the Fundamental Problematics of Form and Redaction Criticism (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1979).
40. A.N. Wilder, The Language of the Gospel: Early Christian Rhetoric (NY: Harper and Row, 1971); G.A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1984).
41. For a convenient introduction to both, see T.J. Keegan, Interpreting the Bible: A Popular Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (NY: Paulist, 1985).
42. J.P. Tompkins, "An Introduction to Reader-Response Criticism," xxv in Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1980); see also G. Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1980).
43. As related to Mark, see for example, F. Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1979); N. Petersen, "When Is an End Not the End?" Int 34 (1980) 151-66; and D. Rhoads and D. Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); for Matthew, see R.A. Edwards,
"Uncertain Faith: Matthew's Portrait of the Disciples," 47-61 in F.F.
Segovia, Discipleship in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); and for John, confer R.A. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
44. D. Patte, What Is Structural Exegesis? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978). For a discussion of "surface and deep structures," see R.C. Tannehill, The Sword of His Mouth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 31-36.
45. For a relatively short presentation, explanation, and examples of these methods see Harrington, Interpreting the New Testament; also confer W.A. Beardslee, Literary Criticism of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970); E.V. McKnight, What Is Form Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969); and N. Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969).
46. We will have occasion to discuss what is
traditionally called the two-source hypothesis (i.e., the two sources
of Matthew and Luke) in chap. 4 and the Q-Document in chap. 3.
47. See Roetzel, The World That Shaped the New Testament, chap. 4: "Scripture and Interpretation," 77-94.
48. See chap. 3 for a more complete list of these.
49. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (NY: Scribner's, 1972) 23-114; see especially 113-14.
50. M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (NY: Scribner's, 1971) and R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (NY: Harper and Row, 1968); originally 1919 and 1921 respectively.
51. See the important contributions of W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969); G. Bornkamm, et al, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963); and H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St Luke (NY: Harper and Row, 1961); originally 1954, 1948, and 1954 respectively.
52. See J. Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), for an extensive survey of such studies from German scholarship.
53. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 340-41.
54. For a discussion of the relative merits of
recent translations, one might consult J.J. Pilch, "Selecting a Bible
Translation," BTB 10 (1980) 71-77 and Harrington, Interpreting the New Testament,
25-41. As regards textual criticism, the modern reader
might pay particular attention to the footnotes of recent, critical
translations; see for example the textual notes in the Revised Standard
Version for Mark 16:8 and John 7:52. More generally see J.
Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts:A Working Introduction to Texual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) and L.R. Bailey, ed., The Word of God: A Guide to English Versions of the Bible (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982).
55. C. Osiek, What Are They Saying about the Social Setting of the New Testament? (NY: Paulist, 1984) 4-6.
56. Ibid.; B.J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981); H.C. Kee, Christian Origins in Sociological Perspective: Methods and Resources (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980); and G. Theissen, The Sociology of Early Palestinain Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978).
57. The reader might again consult Fitzmyer's
discussion of the relationship of critical methodology to Christian
faith, A Christological Catechism, 18-23.
***********************************
*************************
****************
********
Richard, Jesus: One and Many
DEVELOPMENT OF THE JESUS TRADION Chapter 3
A fascinating and crucial stage in the
development of many world religions was the early struggle within these
traditions to formulate an adequate view of the founder. The
founder's uniqueness is a given, though the extent and nature of the
claims made by believers is the result of a process whereby the
self-identity of the movement becomes focused. So it was with the
early church.
Some movements have no dominant figure in the begin-
ning; but Christianity began with Jesus. And it was
the meaning of Jesus, of what he had said and done,
together with what the first Christians understood
him to be and to have been, to be doing and to have
done, which was the most significant factor in the
new sect's own developing self-understanding and
developing sense of distinctiveness over against the
other religions, sects and philosophies of the time.
Hence the need to focus particular attention on this
area of Christianity's beginnings.l
The New Testament offers much data for tracing such a process. In
this chapter, therefore, we will explore the pre-NT development of the
community's views of its founder as a prelude for studying the NT
writings.
In approaching this task one is again
confronted by methodological issues. Until recently the standard
procedure was to use the titles given Jesus in different strata of NT
literature as the key to discern early christologies. While an
earlier generation of scholars presumed "that Jesus deliberately and
consistently reinterpreted existing titles such as Son of God, Son of
Man, Messiah, Lord, and so forth," some more recent authors insist that
these "were shattered and remolded by what he was and by what he had
achieved."2 The procedure then has been to trace the
pre-Christian meaning of these titles, to examine their NT usage, and
to discern a chronological and typological schema for this
development.3 It is in this context that studies concerned either
with Jesus' usage of various titles (e.g., the Son of Man)4 or the
problem of his self-consciousness and claims should be situated.
This approach has not gone unchallenged, since
the scholar is obliged "to ask whether, when we have finished asking
about the 'titles' of Jesus, there is not something even more basic, of
which any description of the genesis of Christology must take account,
namely the experience of him reflected in the New Testament."5
Whether one insists that the Jewish heritage of the early Jesus
movement provided the grounds for or a restraint to the development of
christology,6 or whether one maintains that the experience and memory
of Jesus of Nazareth and faith in him constitute the beginnings of that
reflection,7 one would have to conclude with C.F.D. Moule that "a
'developmental' account of the genesis of Christology does...better
justice to the evidence than an 'evolutionary' account."8 Our
approach, therefore, will be both developmental and literary,
developmental since we view it not as uniform or successive stages of
an evolutionary process but as an outgrowth of early followers'
experience as expressed in credal formulas and literary since our
exposition will be based upon a study of these credal formulas.
"Discerning the Earliest Christologies"
Between the Jesus level and that of the NT
writers there was continuous intellectual activity within the community
regarding the Christ-event. Knowledge of this activity, however,
is available only from the writings of believers who composed their
works at a later date. Between the time of Jesus' death and that
of the first Christian writings there is a significant gap. Since
Paul's first letters were penned in the 40s and Mark was probably
written around 65-70, one must reckon with a sizeable lapse of time
between the life of Jesus and the emergence of most NT literature
between 80 and l00.
Another factor to consider is the nature of
the literature and the character of the sources of our knowledge.
These texts are closely associated with specific problems and their
resolutions. Thus the NT letters are "occasional" documents
written with audiences and problems in mind and not christological
treatises or early Christian histories. The letters and tracts of
our Christian anthology rarely indulge in extended christological
discussions; instead they prefer to establish a doctrinal basis for
their moral concerns and problem-solving. The letters tell us
little about the events following the death of Jesus; the gospels
concentrate upon his life; and only the Acts of the Apostles relates
sequentially the events following the death and resurrection. But
since Acts was written much later than the events discussed (c. 80-90)
and since its writer presents a theological version of the Christian
experience9 and not, like a modern historian, a blow-by-blow account of
the events, we must use this information with caution when
reconstructing the history and thought of that period. Further,
these documents reveal Christian communities and theologies at
different stages of development. In other words, they are diverse
and complex and one finds in them multiple and variously evolved
christologies. In the gospels especially one discovers developed
and complex portraits of Jesus which presuppose years of community
reflection, preaching, and worship.
From the post-resurrection perspective of
these writers and their later, advanced christological stance, we are
forced to glean clues to the early communities' thinking. As a
result of literary analysis we are able to isolate traditional units
and fragments (embedded as unsuspecting quotations) which these writers
borrowed from their common store of tradition. One is able to
isolate christological formulas and hymns by noting the peculiarity of
language, style, vocabulary, thought, and poetic or other types of
structure which a textual unit may manifest. An example is found
in Paul's Letter to the Thessalonians, where he uses a traditional
Hellenistic fragment in describing the conversion of this community:
a you turned to God from idols
b to serve the living and real God
c (and) to wait for his Son from the heavens
a' whom he raised from the dead
b' Jesus who delivers us
c' from the wrath to come
(l Thess l:9-l0--RSVmod).l0
Owing to the non-Pauline expressions used: "turn to" for "believe,"
"real" only here in Paul, "deliver" never in an eschatological context,
not the usual word for "wait," and "heavens" for "heaven," we conclude
that these verses are pre-Pauline. The last mentioned, "heavens"
in the plural, is Jewish rather than idiomatic Greek; the latter is
usual in Paul. Further, the text is poetic in rhythm and
structure. One notes that parts a and a' are in the past, b and
b' in the present, and c and c' in the future, that the first stanza
centers on God and the second on Jesus, and that "deliver" (b) is a pun
on the Aramaic name "Jesus," i.e., "God saves or delivers" (also Matt
l:21). Finally, there is a delicate balance between theology
(centered on God), christology (Jesus as agent), and eschatology
(resurrection, return, and judgment). Already in the pre-Pauline
confessions the Christ-event is central to Christian belief; namely, by
his resurrection Jesus is united to his Father and is the believer's
means of deliverance from this age and from the wrath of the next.
It is from such fragments and more developed
christological hymns that one perceives the great concern followers had
about the founder of their movement. In all likelihood, early
preaching centered on the binary profession of faith or kerygmatic
formula (kerygma being Greek for "what is preached") concerning Jesus'
death and resurrection or, as Paul would have it, "Christ crucified"
(the term "Christ" being a proclamation of faith in Jesus as messiah or
lord). Early kerygmatic units or credal formulas and early belief
itself were binary in expression and in character since they were
centered on the pre- and post-resurrection realities of the
Christ-event. This basic core was expressed in formulas such as
"Jesus is Lord" or "Jesus is the Christ" (see Rom l0:9; l Cor l2:3;
Phil 2:ll). There was a focus on the earthly existence or death
of Jesus and on his subsequent resurrection or glory. This is
well expressed in a pre-Pauline formula found in Rom l:3-4:
his Son, who was descended from David
according to the flesh
and designated Son of God in power
according to the Spirit of holiness by his
resurrection from the dead.
Since the language of this text (Davidic descent, "Spirit of holiness")
is not particularly Pauline, we conclude that the formula expresses
earlier Christian beliefs, which Paul and his Roman audience could
accept. From it we see that Christians perceived in Jesus one
approved by God, one whose death was intimately related to his
resurrection (theme of sonship), and to their deliverance.
Another example is found in l Peter l:21(RSV mod), where the author employs a hymnic fragment:
a he
raised
he gave a'
b
him
to him b'
c from the
dead glory
c'
We find here a verse-like passage which consists of parallel
participial constructions ("who raised" and "who gave" of the RSV
represent participles in Greek) and result in a chiastic structure,
i.e., an abc-c'b'a' pattern. Theologically, the passage dwells
not on the death/resurrection antithesis but focuses on
post-resurrection realities, namely, Christ's glorification.
Additionally, we perceive here an early, low christology wherein God is
the agent and Jesus the servant.
With time and reflection communities pursued
the christological tendencies and hints found in the
tradition. It was the death and resurrection which claimed
attention since these realities were central to the Christian's faith
and interpretation of the Christ-event. However, speculation
about Jesus' post-resurrection and pre-death existence bore fruit in
hymnic and liturgical lore and oral tradition, fragments of which are
found in many NT books: Phil 2:6-ll; Heb l:2-4; Col l:l5-20; l Tim
3:l6; John l:l-18; and fragments in l Peter. The importance of
such hymns is underscored by Paul (l Cor l4:26), post-Pauline writers
(Col 3:l6-l7; Eph 5:l5), and Pliny the governor who, in ll2 A.D.,
writes to the emperor Trajan that his Christian subjects "were in the
habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they
sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god" (Ep. l0:96).1l
"Early Christological Development"
From an examination of traditional fragments
and hymnic passages we are led to see early christological development
as an expansion forward and backward of the early kerygma,l2 as in the
following diagram:
Agency <-- Life <--
<--- Death/Resurrection --->
Heavenly Abode
Pre-Existence <--
The forward movement involved interest in the Christ's
post-resurrection activity while the backward dynamics focused either
upon the life and ministry of Jesus or upon his cosmic activity and
pre-existence. The two movements reveal varying interests in the
Christ-event, interests expressed in hymnic formulations about the
Christ's role as agent of God, about his destiny and eventually his
origin, and also tantalizing hints about his work as God's
servant. At the same time, apparently, there developed
interest in the "mighty works and wonders and signs which God did
through him" (Acts 2:22). This interest contributed immensely to
the preservation, formulation, and development of the Jesus tradition
as expressed orally and then, via narrative conventions, in a variety
of gospels.
Christological Titles. At this
juncture, we should consider the function of the "titles of majesty"
conferred on Jesus. As Marxsen has insisted, they are not
"statements about Jesus' history," but instead, presuming this history
and the central elements of the kerygma (death and resurrection), they
are statements about Christ's role or function vis-a-vis God and God's
work for humanity.l3 The early christologies, whether expressed
in hymnic liturgical fragments or by exalted titles, were functional in
nature. If one must agree with Hengel that
these forms of Jewish thought and language concerned
with a mediator of revelation and salvation at the
beginning and the end of time almost forced earliest
Christianity to interpret Jesus' preaching and actions,
his claim to be God's eschatological messianic ambas-
sador, his unique connection with the Father, the im-
minence of whose salvation he announced, his shameful
death and his resurrection, which was interpreted as
exaltation, in a concentrated form as a unique,
'eschatological' saving event,l4
then one must also insist that the titles which both the Jewish and
Jesus traditions offered early believers also forced themselves upon
their christological thought and language, allowing them to confess
Jesus in roles worthy of his soteriological function or as "unique,
eschatological saving event." The titles served the community
both as bearers of the content of early tradition and as convenient
vehicles for developing christology.15
Kerygma: Forward and Backward Dynamics.
Returning to the diagram noted above, we begin by considering the
forward dynamics and its numerous vestiges detectable in the NT
writings. Despite the frequent, negative statements of a
generation ago that some NT authors betrayed the early kerygma by
capitulating to "early catholicism" (i.e., turning away from the core
of the kerygma to historical, structural, and moral concerns),16 there
is a definite tendency in the traditional and hymnic fragments to move
beyond the perimeters of the binary formula of the kerygma. This
tendency is evident in l Cor l5:l-7. There Paul states that he is
using traditional material concerning the Christ's death, burial, and
resurrection (vv. 3-4) and then gives a list of resurrection
appearances (vv. 5-7).17 In defense of the key role which the
theme of resurrection plays in Christian belief ("if Christ has not
been raised then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain,"
v. l4), Paul appeals to the post-resurrection activity of the Christ,
that is, to his appearances to members of the community. This
same dynamic, it seems, will contribute to the development of
resurrection lore and narratives. Thus, although Paul is
addressing community problems, he nonetheless participates in the
process responsible for the production and preservation of lore about
the Christ's post-resurrection activity.
The NT books contain many hints about such
activity. In relation to his being raised by God from the dead,
Jesus is said to be the one who "has been given glory," "designated Son
of God," and the one who will return as "Son from the heavens" (l Peter
l:21; Rom l:4; l Thess l:l0). He is enthroned in heaven and sits
at God's right hand, from where he will return as judge in the final
days. The following fragment (l Tim 3:l6) illustrates an early
formulation of these post-resurrection themes:
he was
manifested in the
flesh,
a
vindicated in the
spirit,
b
seen by
angels,
b
preached among the nations, a
believed on in the
world,
a
taken up in
glory.
b
The letters a and b refer to earthly and heavenly realities
respectively; i.e., "flesh," "nations," and "world" address the lower
realm while "spirit," "angels," and "glory" deal with the upper
realm.18 The fragment is divided into two stanzas, each of which
is binary in form. In the first, one line deals with the first part of
the kerygmatic formula and two with the second, while in the second,
all three lines deal with Christ's post-resurrection role, two
referring to his earthly (through the work of ministers) and heavenly
activity. Indeed, comparison of this fragment with a passage in l
Peter 3:l8-l9 confirms this interpretation.19 The text, after an
initial statement about Jesus' life and death, eulogizes his
post-resurrection role. Examination of l Peter 3 and other hymns
reveals traces of still more post-resurrection activities: the "descent
into hell" (release of imprisoned spirits--l Peter 3:l9), the
subjection of all the powers (reconciliation), and the enthronement
(right hand, bestowing of glory, exaltation, conferring of lordship or
preeminence). Mention should be made here of the importance of
Psalm 110 (its emphasis on lordship, right hand, and scepter) in this
early christological development.20
A final note should be made regarding the
Christ's post-resurrection activity, namely, the reading back into the
ministry of post-resurrection themes.21 For example, the concept
of sonship, associated in the early tradition with resurrection (Rom
l:4 and l Thess l:l0), becomes in Mark l:ll a means to establish Jesus'
divinely sanctioned identity, while the theme of glory, also related to
resurrection or enthronement (l Peter l:20), is associated in Mark
9:2-8 with his earthly activity.
We turn next to the backward dynamics and its
hymnic vestiges (again see diagram above). Some traditional
fragments indicate that there was, early in the churches'
consciousness, a concern for Jesus' salvific role (Col l:20; Heb l:3)
as well as for his earthly activity and background (emphasis upon his
humanity as in Phil 2:7-8 or upon his Davidic descent as in Rom
l:3). This interest in the life and ministry of the Master was to
find its impetus in the fascination for storytelling and will be
treated below.
A similar dinamic is the tradition's desire to
attribute cosmic activity to the Christ and to dwell on the nature of
his relationship to God; thus he is seen as having lordship over all
creation ("heir of all things," Heb l:2 and "first born from the dead"
and "preeminent," Col l:l8; see also John l:3). One also finds
tentative ventures into pre-existence christology. In temporal
terms the Christ is said to be one who "is before all things" (Col
l:l7) or who existed before time was (John l:l). But more
significantly Colossians calls him "image of the invisible God" or one
in whom "all fulness was pleased to dwell" (l:l5, l9). The
Johannine hymn, while never explicitly identifying Jesus with the
Logos, attributes divinity to the eternal Word (John l:l-2, l8).
Lastly, we examine a hymnic fragment (Heb 1) which clearly illustrates this backward dynamics:
2 a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things
through whom also he created the world,
3 who,
being the reflection of (his) glory
a
and the stamp of his nature,
bearing all
things
b
by the word of his power,
having made purification for sins,
c
sat down at the right of the majesty on high,
d
4 having become so much superior to angels as the name
he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.
Only verse 3 (RSVmod) is considered part of the hymn, though vv. 2 and
4 contain hymnic themes. "Being," "bearing," and "having made" of
v. 3 are participles, a feature of early hymns by which a series of
qualifying phrases is attributed to the subject. The rhythmic
pattern and theological concepts also argue for a hymnic source.
Verse 3a implies divine pre-existence; 3b a role in governance of the
universe; 3c salvific work on humanity's behalf; and 3d enthronement at
God's right hand. Parts 3c and 3d reflect the earlier binary form
of traditional, kerygmatic formulas.
