Jesus and

the Politics of His Day

Jesus and
the Politics of His Day

EDITED BY

ERNST BAMMEL
Reader in Early Christian and Jewish Studies,
University of Cambridge

AND

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

The right of the

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

Cambridge University Press

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

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

First p u b l i s h e d 1984

Printed in G r e a t Britain at the University Press, C a m b r i d g e

L i b r a r y o f C o n g r e s s c a t a l o g u e card n u m b e r : 7 7 - 9 5 4 4 1

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

J e s u s a n d the politics o f H i s d a y .
1. J e s u s Christ 2. Christianity and
politics
I. B a m m e l , E. II. M o u l e , C . F. D.
232-9'oi BT590.P/
I S B N O 521 22022 X

WV
 Contents
Abbreviations
Foreword

T h e Zealots and Jesus

j. P. M. SWEET

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

E. BAMMEL

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

F. F. BRUCE

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

Argumentum e silentio
G. M. STYLER

T h e Poor a n d the Zealots

E. BAMMEL

T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism

HELMUT MERKEL

Judaeo-Christianity a n d the Jewish establishment, A . D

B. REICKE

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

T h e trial o f J e s u s i n t h e Acta Pilati

G. W . H. LAMPE

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

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

E. BAMMEL

T h e Feeding o f the Multitude

E. BAMMEL
vi Contents

T h e coin of 'Render unto Caesar . . ( A note on some aspects o f

M a r k 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 ; M a t t . 22: 1 5 - 2 2 ; L u k e 2 0 : 2 0 - 2 6 ) 241
H. ST J. HART

R e n d e r to C a e s a r 249
F. F. BRUCE

T h e T e m p l e tax 265
WILLIAM HORBURY

' N o t p e a c e b u t a s w o r d ' : M a t t . 10: 34ff; L u k e 1 2 : 5 i f f 287

MATTHEW BLACK

T h e d e c i s i o n o f the S u p r e m e C o u r t to p u t J e s u s to d e a t h (John
1 1 : 4 7 - 5 7 ) i n its c o n t e x t : t r a d i t i o n a n d r e d a c t i o n i n t h e
Gospel of John 295
WALTER GRUNDMANN

T h e 'triumphal' entry 319

DAVID R. CATCHPOLE

T h e t w o s w o r d s ( L u k e 22: 3 5 - 3 8 ) 335
G. W. H. LAMPE

T h e titulus 353
E. BAMMEL

R o m a n s 13 3^5
E. BAMMEL

B i b l i c a l c r i t i c i s m criticised: w i t h reference to the M a r k a n report o f

J e s u s ' s e x a m i n a t i o n before the S a n h e d r i n 3^5
K. SCHUBERT

T h e p o l i t i c a l c h a r g e a g a i n s t J e s u s ( L u k e 2 3 : 2) 403
GERHARD SCHNEIDER

T h e trial before Pilate 4*5

E. BAMMEL

' H i s w i t n e s s is t r u e ' : A test o f t h e J o h a n n i n e c l a i m 453

JOHN A. T. ROBINSON

Index of Authors 477

Index of References 4^7
 Abbreviations

AnBibl Analecta Biblica

ACO Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz (Strassburg, 1 9 1 4
onwards)
AJT American Journal of Theology
ARW Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft
Bb Biblica
BFChTh Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
BibLeb Bibel und Leben
BLit Bibel und Liturgie
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenchaft
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CCL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina
CRAIBL Comptes rendus de VAcademie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris, 1924)
CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan
DLZ Deutsche Literaturzeitung
EKK Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
EvK Evangelische Kommentare
EvTh Evangelische Theologie
ExpT Expository Times
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
GCS Diegriechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten dreijahrhunderte,
hg. v. der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HThR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
Israel Exploration Journal
IGRR Inscriptions Graecae ad res Romanaspertinentes, ed. R. Cagnat et al. (Paris,
1906- )
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBR Journal of Bible and Religion
Jjst Journal of Jewish Studies
JQfi Jewish Quarterly Review
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JThSt Journal of Theological Studies
KuD Kerygma und Dogma
MThZ Munchner Theologische Zeitschrift

vii
viii Abbreviations

NAG Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Philolo-

gisch-historische Klasse
NGGG Nachrichten der Gottinger Gelehrten Gesellschaft
NKZ Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift
NovTest Novum Testamentum
NovTestSup Novum Testament um Supplement
NTSt New Testament Studies
OrChr Oriens Christianus
OGIS Orientis Graeci Inscriptions selectae, ed. Wilhelm Dittenberger (Leipzig, i,
1903; ii, 1905)
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
PG J. Migne, Patrologia graeca
PL J. Migne, Patrologia latina
PW Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
RArch Revue archeologique
RB Revue biblique
RdQ Revue de Qumran
REJ Revue des etudes juives
RGG Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (3rd ed. Tubingen, 1 9 5 7 - 6 5 )
RHPhR Revue d'histoire et de philosophic religieuses
RHR Revue de Vhistoire des religions
RIDA Revue international des droits de Vantiquite
Rd Rbmische Quartalschrift
RechSR Recherches de science religieuse
SAH Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften,
philosophisch-historische Klasse
StANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
SB Sources bibliques
S-B H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus
Talmud und Midrasch (Munchen, 1922-8)
SBA Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie
SC Sources chretiennes
StEv Studia Evangelica
SJTh Scottish Journal of Theology
SNTS Society for New Testament Studies
ST Studia Theologica
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ET Grand Rapids, 1967(1)
ThBl Theologische Blatter
ThHK Theologischer Hand-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
ThLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
ThR Theologische Rundschau
ThStKr Theologische Studien und Kritiken
ThWNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theologisches Wbrterbuch zum Neuen
Testament
ThZ Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel)
TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altkirchlichen
Literatur
VigChr Vigiliae Christianae
ZAW Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins
 Abbreviations ix