It is the theme of pre-existence, however,
which is of concern to us at this point. 3a and 3b (also v. 2)
concentrate upon two pre-earthly aspects, the Son's pre-existence and
role vis-a-vis creation. Both are expressed in Hellenistic terms,
reminiscent of Jewish wisdom speculation. The following passage
(Wisdom 7:25-8:l) is crucial for understanding the intellectual context
out of which a pre-existence christology developed:
7:25 For she is a breath of the power of God,
and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty;
therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her.
26 For she is a reflection of eternal light,
a spotless mirror of the working of God,
and an image of his goodness.
27 Though she is but one, she can do all things,
and while remaining in herself,
she renews all things;
in every generation she passes into holy souls
and makes them friends of God, and prophets;
28 for God loves nothing so much
as the man who lives with wisdom.
29 For she is more beautiful than the sun,
and excels every constellation of the stars.
Compared with the light she is found to be superior,
30 for it is succeeded by the night,
but against wisdom evil does not prevail.
8:l She reaches mightily from one end of the earth
to the other,
and she orders all things well.22
This is a fine example of Hellenistic Jewish thought so evident in the
Alexandrian writer Philo and intertestamental Enoch literature.
Wisdom, in "Platonic terms," becomes an emanation of God (note the
metaphorical synonyms of breath, reflection, mirror, and image):23 like
in nature, separate in essence, and self-abiding yet one with the
source of its being. Description of the Son as "reflection of
[God's] glory" is identical to that of Wisdom (underlined words above
indicate identical Greek terms in the two texts). Further,
the phrase "the stamp (charakter) of his nature" is probably synonymous
to "image" (eikon) of the same verse (see also Col l:l5). While
Wisdom's activity is manifold, its role in relation to the universe is
of interest here. It is all powerful, world renewing, and source
of order. In like manner the Christ is given a role in the
creation, ordering, and sustaining of the universe (Heb l:2, 3b; see
also Col l:l5-l7 and John l:3-4).24
We conclude that believers professed Jesus
first of all to be an agent of God, whose death was regarded by that
same God as expiation for human wrongdoing and who consequently was
raised to a glorious status by God. Just as Christians reflected
on the role of their Lord they also speculated about his destiny and
origin. If reflection about his post-resurrection activity or
destiny led to speculation about his relationship to God or origin, it
is nonetheless preoccupation with his salvific role as expressed in the
theme of exaltation which one finds in NT writers. The mythic or
structural pattern associated with such a view is usually called an
"exaltation or enthronement christology" and might be shown as follows:
/
Enthronement
/ as Son
/
Death/Resurrection /
Such a diagram represents an extension forward of the kerygmatic
formula and illustrates the type of low christology commonly
encountered in the New Testament. Even the christological
hymn of Phil 2:6-ll can plausibly be thus interpreted. Paul,
relying upon an early hymn, believed, along with that source, that
Jesus, though made according to God's likeness and image like Adam,
unlike him did not grasp at equality with the Divine.25
Paul was not interested in Jesus' origin but in his role (humble
obedience) vis-a-vis the Father and humanity. It was Jewish and
Hellenistic thinking as represented by the suffering servant (Isaiah
40:lf), the old and new Adam (Genesis l-3), the primal man
(contemporary thought), the revealing Word of God, and pre-existent
Wisdom which fueled speculation concerning Jesus' role in the history
of salvation and also his destiny and origin.
Beyond this pattern there developed a concept
of agency, not only of one who did the will of God but also of one who
was sent by God to carry out the divine plan. This "agency
christology" was particularly conducive to the narrative genre where
the concept serves to establish Jesus' divine power and authority (see
Mark 9:37).
It was the paradigm of wisdom and the
influence of wisdom speculation which contributed greatly to the
christologies of the late New Testament and subsequent church
councils. In many cases, what had been stated concerning Jesus'
role and relationship to the Father (obedient servant, one foretold and
manifested as part of God's plan, the one who orders and even creates
and recreates the universe), soon, in an increasingly more Hellenized
world, took on the perspective of origin and status. A passage
such as Wisdom 7:25-8:l contributed to the development of a
pre-existence christology as Christians attempted to define the Son's
relationship to the Father. The mythic structure, however, owes
to other influences. The following passage from the
intertestamental work l Enoch 42 is of interest here:
l. Wisdom could not find a place in which she could dwell;
but a place was found (for her) in the heavens.
2. Then Wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the
people,
but she found no dwelling place.
(So) Wisdom returned to her place
and she settled permanently among the angels.26
Wisdom has a home only in the heavens; so while visiting humanity and
finding no lasting, earthly home, she returns to her seat among the
angels. Similarity to the christological hymns is obvious.
The Christ leaves heaven, visits humanity, and returns to his heavenly
abode. The author of the Fourth Gospel makes extensive use of
this heavenly-abode imagery with its implications of human rejection,
while some of the hymns employ explicitly this mythic structure.
We might diagram this "pre-existence christology" as follows:
Pre-existence l
l Enthronement in Glory
Creation
l
l Cosmic Reconciliation
Incarnation l
l Exaltation/Manifestation
Death
l----------> l Resurrection
As Wisdom began in heaven, came to visit humanity, and returned to her
rightful place with God, so did the Christ; the wisdom model
existed for the borrowing.
While one might be tempted in the development
from low to high christologies, involving pre-existence, to see the
main line of the evolution of NT tradition, it is reflection on the
founder's role which predominates. The authors are concerned with
the Christ-event and consequently with the role which Jesus played in
the eternal plan. They are interested in how and why Jesus acted
more than in who he was, i.e., an agency or functional rather than an
incarnational christology.27 The christological titles too denote
function, whether obedient service, establishment of God's rule, or
rendering of eschatological judgment (Son of God, Christ, and Son of
Man respectively), rather than identity. The gospels, to which we
direct our attention next, dwell upon the unique period when the Jewish
Messiah put into effect the Father's plan for him. They too
employ traditional titles, for they are interested in his role as Lord,
Messiah, Son of Man, and Son of God. The evangelists and other
writers see Jesus as paradigmatic of God's concern for humanity and his
life both as salvific and normative for his followers.28
"Development of the Jesus Material"
While worship tended to foster christological
speculation, preaching (kerygma), teaching (didache), and moral
exhortation (paraenesis) seem to have spurred the development of the
Jesus material. The former favored the hymnic or poetic, the
latter prefered the narrative or story form. But in both
instances the credal formulas retained their structural and dynamic
force as preachers, teachers, and writers set about the task of
theologizing, for the binary kerygmatic affirmation "Jesus is Lord"
("Jesus is the Christ," or "he has died and is risen") was never out of
sight.
A few decades after Jesus' death when lives of
the Master began to emerge, there existed in the community memory a
store of narrative and discourse material about him. The origin
and development of this material will always be of interest to us,
though the process and details of this development are shrouded in
mystery. Nonetheless, scholarship by employing literary methods
can provide the reader with interesting and helpful insights. It
is to the results of these various types of criticism, as applied to
the development of early Christian tradition, that we now turn our
attention.
Along with the early community's focus upon
the kerygma or death and resurrection of Jesus, already in these
formulas we see the community's interest in Jesus' life, ministry, and
background. Paul in Romans l:3-4 employs a fragment whose
formulation of the binary formula is of interest, especially that the
Christ "was descended from David according to the flesh." While
such a passage in its Pauline formulation focuses upon the continuity
in salvation history (prophets in v. 2, Jesus as son of David in v. 3,
Son of God as the one raised from the dead in v. 4, and the roles of
his followers in ministry and conversion in v. 5), that of the
pre-Pauline text betrays an interest in the founder's background and in
the movement's Jewish roots. If most early formulas dwell upon
the central theme of death, the frequent contrast between "flesh" and
"spirit" to designate the binary elements of the kerygma are sure signs
of interest in the life and ministry of the Master (l Tim 3:l6; Rom
l:3-4; l Peter 3:l8; see also Phil 2:7-8).
Three Developmental Levels. Biblical
criticism has clarified, methodologically, our understanding of the
Jesus material's development. Influenced by W. Marxsen,29
scholars routinely speak of a three-level process.30 1)
Initially, there is the historical level. A man, called Jesus,
lived in first century Palestine where he exercised a ministry of
uncertain length, preaching to the crowds of Palestine, in Galilee
especially, and gathering disciples who accompanied and assisted
him. During this ministry and the final days in Jerusalem he was
observed performing various deeds and teaching the crowds, the Jewish
authorities, and his own followers. This activity, characterized
simply as the historical level, constitutes the beginnings and the
foundation of the Jesus tradition.
In light of what was said in chapter one about
the complexity of the Jesus material and in chapter two about the
contributions of literary methods for studying this material, it should
come as no surprise that two extremes should be avoided in assessing
the Jesus level. On the one hand, the literalist approach to the
gospels is inexcusable for it does not do justice to the complexity of
the material, to the process of transmission, and to the creativity of
the early community and its evangelists. On the other hand,
extreme skepticism, which sees most of the Jesus material as a creation
of the early church is not supported by modern scholarship.
Studies in the development of oral and folk literature as well as in
the dynamics of the transmission of traditions have demonstrated a keen
interest by those who transmit these traditions in retaining the wisdom
of the materials being handed down and a certain creativity on the part
of the communities and writers involved as the material is
reappropriated by successive generations. It is in discourse
material that one finds the greatest constancy and therefore basis for
reaching the Jesus level, particularly the parables, which often allow
the modern reader to strip away later layers of interpretation.31
Nonetheless, caution mixed with a certain optimism is in order.32
2) The second level is that of the community
or early church, a period of oral development particularly studied by
form criticism and more recently by sociological methods, a time when
the Jesus material was remembered, recited, and reappropriated as it
was applied to the community's needs. Sayings of the Lord were
put at the service of the church's needs, often with mixed results as
the poor and less poor in the community acted according to their social
perceptions, for example, in regard to meat offered to idols or
behavior at the Lord's supper.33 Traditions thus appropriated
either made their way into early texts, as was the case for Paul's
Corinthian correspondence, or else was passed on to other members of
the community who in their turn left their imprint upon the
material. As materials were handed on orally, the stories and
sayings tended to adopt stereotyped structures or forms. This was
a period of great creativity and we will return below to examine
further this process.
3) The third and final level, that examined by
redaction criticism and composition analysis, is that represented by
the gospel writers. These authors, who themselves were members of
the community, inherited oral and written sources and community
traditions and proceeded to compose lives of the Master. They
imposed upon the material their own and their communities' view points
and theologies. Most of this book will be devoted to a
study of this level, i.e., the NT writings.
Focus upon the Oral Level There are
therefore three levels in the development of the Jesus tradition: the
Jesus, oral, and written levels. We return to the second of
these, since it requires further attention. The period of
development between the death of Jesus and the putting down in writing
of the traditions about him is a fascinating and mysterious one for the
20th-century reader. It is a time when Jesus' followers handed on
the stories and sayings of the Master in an effort to understand the
role which God's envoy played in the divine plan and was to play in
their lives. As the material took shape through constant
repetition and use within the community, a grouping of traditional
units into larger collections of sayings, parables, or episodes
occurred.34 One suspects that Mark's parable, miracle, and
conflict-story sections owe in large measure to the oral recitation of
the Jesus material prior to the composition of the gospel (see Mark
2:l-3:6; 4:l-34; 4:35f; and ll:27f).
The process which led to such grouping of
materials seems to have been twofold. The first galvanized around
the pattern of the kerygmatic formula and focused on the passion and
resurrection. As the story was told in the community, in the
style of the recitation of ancient epics in oral cultures,35 the
central epidoses of Jesus' final days in Jerusalem took shape and,
because of the different communities reciting such tales during the
commemorations of Jesus' salvific death, there resulted a variety of
passion "narratives" or oral stories.
A major impulse to this process was the
Christians' reading and use of the Jewish scriptures, initially in a
Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) and then in its Greek form.
Seemingly, one of the early elements of the kerygma was the fulfilment
by Jesus of the Jewish scriptures. Rom l:2 implies that not
only the prophetic voices but also "the gospel concerning God's Son"
was foretold "in the holy scriptures." l Cor l5:3-4 is of
interest here since Paul explicitly tells the audience that he is
employing the received tradition
that Christ died for our sins
in accordance with the scriptures,
that he was buried
that he was raised on the third day
in accordance with the scriptures.
Appeal to the scriptures is not only Paul's idea, as it is often in his letters, but that of the formula cited.
Additionally, a strong case can be made for
viewing the Jewish scriptures as the quarry from which Christian
believers drew the building blocks for their theological and
christological formulations and constructs.36 Two passages come
to mind as probable influences upon the formulation of the passion
stories: Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. The former speaks of one who
"had no form or comeliness," "despised and rejected by men," "a man of
sorrows," "bearer of our griefs and...sorrows...wounded for our
transgressions...bruised for our iniquities" (vv. 2-5). One
suspects that passages such as "he opened not his mouth" and "like a
sheep that before its shearers is dumb" (v. 7) as well as "they made
his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death" (v. 9)
contributed to the evolution of the story since Jesus is silent before
Pilate (Mark l5:5), crucified with robbers (Mark l5:27-32; see Luke's
development of this theme: 23:39-43), and buried by Joseph of Arimathea
(Mark l5:43f; Matt 27:57 adds: "a rich man").
The early tradition's use of Psalm 22 calls
for more extended treatment, since from its opening verse the Markan
passion narrative draws the last words of Jesus: "My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me?" The following list suggests points of
contact and possible influence of the Psalm on the developing tradition
in terms of formulation, fulfiling reinforcement, and creative
theologizing.
Ps
22
Mark (et al)
l.
"forsake"
l5:34 citation
2. cry by day--no answer l5:34 cry on cross
cry by night--no rest
l4:34 prayer at Gethsemane
4 & 8 trust in God--deliver [+Matt 27:43]
6 scorned by
men
passion
generally
7 mocking, making mouths l5:29-3l deriding, wagging
at, wagging
heads
heads, mocking
ll there is none to help l5:3l
l4 bones out of joint
[John l9:32-33]
l5 tongue cleaves to jaws
l5:23 & 36 gave to drink
l6 encircled by company of death scene generally
evildoers
piercing
crucifixion
l8 dividing
garments
l5:24 dividing garments
[John l9:24
cites text]
casting
lots
l5:24 casting lots
20 the
sword
[John l9:34 piercing-spear]
So many thematic and stylistic contacts argue strongly that extensive
use of the Jewish scriptures was made by the early communities as they
attempted to relive and reflect upon the core elements of their faith.37
A second area of development involved
materials dealing with the actions and sayings of the
Master. Form critics have classified these into three
general categories:
Deed/Narratives:
Miracles (also called tales, Novellen)
cures, exorcisms, nature miracles
Stories (also Muthen, Legende)
cultic legends, biographical legends,
special stories
Sayings/Logia:
Discourse and Dialogues
Sapiential Sayings
exhortations, questions, proverbs,
statements (maxims, macarisms,
arguments a minore ad maius)
Prophetic Sayings
predictions of messianic salvation,
dire warnings, admonitions,
apocalyptic sayings
Legal Sayings
laws, rules for the community,
sentences of holy law
I Sayings
Parables
similes or metaphors, similitudes or
comparisons, parables (strictly),
examplary stories, allegories
Pronouncement Stories (also paradigms, apothegms,
aphoristic narratives)
The variety of forms involving narrative and speech demonstrates the
complex development of the Jesus material and also the vastness of its
concerns. The community appealed to the authority of Jesus in
many areas and ways. We are able to detect the influence of
the Old Testament upon the formulation, development, and creation of
narratives and discourses. It is probable that the nature
miracle, the "stilling of the storm" (Mark 4:35-4l), was inspired by a
passage such as Psalm l07:23-30 and that the Lukan parallel (8:22-25)
makes further use of the Greek text in its formulation. Other
influences of the Old Testament on the Jesus material are classified as
prophecy-fulfilment, others as typological (especially concerning
Elijah the miracle worker), and still others as providing suitable
language and tone. Finally, one detects in this stage of
development the grouping of similar forms and themes into miracle,
parable, and controversy-story cycles as preachers and teachers used
the Jesus material.
Miracle Tradition as a Test-Case. To
conclude our discussion of the Jesus material's passage through three
stages of development we might briefly consider the issue of miracle
stories and their relationship to this developmental process. The
gospels present a number of miracles which Jesus allegedly performed
during his ministry. While unreflective readers tend to view
these as one group, the form critic divides them into several
categories, such as nature miracles, healings, exorcisms, and
resuscitations. Examination of these shows that some exhibit
folkloric characteristics; others seem more symbolic and didactic than
standard narration would warrant; while still others are told with
striking moderation. Some miracle stories manifest "clear
instances of protological thinking. Persons afflicted with what
we would call today mental disturbances were regarded as possessed
because observers were unable to analyze properly the causes of the
maladies in question, and consequently ascribed them to a
demon."38 Such literary and historical considerations warrant
caution in analyzing the miracle traditions.
The threefold process identified earlier
assists the reader of the miracle stories. At the Jesus level,
scholars recognize that his contemporaries had no problem accepting his
extraordinary powers (the biblical texts speak not of miracles but of
dynameis or acts of power). Even Jesus' Jewish opponents admit
that he performs extraordinary acts although they attribute these to
sorcery or demonic power. Other figures in the Semitic and
Hellenistic world are assumed to have unusual powers, whether Rabbi
Hanina ben Dosa or the religious figure Apollonius of Tyana.39
Whether one wishes, on philosophical grounds, to admit or reject the
possibility of miracles is a question well beyond our concern.
What seems clear from the gospels is that Jesus' contemporaries
accepted the fact that he performed mighty deeds and they reacted in
varying ways to that belief.
When one proceeds to the second, oral level,
an even more complex situation is found. Form critics have
attempted to clarify this level and to assist the reader in discerning
the types of miracle narratives, their constitutive parts, and their
function within the community's life and teaching. Invariably the
tradition and the gospel writers present "Jesus' miracles as an
essential part of a larger undertaking: the defeat of the evil powers
in preparation for the coming of God's kingdom."40 At this level
the stories on the one hand became standardized and on the other served
as vehicles of the community's thought and as handy tools for preaching
and teaching. The modern reader is alerted to pay close attention
to the form and function of the miracle stories and less to alleged
historical detail.41
The third level, which constitutes the end
point of oral development, represents the only firm basis of
knowledge. Two important methods assist the reader in
appreciating the miracle stories. First, the redaction critic
pays special attention to an author's use of the miracle stories to
recite the story of Jesus to a believing community. Each
evangelist has a particular portrait of Jesus, a portrait in which the
miracle stories have a role to play. Secondly, the social
sciences assist the reader in appreciating the part which the miracle
stories played in the gospel writers' presentation of Jesus'
soteriological role. By understanding body symbolism or purity
and boundary mechanisms, the modern reader is better able to discern
the NT writers' concern not about the curing of diseases but about the
healing of personal and social illness and subjugation brought about by
disease and its cultural and religious disruption.42
The miracle stories, as part of the developing
Jesus tradition, underwent a process of change and use, a process which
has left many traces in the biblical narrative. The modern reader
must meet this challenge head on with the tools and knowledge offered
by biblical scholarship along with literary and theological common
sense.
"Excursus on the Q-Source"
One final topic must be treated before
addressing the concerns of the individual writers of the New
Testament. On the cutting edge of the oral and written
levels of this developmental process one finds an enigmatic document
which scholars, following German usage, call the Q-Source (usually
related to Quelle meaning "source"). Since it is not an existing
or extant NT work, it seems logical to treat it here as we conclude our
chapter on the pre-gospel development of the Jesus tradition.
Nature and Characteristics of the
Source. Once scholars were convinced of the priority of Markan
composition, greater attention was given to a proposal that the later
Synoptics had an additional common source at their disposal.43
Were one to eliminate from Matthew and Luke the passages borrowed from
Mark, they would still have about 235 verses in common. In
Matthew most of this Q-material or double tradition is found in
thematic groupings in major discourses (chapters 5-7, l0, l3, l8, 23,
and 24-25), while in Luke, although scattered throughout the gospel,
there are concentrations in two redactional sections: Luke's sermon
(6:20-7:35) and the journey narrative (9:5l-l8:l4). The
Q-passages constitute a sayings source consisting of prophetic,
eschatological, sapiential (wisdom), and oracular sayings with little
narrative. We use the following convenient form-critical
classificaion:44 parables (well over a dozen, among others: the
marriage feast/great supper, the stray/lost sheep, and talents/pounds),
oracles (against the Galilean cities or woes against the Pharisees and
scribes/lawyers), beatitudes, prophetic pronouncements (promises,
present/future correlatives, and sentences of holy law), wisdom words
(on love of enemies, on judgment), exhortations (Lord's prayer, advice
on forgiveness and final judgment), and lastly narratives. The
last category is poorly represented, namely, the temptations and the
healing of the centurion's slave; but we also add to this category a
dialogue between John's disciples and Jesus as well as the Beelzebul
controversy.
Scholarship agrees that the double tradition
was a written source. Verbal agreement betweem the two is
estimated at 7l% for the entire Q-material,45 since many passages offer
verbatim correspondence. The following (RSVmod) is paradigmatic
of Matthean and Lukan usage.
Matt
8:l9-22
Luke 9:57-60
And
And as they were going
along the road,
a scribe came up and a man
said to
him,
said to him,
"Teacher,
I will follow
you
I will follow you
wherever you go." wherever you go."
And Jesus says to him, And Jesus said to him,
Foxes have holes, Foxes have holes,
and birds of the air and birds of the air
have
nests;
have nests;
but the Son of Man has but the Son of Man has
nowhere to lay his head. nowhere to lay his head.
Another of the disciples To another
said to
him,
he said,
"Follow me."
But he said,
"Lord, allow me first "Lord, allow me first,
to go and bury my father." going, to bury my father."
But Jesus says to him, But he said to him,
"Follow me,
and leave the dead to bury "Leave the dead to bury
their own
dead.
their own dead;
but as for you, going,
proclaim the kingdom of God.
[+ vv. 6l-62]
Neither evangelist offers clues as to the original setting of the
Q-material. Luke simply situates the material at the beginning of
the journey to Jerusalem ("they were going along the road"), while the
Gospel of Matthew inserts these sayings within its threefold
miracles/discipleship sequence (chapters 8-9).46 The Q-Source
probably had no narrative setting. There are signs of minor
editing by both authors. Luke seems to have eliminated the
inelegant "historical present" of the source ("he says," Matt 8:20, 22)
and to have replaced these by "he said", the form consistently
used in vv. 57-62 (7 times). Luke is also probably responsible
for transfering "follow me" from Jesus' response (v. 60, as in Matt
8:22) to the beginning of the discipleship saying. In this way
all three Lukan passages on would-be followers (57-58, 59-60, 6l-62)
open with the theme of "following." Further, one suspects that
the Matthean statements: "a scribe came up and said to him, 'Teacher, I
will follow you'" and "Another of the disciples said to him", were
composed by that evangelist under the influence of the "rich young man"
episode (Matt l9:l6 and 2l) and that of the "great commandment."
From the latter the evangelist seems to have borrowed the favorable
view of the Markan scribe who was "not far from the kingdom of God"
(Mark l2:28-34). To compose a new version of the "great
commandment" Matthew would have followed the lead of Q which speaks of
a lawyer who, after calling Jesus "Teacher," would put him to a test
(compare Matt 22:35-36 and Luke l0:25). Therefore, while one is
led to agree with the consensus of scholarship that the order of the
Q-Document and the form of the sayings are closer to the Lukan form,
one must be leary, in light of analyses such as the above, of too
simply considering the Lukan passages original.
There is uncertainty concerning many issues
relating to the Q-Source. For one thing we are not sure about its
length. By definition the source is identified as Matthew and
Luke's non-Markan material. Such a definition is problematic
since it is inconceivable both that the two evangelists felt compelled
to employ the whole of the Q-Document (they felt no such obligation to
exhaust Mark) and that they independently chose the same passages to
supplement their Markan source. For example, it is possible that
Luke 9:60b-62 belonged to Q. The additional saying is a
complement to the first two, in thought and structure, and so Luke
would have preserved them. Matthew on the contrary would have
eliminated the two "kingdom of God" sayings (Luke 9:60b, 62b) and have
found the burying of a dead father and a leave-taking redundant.
Besides, the Matthean Gospel's identification of the speaker of 8:2l as
"another of the disciples" and its threefold treatment of discipleship,
ending with the missionary discourse in chapter l0, would have made
less urgent an additional saying about following Jesus and proclaiming
the kingdom.
Another point of concern is the document's
possible overlap with Markan episodes. It was suggested above
that the great commandment is derived both from Mark and Q.
Scholars agree that the same would obtain for the mustard seed parable,
where the elements of "the smallest of all seeds," the mustard plant as
a "shrub," the image of "shade" and the double question at the
beginning of the parable are derived from Mark while those of the
mustard plant as a "tree," the nesting "in the branches," and the
single question owe to the Q-Source (Mark 4:30-32 and parallels).
In some cases, it is probable that some agreements between Matthew and
Luke against Mark in regard to the triple tradition (passages shared by
all the Synoptics) would also be due to overlap between Mark and Q.47
Examination of the materials ascribed to the
Q-Source reveals much interest in the themes of the kingdom of God, the
imminent expectation of the end-times, an uncompromising call to leave
all to follow Jesus and continue his ministry, a challenge to radical
observance of the Law (according to Jesus' interpretation), and
warnings of impending judgment against Israel. Because of this
concern for eschatological themes scholars describe this source as
apocalyptic in character. The document's stress is not on the
cross and resurrection as we might expect from our analysis of the
early kerygmatic formulas, nor as one finds in Paul and in Mark, but
instead there is emphasis upon the imminent return of Jesus as the Son
of Man for judgment, that is, Jesus as the one vindicated by God, whose
return as the glorious Son of Man would justify both his and the
community's experience of suffering (see Dan 7:13-14; 12:1-4).48
Thus the document's view of the Christ-event and of salvation history
is determined by an apocalyptic perspective. Before discussing
this claim, however, it should be pointed out that most of the hymnic
fragments examined stress the Christ's cosmic lordship, whereby he is
either seated at God's right hand in glory or will receive the
subjection of the cosmic powers and the hommage of the nations (Col
l:l6; l Peter 3:22; l Tim 3:l6; Phil 2:9-ll; Heb l:3; also Rom
l:4). Even more important is the fragment cited by Paul in his
early correspondence, l Thess l:9-l0, where we see clearly the themes
which predominate in the Q-Source, namely, Jesus (God's Son) as the
eschatological agent, the nearness of the end, and deliverance from the
approaching judgment. The Pauline citation mentions the death and
resurrection but stresses Christ 's followers and their service of "the
living and real God" while awaiting "his Son from the heavens," for it
is this Jesus "who delivers [them] from the wrath to come." We
should note, however, both the strange absence in these fragments of
the expression "Son of Man" and its occurrence virtually only in the
gospel tradition, that is, the Q, Markan, and Johannine versions.49
The Q-Source, therefore, represents the views,
not unique in this early period, of an apocalyptic group whose sense of
the Christ-event was deeply affected by its experience of the
vicissitudes of discipleship within the Roman empire. While we
will have occasion in our treatment of the Book of Revelation to
examine the background and nature of apocalyptic thought and
literature, it would be helpful at this point to anticipate that
discussion.
Fundamental to all apocalypticism is the self-conscious-
ness of a community that is experiencing rejection and
persecution from its contemporaries, but is sustained by
its sense of God's favor, both now and in the age to
come, when he will act in their behalf to judge the
wicked and vindicate them. It is precisely this view of
life that is embodied in the Q document.50
The views of the community that produced this source are similar to
those of other apocalyptic documents of the intertestamental period (l
Enoch, Daniel 7-12, the Qumran community). Examination of their
social and religious settings, their ideology, and theological concerns
assists us in understanding the background of the Q-Source.
The community has its own view of
history. It sees the prophets of old along with John,
Jesus, and the disciples as God's messengers who call for
repentance. Indicative of their apocalypticism is the
negative tone of the document for it sees continuity between the past
and its own present not in the theme of acceptance of the good news but
in that of rejection. They are to rejoice at being rejected, for
there is both reward in heaven and knowledge that the prophets suffered
in like manner (Matt 5:ll-l2; Luke 6:22-23). Both John and the
Son of Man were repudiated, one as an ascetic and the other as a
bon-vivant (Matt ll:l8-l9; Luke 7:33-35). The destiny of Jesus'
followers is thus compared to that of the prophets which Wisdom sent to
Israel. The thrust of these comparisons is final judgment (Matt
23:34-36; Luke ll:49-51).
The time is running out; the New Age has
begun; and the moment must be seized (Matt ll:l2; Luke l6:l6).
There is hope and urgency since "the harvest is plentiful, but the
laborers are few" (Matt 9:37; Luke l0:2). John came to prepare
for the eschatological event and the challenge has been launched, since
Jesus' coming has ushered in the New Age (Matt 3:l2; ll:l8-l9; Luke
3:l7; 7:33-35). Salvation is now; the end is coming soon.
Thus, the themes of judgment, suddenness (delayed or not, the end will
be sudden: Matt 24:48; Luke l2:45), cosmic signs, and the centrality of
the Son of Man receive much attention.
Before discussing the document's portrait of
Jesus, it is necessary, in light of its apocalyptic character, to
consider the issues of provenance, date, and community.
Recently, a scholar has seized upon the passage discussed above ("foxes
have holes") to characterize the milieu of this community as one of
"itinerant radicalism." Taking the sociological model of the
wandering philosopher-teachers of the Cynic movement, he has suggested
that the community that produced the Q-Document was one that gloried in
its lack of security and itinerant character. In this way he
explains the preservation of much of the Jesus material on radical
discipleship, the negative attitude toward wealth and family, and the
sayings of Jesus on crisis, judgment, and reward.51
It seems to me, however, that an apocalyptic
model explains more satisfactorily the data concerning the community
and its theological perspective. The reason radical statements
are preserved is related to the community's apocalypticism. The
world is seen in an adversarial role since it is corrupt and deserves
condemnation for its persecution of God's envoys. The community,
in dire straits, appeals to God's forthcoming judgment in the person of
the returning Son of Man. It sees itself as a community of
righteous followers, which, while awaiting its Master's return, has a
mission vis-a-vis Israel. It is a Jewish Christian community of
Greek language which sees itself, at least initially, as sent not to
the Gentiles but to the various groups within Judaism (Matt 22:2-l0;
Luke l4:l6-24). Q is a prophetic document whose concern for the
Gentiles must be set in relation to Israel's constant rejection of
God's messengers. The community uses Jesus' sayings about
Gentiles as prophetic taunts to Israel's intransigence (Matt 8:l0; Luke
7:9). At the same time it holds out the traditional Jewish hope
to the Gentiles that in the end-days they will be gathered along with
Israel into God's kingdom, for they too will "sit at table in the
kingdom" (Matt 8:ll; Luke l3:29).52
Finally, we can surmise that it comes from a
Near Eastern area, probably Asia Minor, Syria, or Palestine where Greek
would have had much currency. As to time of composition, a date
prior to the composition of Mark (c. 65-70) is indicated. Its
emphasis on the imminence of the end and the urgency of the mission to
unbelievers within the house of Israel demands such a conclusion.
Jesus in the Q-Document. The principal
title for Jesus is that of Son of Man, that heavenly figure that will
come at the end-time as judge (Dan 7:l3; Mark l3:26; l4:6l-62; Rev
l4:l4-20). Jesus is the coming Son of Man--the parousia or return
of Jesus looms large for this author and community (Matt 24:37-39; Luke
l7:26-30). As John had stated (Matt 3:l2; Luke 3:l7-l8) Jesus had
come for judgment and so life was to be a preparation for that event
(Matt 5:25-26; Luke l2:57-59). Israel is called to repentance
lest, like the reckless servant, it undergo severe punishment (Matt
24:48-5l; Luke l2:45-46). Both Israel and Jesus' followers,
therefore, must be ready (Matt 24:44; Luke l2:40). By confessing
Jesus in the world they might in their turn be acknowledged by the Son
of Man in the heavenly realm (Matt l0:32-33; Luke l2:8-9).53
If the key to this eschatological document is
the returning Son of Man as judge, its preoccupation and primary focus,
in true Christian fashion, is the life and ministry of the Son, i.e.,
Jesus as God's eschatological agent. It is through the Son's
words and deeds that one witnesses God's power and learns God's
secrets. He is the revealer of "hidden things," that is,
knowledge of the Father (see Matt ll:25-27 and Luke l0:21-22).
Furthermore, these secrets are made known not to the wise, not even to
prophets and the righteous/kings (Matt l3:l7; Luke l0:24), but to the
little ones, the disciples who, in the ministry of Jesus, have been
privileged to see and hear this revelation. Jesus is the
otherworldly mediator of God's secrets and purposes.
The Son knows God's will and is faithful to
that plan. Service of God, bowing to the divine will, and
proper knowledge of these are the ingredients of servanthood (Matt
4:3-l0; Luke 4:3-l2). Jesus' ministry was one of salvation (Matt
ll:4-5; Luke 7:22), a call to repentance (Matt ll:21-23; Luke
l0:l3-l5), and so a time of challenge that called for wisdom.
Jesus' contemporaries are chided for their lack of discernment; they
are able to read the signs of the sky but not "the signs of the times"
(Matt l6:2-3; Luke l2:54-56). The inbreaking of God's kingdom
will be preceded by many signs, not the least being deep familial and
social division. Jesus' ministry and mission of necessity was to
bring in the turmoils of the end-time before he would usher in the
peace of the kingdom (Matt l0:34-36; Luke l2:5l-53).
Jesus' call to repentance, to faith, and to
radical discipleship ("foxes have holes") must be seen in light of his
preaching of the kingdom. It belongs to the poor, to those who
are oppressed on account of the Son of Man (Matt 5:3-l2; Luke
6:20-23). While it is a future reality ("may your kingdom
come"--see Matt 6:l0 and Luke ll:2), it begins in the ministry of Jesus
which promises sure result (see the parables of the mustard seed and
leaven--Matt l3:31-33 and Luke l3:l8-2l). Further, Jesus' healing
powers are a sure sign that God is at work in him and that the kingdom
of God has already begun (Matt l2:28; Luke ll:20).
The corollary to Jesus' preaching of the
kingdom in the Q-Source is his fierce condemnation and radical
challenge to Israel. It has rejected God's eschatological agent,
has rejected Wisdom and its envoys (Matt 23:34-35; Luke ll:49-51), and
did not recognize the sign of Jonah or the greatness of the messenger
(Matt l2:38-42; Luke ll:29-32). Against Israel, therefore,
the Q-Source launches its most severe criticism in the form of
warnings, whether "woes" against the nation's leaders, condemnations
against the privileged cities of Galilee, invective toward the present,
evil generation, or lament over Jerusalem.54
Jesus is the locus of salvation. When he
returns at the end, human activity will be the gauge of the Son of
Man's judgment. Jesus' words leave no room for doubt:"And I tell
you, every one who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will
acknowledge before the angels of God, but he who denies me before men
will be denied before the angels of God" (Luke l2:8-9; see also Matt
l0:32-33). Acceptance of Jesus and reception of his followers
(Matt l0:40; Luke l0:l6) will determine the verdict of the returning
Son of Man. Jesus, for this author and community, therefore, is
the agent of present crisis in view of fellowship in the future kingdom
(Matt 8:ll; Luke l3:29). It is not the cross of Jesus which is
central, since only the saying of Matt l0:38 and Luke l4:27 addresses
that theme. Instead, the focus is upon God's plan as it operates
through the person of the heavenly and earthly Son of Man. The
community, in the midst of what it perceives to be the end-time
tribulations, longs for the return of the Son of Man, accompanied by
"lightning flashes and lights from one side of the sky to the other"
(Luke l7:24 and Matt 24:27), when its tribulations will cease and the
promised kingdom will become a reality.
"Note on Non-Canonical Jesus Tradition"
It is logical to assume and scholarship
confirms that oral Jesus traditions persisted throughout the formative
period of the New Testament. As source criticism makes clear,
Matthew and Luke made generous use of their respective communities'
oral tradition when they formulated their lives of the Master.
More recent redactional studies have become far more sensitive to this
influence. Stories about Jesus and his sayings continued to be
heard in the communities that had no evangelists and even in those that
produced the canonical and other gospels.
For our purpose we might use H. Koester's convenient summary of such traditional materials:
Words of Jesus and traditions about Jesus which are
comparable to the Synoptic tradition are found in
special writings belonging to the genre of the gospels
and in quotations in other literature. There is no
literary dependence upon the canonical Gospels in many
instances. Rather, the source of such traditions is
either oral transmission or independent written tradi-
tradition. l Clement quotes two small collections
of sayings....A similar collection has been inserted
into the first chapter of the Didache, and 2
Clement apparently used a collection of Jesus'
sayings....An independent tradition of Jesus' sayings
has recently come to light in the newly discovered
(Coptic) Gospel of Thomas....The fragment of an
Unknown Gospel...and the gospel fragment Papyrus
Egerton 2 present sayings that have been set into
scenes resembling the Synoptic apophthegms [pronounce-
ment stories], but are somewhat more elaborate.55
The same summary lists collections of Jesus sayings by Papias of
Hierapolis, and agrapha or written sayings quoted by Church Fathers and
discusses the flourishing of miracle, childhood, and revelatory or
epiphany traditions in various apocryphal texts. The majority of
NT scholars are far less sanguine than Koester about maintaining the
independence from the canonical gospels of many of these late
traditions, particularly as concerns the Gospel of Thomas.