ZKTh Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie

ZNW Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren
Kirche
ZRGG Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte
ZSTh Zeitschrift fur systematische Theologie
ZThK Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche
ZWT Zeitschrift fur wissensckaftliche Theologie
 Foreword

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

E.B.
C.F.D.M.
1983

xi
 J. P. M . S W E E T

The Zealots and Jesus

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

resistance to R o m e commonly called the Zealots has never lacked
p r o p o n e n t s ( c p . t h e f o l l o w i n g e s s a y ) , b u t l a t t e r l y it h a s a c h i e v e d n e w f o r c e
a n d publicity through a c o m b i n a t i o n of factors: the e x c a v a t i o n o f the Z e a l o t
stronghold at M a s a d a b y Y i g a e l Y a d i n , a n d the glorification o f Z e a l o t
1
h e r o i s m ; c u r r e n t c o n c e r n as to the a u t h e n t i c C h r i s t i a n role in resistance to
o p p r e s s i v e r e g i m e s ; a n d t h e w o r k o f t h e l a t e S . G . F . B r a n d o n . I n h i s Jesus
and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1 9 6 7 ) , w h i c h b u i l t o n h i s e a r l i e r b o o k , The Fall
of Jerusalem and the Christian Church ( L o n d o n , 1 9 5 1 ) , h e c l a i m e d n o t t h a t
J e s u s a c t u a l l y w a s a Z e a l o t , a m e m b e r o f t h e p a r t y (if t h e r e w a s s u c h a p a r t y
in his t i m e ) , b u t t h a t J e s u s a n d his disciples s y m p a t h i s e d w i t h the ideals
a n d aims o f the Z e a l o t m o v e m e n t , a n d so did the earliest Christians.
B r a n d o n ' s w o r k w a s taken u p as substantiating his o w n h u n c h b y C o l i n
M o r r i s , f o r m e r l y a M e t h o d i s t m i n i s t e r in Z a m b i a a n d a d v i s e r to P r e s i d e n t
K a u n d a , i n a p o p u l a r p a p e r - b a c k , Unyoung, Uncoloured, Unpoor ( L o n d o n ,
1969). T o quote the s u m m a r y o n the back,

its theme is simply that the world is ruled by the Unyoung, Uncoloured
and Unpoor and that only violent revolution will overthrow them in order
to give the majority of the world's population their due place in the sun.
Claiming that the Christian has both the right and the responsibility to
take part in this struggle, Morris offers a re-interpretation ofJesus which
challenges the traditional view that he was innocent of sedition against the
Roman authorities.

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

1
M a r t i n H e n g e l had already d e m o n s t r a t e d their d e e p roots in J e w i s h theological
tradition and h o p e for the future, in Die Zeloten ( L e i d e n , 1961; reprint with
corrections a n d additions, 1976).

I
2 J. P. M. S W E E T

organiser o f armed revolution, w h o fought against Western (including

missionary) interests in East A s i a a n d w e l c o m e d the Bolshevik revolution -
h e w r o t e this: ' T o l e a d t h e p o o r a n d o p p r e s s e d to rebel a g a i n s t their
oppressors, a n d to j o i n in the work o f ridding the world o f the violence,
injustice a n d e c o n o m i c b a c k w a r d n e s s w h i c h causes i m p o v e r i s h m e n t a n d
oppression - these, o n e w o u l d suppose, are revolutionary tasks w h i c h
C h r i s t i a n s c a n i g n o r e only b y m a k i n g their faith in C h r i s t m e a n i n g l e s s '
(p. 12). S u n himself h a d remarked: 'I d o not belong to the Christianity o f
the churches b u t to the Christianity of Jesus, w h o w a s a revolutionary.'
Finally one might mention from South A m e r i c a the admired and
e v o c a t i v e figure ( e s p e c i a l l y a m o n g s t u d e n t s ) o f t h e C a t h o l i c p r i e s t C a m i l o
2
Torres, w h o joined the guerrillas in C o l o m b i a a n d w a s killed b y
G o v e r n m e n t forces in 1 9 6 6 . F o r h i m t o o 'the revolution' w a s not o n l y
p e r m i s s i b l e b u t o b l i g a t o r y f o r t h o s e C h r i s t i a n s w h o s e e it a s t h e o n l y
e f f e c t i v e w a y t o m a k e l o v e for a l l p e o p l e a r e a l i t y , a n d h e p a i n t e d a p i c t u r e o f
C h r i s t w i t h a h a l o b e h i n d h i s h e a d a n d a rifle b e h i n d h i s s h o u l d e r .
W e are concerned here not directly with the Christian's duty in the
present, b u t with the appeal to Jesus. B r a n d o n , as w e h a v e said, claimed
not that J e s u s w a s a Z e a l o t - t h e fact that o n e o f the T w e l v e w a s k n o w n a s
S i m o n t h e Z e a l o t d i s t i n g u i s h e s h i m f r o m t h e r e s t o f t h e b a n d (Zealots, p .
D U t t n a t n e a n
355} ~ d his followers were in fundamental s y m p a t h y w i t h
Zealot principles, the use o f violence not excepted (p. 355, note 3). H e
c l a i m e d further that the N e w T e s t a m e n t d o c u m e n t s , written in a n d for t h e
R o m a n w o r l d , h a v e d o n e their best to c o v e r this u p a n d project a pacific
3
image of Christ, a n d that Josephus h a s similarly blackened the Zealots as
m e r e b r i g a n d s , in o r d e r to l a y o n t h e m the b l a m e , from the J e w i s h side, for
4
the disastrous w a r against R o m e .
H i s t h e o r y starts from t w o sets o f facts o n w h i c h m o s t w o u l d a g r e e .
(1) J e s u s w a s c o n d e m n e d b y the R o m a n prefect of J u d a e a to the R o m a n
f o r m o f e x e c u t i o n f o r s e d i t i o n , a s ' K i n g o f t h e J e w s ' , t h a t is, a s a n a t i o n a l i s t
leader w h o denied the kingship o f C a e s a r . H e w a s crucified b e t w e e n t w o
b r i g a n d s - o n e o f t h e t e r m s u s e d for w h a t t o d a y m i g h t b e c a l l e d ' f r e e d o m
fighters'. O n e o f his inner circle o f disciples w a s S i m o n 'the C a n a n a e a n '