Nonetheless, more work needs to be done to understand the period and
literature in question.
As the early church increasingly focused its
attention on written texts or collections of the Jesus material and as
it became embroiled in doctrinal controversy, oral tradition receded
into the background and disappeared with the passing generations.
This tradition, however, has left a few traces in post-NT Christian
literature. On a popular level, oral tradition generated much
interest in and lore about the miracles of the Master, his hidden life,
and his post-resurrection activity. These two important post-NT
developments, the evolution of the thought and literature of the
official church and the literary output of popular spirituality, will
be discussed in chapters l2 and l3.
NOTES
l. J.D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (Philadelphia: Westminster, l980) ix.
2. R.H. Fuller, "Christology: Its Nature and Methods," 5 in R.H. Fuller and P. Perkins, Who Is This Christ? Gospel Christology and Contemporary Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983).
3. For example, F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology (London: Lutterworeth, l969); Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament; R.H. Ruller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (NY: Charles Scribner's, l965); and W. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God (London: SCM, l966).
4. See especially the classical work of H.E. Todt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Philadelphia: Westminster, l965) and more recently the surveys of the issue by Dunn, Christology in the Making, 65-97 and B. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels in the Light of Recent Research (London: SPCK, 1983).
5. C.F.D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (London: Cambridge University, l977) 9; see also the critiques of Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology; W. Marxsen, The Beginnings of Christology, Together with the Lord's Supper as a Christological Problem (Philadelphia: Fortress, l979); and M. Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, l976).
6. Hengel, The Son of God and Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History.
7. Moule, The Origin of Christology; Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology; and Marxsen, The Beginnings of Christology.
8. Moule, The Origin of Christology, 9.
9. Luke, in the prologue of the gospel, speaks
of "compiling a narrative of the things which have been accomplished
among us" (Luke l:l), i.e., which God has brought to fulfilment (use of
divine passive--see I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. l979] 4l).
l0. The RSV (Revised Standard Version) will be
employed throughtout this study and will on occasion be slightly
modified (indicated as RSVmod) in order to facilitate analysis and
comparision.
ll. See W. Melmoth and W.M.L. Hutchinson, eds, Pliny: Letters (Cambridge: Harvard University, l947) 2:403.
l2. See also Marxsen, The Beginnings of Christology and "Christology in the NT", l46-56 in IDBSup.
l3. "Christology in the NT," l48.
l4. The Son of God, 90.
l5. On the "titles of majesty" (Hoheitstitel) as vehicles of tradition in the development of Christology, see Dunn, Christology in the Making and Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History.
l6. See particularly the discussion of E.
Kasemann's views by D.J. Harrington, "Ernst Kasemann on the Church in
the New Testament," l5-45 and "The 'Early Catholic' Writings of the New
Testament: The Church Adjusting to World History," 6l-78 in Light of All Nations: Essays on the Church in New Testament Research (Wilmington: Glazier, l982).
17. See J. Kloppenborg, "An Analysis of the
Pre-Pauline Formula in 1 Cor 15:3b-5 in Light of Some Recent
Literature," CBQ 40 (1978) 351-67.
l8. See the analysis of J.T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background (Cambridge: UP, l97l) l5-l7 and 94-95.
l9. In partial agreement with Sanders, ibid., l7-l8; for a fuller discussion of the hymnic material of l Peter, see chapter l0.
20. Among others see D.M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973) and M. Gourgues, A la droite de Dieu: resurrection de Jesus et actualisation du Psaume 110:1 dans le Nouveau Testament (Paris: Gabalda, 1978).
21. Fuller, "The Titles of Jesus in Early Christology," in Who Is This Christ?, deals at length with what he calls "the retrojection of the titles of Jesus" (43-49).
22. Author's own literal translation from the Greek.
23. Even Philo, when describing the Divine
Logos, does not employ such bold terminology; see D. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (NY: Doubleday, l979) l84-90.
24. Further contacts might be noted between
this passage from Wisdom and other christological hymns concerning the
invincibility of light/Wisdom, the relation between "image" and
"stamp," creation "by his word," and superiority of Son/Wisdom.
25. Murphy-O'Connor, Becoming Human Together, 46-48; idem, "Christological Anthropology in Phil 2:6-ll" RB 83 (l976) 25-50; and Dunn, Christology in the Making, 114-21; Neyrey, Christ Is Community, 218-27; and J. Ziesler, Pauline Christianity (NY: Oxford University, 1983) 41-44.
26. Translation by E. Isaac in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, l:33.
27. See the convenient and classic discussion of early christological schemata in Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, 243-49.
28. From the above discussion it should be
clear that the expressions "high" and "low" (or "higher" and "lower"),
as employed in this study, are relational terms. Their use
represents an attempt to situate a particular christological
formulation or portrait relative to claims of pre-existence or unique,
divine sonship and does not recall the terminology of late 19th century
theologians, for whom Jesus was either God in the flesh ("high") or a
noble religious ideal ("low"). For further discussion see
chapter 12, n. 19.
29. Mark the Evangelist, l5-29.
30. See Fitzmyer's discussion of the Biblical
Commission's acceptance of such a schema in the l964 Vatican document
entitled "An Instruction about the Historical Truth of the Gospels," A Christological Catechism, 97-l42.
31. See C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Collins, l965); Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus; M.I. Boucher, The Parables (Wilmington: Glazier, l983); and J. Lambrecht, Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus (NY: Crossroad, 1981).
32. S.B. Marrow, The Words of Jesus in Our Gospels: A Catholic Response to Fundamentalism (NY: Paulist, l979); Barr, "Reading the Bible as Literature," l0-33.
33. See especially G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth
(Philadelphia: Fortress, l982), l2l-43 on meat offered to idols and
l45-74 on the Lord's supper. On a more literary note for
the latter, see J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, l977).
34. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 322-67.
35. W.H. Kelber, The Oral and Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) 44-89.
36. B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of Old Testament Quotations
(London: SCM, l96l). On Mark's use of the Old Testament to
compose the passion narrative, see H.C. Kee, "The Function of
Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark ll-l6" l65-88 in E.E. Ellis
and E. Grasser, eds., Jesus und Paulus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, l975). In more general terms, for Luke's
use of the Old Testament to compose Acts 7 or Paul to compose 2 Cor
3:lf, see the present writer's Acts 6:l-8:4 and "Polemics, Old
Testament, and Theology. A Study of II Cor., III,l-IV,6" RB 88 (l98l) 340-67.
37. For further treatment of this subject, see Lindars, New Testament Apologetic;
as well as Lindars, "The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of
New Testament Theology: Prolegomena" and P. Borgen, "Response," in NTS 23 (l976) 59-75.
38. Fitzmyer, A Christological Catechism,
36. More generally see his answer to the question: "How do
contemporary New Testament interpreters understand the miracle
stories?"; confer also Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, 98-ll9.
39. G. Vermes, "Hanina ben Dosa," JJS
23 (1972) 28-50 and 24 (1973) 51-64 and E.L. Bowie, "Apollonius of
Tyana: Tradition and Reality," 2:16:2:1652-99 in H. Temporini and W.
Hasse, eds, Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischer Welt (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979). In more general terms, see J. M. Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (Naperville: Alec R. Allenson, l974); G. Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983); and H.C. Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World: A Study in Sociohistorical Method (New Haven: Yale University, 1983).
40. H.C. Kee, "Miracle Workers," 599 in IDBSup.
41. See Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, especially 23lf on "the miracle stories as symbolic actions."
42. See for example, J.J. Pilch, "Biblical Leprosy and Body Symbolism" BTB ll (l98l) l08-l13.
43. For an overall, brief treatment of the Q-Source, see H.C. Kee, Jesus in History, 76-l20; Kingsbury, Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, l-27; and J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke
(NY: Doubleday, l981-85) 75-81; and for discussion of the
methodological issues involved in the investigation of this non-extant
source, see J.S. Kloppenborg, "Tradition and Redaction in the Synoptic
Sayings Source," CBQ 46 (1984) 34-62 and I. Havener, Q: The Sayings of Jesus (Wilmington: Glazier, 1987).
44. Kee, Jesus in History, 84-89; see Havener, Q, 111-46, for a tentative reconstruction of Q.
45. Kingsbury, Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 3; see also the statistics given by Fitzmyer, Luke, 76.
46. J. Meier, Matthew (Wilmington: Glazier, l980) 79-l0l.
47. For further discussion and examples, see Fitzmyer, Luke, 8l-82, F. Neirynck, The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark with a Cumulative List (Gembloux: Duculot, 1974), and Havener, Q, 153-61.
48. J.R. Donahue, "Recent Studies on the Origin of 'Son of Man' in the Gospels," CBQ 48 (1986) 497.
49. Donahue, "Recent Studies on the Origin of
'Son of Man' in the Gospels," 498, suggests that the use of the "Son of
Man" phrase to integrate "the earthly ministry, the suffering, and the
return of Jesus...may be connected with the origin of the Gospel form
itself."
50. Kee, Jesus in History, 8l.
51. G. Theissen, The Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity.
52. See also Kingsbury, Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 23-24 and Havener, Q, 91-104.
53. This is another case, among several, of an
overlap between Q and Mark (8:38); see M. Devisch, "La relation entre
l'evangile de Marc et le document Q," 59-91 in M. Sabbe, ed., L'evangile selon Marc: tradition et redaction (Gembloux: Duculot, 1974).
54. See Kee, Jesus in History, 92-98, for an excellent treatment of this topic.
55. Introduction to the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, l982) 2:67-68 and D. Wenham, ed., The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985).
***********************************
*************************
****************
********
Richard, Jesus: One and Many
IMAGES OF JESUS IN POPULAR POST-NT LITERATURE Chapter 13
Neither our survey of NT writings and their
variety of portraits of Jesus (chaps. 4-11) nor the examination of the
christological evolution which took place within theological and
ecclesiastical circles (chap. 12) exhausts the wide range of literature
produced during the first centuries of this era. For alongside
these more formal or official works there emerged an assortment of
popular Christian writings. Initially there was little to
distinguish works which eventually were admitted into the scriptural
canon from other writings produced contemporaneously. For
example, the letters of recommendation of Paul's opponents in Corinth
(2 Cor 3:1-3) would hardly have differed from Paul's own on behalf of
Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2) or of Onesimus (letter to Philemon), or the
pseudonymous Second Thessalonians from the letter of the alleged
forgerer (2 Thess 2:2). However, as the Jesus movement gained in
numbers, increased in complexity, and gained in historical awareness, a
considerable differentiation of power/interest, cultural,
ethnic/regional groups occurred. The NT canon itself owes much of
its variety to such factors. Few NT books were free of
ideological, societal, or religious controversy. Indeed most were
the product of personal or community struggles. The post-NT
period, however, underwent an even greater differentiation of
structures, interest groups, and ideologies. Thus, while most of
this book studied the canonical works of the early community, and while
the prior chapter directed its attention to the literature and thinking
of the official church and its theologians and councils, the present
chapter will concern itself with the literature of the popular culture
of that same church.
Before addressing that literature, however, it
is necessary to discuss the history of those early years. This
will be done from two different but complementary perspectives.
First, we consider the views which non-Christians, both Jewish and
Roman, had of the new movement and, secondly, we examine the Christian
data for understanding the emergence of popular Christian culture.
"The Jesus Movement as Seen by Outsiders"
It is easy to forget that the Christian
movement began inauspiciously and was subject to the usual pressures of
growth, differentiation, and survival. The movement took root
within the Roman society of the first and second centuries and at the
beginning must not have seemed any different from other mystery cults
or fraternal societies. So it must have appeared as an
innovative, intrusive, and increasingly troublesome social and
religious menace to the established populations of various Roman
communities.
It is easy to simplify Christian beginnings,
on the basis of uncritical use of the polemical and idealizing
histories of the Church Fathers, and to view these years as the
triumphal progression of a divinely instituted church within a human
context as it was cleansed inwardly (orthodoxy versus heresy) and was
preserved outwardly (in the midst of cruel, ungodly persecution).
R. L. Wilken characterized this perspective as "the myths of Christian
beginnings," for indeed it has tended to ignore the historical process
to which all institutions are subject. Scholarship has directed
its critical eye to the sources at our disposal for the reconstruction
of this history and has forced the modern reader to take more seriously
the axiom that the Jesus movement is a historical phenomenon.1 It
is clear from the previous chapter that the process of doctrinal
evolution was not one of progress from truth to an ever more clearly
defined expression of that truth nor the persistent extirpation of
heresy from the body of the faithful. It was a slow, dialectical
process with much ideological diversity, some of whose doctrinal
tendencies eventually led to the classical definitions of the great
councils as the church established itself more deeply within the
cultural structures of the Greco-Roman world.
In various NT texts we are aware of the Jesus
movement's relations with the outside world. Beyond its
missionary thrust into the Jewish synagogue and the Gentile world, and
perhaps as a result of it, the Jesus movement was soon required to
resolve the problems caused by this interaction and further to define
itself over against the various movements of its time.2 It
is clear that the Matthean and Johannine communities, among others,
were affected adversely by their separation or expulsion from the
synagogue. Paul and other missionaries defined their
gospel, at least in part, in relation to the Jewish
community. Hence, one is forced to take seriously the fact
that the Jesus movement emerged from early Judaism.
By the same token one must consider seriously
the latter's reaction to what it considered a questionable tendency
within its ranks. Whether one envisions this reaction as
active persecution of co-religionists (Gal l:l3; Acts 8:l; Mark l3:9),
excommunication of heretics from the synagogue (John 9; Matt l0:l7), or
the violent opposition merited by a renegade movement (mutural
recrimination between rival groups, reciprocal attempts at discrediting
the other's doctrines: stolen body, virginal conception, etc.), it is
hardly reasonable to expect the break between Judaism and the young
Jesus movement to have been a pacific one. At the same time
far too much, on too little evidence, has been said about official
Jewish persecution of Jewish Christians, whether through official
documents, decrees of excommunication, or liturgical maledictions
against heretics.3 The antagonistic relationship between
the emerging Jesus movement and the severely disrupted Jewish community
of Palestine was the result of a gradual, worsening relationship that
involved a quest, on the part of both, for self-protection and
self-definition.4 In fact the gospels are a testimony to
early Christianity's tense relations with its parent body.
Later Mishnaic stories deprecating Jesus and his mother5 and equally
severe anti-Jewish statements in various Patristic sources6 emphasize
the fact that these feelings were mutual.
We now turn our attention to the pagan
reaction to and view of this new religious movement. R.L.
Wilken has addressed this topic at some length in studying the views of
Pliny the Younger, who was Roman governor of Bithynia in lll A.D., of
Galen the philosophical and medical writer of the end of the second
century, of the Greek philosopher Celsus whose work True Doctrine of
l70 merited an extended response by Origen in Contra Celsum (c. 248),
of the third century Neo-Platonist philosopher Porphyry, and of the
former Christian turned pagan, the fourth century emperor, Julian the
Apostate. In separate chapters Wilken also discusses two
early descriptions of the Jesus movement as "political club or
associations" (hetaeria) and as "superstition"
(superstitio).7 A cursory reading of these sources
convinces the modern reader that the perception, toleration, and
acceptance of the Jesus movement by the Roman populace had a long and
complex history. On the Christian side an urgent need for
apologetical response emerged, especially in view of the works of
Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian. Some of the popular works we will
examine below have as a primary goal the apologetic presentation of
Jesus to Roman readers. On the Roman side one recognizes
the constant refrain that Christianity is a threat to the "old" Roman
religion and to the empire's Greco-Roman culture and way of life .
We begin with and use as the basis of our
survey a discussion of Tacitus' well-known description of the Jesus
movement, while describing Nero's role in the fire of Rome.
To divert suspicion from himself, Tacitus tells us
Nero substituted as culprits and punished with
the utmost refinement of cruelty, a class of men,
loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled
Christians. Christus, the founder of the name,
had undergone the death penalty in the reign of
Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius
Pilate, and the pernicious superstition was
checked for a moment, only to break out once more,
not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but
in the capital itself, where all things horrible
or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.
First, then, the confessed members of the sect were
arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers
were convicted, not so much on the count of arson
as for the hatred of the human race. And derision
accompanied their end...(Annals 15:44).8
Tacitus then describes Nero's disgraceful behavior and the sympathetic
backlash which resulted. These unfortunate Christians,
while innocent of the charge of arson in the eyes of this Roman
historian, were nonetheless worthy of his scorn. His incidental
statement is ideal for our discussion of Roman attitudes and judgments
in regard to the Jesus movement for it raises and foreshadows the basic
items of that pagan critique. We therefore address four crucial
areas suggested by Tacitus' statement.
l) The first issue is a negative one, namely,
the role played by persecution in the early years of the movement's
development. In the case described by Tacitus, persecution was
clearly a reality. While the historian proceeds,
immediately after the passage cited, to describe in gory detail the
savage punishment undergone by those hapless Christians, it is evident
from a reading of Roman sources that this was an isolated incident of
official persecution by the less-than-stable Nero. N.M. Bailkey,
in his discussion of "Trajan's enlightened policy" insists:
there is no evidence of an official state pronounce-
ment regarding Christianity before the early second
century A.D. Persecutions were sporadic and local,
being the product of popular hostility and action.
They were handled by provincial governors (with the
exception of Nero's persecution at Rome), who based
their action on the laws against secret societies
and the refusal of the Christians to demonstrate
their loyalty to the state by the purely political
gesture of sacrificing to the emperor....This
policy, which placed the label of traitor upon con-
victed Christians but also protected them against both
sporadic and systematic persecution, continued
until the Empire began to disintegrate in the last
half of the third century. Measures to wipe out
Christianity as a danger to the unity and security
of a troubled state culminated in the Great
Persecution (303-311 A.D.) under Diocletian. When
this failed, Constantine's proclamation of toleration
in 3l3 A.D. became the established policy.9
Contrary to older estimates of the movement's early years and former
generations' fascination with the theme of persecution and veneration
of martyrs, recent Classical and biblical scholars discover little
evidence for such a perspective.10 It was the work of later
generations of polemical, pious, and idealizing writers which placed
upon these early years an apocalyptic interpretation wherein the
ungodly forces of the pagan Roman empire were overcome not by the final
eschatological struggle of the end-days nor even by the Christ-event,
but, in the spirit of the Maccabean martyrs, by the pious, virtuous,
and self-effacing struggles of believers who witnessed to the divinely
instituted and soon-to-triumph Christian community.