2
See J o h n Gerassi, Revolutionary Priest-the complete writings and messages of Camilo Torres
( L o n d o n , 1971).
3
O n Tendenzkritik, see C . F . D . M o u l e ' s essay, p p . 91-100.
4
H e d r e w extensively o n the magisterial w o r k o f H e n g e l (see p . 1, note 1) to discredit
J o s e p h u s ' s picture and establish their genuinely religious patriotism, but H e n g e l
h i m s e l f has b e e n o n e o f the firmest o p p o n e n t s o f B r a n d o n ' s thesis with respect to
J e s u s a n d the Christians - see review in JSS 14 (1969), 231-40; War Jesus
Revolutionary (Stuttgart, 1970) ( E T Was Jesus a Revolutionist! (Philadelphia, 1971));
(
Gewaltund Gewaltlosigkeit: zur politischen Theologie'in neutestamentlicher Zeit (Stuttgart,
1971) ( E T Victory over Violence: Jesus and the Revolutionists (Philadelphia, 1973)).
 T h e Zealots and Jesus 3

( M a r k 3: 1 8 ) , w h i c h t h e N e w E n g l i s h B i b l e r e n d e r s a s ' a m e m b e r o f t h e
5
Zealot party', a n d o n e at least o f the disciples w a s a r m e d w h e n J e s u s w a s
arrested. F u r t h e r , J e s u s is r e p r e s e n t e d in the gospels as c o n d e m n i n g
Sadducees, Pharisees, a n d Herodians but nowhere (explicitly) Zealots.
(2) T h i s l a s t p o i n t t a k e s i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e f r o m t h e s e c o n d s e t o f f a c t s : t h a t
the G o s p e l s w e r e written for the R o m a n w o r l d , to c o m m e n d J e s u s a s S o n o f
G o d a n d S a v i o u r , a n d therefore inevitably h a d a n interest in d e m o n s t r a t i n g
Jesus's innocence of the political c h a r g e o n w h i c h h e w a s executed. Further,
the R o m a n w o r l d h a d a suspicion a n d hatred o f the J e w s w h i c h w a s
e x a c e r b a t e d b y the J e w i s h w a r ; the G o s p e l s therefore h a d a n interest in
d i s s o c i a t i n g J e s u s a n d h i s f o l l o w e r s f r o m t h e J e w i s h c a u s e (just a s J o s e p h u s
h a d a n interest in b l a c k e n i n g the Z e a l o t s ) .
If, t h e n , t h e r e w e r e a n y m e m o r i e s o f J e s u s h a v i n g a t a n y t i m e c o n d e m n e d
the Zealots, surely these memories would have been used b y the
evangelists, especially M a r k w h o w r o t e in R o m e at a b o u t the time o f the
o n t n e
J e w i s h W a r - s o B r a n d o n a r g u e d (see G . M . S t y l e r ' s e s s a y , p p . 1 0 4 - 5 ,
u s e ofargumentum e silentio i n r e v e r s e ) . A l l this d o e s n o t o f i t s e l f g i v e t h e lie t o
t h e G o s p e l p i c t u r e . B u t it d o e s s h o w w h y , i f t h e f a c t s w e r e r e a l l y a s B r a n d o n
and others suppose, the original picture w a s altered.
B r a n d o n ' s picture c a n b e briefly sketched as follows:
(1) Jesus w a s a patriotic J e w w h o believed passionately in G o d ' s
e x c l u s i v e sovereignty o v e r Israel (the m a i n tenet of the Z e a l o t ' p h i l o s o p h y ' )
a n d t h o u g h t t h a t h e w a s c o m m i s s i o n e d t o p r e p a r e I s r a e l f o r its i m m i n e n t
e n f o r c e m e n t . T h o u g h h i s a t t a c k w a s n o t d i r e c t l y a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s , it
was against the Jewish hierarchy which collaborated with them: he w a s
therefore understandably executed b y the R o m a n s o n a charge of sedition.
T h e earliest church w a s d r a w n from the s a m e patriotic anti-Gentile,
anti-collaborationist c i r c l e s ; it e x p e c t e d J e s u s ' s imminent return as
m e s s i a h , a s l e a d e r o f G o d ' s f o r c e s i n t h e final b a t t l e a g a i n s t h i s , a n d I s r a e l ' s ,
enemies.
(2) Through the work o f Hellenistic J e w s , pre-eminently Paul,
Christianity became a mystery cult which welcomed Gentiles and
presented J e s u s to them as a divine saviour in entirely non-political terms.
P a u l w a s h o u n d e d b y emissaries o f the J e r u s a l e m c h u r c h as a traitor, a n d
finally suppressed.
(3) I n A . D . 6 6 t h e J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s c e n t r e d o n J e r u s a l e m t h r e w i n t h e i r
lot w i t h the rebels, a n d w e r e obliterated w i t h t h e m in A.D. 70. T h u s b y a n
accident of history the Pauline version of Christianity c a m e out on top. T h e
A c t s o f t h e A p o s t l e s l e g i t i m a t e s it b y p a i n t i n g P a u l a s a l o y a l J e w - i n a
purely religious sense o f course - w h o w o r k e d in h a r m o n y with the

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

J e r u s a l e m 'pillars'. T h e G o s p e l s b y the s a m e token paint out all - or nearly

a l l - t h e t e l l - t a l e e v i d e n c e o f J e s u s ' s l o y a l t y t o h i s n a t i o n i n its fight for
freedom from h e a t h e n d o m i n a t i o n . H e b e c o m e s the divine emissary o f the
u n s e e n w o r l d , i n s u l a t e d f r o m this w o r l d ' s p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t i v e s a n d c h o i c e s ,
his rejection b y his o w n p e o p l e a n d his a c c e p t a n c e b y the Gentiles
p r e d e t e r m i n e d b y G o d a n d a d v e r t i s e d i n t h e J e w i s h s c r i p t u r e s - for t h o s e
w h o can read them aright.
H e r e t h e n is a c o h e r e n t i n t e r l o c k i n g p i c t u r e o f C h r i s t i a n o r i g i n s , w h i c h
h a s a t first a c e r t a i n a t t r a c t i o n . T h e r e is v e r y l i t t l e c o n c r e t e e v i d e n c e for it,
b u t t h a t is o n l y t o b e e x p e c t e d , b e c a u s e t h e p o s t A . D . 70 c h u r c h h a d e v e r y
r e a s o n t o s u p p r e s s w h a t d i d n o t p e r i s h i n t h e r u i n s o f J e r u s a l e m . T h e r e is
m u c h t h a t p u r p o r t s t o c o n t r a d i c t it, b u t t h a t a g a i n is o n l y t o b e e x p e c t e d
since the c h u r c h h a d e v e r y r e a s o n to d e p i c t a peaceful, n o n - p o l i t i c a l J e s u s ,
a n d t o d i s s o c i a t e h i m a n d i t s e l f f r o m t h e h a t e d J e w s . T h e r e is a s i m i l a r
a t t r a c t i o n in s t u d i e s w h i c h s h o w t h a t the c o n v e n t i o n a l p i c t u r e o f R i c h a r d
I I I is t h e f a b r i c a t i o n o f T u d o r h i s t o r i a n s w i t h a n o b v i o u s a x e t o g r i n d , a n d
p i e c e t o g e t h e r f r o m little s t r a w s o f e v i d e n c e a n a s t o n i s h i n g l y different
p o r t r a i t . A s t h e b i a s o f t h e s o u r c e s is l a i d b a r e a n d p o i n t e r s t o a d i f f e r e n t
s t a t e o f affairs a r e a m a s s e d , t h e s y m p a t h i e s o f t h e r e a d e r a r e e n g a g e d ,
6
especially if he h a s no specialist k n o w l e d g e o f the p e r i o d . If Brandon's
picture is wrong, it can only be rebutted by a series of detailed
m e t h o d o l o g i c a l , historical a n d e x e g e t i c a l studies s u c h as this b o o k sets o u t
t o p r o v i d e . I n d e e d t h e e n q u i r y c o u l d w e l l b e c a r r i e d f u r t h e r . T h e r e is h e r e
no detailed e x a m i n a t i o n o f B r a n d o n ' s c l a i m s that the J e r u s a l e m c h u r c h w a s
o b l i t e r a t e d i n A . D . 6 6 t o 7 0 a n d t h a t t h e t r a d i t i o n o f its e s c a p e t o P e l l a is
pious l e g e n d - see E . B a m m e l , p p . 4 0 - 1 . B u t this has b e e n v e r y t h o r o u g h l y
7
answered by M . Simon. A g a i n , the question o f the J e r u s a l e m church's
r e l a t i o n s w i t h P a u l a n d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o f C h r i s t i a n i t y is
b e y o n d t h i s b o o k ' s s c o p e . H e r e B r a n d o n w o u l d find m o r e s c h o l a r s t o a g r e e
w i t h h i m , b u t f e w w o u l d e x t e n d t h e i r a g r e e m e n t to s u p p o r t o f h i s Z e a l o t
t h e s i s . A r g u m e n t s for P a u l a s a n i n n o v a t o r p r o v i d e n o d i r e c t s u p p o r t for
B r a n d o n : o n t h e o t h e r h a n d a l l t h e s t u d i e s tell a g a i n s t h i m w h i c h b r i n g o u t
Paul's Jewishness and fundamental closeness to the J e r u s a l e m church
(cp. E. B a m m e l , pp. 4 1 - 2 ) .
S i n c e d e t a i l e d professional s t u d y o f e a c h e l e m e n t in the a r g u m e n t is
n e c e s s a r y , it is n o t t h e r o l e o f t h i s g e n e r a l e s s a y t o i n v e s t i g a t e i n d i v i d u a l
i s s u e s . I t w i l l s i m p l y set o u t w h a t s e e m t h e e s s e n t i a l p o i n t s .

6
See, for e x a m p l e , Daughter of Time b y J o s e p h i n e T e y ( L o n d o n , 1951). But this,
unlike Zealots, was p u b l i s h e d as detective fiction.
7
' L a M i g r a t i o n a Pella', RechSR 60 (1972), 37-54; c p . S. Sowers, ' T h e C i r c u m s t a n c e s
and R e c o l l e c t i o n o f the Pella Flight', ThZ 26 (1970), 305-20.
 T h e Zealots and Jesus 5