Eusebius, the well-known church historian of the fourth century, for
one, begins his Ecclesiastical History by underscoring this
attitude. He proposes to discuss apostolic succession, the
menace of heresies, the misfortunes of the Jewish race, the bitter
persecutions directed at the church, and the heroism of the
martyrs. In the words of Wilken, "Eusebius intends to
present a history of the divine truth as it met resistance, conflict,
and persecution by its foes."11 This is ideology rather
than history. Tacitus, while disliking Christianity which
he classifies as one more disruptive secret society,12 is nonetheless
representative of the general Roman attitude of prosecution rather than
persecution of movements foreign to Roman interests and policy.
2) Tacitus' description of the Christians as
"a class of men, loathed for their vices" may sound curious to the
modern reader, unless it is remembered that the historian here reflects
the common Roman view, that the Christians were shirking their
religious and civic duties. The following statement by H.
Chadwick of Celsus' opinion helps to explain Tacitus' accusation:
Christianity is a dangerous innovation, and if it
is not checked it will be a disaster for the Roman
Empire. The Christians are not pulling their
weight; they ought to take their share of civic
responsibility, hold public office, fight in the
army, and support the Emperor in his struggle to
maintain the peace of the Empire.13
Such a criticism by Celsus, a common accusation in later writers,
forces us to look more closely at Tacitus' statement. The term
for vice (flagitium) means "shameful action or crime." The stress
is on shame and lack of gratitude and this interpretation accords with
Porphyry's reproach that Christians are ungrateful to the gods:
How can men not be in every way impious and
atheistic who have apostasized from the customs
of our fathers, through which every nation and
city is sustained? What good can reasonably
be hoped for from those who stand as enemies
and warriors against their benefactors? What
else are they than fighters against God?14
Indeed, it is a frequent accusation that the Christians are lacking in
gratitude both to the gods and to the Roman system on which
civilization depends. The Roman empire was based on toleration,
and "as the Roman state saw it, the Christians failed to satisfy the
terms on which toleration could be granted in that they appeared to be
subversive of the moral, political, and social order and refused to
tolerate other religions."15 For that reason, in Tacitus'
opinion, they were despised by the populace.
In a similar manner Tacitus' claim is
explained that the Christians were "convicted...for the hatred of the
human race." On the one hand they have rejected both the
gods and the customs which Greeks and barbarians had accepted from the
earliest times (accusations made by Celsus and Porphyry) and so had
acted shamefully and arrogantly. On the other, as a
religious and social minority within Roman communities, early
Christians were isolated and ostracized by Roman neighbors who resented
or were suspicious of their new customs and on their own count as they
chose the powerful bonds of Christian fellowship or association (Ag.
Celsus l:l) and tended to shun polytheistic practices. One will
remember Paul's discussion of lawsuits in the public courts and meats
offered to idols in l Cor 6 and 8f. l Peter, however, is an
excellent example of a Christian writer's attempt to reverse this
exclusivistic attitude of the early Christian movement.
Tacitus' statement that Christians were disliked by the Roman populace
finds its raison d'etre in their rejection of what Celsus will call
"the true doctrine" of the ancients. According to Tacitus
and other Roman critics, they have shown disdain or hatred (odium) for
human and divine wisdom (critique especially of Galen) and have acted
shamefully.
3) There is an acknowledgment both in Tacitus'
statement and in subsequent critiques of the centrality of
christology. Already at this early date it is clear that
the term "christ" is used as a proper name and that the adherents of
the movement are known by the name of "Christians." There is also
the recognition that Christ or "that fellow from Palestine" (as Julian
disdainfully calls him) was the central figure of the new
movement. The historical facts, presumed by later critics,
are pared to a minimum in Tacitus' statement and it is the ignominous
death sentence which draws his attention, as though he wishes to
justify his qualification of the movement as a "contagious disease"
that has invaded the Roman organism. Even Lucian of
Samosata, the second century writer, acknowledges in his parody of
Christian gullibility, that they "worship the man who was crucified in
Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world"
(Peregrinus ll).
Not only is Christ's centrality acknowledged
in these critiques, but his life, deeds, teaching, and the claims made
in his name receive increasing attention from Roman
writers. His life and ministry become the object of Roman
critiques, particularly his miracles and teachings. Sensing
that miracles were a key element in Christian apologetics, Roman
authors zeroed in on these elements of Jesus' activity.
Celsus admits that Jesus might have performed certain miracles (l:6,
68), but insists that it was through magic that they were
accomplished. To that effect he presents the well-known
story of Jesus' Egyptian sojourn: "because he was poor he hired himself
out as a workman in Egypt, and there tried his hand at certain magical
powers on which the Egyptians pride themselves; he returned full of
conceit because of these powers, and on account of them gave himself
the title of God" (l:28; also 38).16 Magic then becomes for
Celsus a means of dismissing the high christological claims made in
Jesus' name by his followers. Porphyry, while also willing
to admit the reality of the miracles rejects the accusation of magic
and insists that "Jesus was not a 'sorcerer but pious and wise and has
access to the heavens'."17 He, like Celsus and Julian
later, maintains that the claim that Jesus was not only wise but also
divine was made by Jesus' disciples who transformed the religion of
Jesus, so to speak, into a religion about him as God.
Julian, at a later remove, attempts to minimize these accomplishments,
sensing their weakness as an apologetic tool:
Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you,
has been known by name for but little more than
three hundred years: and during his lifetime he
accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless any-
one thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to
exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in
the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed
as a mighty achievement (Ag. Galilaeans l9l D-E).18
The object of such critiques, therefore, was to discredit Christianity's claims about its founder.19
Jesus' teachings are also the object of
criticism. Either it is claimed that these bear little
originality in relation to Classical or barbarian culture or else, in
an effort to drive a wedge between Judaism and its ungrateful
offspring, that there exist irreconcilable differences between the
writings of Moses and the teachings of Jesus; for example, Celsus
points out that Moses promises riches and power to his descendants,
while Jesus warns that riches and reputation are irreconcilable with
the acquisition of the kingdom by the true descendants of
Moses. Celsus then asks: "Who is wrong? Moses or
Jesus? Or when the Father sent Jesus had he forgotten what
commands he gave to Moses? Or did he condemn his own laws
and change his mind, and send his messenger for quite the opposite
purpose?" (7:l8). In Julian's case we cite the discussion
on circumcision, among many conflicts between Christian practice and
the Mosaic Law. The emperor notes that Paul and Peter in
dispensing from circumcision find themselves in opposition first to
Moses who says that Abraham's circumcision of the flesh was enjoined as
a "token of...covenant" between God and him and between God and his
descendants and secondly in opposition to Jesus who came not to destroy
but to fulfil the Law (reference to Matt 5:l7, l9). Julian
addresses his Christian audience: "either Jesus will be found to speak
falsely, or rather you will be found in all respects and in every way
to have failed to preserve the law" (Ag. Galilaeans 35l).
It was Julian, whose knowledge of both the Jewish and Christian
scriptures was quite advanced, who paid much attention to the
contradictions between what Christians saw as prophecy in the Old
Testament (e.g., a prophet like Moses, a descendant of Judah, or the
virginal conception, Deut l8:l8; Gen 49:l0; and Isa 7:l4) and its
fulfilment in the New Testament. Julian concludes about the
first: "Moses says that the prophet will be like him and not like God,
a prophet like himself and born of men, not a god," about the second:
"how could he be [i.e., from Judah] when according to you he was not
born of Joseph but of the Holy Spirit?" (he notes the disagreements
between the Matthean and Lukan genealogies), and of the third: "does
Isaiah anywhere say that a god will be born of a virgin? But why
do you not cease to call Mary the mother of God, if Isaiah nowhere says
that he that is born of the virgin is the 'only begotten Son of God'
and 'the firstborn of all creation?'" (Ag. Galilaeans 253 C-E, 262 C-D).
Three final areas of Greco-Roman critique
concerning Christian teaching require attention, namely, the doctrine
of the resurrection, Christ's divinity, and the Christian (and Jewish)
concept of God. a) The doctrine of resurrection drew severe
criticism from both Celsus and Porphyry, particularly the former who
calls into question the historical trustworthiness of the resurrection
narratives and witnesses (Ag. Celsus 2:55) and the very concept of
restoration of the body, an idea repugnant to Greeks (5:l4; see also
Acts l7:32 and l Cor l5:35f).
b) Few Roman critiques fail to note, following
Pliny's early observation that believers "sang in alternate verses a
hymn to Christ, as to a god" (Letters l0:96),20 that Christians made
exalted claims on behalf of their founder. Celsus states
that Christians betray monotheism since they worship extravagantly the
newcomer Jesus, i.e., God's servant rather than God (8:l2).
As noted earlier, Porphyry insists that Jesus was a wise man, not an
object of worship as his disciples shamefully claim. It is
from Julian, however, that the most severe criticisms of high
christology emanate. He tells his readers: "if it is God's
will that none other should be worshipped, why do you worship this
spurious son of his whom he has never yet recognised or considered as
his own?...You...foist on him a counterfeit son" (l59 E). He
reproaches Christians for not being true to apostolic tradition since
"neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus
God. But the worthy John...was the first to venture [and
"not...clearly or distinctly," 2l3 B] to call Jesus God" (327
A-B). There is even a hint in Celsus (8:l4) that Jesus
might replace God in the scheme of things, an idea which Origen, by
citing John l4:28, counters by insisting that the Son is subordinate to
the Father.21
c) Finally, the concept of God held by Jews
and Christians is basic to all attacks against the young Christian
movement. The sublime role attributed to Jesus offended the
increasingly strong sense of monotheism or of henotheism which was
gaining an audience in the Greco-Roman period. Further,
Jewish anthropomorphic stories about God and the exclusivistic claims
of this God (choice of one people, sending of prophets to a limited
portion of humanity, and the Christian assertion that God had sent the
Son on their behalf) greatly offended Romans versed in the Classical
tradition and its notion of divinity. We end our discussion
of this point by citing both Celsus and Julian, who poignantly ask why
God waited so long to care for the whole of humanity, the first: "is it
only now after such a long age that God has remembered to judge the
life of men? Did he not care before?" (4:7) and the second: "from
the beginning God cared only for the Jews...finally God sent unto them
[Jew and Gentile according to Paul] Jesus also...to announce his love
for man which should one day, though late, reach even unto us
also. Nay he even looked on for myriads...of years...For if
he is the God of all of us alike, and the creator of all, why did he
neglect us?" (l06 A-D).
4) Finally, we address Tacitus' claim that the
Jesus movement is a "pernicious [or deadly] superstition," indeed a
"disease," or the latest in vogue of "horrible or shameful
things." The charge especially of "superstition" is
significant since Tacitus' contemporary Pliny makes the same claim
concerning the Christians,22 who are brought before him for judgment in
the province of Bithynia. In a letter to the emperor Trajan where
he asks for advice concerning his treatment of those accused of
belonging to this secret, outlawed society--i.e., whether age,
repentance, or proof of accompanying crimes or vices should be taken
into consideration--he provides the modern reader with a mine of
information, fragmentary and suggestive though it may be, of the growth
of the Jesus movement in the early part of the second century and of
Roman law vis-a-vis that movement. One gets a tantalizing
glimpse of a variety of historical, sociological, and religious
data. The Christian movement is growing, so much so that it
"is not confined to the cities only, but has spread through the
villages and rural districts" (Letters 10:96). We learn
that there are people of all ages who belong to the movement, some for
as many as 25 years; some are even Roman citizens (and therefore
require special treatment). There are many adherents to this
movement. Thus, Pliny is concerned about indiscriminate
accusations: "especially considering the numbers
endangered. Persons of all ranks and ages, and of both
sexes are, and will be, involved in the persecution." But
there are signs of problems; many are falling away, whether through
lack of conviction or in the face of political and legal pressure; some
pagan, Roman neighbors are growing suspicious of and others are taking
advantage of denunciation procedures against their Christian neighbors;
and the two ideologies seen on a collision course as emperor cult
becomes a test of civic loyalty.
The accusation of "superstition" and its
explanation are major concerns. Pliny's letter gives important
clues to this understanding. He is concerned "whether the mere
profession of Christianity, albeit without crimes, or only the crimes
associated therewith are punishable." While he calls not
only belonging to but the movement itself "a crime,"23 indeed one to be
punished, he seems surprised at the alleged crime of these
Christians. He cites former Christians as maintaining that
the whole of their guilt, or their error, was,
that they were in the habit of meeting on a
certain fixed day before it was light, when they
sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to
a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath,
not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any
fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their
word, nor deny a trust when they should be called
upon to deliver it up; after which it was their
custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake
of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
As a result he pursues his examination of two deaconesses and concludes
with the statement: "I could discover nothing more than depraved and
excessive superstition." As in the case of Tacitus, two
elements are central: Christianity is called not only an "unenlightened
and meaningless worship" (superstitio), which of itself might be
innocuous,24 but also a dangerous ("depraved" or "pernicious") force
within Roman society. It is begrudgingly recognized, and, in the
case of Pliny, vindicated as a religious movement with laudable ideals;
but it is a threat to Roman society. Pliny expresses his
confidence that it will be "checked" and the disease "cured":
'Tis certain at least that the temples, which
had been almost deserted, begin now to be fre-
quented; and the sacred festivals, after a long
intermission, are again revived; while there is a
general demand for sacrificial animals, which for
some time past have met with few purchasers.
The Christian movement, therefore, is one more extravagant, if
well-meaning, cult which is contributing to the disintegration of the
old Roman order.
Early Roman writers seem then to have viewed
Christianity as a popular, pious movement, like others within the
general culture, which appealed to the lower classes, but one which was
also becoming a threat to the Roman way of life.25 Some
early writers, like Pliny, Galen, and Porphyry, saw the movement as not
lacking in moral or religious merit. Most nonetheless, when
comparing the Jesus movement to Classical culture, found the former
inferior in intellectual, moral, and social content.
Further, they never failed to perceive in this new movement a threat
both to Greco-Roman civilization and the good of the
empire. If Tacitus saw Christianity as a spreading disease,
Julian with considerable perception viewed it as the death knell of
Classical civilization.
"Development of Popular Christian Culture and Literature"
When one looks back on the early years of the
Christian movement one is struck by the dialectical and yet
complementary themes of diversity and unity. The NT canon
is a witness to the enormous diversity and the basic unity which
existed from the outset of the Jesus movement.26 However,
while the kerymatic focus on the Christ-event and its soteriological
consequences united the vision of the early missionaries and provided
coherence to NT literature, it is the diversity of concerns,
perspectives, and historical situations which predominate in the books
of the NT canon. It has been one of the major objectives of this
project to examine, particularly in relation to christology, the
surprising diversity of these early documents. Each work or
author witnesses to diverse situations, audiences, and perspectives
within the expanding Jesus movement.
When, however, one pays close attention to the
literature of the Church Fathers and the definitions of the councils in
the lengthy period following the writing of the New Testament, one
finds a greatly changed situation. In Clement of Rome one
finds a greater stress on morality and martyrdom, in Ignatius of
Antioch more interest in structures, and in Irenaeus greater insistence
on succession and true doctrine than one encounters in the earlier
literature. There develops within the communities an unrelenting
quest for unity and orthodoxy. The christological evolution
presented in chapter 12 above is testimony of this fact. Even the
views of Christianity's pagan critics and the responses of its own
apologists confirm this view. Both the Church Fathers and the
church's pagan critics either forgot or overlooked the multiplicity of
views within the New Testament and treated them as a monolithic
Christian book or scriptures. While Julian (for example: Ag.
Galileans 327 B) is able to play one NT author against the others, he
joins post-NT authors in viewing the New Testament as an
undifferentiated book of Christian scripture. Concomitant with
this quest for unity within the general church and the perception of
such by movement's critics is a startling abundance and bewildering
variety of compositions written by and used within the lower ranks of
the movement. The remainder of this chapter examines a sampling
from this literature to enable the reader to discern the major images
of Jesus which have in the past and continue in the present to
fascinate Christian believers.
Quest for Unity and Orthodoxy.
While it was a common characteristic of l960s scholarship to detect
numerous indications of "early catholicism" in post-Pauline writings of
the New Testament and while it has become equally common to contest
these earlier observations in the late 70s and 80s, it cannot be denied
that what E. Kasemann and others characterized as "early catholic"
(stress on morality, ecclesiology, hierarchy, and history) is found in
an ever-increasing concentration in early Patristic literature.
It is clearer presently that the relationship between these two bodies
of literature must be sought in the gradual evolution of the Christian
community from a small missionary movement (with the specter of
apocalyptic urgency ever at the fore) into an empire-wide social,
political, and theological reality, first in conflict with and then in
consort with the Roman empire. Already in the various NT
communities there are traces of some of the themes often described as
"early catholic," e.g., Johannine, Matthean, and Pauline quarrels about
authority, increasing concern for paraenesis and morality generally in
the later epistolary literature, a consuming interest in true doctrine
and structures in the Pastorals, and a greater concern for history and
universalism in Luke-Acts.
Due to fragmentation and disunity internally
and ostracization and opposition externally, the Christian community
underwent drastic changes as its membership increased and changed in
geographical, cultural, and linguistic terms. Loosely structured
communities needed more highly organized social mechanisms; and
increasingly greater diversity in philosophical and cultural terms
often compromised and threatened the role to be played by the
Christ-event. As the Jesus movement gained in numbers and its
ideas grew complex the process of institutionalization changed both the
structures and the thought of the young movement. The local
communities adopted the structures of the Greco-Roman world (an
increasingly imperial and bureaucratic system) and the theologies of
the young movement adjusted to the cultural and ethnic communities in
which they existed. The latter contributed both to greater
diversity in religious thought and practice and to an increasing
urgency for standards, canon, and authority.
It was in such an atmosphere that later
generations appealled to the figures of the past to substantiate policy
and theology. As new problems arose within and outside the
communities, as social and political pressures were brought to bear on
the young movement, and as the memories of its Jewish origins and of
its early days receded into the past, its intellectuals directed their
attention more and more to self-defense and apologetics and to
polemical thrusts against threatening forces within the movement
itself. The best-known early Christian writer who fits most of
these characteristics was the second century bishop of Lyons,
Irenaeus. In his famous work Against Heresies Irenaeus took pains
to trace the church's apostolic lineage or succession, to combat at
length the heretical tendencies he saw within the theological currents
of his day (particularly Gnostic writers) and to discuss proper
interpretation of the scriptures. The author is interested
in the criteria of truth, particularly apostolic origins and
uninterrupted tradition as the guarantee of the truthfulness of
Christian teaching. One of his strongest arguments in
attacking some of the leading Gnostic teachers runs as follows:
prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had
no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before
Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-
minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being
previous to the initiators and inventors of their
perversity (3:4:3).27
Clearly, innovation and novelty were the first signs of heresy.
Lack of continuity between a teacher's work and apostolic witness,
either via continuous tradition back to apostolic sources or in
conformity to the apostolic writings or scriptures, was a sure
indication of a lack of orthodoxy. Besides, Irenaeus ascribed
both the church's structures and doctrine to divine origin.