1 The historical background

M u s t J e s u s , as a G a l i l a e a n , h a v e shared the Z e a l o t ' p h i l o s o p h y ' , as B r a n d o n

s u g g e s t s ? ' I t is l i k e l y t h a t m a n y G a l i l a e a n s h a d t a k e n p a r t i n t h e r e v o l t o f
A . D . 6, a n d J e s u s w o u l d h a v e k n o w n s o m e o f t h e s u r v i v o r s a n d t h e f a m i l i e s
o f those w h o h a d perished. T o a G a l i l a e a n b o y or y o u t h these m a r t y r e d
patriots w o u l d surely h a v e b e e n heroes, a n d d o u b t l e s s he w o u l d often h a v e
l i s t e n e d e n t h r a l l e d to t a l e s o f Z e a l o t s ' e x p l o i t s a g a i n s t t h e h a t e d R o m a n s '
(Zealots, p . 6 5 ) .
B u t (a) t h e r e w e r e o t h e r m o d e l s for a p a t r i o t i c J e w t h a n t h o s e p r o v i d e d
b y t h e M a c c a b e e s o r t h e ' F o u r t h P h i l o s o p h y ' - J e r e m i a h , for e x a m p l e , w i t h
w h o m J e s u s w a s c o n n e c t e d b y s o m e , a c c o r d i n g to M a t t h e w ( 1 6 : 1 4 ) ; o r t h e
H a s i d i m , a n d t h e p a t t e r n o f s u f f e r i n g fidelity p r e s e n t e d i n D a n i e l a n d t h e
Assumption of Moses, (b) M a n y J e w s wanted R o m a n r u l e , i n p r e f e r e n c e t o
H e r o d ' s ; o t h e r s s a w it a s a d i v i n e i m p o s i t i o n b e c a u s e o f I s r a e l ' s s i n s , a n d t o
b e a c c e p t e d h u m b l y a s s u c h , (c) T h e r e is n o firm e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e w a s a s
y e t a ' Z e a l o t p a r t y ' , as a s s u m e d b y B r a n d o n , a n d b y the N e w E n g l i s h Bible
a t M a r k 3: 1 8 . T h e t e r m ' Z e a l o t ' c e r t a i n l y h a d c o n n o t a t i o n s o f v i o l e n c e i n
d e f e n c e o f t h e L a w , b u t n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y o f a r m e d r e s i s t a n c e to R o m e a n d its
8
c o l l a b o r a t o r s . (d) T h e e x p e c t a n c y o f d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n w a s s o v i v i d t h a t
t h e r e w a s d a n g e r to p e a c e i n h e r e n t i n any p o p u l a r m o v e m e n t , h o w e v e r
p e a c e f u l its c h a r a c t e r a n d a i m s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f m i r a c l e s a n d prophetic
utterance were involved - witness Josephus's accounts of rebel leaders, and
the followings they attracted, and the reasons h e g i v e s for Herod's
e x e c u t i o n o f J o h n the B a p t i s t : fear lest his g r e a t influence o v e r the p e o p l e
m i g h t l e a d t o a r e v o l t (AJ x v m . 1 1 6 - 1 9 ) .
T h e f a c t t h a t J e s u s w a s b r o u g h t u p in G a l i l e e a n d t h a t o n e o f h i s c h o s e n
disciples w a s called 'the Z e a l o t ' (and the possibility that others m a y h a v e
b e e n c o n n e c t e d w i t h the resistance m o v e m e n t ) p r o v e s n o t h i n g as to his o w n
attitude and aims.

2 T h e trial of Jesus

It follows from w h a t h a s j u s t b e e n said that the fact o f his e x e c u t i o n b y the

R o m a n s o n a c h a r g e o f sedition also p r o v e s n o t h i n g as to his o w n stance. In

8
It is often assumed that w h a t J o s e p h u s calls the 'fourth p h i l o s o p h y ' , s t e m m i n g from
J u d a s the Galilaean (AJxvm. 23-5), is to be identified with those he calls ' Z e a l o t s ' .
But J o s e p h u s n o w h e r e makes this identification. H e uses the term ' Z e a l o t s ' o f a
particular g r o u p o n l y in his a c c o u n t o f the W a r itself. See M o r t o n Smith, ' Z e a l o t s
and Sicarii', HThR 64 (1971), 1—19, and M . Borg, ' T h e C u r r e n c y o f the T e r m
" Z e a l o t " ' , JThSt n.s. 22 (1971), 504-12. T h e term has in fact a m u c h wider
c u r r e n c y . But its use for militant patriots has b e c o m e general and does n o harm
p r o v i d e d that the w i d e r sense is not forgotten.
6 J. P. M. SWEET

the e x p l o s i v e a t m o s p h e r e of the time the r e m o v a l o f s o m e o n e w h o , h o w e v e r