Communion or continuity with the source of
truth, the Lord Jesus Christ, was essential in this quest for
orthodoxy. Book 3 of Against Heresies is instructive in
this regard. Irenaeus begins his discussion with his
well-known statement concerning the authorship of the
gospels. After establishing the apostolic origin of "the
gospel," Irenaeus insists that all four gospels find their authority
within the apostolic circle: the apostles Matthew and John, Mark the
interpreter of Peter, and Luke the companion of Paul (3:l:l). He
proceeds to show how the heretics have followed neither scripture nor
tradition and are not in communion with the successors of the
apostles. Even when they appeal to the gospels they choose
the author they like and proceed to mutilate that text to justify their
errors. The Ebionites or Judaizers chose Matthew; Marcion the
anti-Judaizer opted for his own version of Luke; the Docetists ("those
who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained
impassible but that it was Jesus who suffered") preferred Mark; while
Valentinus the Gnostic made profuse use of John (3:ll:7). It was
owing to the divisive forces within the Christian community, therefore,
that Irenaeus and others had recourse to such a strategy, a strategy
which not only fostered unity from above but also tended to downplay
the differences within the tradition28 and to foster polemics. In
this way there developed further differences not only within the
developing theology of the official church (chapter 12) but also in
relation to those labeled heretics (especially the extensive and
diverse Gnostic movement) and those who continued to find fascination
in the particularities of the gospel narratives.
Emergence of Popular Culture and
Literature. If pagan critics, as outsiders, tended to see
Christianity as a monolithic association of devotees of the god-man
from Nazareth, the church's theologians also fostered a monolithic view
by their attempts to achieve a more unified christological and
ecclesiological doctrine. The consequences were, on the one
hand, greater conflict between theological schools and polemical
confrontation between polarized concepts of orthodoxy and heresy,29
attitudes which, in part, characterized the great christological
controversies of the following centuries, and, on the other hand and
more germane to our study, the freeing of the creative energies of
popular pietistic and folkloric movements. As happened in
the Middle Ages when folk-piety became fascinated with gospel and
hagiographic lore, so in the period following the creation of the New
Testament there was a keen interest in the large variety of stories
told about the Master and other related personalities. When
Christians confronted the miracle stories of the Hellenistic world's
great heroes and healers, there developed a parallel lore concerning
the Master who was bound, in the popular as well as intellectual mind,
to compete against and to defeat these demi-gods on their own
territory. As there developed in the Classical world of the
second and third centuries A.D. a fascination for the romance or
fictionalized wonder stories of interesting personalities,30 so there
grew up within Christian communities fictionalized episodes and lives
of the child Jesus, stories which served didactic and dramatic purposes
in the popular mind.
Populations in different parts of the Roman
empire and beyond possessed their own cultural and intellectual
traditions and drew from these a variety of genres, literary and
folkloric conventions, and cultural perspectives which they applied to
the developing Jesus lore. As these communities emerged, whether
as ostracized sects, ascetical or pietistic movements, or as competing
intellectual traditions (particularly Gnosticism), there also appeared
a rich literature of a self-serving, polemicizing, and legendary
nature. As the fascinanting stories about the Master were
withdrawn from popular access by the increasing stress on the written
word and as a shroud of apostolicity and sanctity began to form around
the NT writings during the canonizing process,31 the popular
imagination seized on the loose ends and lacunae of the tradition to
nurture its love for fantasy. Out of these
tantalizing hints and open-ended episodes (e.g., Jesus' hidden years,
the wonder-child of the temple scene, the sympathetic Pilate, or the
risen Lord) there grew folktales in the form of apocryphal gospels,
acts, letters, and revelations.
This literature is commonly labeled NT
apocrypha, by analogy with OT apocrypha or works rejected by the Hebrew
canon. Such a comparison, however, is false since none of these
works were ever considered for canonical status. Instead, this
body of literature consists of an amorphous collection of works
produced at the end of the NT period.
Different motives were operative, motives which
emerged at different times and led to the
production of this literature. The
form-historical study of this literature shows
that in the earliest times it underwent a
development parallel to that of the canonical
scriptures and that in later times there was a
further development of the New Testament forms
and types. To this must be added differences
in doctrine and belief, which in the earlier
period obtained expression in different
renderings of the gospel and also of the acts
of the apostles and other works. This,
however, had as its consequence that the form
of Christian proclamation which was not
accepted, which was eliminated by the early
catholic Church as heretical, created for
itself an independent means of expression in
a "tendency literature."32
But alongside this heretical literature there also developed a popular
lore to supplement the received stories of the scriptures, to
legitimate local traditions and practices, to provide scope for
folkloric creativity of a romantic and legendary type, and to allow for
new ideas and conventions of expression. The emergence of the NT
apocrypha was a long and complex process. There exists in this
collection a large variety of forms: gospels, acts, other types of
narratives, revelatory discourses, apocalypses, and letters. Some
are modeled on scriptural genres, while others owe more to the
contemporary Classical romance or Gnostic revelatory literature.
Many attempt to fill the gaps left by the canonical gospels in the life
of Jesus; e.g., the Protevangelium of James on the early life of Mary,
including Jesus' birth or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas on Jesus' early
years up to and including the temple scene of his twelfth year.
Some expand various facets of the Master's life, ministry, or role
after the resurrection, e.g., the Acts of Pilate on the prefect's role
and value as a witness for Jesus' passion, death, and resurrection, the
Coptic Gospel of Thomas which offers a long series of sayings and
parables of Jesus, the Teaching of Addai on Jesus' commissioning of a
disciple for Syrian Odessa, or the Gospel of Bartholomew on Jesus'
descent into hell. Still others appropriate the gospel tradition
for their own purposes: the Gospel of the Egyptians to offer its
perspective on sexual asceticism, the Secret Gospel of Mark to serve as
a foundation document for the Carpocratians, the Gospel of the Hebrews
to meet the needs of a Judaeo-Christian community, the Gospel of Peter
(in its later form) by radically altering the gospel stories to
underscore the guilt of the Jewish authorities and the innocence of the
Roman governor, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas and other revelatory
gospels to foster the teachings of Gnostic groups or the Epistula
Apostolorum to defend the orthodox doctrine of the official church
("the catholics") against the Gnostic treachings of Simon and Cerinthus.
"Portrait of Jesus: Study of Representative Texts"
In typological terms the NT apocrypha owe much
both to the genres represented in the NT canon and to contemporary
narrative, epistolary, and revelatory conventions.
Apocryphal gospels, at least in the early stages of their development,
e.g., the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas,
existed alongside the canonical texts. The former forms
part of the same genre classification as the Synoptic gospels, while
the latter would be close in structure to the hypothetical Q-Source
employed by Matthew and Luke. As the canon began to take
shape through the process whereby some texts grew in popularity and
reputation while others were forgotten, more and more attention was
lent to the reproduction, expansion, and appropriation of the received
texts. In the second stage greater creativity was exercised
as older forms and content were incorporated into and fused with new
Jesus lore33 and an even larger variety of oral and literary
conventions.
While each text to be examined below requires
both literary and content analysis, it will be the latter which claims
our maximum attention. The choice of the works to be studied,
therefore, and the order in which to review them will be determined by
their relation to the life story of Jesus, since it is the portrait of
the Master which is the focus of our concern. The remainder of
this chapter then will be governed by the following schema:
birth
baptism
trial
childhood ministry/teaching death resurrection
- - ----------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
l)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6) 7)
l) The Protevangelium of James
2) The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
3) The Teaching of Addai
4) The (Coptic) Gospel of Thomas
5) The Acts of Pilate (Gospel of Nicodemus)
6) The Questions of Bartholomew
7) The Apocryphon of James
Our study of these works then is determined by each document's relationship to the canonical storyline.
The Protevangelium of James. This
infancy gospel, which was very popular in the early church, expands the
story of Jesus by dwelling on the years before his birth.34
In a conscious imitation of the infancy narratives, particularly of
Luke, and of passages from the Greek version of the Old Testament, for
example, the song of Anna, the author tells the story of Mary's birth
and youth, then of her relationship with Joseph, and finally in
l7:l-20:4 rewrites the birth story of Jesus with considerable
modification. This work, which seems to have been written
in the late second century by a non-Jewish writer, exhibits tendencies
characteristic of this later literature. On the one hand
there is reverence for what will become the canonical
gospels. Indeed they are the author's principal
source. On the other hand the writer displays much freedom
in the use and modification of this source. It is clear
that the Christian community is evolving from one that depends on oral
tradition to one that relies on texts. The Gospels of Luke and
Matthew enjoy official status within the church, but not to the extent
that storytellers would have felt hindered from modifying and expanding
them in their own creations.
There is also a tendency to fill gaps in the
story and to explain what later generations considered puzzling or
embarrassing details in the gospel narratives. For example,
to explain the fact that in the gospel tradition James is called the
brother of Jesus and that Jesus is said to have brothers and sisters,
the author speaks of Joseph's sons (9:2; l7:l,2; l8:l) and explicitly
describes him as a widower before his marriage to Mary
(8:3f). Thus the author resolves the problem by making
these individuals sons of Joseph by a former marriage. Also
related to this issue is the graphic defense of Mary's
virginity. Employing the Johannine theme of "touching"
(John 20:25), the author crudely offers gynecological proof of Mary's
perpetual virginity (l9:3-20:l). A final characteristic should be
noted, namely, the writer's free use of the biblical tradition and its
narratives to build new episodes. Mary's mother Anna is
modeled on the Marian descriptions of Luke while Mary's youthful
activities are patterned on those of Jesus as found in the gospel
narratives. Also characteristic of this literature is the
interweaving of folkloric (story of the midwife, l8:lf; see also 5:2)
and other mythological and biblical themes (frequent angelic
messengers, food from heaven, 8:l, signs from God, 9:l, or the idyllic
cave of the birth scene, l8:l-l9:2).
What image of Jesus emerges from this
composition? We agree with O. Cullmann that "the whole work is
written for the glorification of Mary"35 and, therefore, seek the clues
for the author's christology in that direction. The key to the
writer's perspective is found in the battle cries of fifth century
christological controversy that Mary is "bearer of God"
(theotokos). The work finds its inspiration in the concept that
whoever or whatever comes in contact with the child Jesus must be pure
(whether virginal, fed by the angels, or raised either in "a sanctuary
in her bed-chamber," 6:l or in the temple of God, 8:l), must be
divinely approved (theme of childlessness, consultation of the priests,
testing of Mary and Joseph, l6:l-2, and the role of the Holy Spirit),
and must of necessity be affected by the child's presence. This
final theme deserves more attention. It is clear that by merely
touching the child, the "doubting" Salome is healed (20:3-4) and that
the universe is affected by his birth (l8:l-2; l9:l-2). In
particular, Mary is transformed by her relation to the child.
Building on gospel themes and extending these, the author transforms
Mary into a temple that must be prepared to receive God's
Son. Her parents are righteous people who depend totally on
God; her upbringing offers a mixture of otherworldly, ascetic, and
heroic elements which prepare her for her role as bearer of the
heavenly child; her genealogical and moral worthiness are underscored
(e.g.: "the priest remembered the child Mary, that she was of the tribe
of David and was pure before God," l0:l); and, of course, the themes
presented by Luke are reiterated in the new birth narratives.
Finally, we attend to several other factors
which focus on Mary's relation to the temple and therefore on the
author's special perspective on Jesus. Mary is repeatedly
associated with the temple. Not only does the author state that
she was presented and reared there (8:2), but stresses her relation to
the temple; she was received from the temple by Joseph as a virgin
(l9:2; see also l3:l,2; l5:2f); it was the duty of the temple priests
(8:2) and of Joseph to see that she remained pure (l3:lf and l5:lf);
and, lastly, it fell to Mary's lot to spin and weave the cloth for the
temple veil (l0:l-2). This last theme appears again during
the annunciation scene (ll:l) and before Mary leaves to visit Elizabeth
(l2:l). In all three cases the author relates this theme to
Mary's role in the coming salvific events. Without
explicitly connecting the veil theme to the crucifixion episode when
the veil is split in two, the author ends the narrative36 on the note
that the whole story finds its meaning in the child's going to
Jerusalem (20:4). Mary's role as mother was that of
preparing for the Christ-event.
The author chose the pre-gospel years for many
reasons, not the least being popular interest in Mariology and folklore
generally. Beyond the telling of an interesting narrative, one
perceives an emerging high christology and, in relation to it, a
fascination for hagiography (in this case Mariology), which had
far-ranging consequences in later Christian theology, spirituality, and
art.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This
collection of childhood miracles dates back to the second century in
some form and was known to Irenaeus. It recounts a series of
miracles performed by Jesus between the ages of five and
twelve.37 The author dwells on what is often referred to as "the
hidden years" of Jesus and ends with the temple episode from
Luke. The author wishes to present Jesus as a child prodigy and
in this way to foreshadow or anticiplate the miraculous power displayed
in the canonical gospels. Further, there are in these
narratives signs of legendary and folkloric motifs, parallels of which
can be found in stories about the heroes of the Classical world and the
religious figures of eastern religions. The reason for
gathering these stories into one collection seems to be
twofold. In the first place the author believes that "the
first public words and deeds of the hero were thought to be indicative
of his status and future career."38 The Christian's hero
was in no way inferior to the great figures of the Greco-Roman world
and could compete in the same arena. Secondly, the author
relishs telling miracle stories; "the cruder and more startling the
miracle, the more the compiler is pleased with it."39 For
this author it is in Jesus' miracles and, to a lesser degree, in his
wisdom that his greatness and importance resided.40
Our discussion of this short narrative will
consider three basic topics. l) The author's fascination
for the miracle story is certainly the dominant feature of this
gospel. In fact the whole is introduced as a narrative of
"all the works of the childhood of our Lord Jesus Christ and his mighty
deeds, which he did when he was born in our land" (l:l).
There follows an uninterrupted series of wonders performed by the boy
Jesus. In a manner reminiscent of the creation account the child
fashions twelve sparrows from soft clay and, in anticipation of the
adult Jesus, not only accomplishes this on the Sabbath but is accused
by a Jewish neighbor and reproached by Joseph his father for thus
violating the holy day. As if to spite them, Jesus is made
to clap his hands and order the sparrows to fly away (2:l-4). A
young boy is made to wither (3:2), a careless child is struck dead for
having bumped against Jesus' shoulder (4:l), and another, after having
fallen from an upper story, is raised from the dead by Jesus that he
might defend him against the charge that he pushed the lad down
(9:3). In a slightly less exhibitionist fashion Jesus is made to
heal a young man who has split the sole of his foot (l0:l-2), to raise
a dead carpenter (l8:l-2) and a little child (l7:l-2), in a
manner reminiscent of the widow of Nain story (Luke 7:llf). Other
miracles reveal a more complex origin; the seed miracle of l2:l-2, for
example, depends on the parable tradition; while those concerning the
snake bite (l6:l-2), the lengthing of a wooden beam (l3:l-2), and the
broken water jug (ll:l-2) also relate to the Jesus
tradition. Throughout these miraculous episodes the child
Jesus might be described as temperamental, mischievous, vengeful, and
uncontrollable. He is a child-wonder in whom divine power
operates, usually at everyone's peril (3:3; 4:2; 5:lf; and l4:3).
The author tells and the audience hears these miraculous narratives
with naive abandon, since each story allows both for the vicarious
expression of human emotions and sentiments, no matter how homely or
crude, and for the exercise of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ at
the conclusion of each miracle story.
2) Perhaps not as dominant but certainly
obvious is the theme of Jesus' wisdom and authority as teacher.
Four lengthy passages focus on this issue. The first, most
extensive treatment of Jesus' knowledge is introduced in 6:l-8:2 when a
teacher named Zacchaeus offers to educate the young child. On two
other occasions teachers are again provided for the young child, always
with disastrous consequences. Zacchaeus, the first teacher, is
humiliated and overcome by the child's Gnostic-like knowledge of the
alphabet (7-8); the second teacher is intimidated by Jesus' knowledge
and is smitten for having struck the child (l4:2); and the third fares
no better, though he does recognize that Jesus "is full of great grace
and wisdom" and thus obtains the healing of the second teacher
(l5:3-4).
The fourth passage, conclusion of the gospel,
consists of an intricate rewriting of Luke's temple scene
(2:4l-52). The author copies most of the Lukan text but imposes
numerous minor (stylistic) and major changes. The pathos of the
passage, as one expects in folklore, is heightened and the focus in
this episode, as opposed to the rest of the gospel, is on Mary.
In fact, the gospel ends on a Marian note, even to the extent of adding
a significant passage (drawn partly from Luke l) in the mother's praise
(l9:4). Other changes, however, are significant and
invariably reflect the author's christology: Jesus did not simply "stay
behind in Jerusalem" but "went back;" nor does he merely "listen and
ask questions" but more specifically becomes an expert in the Law and
the prophets; and lastly, the author, through the addition of l9:4
along with other modifications underscores Jesus' superior wisdom.
3) The picture of Jesus which emerges from the
Infancy Gospel of Thomas is therefore related to two important themes,
namely, the miracle-worker and wise-teacher motifs of the earlier
gospels. This particular text "lays stress on what it understood
to be Jesus' self-awareness, wisdom, divine identity, and
destiny."41 For this author Jesus is a divine being in human
clothing. Convinced that Jesus possessed to the fullest the
divine power to affect the created world, the author employs and revels
in the opportunities which the tradition offers in portraying numerous
manifestations or epiphanies of the divine. Most episodes,
after presenting some miraculous display of power or show of wisdom,
terminate with some christological query, statement, or profession of
faith. At the beginning the Jews are amazed at (2:5) or question
Jesus' power (3:3) and inquire about his origin (4:l). But as the
text progresses, Zacchaeus is heard to say "this child is not earth
born...perhaps he was begotten even before the creation of the world"
(7:2) or later "he is something great, a god or an angel or what I
should say I do not know" (7:4; see also 7:2; l8:2). In keeping
with the gospel tradition, the author presents the characters in the
story not only as amazed and as glorifying God for the miracle but also
as worshiping Jesus (9:3; l0:2; l8:l; in the second case the crowd
proclaims: "truly the spirit of God dwells in this child"). In
some instances the author seems to have in mind no more than naive
fascination for miracles (8:2; l2:2; l3:2; l6:2; l8:2) or their dubious
effects (4:2; 5:l; l4:3; l5:4)--in relation to the former one might
note the author's preferred expression: "his every word is an
accomplished deed" (4:l; also 5:2; l7:2). For this author,
therefore, Jesus is a divine dynamo whose power and wisdom seek every
opportunity to manifest themselves. At the same time, owing
to the author's "excessively crude emphasis on the miraculous [and
exhibitionist displays of knowledge on Jesus' part], often quite devoid
of ethical feeling,"42 one must classify this author's portrait of
Jesus as a caricature, which, though appealing to some, would be
offensive and suspicious even to popular taste.