i n n o c e n t l y , m i g h t b e c o m e t h e f o c u s o f a p o p u l a r u p r i s i n g w i t h its i n e v i t a b l e
consequences, w o u l d be a natural and intelligible action; c p . the remark o f
C a i a p h a s i n J o h n 1 1 : 5 0 . E v e n i f t h e J e w i s h n o n - i n v o l v e m e n t i n h i s t r i a l , for
w h i c h W i n t e r a n d o t h e r s h a v e a r g u e d , b e a c c e p t e d , e v e n i f t h e w h o l e affair
was merely R o m a n police action and the C h r i s t i a n s later foisted the
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o n t o t h e J e w i s h l e a d e r s for a p o l o g e t i c r e a s o n s , t h e r e is still
n o t h i n g to p r o v e t h a t the R o m a n v e r d i c t w a s justified - e x c e p t in the
p r a g m a t i c sense j u s t m e n t i o n e d , as seeking to c u r b p o p u l a r unrest by
r e m o v i n g o n e m a n , n o t for w h a t h e h a d s a i d a n d d o n e i n i t s e l f s o m u c h a s
for t h e effect it m i g h t h a v e o n t h e p e o p l e . T h e f a c t t h a t J e s u s a l o n e w a s
p i c k e d o u t a n d t h e T w e l v e w e n t free is e n o u g h i n i t s e l f t o p r o v e t h a t t h e
R o m a n s did not see h i m as the leader o f a seditious g r o u p .
I n f a c t , h o w e v e r , t h e h i s t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n a b o u t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for
J e s u s ' s d e a t h is still w i d e o p e n . R e f e r e n c e s to t h e c o n t i n u i n g d e b a t e a r e
g i v e n in the f o l l o w i n g essay a n d in the c l o s i n g essays in this b o o k . F e w
scholars w o u l d reject c o m p l e t e l y the C h r i s t i a n version, w h i c h c a n be traced
b a c k t o o n e o f P a u l ' s e a r l i e s t l e t t e r s (1 T h e s s . 2: 1 5 ) ; it h a s e v e n b e e n a r g u e d
that the J e w s c o u l d t h e m s e l v e s h a v e carried out the crucifixion (see E .
9
B a m m e l , p p . 4 3 1 - 4 5 ) . T h e r e is i n a n y c a s e v e r y w i d e a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e r e
w a s i a r e l i g i o u s i s s u e b e t w e e n J e s u s a n d his o w n p e o p l e , w h i c h w e n t far
deeper than an attack on the collaborating priestly aristocracy; that he
b r o u g h t a theological c h a l l e n g e o f the m o s t fundamental kind, m a k i n g
c l a i m s for himself, w h e t h e r d i r e c t l y o r indirectly, w h i c h w e r e either true o r
false, a n d if false d e m a n d e d his c o n d e m n a t i o n a n d death.
A s to the e x a c t n a t u r e a n d significance o f the t r i u m p h a l entry, the
c l e a n s i n g o f the T e m p l e , the disciples' s w o r d s a n d the arrest o f J e s u s , the
Barabbas episode and t h e t r i a l o r t r i a l s , t h e r e is h o t d i s p u t e a n d no
c o n s e n s u s is e v e r l i k e l y t o b e r e a c h e d ( s e e t h e c l o s i n g e s s a y s i n this b o o k ) .
B r a n d o n ' s v i e w r e m a i n s a possibility, b u t in the e y e s o f the g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f
c o m p e t e n t s c h o l a r s t h e probabilities a r e h e a v i l y o n t h e o t h e r s i d e . T h i s m a y
s e e m too c a v a l i e r a t r e a t m e n t o f s u c h a c r u c i a l issue as the trial o f J e s u s ,
e v e n for a g e n e r a l s u r v e y . B u t w h e r e e v e r y a s p e c t o f t h e q u e s t i o n is
e n i g m a t i c a n d c o n t r o v e r s i a l , it is p e r h a p s e n o u g h to m a k e t h e g e n e r a l p o i n t
t h a t e v e n i f t h e t r i a l b e f o r e t h e S a n h e d r i n w a s a C h r i s t i a n i n v e n t i o n , e v e n if,
1 0
as H . C o h n has recently a r g u e d , t h e J e w s w e r e i n v o l v e d o n l y i n t r y i n g to
g e t J e s u s o f f a n d f a i l e d t h r o u g h his n o n - c o o p e r a t i o n , t h e r e is still n o p o s i t i v e
e v i d e n c e t h a t the R o m a n v e r d i c t w a s justified in the sense that J e s u s

9
See also E. B a m m e l , The Trial of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 162-5. T h e view has been
i n d e p e n d e n t l y defended b y D r J. M . F o r d , * " C r u c i f y him, Crucify h i m " and the
T e m p l e Scroll', ExpT 87 (1976), 275-8.
10
The Trial and Death of Jesus ( L o n d o n 1972); c p . B a m m e l , p p . 49-51.
 T h e Zealots and Jesus 7

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

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

3 T h e Jerusalem church

T h e r e is e v e n l e s s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e first C h r i s t i a n s w e r e i m p l i c a t e d i n
violent zealotry than that Jesus w a s . Josephus's accounts of rebel leaders
e n d w i t h t h e m a s s a c r e o f t h e i r f o l l o w e r s , b u t t h e r e is n o h i n t o f R o m a n
movement against any o f the followers o f Jesus. Acts records only
a t t e m p t e d J e w i s h c o e r c i o n o n religious g r o u n d s , until the a c t i o n o f A g r i p p a I
1 1
a g a i n s t J a m e s , s o n o f Z e b e d e e , a n d P e t e r r e c o r d e d in A c t s 1 2 .
B r a n d o n m i g h t find m o r e a g r e e m e n t w i t h h i s e s t i m a t e o f P a u l t h a n o f
J e s u s , b u t a v e r y s t r o n g c a s e c a n still b e m a d e , o n t h e b a s i s o f P a u l ' s o w n
l e t t e r s , for h i s f u n d a m e n t a l u n i t y w i t h t h e ' p i l l a r ' a p o s t l e s a t J e r u s a l e m .
E v e n i f it c o u l d b e s h o w n w i t h h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e e a r l i e s t P a l e s t i n i a n
C h r i s t i a n i t y w a s far m o r e J e w i s h t h a n t h e P a u l i n e v e r s i o n , a n d t h a t it
p e r i s h e d i n t h e w a r o f A . D . 6 6 - 7 0 , t h e r e w o u l d still b e n o t o n e s h r e d o f
positive evidence that it w a s in any w a y aligned with the 'Fourth
Philosophy'.
A s for t h e G o s p e l o f M a r k , w h i c h B r a n d o n h e l d w a s w r i t t e n after A . D . 7 0
i n R o m e a s a n apologia t o e x c u l p a t e J e s u s , a n d C h r i s t i a n s , f r o m t h e i r p r i m a
facie involvement with the J e w i s h national cause, there are strong
a r g u m e n t s for d a t i n g it b e f o r e t h e J e w i s h W a r a n d e v e n s t r o n g e r a r g u m e n t s
for a s s e r t i n g its theological, n o t p o l i t i c a l , c o n c e r n . T h e ' a r g u m e n t from
s i l e n c e ' - t h a t J e s u s is r e c o r d e d a s c o n d e m n i n g H e r o d i a n s , S a d d u c e e s a n d
Pharisees, but nowhere Zealots, and that if any such condemnation had
b e e n r e m e m b e r e d s u r e l y M a r k m u s t h a v e r e c o r d e d it - is e x a m i n e d b y
G . M . S t y l e r in a separate essay ( p p . 1 0 1 - 9 ) . H e a n a l y s e s the logic o f the
argument a s B r a n d o n e m p l o y s it, a n d s h o w s h o w e a c h link requires
i n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g i f it is t o c a r r y c o n v i c t i o n - a n d h o w , w i t h e q u a l l o g i c , a
d i f f e r e n t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n is p o s s i b l e . H e r e it is e n o u g h t o a s k w h y , i f t h e
e v a n g e l i s t s c r e a t e d s o m u c h e l s e for a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e s , t h e y c o u l d n o t
have created such a condemnation i f it w e r e r e a l l y n e c e s s a r y to the
argument. I n a c t u a l f a c t , it w a s not n e c e s s a r y . F e w n o n - J e w s outside
P a l e s t i n e c o u l d h a v e k n o w n a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e Z e a l o t s (in Brandon's
sense) in the sixties a n d s e v e n t i e s , before J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s w e r e p u b l i s h e d .
I t w a s t h e Jews w h o w e r e k n o w n a n d h a t e d , a n d M a r k h a s d o n e m o r e t h a n
e n o u g h to d i s t i n g u i s h J e s u s a n d h i s f o l l o w e r s f r o m t h e m .
T h e a f t e r m a t h o f J e s u s ' s c a r e e r , t h e n , c a n n o m o r e b r i n g e v i d e n c e for h i s