The Teaching of Addai. The next
work to be examined is a Syriac document, probably composed about 400
in Edessa, a text which is described as the teaching and acts of Addai,
the apostle sent to the city of Odessa. The author of this
highly "catholic" work used the earlier Abgar legend about the alleged
correspondence between Jesus and the Edessan king, Abgar Ukkama.
The legend is documented in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (325
at the latest), who states that he took from the archives of the city
of Edessa and translated literally the correspondence mentioned earlier
as well as a short narrative about the arrival of Taddaeus (Addai) in
Edessa. The text under consideration, therefore, is an expansion
of the earlier material. The final document consists of the
following:
l) A narrative introduction to the correspondence: the
king sends emissaries to the governor of the Syrian
province. There they encounter Jesus and report all
they have seen to King Abgar who concludes: "these
powers are not of men but of God. For there is none
who can restore life to the dead except God alone."
He sends a letter to Jesus and receives a response
via Hanan the archivist (l-4a)
2) The mission of Addai: after Jesus' ascension Addai is
sent to Edessa and there heals the king, at whose re-
quest he recounts to the royal entourage the miraculous
events accomplished in the risen Lord's name, especial-
ly the finding of the true cross by Protonice, Claudius
Caesar's wife and the raising from the dead of her
virgin daughter (4a-lla)
3) Addai's long speech to the assembled city and the sub-
sequent conversions to Christianity (lla-22a)
4) The establishment of the Edessan church: Addai gathers
gathers disciples, builds a church, and establishes a
community (22a-23b)
5) Christian foreign policy: Abgar corresponds with the
Assyrian king about the Christian disciple Addai and
exchanges letters with Tiberius Caesar concerning the
punishment of the Palestinian Jews (23b-25a)
6) Establishment of a hierarchical structure and Addai's
long farewell discourse (25a-30b)
7) The death of Addai, succession, and the beginning of
persecution (30b-33).43
Our discussion focuses on two topics: the
reason for the composition of the work and the popular piety reflected
in this post-Nicene writing, especially its christology. l)
A casual reading of this lengthy narrative shows that the author from
the start is interested in establishing a connection between Jesus and
the city of Edessa. The alleged correspondence between the king
and Jesus had this precisely as its goal. The king requests that
Jesus come to Edessa to heal him. Jesus responds that the
Father's will dictates otherwise, but promises after his ascension to
send a disciple to heal him and to establish a Christian community
there (3b)--this promise is alluded to in the subsequent narrative
(4a-b, 5a, 6a and following). Addai is discribed as Jesus' "true
and faithful disciple" (llb, l2a-b), the one who confirms Jesus'
promise. The author proceeds to describe in an
anachronistic and idyllic fashion the beginnings of the Jesus movement
in the region of Edessa. The mass conversions and the
succumbing of pagan religion to the Christian movement are reminiscent
of the period following Constantine's conversion, especially the
idealistic cooperation between religious and civil leaders and the
exalted piety of members of the royal entourage (the finding of the
true cross by the Caesar's wife, 7b-lla). This work expresses the
author's desire to establish an apostolic link for the Edessan
church. For though the Abgar legend, plausibly attributed
to the time of Kune, the orthodox bishop and founder of the Edessan
church (c. 3l3),44 had defended such a claim, the author of this
narrative endeavored to bolster these claims further by describing, in
a manner similar to Luke's Acts, the teachings and deeds of the
legendary apostle of Edessa. Thus, the ending of the narrative
deserves comment. On the one hand, the final note on Edessa's
reversion to paganism demonstrates that the author is not devoid of
historical realism. On the other, the concluding episode stresses
the author's concern for apostolic connections and for episcopal
continuity with Rome. The story ends with Addai's successor Aggai
dying too suddenly to permit the laying on of hands on Palut. The
latter must therefore seek priestly ordination from the bishop of
Antioch, whose episcopal succession is carefully traced back to "Simon
Peter who received [the ordination to the priesthood] from our Lord,
and who had been Bishop there in Rome twenty-five years" (32b-33a).
2) The final note on apostolic succession
brings us to our second topic, namely, the post-Nicene context of this
narrative. The author's theology and ecclesiology clearly reflect
centuries of evolution. If the author is speaking of the years
following Jesus' ascension the ministerial and organizational
structures are those of the Constantinian era, and the theology and
apologetics those of the post-Nicene period (see 19-21). The
author speaks of the ordination of priests, or episcopal succession, of
scriptural canon, and of a formalized trinitarian theology. This
text is a good example of popular and uncritical expression of high
christology. While frequently speaking of the three persons
of the trinity, the author virtually fuses the Son with
God. The writer is able to say "he is the adorable Son and
glorious God" (l8b) and even that "he is the God of the Jews who
crucified him" (l9a; see also l8a). Related directly and
indirectly to this high, aberrant christology was a growing sense of
anti-Judaism which tended to obliterate all things Jewish within the
tradition which did not foster Christianity. Also evident
in such a popular theology was the fascination for the miracle: those
related to Jesus, his disciples, or even relics. The Teaching of
Addai was therefore the product of a spirituality whose theology had
developed into an all-encompassing christological perspective which was
first at odds with and then antagonistic toward both Judaism and
Greco-Roman culture (8a). The Jews meet just judgment at the
hands of a "Christian" state;45 Greco-Roman culture, as one sees in
narrative sequence, is viable only when it adopts Christianity (Abgar
versus his rebellious son, 32). Finally, the story of Jesus
serves first the Abgar legend and then the Teaching of Addai with an
anchor for their claims of apostolic succession. The story of
Jesus is told once more, to help undergird a later generation's
perspective upon the world.
The (Coptic) Gospel of Thomas. At
the turn of the century with the discovery of numerous Greek fragments
at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt,46 and then in l945 with the finding of a Coptic
monastery library at Nag Hammadi, also in Egypt, the Gospel of Thomas
emerged as more than a vague title known through Patristic references
and has almost acquired cult status in the popular mind. The text
which has its written roots in the late NT period or the beginning of
the second century is a relatively long collection of parabolic,
prophetic, and other didactic sayings of Jesus.47 Some of these
have close parallels to Synoptic sayings, while others have few or any
contacts with the Jesus tradition. Initially, this text
caused surprise since it contained virtually no narrative
element. Scholars were quick to point to the hypothetical
non-Markan source of Matthew and Luke (Q) as a close parallel to this
sayings gospel. The debate, however, persists concerning the
text's relationship to the Synoptic gospels and the Jesus tradition
generally. One side of the controversy might be stated as
follows:
Could it be that (l) the Coptic Gospel of Thomas
represents a tradition of Jesus sayings which is
independent of the New Testament Gospels, and (2)
this Gospel has some sayings which are older in
form than their parallels in the synoptic Gospels?
Many scholars tend to answer yes to both questions.48
The other side insists that the Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic
appropriation of the Synoptic gospels or tradition.
Unfortunately too many presume that both questions must be answered in
a similar fashion. It is one thing to admit (or deny) that the
Gospel of Thomas offers some sayings that are "older in form" than the
Synoptics but it is quite another thing to make a case for a sayings
tradition "which is independent of the New Testament
Gospels." More and more scholars recognize some truth in
the first option but not very many are convinced by the
second. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly against
such a possibility. Careful analysis of the data reveals a
complex situation. Sayings that are virtually identical
with Synoptic texts are juxtaposed with others that have significant
editorial differences (with or without Gnostic characteristics) or
little resemblance to other forms of the Jesus tradition.
Considering these factors, I conclude
that the Gospel of Thomas is the end product of a long evolutionary
process. Initially the gospel was a sayings collection
similar to the Q-Source though dependent more directly on the Synoptic
tradition or texts either as primary or as secondary
source. It should be emphasized that even borrowing from
the Synoptic gospels does not rule out the concommitant use of oral
tradition, a fact which would account for some of the older and less
allegorized forms of some of the parables (e.g., the parables of the
weeds, Thomas 57; Matt l3:24-30, of the great supper, Thomas 64; Luke
l4:l6-24; also Matt 22:2-l0; or of the wicked tenants, Thomas 65; Mark
l2:l-9 and parallels). Originally written in Greek (witness the
Oxyrhynchus fragments) for a Jewish Christian community (emphasis on
James the Just, the Sabbath [l2 and 27], and use of early Jesus
tradition of a Synoptic type), the text made its way from Asia Minor or
Syria and became popular in Egypt where it underwent a substantial
Gnostic editing during the late 3rd or early 4th centuries, the
approximate date of the extant Coptic manuscript.
It is not our purpose here to attempt an
analysis of the stages through which this writing passed, but rather to
describe the portrait of Jesus which emerges from the end product, the
Gospel of Thomas as it now stands. From the start one is
confronted by the themes of Jesus as teacher (sayings material), of
secrecy or esoteric knowledge, and of knowledge or interpretation as
the source of salvation. Indeed, the work is called
"the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke" (title) and Jesus is
made to say: "whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will
not experience death" (l). Jesus and his sayings are made to bear
a revelatory or Gnostic message. Jesus promises them
otherworldly knowledge (l7), knowledge both of the inner kingdom (3)
and of the heavenly place(s) (4, l9, 64, etc.). But most
particularly he teaches about the disunity of reality and promises
knowledge and therefore mastery "over the All" (3). In
response to the disciples' query about whether they must be like
"suckling infants" to enter the kingdom Jesus says:
when you make the two one, and when you make the
inside like the outside and the outside like the
inside, and the above like the below, and when
you make the male and the female one and the
same, so that the male not be male nor the female
female; and when you fashion eyes in place of an
eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in
place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a
likeness; then will you enter [the Kingdom] (22).
Basic to such an outlook, traceable to Platonic, Encratitic, and
Gnostic influences, is the claim that reality is dual by nature,
particularly the human creature, and that it yearns to be restored to
its original wholeness, whether by overcoming plurality (passim),
returning to a primordial androgynous state (see ll4), or discovering
the unity of the self and of the non-material realm (3).
The knowledge which Jesus brings, reveals, or
teaches his disciples, permits "the sons of men" to see that "for the
moment they are intoxicated" (28) and that they must "become
passers-by" (42) as they seek to return to or discover their primordial
home, the kingdom (49). They are a spark from the heavenly
Light, a spark that needs to be recognized (5l), purified, and
released. Jesus' role in this is that of teacher of the
primordial unity who seeks what is lost, concealed, or immersed in the
lower realm of matter. He comes with and teaches the
knowledge (gnosis) which will liberate or save. The
christological presuppositions of the Gospel of Thomas might, as does
J.E. Menard, be expressed by reference to another ancient story.
In one of the most beautiful poems of the Syriac
literature, the "Song of the Pearl" (Acts of Thomas
l08-l3), the individual soul is the pearl which has
been lost in Egypt, the realm of matter. The
coming of the young prince from his Parthian kingdom
to look after the pearl and to save it is interpreted
as the fall of a universal soul into the world. ln
the end the prince saves himself when he discovers
the pearl which is part of himself and carries it
back to its homeland.49
In such an allegory there is a role for the agent of the Christian
tradition, Jesus the teacher and merchant-seeker of pearls
(76). Such an anthropological framework allows for the use
of numerous christological themes and for a liberal Gnosticizing of the
Jesus tradition.50 Eschatology has given way to the
present, but unrecognized kingdom (ll3); Jesus' coming in the end-time
has disappeared and instead his role as dispenser of wisdom or secret
knowledge to the initiate (l3) has gained center stage; and his
salvific death has been replaced by that wisdom to which the Gnostic
ascribed liberating power. Interestingly, Jesus, who is never
called Christ (nor Savior or Lord), is the incarnation of pre-existent
Wisdom, come into the world of intoxicated humans, to bring water to
the thirsty, light to the blind, in short, salvific knowledge (gnosis)
to the unwittingly alienated sons of men (28). Finally, the
author views the revelations presented in the composition as the words
"which the living Jesus spoke" (title), that is, it is suggested that
it is the risen Lord who has given believers the sayings of the gospel,
sayings whose interpretation gives eternal life (l).
The Acts of Pilate. We begin our
discussion of this work with the following description, the Acts of
Pilate is
a somewhat elaborate account of Jesus' trial
before Pilate, his crucifixion and burial,
reports of the empty tomb, and an alleged
discussion of his resurrection by a council
of the leaders of the Jews. This document
was incorporated into the Gospel of Nicodemus,
with which it was transmitted in the Middle ages.
The prologue of the Acts of Pilate states that
it was written in Hebrew by Nicodemus shortly
after Jesus' death, and translated into Greek ca.
425 C.E. by one Ananias. In fact, this prologue is
almost certainly a secondary addition to a more ori-
ginal work, which undoubtedly was written in Greek.51
From this statement the reader gets an immediate sense of the
complexity of the literary problems and a fair statement of the
scholarly opinion regarding this work. It forms part of the
extensive Pilate literature of antiquity and offers clear evidence of
having existed independently of the Gospel of Nicodemus to which it is
now joined. The prologue was added when the Gospel of Nicodemus
was assembled and so one must identify as pure strategy Ananias' claims
that he is employing an eyewitness account of Jesus' last days, namely,
the Hebrew records of Jesus' secret disciple, who with Joseph of
Arimathaea, was so involved in the resurrection stories.
The work was composed in Greek and depends on the Johannine and
Matthean Gospels.
How and why this document and more generally
the Pilate literature came into existence is a debated
issue. Earlier it was customary to explain the creation of
this material as the Christian response to the active persecution under
the emperor Maximin at the beginning of the fourth century, since it is
well known from Eusebius (Eccl. History 9:5:l) that the Roman
administration attempted to use alleged Acts of Pilate in its
anti-Christian strategy. This Christian text then would
have been an antidote calculated to counter Roman
propaganda. More recently scholars have taken seriously the
references in Justin Martyr and Tertullian (mid and late second
century) to various elements of this literature. In the
case of the former, on two occasions in his First Apology he appeals to
Acts of Pontius Pilate to authenticate the prophecies both concerning
Jesus' passion and crucifixion (35) and about his many miraculous deeds
(48). In the second case we find a report assigned to
Pilate which allegedly confirms in detail Jesus' miraculous powers, a
fact which leads Tertullian to speak of "Pilate, himself in his secret
heart ["deeper self," conscientia] already a Christian" (Apology 2l:24;
see also 5:2). Two centuries later Eusebius cites and discusses
at length Tertullian's story concerning Pilate's report (Eccles.
History 2:2:l-6), thereby adding greater impetus to the development of
such lore.52 There is in various strands of the Pilate
literature a letter allegedly sent by Pilate to Tiberius (or
Claudius). The letter describes Jesus as one who "restored sight
to the blind, cleansed lepers, healed paralytics, expelled evil spirits
from men, and even raised the dead, and commanded the winds, and walked
dry-shod upon the waves of the sea, and did many other miracles, and
all the people of the Jews acknowledged him to be the Son of
God."53 The document exonerates Rome at the expense of the
Jerusalem authorities. Associated with this letter (called the
"Anaphora") is another short document, the "Paradosis" or "Handing Over
of Pilate." While it is speculative to insist that these
last two documents explain the origin of the Acts of Pilate, it is
reasonable to conclude that Pilate literature clustered around a
well-known actor in the Jesus story and drew from his role as
eyewitness and sympathetic judge much apologetic value.
The story told by the Acts of Pilate,
therefore, is a retelling of the central elements of the Jesus story,
namely, the death and resurrection. Beginning the story
with the trial before Pilate and ending the narrative with resurrection
appearances the author employs the role of two potential eyewitnesses
to bolster the credibility of the new tale. From the Roman
and Jewish sides two sympathetic characters are chosen as the focus of
the story, Pilate and Nicodemus. Both act as defenders of
Jesus--this is foreshadowed in the canonical gospels. In
the first episode, when Jesus is accused of sorcery and therefore
casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, he is defended by Pilate
who observes: "this is not to cast out demons by an unclean spirit, but
by the god Asclepius" (l:l). The Roman governor delivers,
at his first appearance in the narrative, a short speech defending
Jesus, a speech modeled on Gamaliel's statement in Acts (5:l).
The work takes its structure from the passion narratives of the
canonical gospels, from which it borrows freely both episodes and
sayings. The work is built around three thematic episodes:
the trial before Pilate (l:l-9:5), Jesus' death on the cross
(l0:l-l2:2), and the resurrection (l3:l-l6:8).
In the first instance the author employs the
trial episode to pass in review before Pilate an impressive series of
witnesses. Beginning the scene with the accusation
discussed above, the author sets the scene by having "the Jews" ask
Pilate: "we beseech your excellency to place him before your
judgment-seat and to try him" (l:2). All except the Jews
treat Jesus with reverence (Pilate even commands: "let Jesus be brought
with gentleness," l:2), and witness to his miraculous powers (even the
standards of Caesar do him reverence, l:6). Jesus is defended
against the charge of having been "born of fornication" (2:3-5), of
claiming to be king and Son of God (3:2; 5:l), and of blasphemy
(4:l-3). More important is the repeated accusation (l:l;
2:5; 4:2) that Jesus performed miracles on the Sabbath. The
author never denies nor attempts to cast doubt on the fact (see
6:l-7:l), instead, the logic of the story is to focus upon the
unreasonableness and even perversity of such an accusation. When
discussing the unreasonableness of the Jewish leaders, Pilate can only
ask in disbelief: "for a good work do they wish to kill him?"
(2:5). Repeatedly Jesus is declared either innocent (8:l,
see also 3:l; 4:l,2,4; 5:l) or righteous (2:l; 4:l; 9:4, in the last
two instances the author copies Matt 27:24 and in both cases adds the
term "righteous" to the Matthean text; see also l2:l) by Pilate and
Nicodemus. Faced with the list of miracles, the Jewish leaders
blindly reiterate their charges (even to the point of dismissing female
witnesses' testimony on strictly legal grounds, 7:l), while the crowds
of men and women cry out: "this man is a prophet, and the demons are
subject to him"--ironically only the Jewish teachers are not subject to
him (8:l).
The second and third sections concerning the
death and resurrection again allow the author to expand the themes of
righteousness and innocence. For the death scene the author
employs the Lukan narrative which offers opportunity for development of
these themes: the "good malefactor" declares that Jesus "has done
nothing wrong" (l0:2), while the centurion proclaims Jesus "righteous"
(ll:l; see also l2:l). The Lukan narrative also offers the author
the opportunity to introduce Joseph of Arimathaea (ll:3), who
along with Nicodemus, is a central character in the third part of the
narrative, as Pilate fades into the background. The final
part focuses on the marvelous events that surround the resurrection and
displays a list of witnesses either to the actual episode (the guards
at the tomb: l3:l-3) or to the risen Jesus (seen by a priest, a
teacher, and a Levite, l4:lf and by Joseph of Arimathaea, l5:6).
The third section, in a manner similar to part one, functions as a
trial with the unwilling Jewish leaders playing the role of judges as
they cross-examine the various witnesses to the resurrection (l3:2f;
l5:5f; l6:5). Clearly the author's purpose is to establish the
historicity of the resurrection, of Jesus' unusual death, and of his
miracles.
In the popular spirituality represented by
this work, christology, which in earlier tradition focused either on
Jesus' salvific death or the kerygmatic themes of death and
resurrection, has shifted to a historicist apologetics where the
characters in the Jesus story become key witnesses who provide
authentic reports (prologue) about Jesus' miraculous powers (2:5; 5:l;
l2:l) and resurrection. For this author, then, Pilate,
Nicodemus, the good thief, the centurion, Jewish teachers, Joseph of
Arimathaea, and finally Annas and Caiaphas provide irrefutable proof
(l6:7) for the accuracy and authenticity of the Christian
movement. The work ends54 with the last mentioned declaring:
we saw how he received blows and spitting on his
face, that the soldiers put a crown of thorns upon
him, that he was scourged and condemned by Pilate
and then was crucified at the place of a skull; he
was given vinegar and gall to drink, and Longinus
the soldier pierced his side with a spear. Our
honourable father Joseph asked for his body; and,
he says, he rose again, and the three teachers
declare: "we saw him taken up into heaven." (l6:7).
For this author, therefore, Jesus was, as God's Son, the great miracle
worker whose activity, past and present, was confirmed by an
authenticated resurrection, i.e., by "two or three witnesses" (l6:5) as
required by Jewish law.
The Questions of Bartholomew.
There is evidence today for two separate works associated with the
apostle Bartholomew: the document under consideration and a fragmentary
Coptic composition titled "the Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
by Bartholomew the Apostle." The work which is here given
the title of "Questions of Bartholomew" probably is the same text which
Jerome called "the Gospel according to Bartholomew" in the prologue to
his Commentary on Matthew. The text is extant in Greek,
Latin, and Slavonic and consists of five uneven sections:
i. The descent into Hell: the number of souls saved
and lost
ii. The Virgin's account of the Annunciation
iii. The apostles see the bottomless pit.
iv. The devil is summoned and gives an account of
his doings
v. Questions about the deadly sins. Commission of
the apostles to preach. Departure of Christ.55
From a quick glance at this description and in light of recent research
on apocalyptic literature,56 one can see that parts l, 3, and 4 deal
with eschatological subjects, while sections 2 and 5 do
not. The last section sounds like a later moralistic
addition with only a slight relationship to the rest of the
document; Mary does not appear in this chapter and there is a distinct
trinitarian concern--note, however, the references to Jesus' command to
preach, his sending of the Holy Spirit in his place, and the
continuation of the question-answer format.
The second section focuses upon Mary, who, despite the male-centered,
Petrine ecclesial structures of the author's time (2:7; also 4:2-5), is
considered the most worthy to address God since she was the one who
"contained" the uncontainable, the "highly favoured tabernacle of the
Most High," and "the mother of the heavenly king"
(2:2,4,l0,l2,l3). This section too makes use of a question-answer
format to introduce both a long prayer and a story by Mary.
The former betrays the weakness of popular spirituality wherein
theology and christology are conflated (Father and Son tend to become
indistinguishable--this, however, is true throughout the document; see
l:3), and the latter shows a liking for the lore favored by the infancy
gospel tradition (Mary is fed in the temple by an angel--2:l5f).
Chapter 2 though different in genre from the rest of the document is
the work of the same author.
The other three sections are rightly described
as an apocalypse or series of revelatory scenes. By means of
extensive dialogue between the risen Christ and his disciples the
author is able to communicate to the audience "the secrets of the
heaven(s)" (l:l). Narratively, the author situates the
promise of Jesus to reveal these secrets at a time prior to the death
and resurrection (l:l-2) and focuses on the risen Lord as an
otherworldly messenger or revealer (l:3). The rest of the work
consists of questions (usually by Bartholomew) addressed to the risen
Christ and his answers to these. The first question of
Bartholomew establishes the theme of the document. The
apostle, contrary to the Synoptic tradition, claims to have witnessed
from a distance Jesus' crucifixion and, while there, to have seen
angels worshiping Jesus, to have noted his vanishing from the cross,
and to have heard voices or Jesus' voice57 emanating from the
underworld. He then asks: "tell me, Lord, where you went
from the cross?" (l:7c). There follows the story about
Jesus' "descent into hell" to release Adam and others, a description of
the dialogue that occurred between Hades and Beliar (devil) who are
troubled at Jesus' (or God's) coming, and the exposition of several
eschatological themes: Adam's relation to Christ, the avenging angel,
sacrifice in paradise, and the fate and number of souls departing from
the world. On another occasion, in the third part of the
work, when the disciples ask to see the abyss, Jesus reluctantly allows
them to do so, but the author provides no description of the underworld
(3:9).58 After this, following another exchange between
Mary and Peter on the question of who will approach Jesus, the lot
again falls on Bartholomew who asks Jesus that "the adversary of men"
(4:7) be shown to them. Again with reluctance Jesus grants the
apostles' request by having Michael call Beliar up from the underworld
(l2). Bartholomew pursues a dialogue with Beliar. In their
conversation the two discuss the identity of Beliar (originally
Satanael, 25), the creation of the various angels, the chastisement of
souls (in graphic detail, 37f), the cause of the devil's rebellion
(refusal to "worship" God's human image, i.e., Adam, 54-55), and
Satan's attempts to deceive humanity (58-59). The work ends with
the dismissal of Beliar back into the underworld, a prayer by
Bartholomew (an addition stressing the virginal conception, the
passions, and the trinity), and Jesus' command to reveal the mysteries
to the faithful and to keep them from those who do the devil's work.
From this document an image of Jesus emerges
as the revealer of the divine mysteries of the underworld.
The author's obsession with the fate of departed souls (personal
eschatology, l:28-29) has transformed the story of Jesus into a drama
of demonic conflict and conquest, wherein Jesus acts as the spoiler of
the demonic, earthly kingdom and thus as the revealer of the secrets
needed on the day of judgment (4:68). The theme of the descent
into hell59 becomes for this author the key to Christ's salvific role
as opponent of the demonic forces that beset those who are faithful.
The Apocryphon of James. The last
text to be studied is also taken from the Nag Hammadi
codices.60 It is a Coptic document allegedly written
in Hebrew by James recounting a revelation from the risen Lord which he
and Peter received. The main part of the work consists of
dialogue which, in chapter 9, becomes a monologue. While
the work employs sayings, parables, prophecies, and paraenesis of the
Jesus tradition to construct a secret revelation (apocryphon, l:l0,30),
the whole is couched in an epistolary format:
l:l-2:l8 Epistolary introduction and scribal setting
2:l9-l5:5 Appearance of and dialogue with the Risen
Lord
l5:6-l6:30 Ascension of the Lord, commission, and
paraenesis.
The introductory and concluding sections provide narrative context and highlight the revelation given Peter and James.
In this revelation the seers are exhorted to be
filled with the Spirit; to endure persecution; to
believe in the cross; to have faith, love, and
works (8.ll-l4); to receive the Kingdom of Heaven
through knowledge (8.24-27) and to be awake (9.33-
35). After James and Peter witness the ascent of
the Savior, the other disciples are informed,
believe and are sent off to other places.61
There is debate concerning several features of
this document. It is not clear whether it can or should be
classified as Gnostic, since many of the major concerns of fully
developed Gnostic systems are lacking in this work.
Nonetheless, "the emphasis is upon knowledge, and the use of such
typically Gnostic themes as sleep, drunkenness, and sickness, suggest
that the tractate would be at home within Christian
Gnosticism."62 Additionally, its inclusion in the Nag
Hammamdi Gnostic library points to its acceptance and compatibility
with Gnostic thought. Another point of controversy centers
on the Apocryphon's relationship to the canonical gospels and Jesus
tradition generally. Some argue for use of an independent
sayings collection rather than dependence on the gospels.
One scholar argues further that this work can "be profitably compared
with the Gospel of John, which also uses individual sayings to compose
Jesus' dialogues in the first half of the gospel as well as his
'farewell discourse' in the second half."63 The last statement
goes a long way in explaining the data, namely, that the author, in a
manner analogous to the situation of the fourth evangelist, uses the
developing oral tradition and popular lore as well as the Egyptian
community's literary heritage (knowledge and use of at least some of
the canonical gospels; see 8:5-l0) to articulate that community's
particular perspective. In dialogue with proto-Gnostic
ideas the author has refashioned the sayings of Jesus in terms of
"diminution and fullness, persecution and death, prophecy and
parables...[and has the Savior tell] the apostles that he wishes them
to know themselves and to live as sons of God, filled with the
kingdom."64 Lastly, this tractate is dated to a period
after the composition and diffusion of the canonical gospels and prior
to the third century flourishing of the major Gnostic systems.
The portrait of Jesus which emerges from a
reading of the Apocryphon of James is that of a heavenly Savior that
has come down to dwell in receptive human houses (9:2-8), that by his
cross has overcome ("carried off my crown") the power of the archons or
rulers (8:37-39), has delayed his departure (2:l7-2l; 7:35-8:4) to
reveal the secrets by which one might be saved (l:26-28), and finally
one who ascends to the Father to show his followers the way
(l0:22-29). The author's favorite christological title is
that of Savior. While one would expect this title to
indicate Christ's salvific death, for this author the cross is clearly
related to the theme of persecution (that of Christ and of the
believer, 4:31f) and the title Savior focuses on Christ's role as the
revealer of saving knowledge (l:25-28; 6:7-l0). The risen
Jesus becomes the one who communicates secret knowledge to the initiate
(his children) that they might be enlightened (l6:l6) and "be filled
with the kingdom" (l2:30).
NOTES
l. R.L. Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, l980).
2. E. Urbach, "Self-Isolation or
Self-Affirmation in the First Three Centuries: Theory and Practice,"
2:269-98 in E.P. Sanders, ed., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980-81).
3. Katz, "Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C.E.," 43-76.
4. Several articles in Sanders, Jewish and
Christian Self-Definition, are especially pertinent to this issue.
5. M. Goldstein, Jesus in Jewish Tradition (NY: Macmillan, 1950); E. Bammel, "Christian Origins in Jewish Tradition," NTS 13 (1967) 317-35; and Kee, Jesus in History, 48-54.
6. R. Wilde, The Treatment of the Jews in the Greek Christian Writers (Washington: Catholic University, 1949); N. DeLange, Origen and the Jews (London: Cambridge University, 1976); and A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Leiden: Brill, 1973).
7. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University, l984).
8. Moore and Jackson, Tacitus: Annals; for a brief interpretation of this text, see R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958) 2:531-32..
9. Readings in Ancient History from Gilgamesh to Diocletian (Lexington: Heath, 1976), 446.
10. See for example P. Keresztes, "The
Imperial Roman Government and the Christian Church. 1: From Nero
to the Severi," 2:23:1:247-315 and "2: From Gallienus to the Great
Persecution," 375-86 in Temporini and Haase, Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischer Welt (1979).
11. The Myth of Christian Beginnings, 63.
12. For Tacitus, "alien religions presented a
double danger--the aristocracy weakened, the lower classes a prey to
fanatics and false prophets," Syme, Tacitus, 2:532.
13. Origen: Contra Celsum, Translated with an Introduction and Notes
(London: Cambridge University, l980) xxi-xxii; see also Keresztes, "The
Imperial Roman Government and the Christian Church," 2:23:1:252.
14. Fragment cited in R. Wilken, "Pagan
Criticism of Christianity: Greek Religion and Christianity," ll9 in
W.R. Schoedel and R.L. Wilken, eds, Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition (Paris: Editions Beauchesne, l979).
15. Bailkey, Readings in Ancient History, 445.
16. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 28.
17. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, l59.
18. W.C. Wright, ed., The Works of the Emperor Julian (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1959-69).
19. H. Remus, Pagan-Christian Conflict over Miracle in the Second Century (Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1983).
20. Melmoth and Hutchinson, Pliny.
21. Significantly, Tertullian who is writing
about 85 years later, borrows generously from Pliny's letter to
formulate his defense of Christianity and reports not that Christians
sang "a hymn to Christ, as to a god," but that they sang "to Christ and
to God," Apology 2:6; see T.R. Glover, ed., Tertullian: Apology; De Spectaculis... (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1960).
22. Another contemporary, Suetonius, in his
Lives of the Caesars, calls Christians "a class of men given to a new
and mischievous superstition" (Nero l6:2); see Rolfe, Suetonius.
23. Interestingly, when asked by Pliny whether
he should punish "the name itself" or "the crimes associated with the
name," Trajan simply "brushed...aside" the issue and agreed with the
punishment; see Syme, Tacitus, 2:468, n. 4. More
generally on the Pliny correspondence, see Keresztes, "The Imperial
Roman Government and the Christian Church," 2:23:1:274-87.
24. H.J. Rose, "Superstition," l023 in Hammond and Scullard, Oxford Classical Dictionary.
25. Seemingly the former (lower classes)
constituted the majority and, when persistent in their faith, were
summarily executed for the good of the state, while the latter, "being
citizens of Rome" but nonetheless "possessed with the same
infatuation," were sent to Rome for judgment (Pliny, Letters 10:96).
26. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament.
27. A.R. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, vol.: The Apostolic Fathers--Justin Martyr--Irenaeus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979).
28. Another example of this would be the
second century Syrian attempt (Tatian in the Diatesseron) to lend unity
within the fourfold gospels by combining them into an overall harmony.
29. W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, l97l).
30. For a brief introduction to the "ancient
novel," see S.M. Praeder, "Luke-Acts and the Ancient Novel," 278-83 in
K.H. Richards, ed, Society of Biblical Literature 1981 Seminar Papers (Chico: Scholars, 1981).
31. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel and P.J. Achtemeier, "The New Testament Become Normative," 367-86 in Kee, Understanding the New Testament.
32. W. Schneemelcher, "General Introduction," 1:64 in Hennecke and Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha.
33. For a convenient summary of lore
concerning Jesus' life, appearance, lifestyle, character, and
chronology, see W. Bauer, "Jesus' Earthly Appearance and Character,"
433-36 in Henneke and Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha.
34. For an easily accessible English
translation and brief introduction to this work see O. Cullmann,
"Infancy Gospels," 1:370-88 in Hennecke and Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha and R. Cameron, The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia: Westminster, l982) l05-2l, who reproduces the translation of the former.
35. "Infancy Gospels," 373.
36. Cullmann, ibid., 373, suggests that chapters 2l-24 would have been a later addition.
37. Ibid., 388-40l; Cameron, The Other Gospels, l22-30.
38. Cameron, The Other Gospels, l23.
39. Cullmann, "Infancy Gospels," 39l.
40. Cameron, The Other Gospels, 123,
correctly observes, "these stories adumbrate the tyranny of the miracle
tradition;" more generally on miracles in the aprocyphral literature
and the prevalence of magic in that period, see P.J. Achtemeier, "Jesus
and the Disciples as Miracle Workers in the Apocryphal New Testament,"
149-86 in E.S. Fiorenza, ed., Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity (South Bend: University of Notre Dame, 1976).
41. Cameron, The Other Gospels, l23.
42. Cullmann, "Infancy Gospels," 392.
43. The Eusebian text of the legend is found
in W. Bauer, "The Abgar Legend," l:437-44 in Hennecke and
Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha and the longer Syriac work in G. Howard, The Teaching of Addai (Chico: Scholars, l98l)--the folio numbers are given in the latter.
44. Bauer, "The Abgar Legend," l:440.
45. At King Abgar's instigation, "when
[Tiberius] had respite from war he sent and killed some of the rulers
of the Jews who were in Palestine. Upon hearing this King
Abgar rejoiced greatly over the fact that the Jews had received just
punishement" (25a).
46. J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Oxyrhynchus Logoi of Jesus and the Coptic Gospel according to Thomas," 355-433 in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Missoula: Scholars, 1974).
47. A variety of translations and editions of
this text are available: T.O. Lambdin, "The Gospel of Thomas (II,2),"
117-30 in J.M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981); Cameron, The Other Gospels, 23-37 (reproduces Lambdin's translation); D.R. Cartlidge and D.L. Dungan, Documents for the Study of the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 25-35; B.M. Metzger,"The Gospel of Thomas," 517-30 in K. Aland, ed., Synopsis Quatuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1967); and A. Guillaumont, et al, The Gospel According to Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 1959).
48. Cartlidge and Dugan, Documents for the Study of the Gospels, 25; similar conclusions are drawn by Cameron, The Other Gospels, 24, and by H. Koester, the mentor of these several scholars, in his introduction to the Lambdin translation in Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library, ll7.
49. "Gospel of Thomas," 904 in IDBSup.
50. In agreement with H.C. Kee, "'Becoming a Child' in the Gospel of Thomas," JBL
86 (1963) 307-14 ("the synoptic themes have been placed by the Gospel
of Thomas in service of a viewpoint that is anthropologically,
eschatologically, and theologically alien to the NT"), 313 and
Fitzmyer, "Oxyrhynchus Logoi," 416.
51. Cameron, The Other Gospels,
l63. See F. Scheidweiler's translation of the Gospel of Nicodemus
including the Acts of Pilate in Hennecke and Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, l:444-84; Cameron, The Other Gospels, l63-82, reproduces Scheidweiler's translation of the Acts.
52. Scheidweiler, "The Gospel of Nicodemus,"
444-45. The letter sounds like a digest of Tertullian's
text (2l:l7-l8).
53. Ibid., 477.
54. Ibid., 469, for a discussion of the manuscript evidence.
55. M.R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon, l955) l66; see also F. Scheidweiler and W.
Schneemelcher, "The Gospel of Bartholomew," l:484-508 in Hennecke and
Schneemelcher, New Testament Aprocrypha.
56. See particularly A.Y. Collins, "The Early Christian Apocalypses," 6l-l2l in Collins, Apocalypse.
57. There is considerable textual variation between the versions of the story.
58. Tours of the underworld seem to have fascinated both Jews and Christians; see M. Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1983).
59. This motif functions in a rather different
way in the other apocryphal texts; see Scheidweiler, "The Gospel of
Nicodemus," 470-76.
60. F.E. Williams, "The Apocryphon of James (I,2)," 29-36 in Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library.
61. F.T. Fallon, "The Gnostic Apocalypses," l45 in Collins, Apocalypse.
62. D. Mueller, in the "Introduction" to Williams, "The Apocryphon of James," 29.
63. Cameron, The Other Gospels, 56.
64. Mueller, "Introduction," to Williams, "The Apocryphon of James," 29.