11
C p . B. Reicke, b e l o w p . 147.
8 J . P. M. SWEET

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

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

4 Jesus's teaching

B r a n d o n b u i l d s h e a v i l y o n c e r t a i n p a s s a g e s - for e x a m p l e , t h e t r i b u t e
m o n e y q u e s t i o n ( M a r k 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 a n d p a r a l l e l s ) , 'I c a m e not to b r i n g p e a c e
but a sword' (Matt. 10:34), and the ' a r m i n g ' o f the disciples (Luke
22: 3 5 - 3 8 ) . T h e s e p a s s a g e s n e e d d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n - s e e t h e e s s a y s b y
1 2
F. F. B r u c e , M . B l a c k a n d G . W . H . L a m p e ; h e r e it is e n o u g h t o s a y
t h a t t h e y c a n h e l p B r a n d o n ' s c a u s e o n l y if o n e shuts o n e ' s ears to the n o t e o f
i r o n y in J e s u s ' s t e a c h i n g . T h e far g r e a t e r n u m b e r o f a n t i - v i o l e n c e s a y i n g s
a n d a c t i o n s are w r i t t e n off b y B r a n d o n as c r e a t e d later, e s p e c i a l l y b y
M a t t h e w , i n o r d e r t o p r o j e c t t h e i m a g e o f a p a c i f i c C h r i s t , s u i t a b l e for a
r e l i g i o n for t h e R o m a n w o r l d . B u t m a n y o f t h e s e s a y i n g s , o n t h e c r i t e r i a o f
m o d e r n G o s p e l c r i t i c i s m , a r e m o s t l i k e l y to b e o r i g i n a l ; m a n y r e v i e w e r s
h a v e noted the arbitrariness o f B r a n d o n ' s critical m e t h o d , a c c e p t i n g w h a t
fits h i s c a s e a n d r e j e c t i n g w h a t d o e s n o t , w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o a c c e p t e d
p r o c e d u r e s . F o r e x a m p l e , m a n y o f t h e s e s a y i n g s o c c u r in t h e Q m a t e r i a l .
A d m i t t e d l y Q h a s its s c e p t i c s , a n d t h e c r e a t i v i t y o f M a t t h e w its c h a m p i o n s .
B u t e v e n i f all t h e s a y i n g s l i k e ' i f a m a n in a u t h o r i t y m a k e s y o u g o o n e m i l e ,
g o w i t h h i m t w o . . . L o v e y o u r e n e m i e s a n d p r a y for y o u r p e r s e c u t o r s '
( M a t t . 5: 4 1 , 4 4 ) , w h i c h in J e s u s ' s t i m e c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n s a i d w i t h o u t
r e f e r e n c e t o t h e R o m a n s , w e r e t h e c r e a t i o n o f M a t t h e w , w e a r e still left w i t h
Jesus's b e h a v i o u r . H i s w e l c o m e for t a x - g a t h e r e r s and sinners, w h o to
Z e a l o t s w e r e e v e n m o r e abhorrent than the R o m a n s , a n d w h a t w a s w o r s e ,
his e a t i n g w i t h t h e m , c a n n o t b e ironed o u t o f the tradition. B r a n d o n m a k e s
m u c h o f S i m o n the C a n a n a e a n a m o n g the T w e l v e , b u t nothing e x c e p t one
f o o t n o t e o f L e v i o r M a t t h e w t h e t a x - g a t h e r e r (Zealots, p . 2 0 1 , n o t e 4 ) . I t is
possible, as B r a n d o n hints, that the tax-gatherers w h o m J e s u s attracted at
o n c e g a v e u p their profession, w h e r e a s the revolutionaries did not, but
a g a i n the p r o b a b i l i t i e s are the o t h e r w a y . J e s u s ' s a t t i t u d e to a n d relations
w i t h 'sinners' are decisive e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t a n y link b e t w e e n h i m a n d those
w h o m B r a n d o n calls the Z e a l o t s .
B r a n d o n ' s theory, then, does provide a coherent picture o f Christian
o r i g i n s , b u t it is a t i s s u e o f i n t e r l o c k i n g possibilities of varying weight, wholly
l a c k i n g in positive e v i d e n c e : m a n y p a s s a g e s c a n b e a d d u c e d w h i c h c a n be
c o n s t r u e d in s u p p o r t o f t h e t h e o r y , i f t h e t h e o r y is t r u e , b u t n o n e w h i c h is

12
Pp. 2490°, 287(1 and 3351T respectively.
 T h e Zealots and Jesus 9

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

The revolution theory from Reimarus to

Brandon

M i l t o n , in h i s Paradise Regained, p o r t r a y s h i s v i s i o n o f S a t a n t r y i n g to l u r e
J e s u s to plot w i t h the P a r t h i a n s to d e l i v e r the ten tribes a n d to establish his
r e a l m ' f r o m E g y p t to E u p h r a t e s a n d b e y o n d ' a n d to s e t u p a k i n g d o m t h a t
1
' R o m e or C a e s a r not n e e d fear' a n d , then, i m p r o v i n g o n this b y p r o d u c i n g
the yet more tempting prospect that Jesus should expel the monster
T i b e r i u s f r o m t h e t h r o n e , ' a v i c t o r - p e o p l e free f r o m s e r v i l e y o k e ' a n d a i m
2
' a t n o less t h a n a l l t h e w o r l d ' .
J u s t as a c c o r d i n g to the rules o f the G r e e k s a s a t y r p l a y follows the
t r a g e d y , so a b u r l e s q u e o f M i l t o n ' s s c e n e m a y p e r h a p s b e f o u n d in S c h i l l e r ' s
Die Rauber, w h e r e S p i e g e l b e r g p l a y f u l l y s u g g e s t s t h e i d e a o f s e t t i n g u p a s a
d e s c e n d a n t o f H e r o d a n d c a l l i n g forth all those w h o d o not eat pork,
3
p r e t e n d i n g ' d a s K o n i g r e i c h w i e d e r aufs T a p e t z u b r i n g e n ' .
I n this w a y the i d e a o f political m e s s i a n i s m , b o t h in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h
J e s u s a n d a p a r t from h i m , attracted the i m a g i n a t i o n o f the poets. O n the
p l a n e o f r e s e a r c h , h o w e v e r , it w a s d u e t o t h e w o r k d o n e b y H . S . R e i m a r u s
t h a t the p r o b l e m c a m e into focus. H i s essay o n J e s u s ' s a n d his d i s c i p l e s '
4 5
g o a l i s , as h a s b e e n m a i n t a i n e d , t h e first l a n d m a r k o f r e s e a r c h o n t h e life o f
6
Jesus. I t is s t a r t l i n g t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f a p o l i t i c a l i n v o l v e m e n t o f J e s u s
a l r e a d y p l a y s a r o l e i n t h i s first a n a l y s i s . J e s u s w a s n o t j u s t a t e a c h e r o f

2 3
' m . 384f. i v . iooff. 1 . 2.
4
W h a t b e c a m e geschichtstrachtig, are the Wolfenbuttelsche Fragmente published b y
Lessing b e t w e e m 1774 and 1777, w h i c h represent an early stage o f the work o f
R e i m a r u s ' s lifetime, o f the Apologie oder Schutzschriftfur die vernunftigen Verehrer Gottes.
T h i s latter m a n u s c r i p t was not published in its entirety until 1972 ( b y G . A l e x a n d e r
( W i e s b a d e n , 1972), 2 v o l s . ) . T h e r e are three translations o f the Fragmente: b y C .
V o y s e y ( L o n d o n , 1879), b y R . S. Fraser (Philadelphia, 1970; L o n d o n , 1971, ed. b y
C . H . T a l b e r t ) , and b y G . W . B u c h a n a n (Leiden, 1970). For R e i m a r u s ' s
p h i l o s o p h y c p . H . Sieveking, ' H . S. R e i m a r u s 1694-1768', Zeitschr. d. Vereins f
hamburgische Geschichte 38 (1939), i45ff.
5
A l b e r t Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede ( T u b i n g e n , 1906), p . 13 ( E T u n d e r the
title The Quest of the Historical Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1910), p . 13); Geschichte der
Leben-Jesu-Forschung ( T u b i n g e n , 1913), p . 13 (this second edition o f the earlier work
- c o n s i d e r a b l y revised and a u g m e n t e d - has not a p p e a r e d in English so far).
6
T h e Schutzschrift s o o n b e c a m e k n o w n a b r o a d . C o l e r i d g e , for e x a m p l e , was m a d e
familiar with its views in Bristol; c p . E. Shaffer, 'Kubla Khan'and the Fall ofJerusalem
( C a m b r i d g e , 1975).

II
12 E. BAMMEL

7
virtues; rather he w a s or b e c a m e the herald o f the ' k i n g d o m ' . Jesus,
Reimarus emphasises, must have been well aware o f the political
implications of a messianic pronouncement. In using this messianic
t e r m i n o l o g y himself, he w a s c o n s c i o u s o f a w a k e n i n g the J e w s to the h o p e o f
8
a worldly messiah. A l l the actions of Jesus agree with such an
interpretation: his entry into J e r u s a l e m , his 'interruption o f order in the
9 1 0
Temple', h i s ' s e d i t i o u s s p e e c h e s to t h e p e o p l e a g a i n s t t h e h i g h c o u n c i l ' .
His suspicious and seditious actions were such that even more 'ungestiime
1 1
W e i t e r u n g e n ' w e r e to be e x p e c t e d . A certain measure o f force w a s not
f o r e i g n t o h i m - e v e n t h e p a s s a g e o n t h e t w o s w o r d s is a h i g h l y s u s p e c t
1 2
enigma. I t is d u e t o c e r t a i n m i s c o n c e p t i o n s i n s t r a t e g y o n h i s p a r t a n d t o
the fact that he w a s o n l y a g r e e a b l e to the ' c o m m o n r a b b l e ' that the
J e r u s a l e m a c t i o n d i d not s u c c e e d a n d t h a t he c o u l d b e p u t to d e a t h . I n d e e d ,
he d e s e r v e d his c o n d e m n a t i o n - 'nach alien Rechten und politischen
1 3
Regeln'. T h e presentation o f J e s u s ' s g o a l a s s u f f e r i n g a n d d e a t h is a
1 4 1 5
' c o n s t r u c t i o n o f his d i s c i p l e s ' w h o are p o r t r a y e d in d a r k c o l o u r s , whereas
t h e t r u e f a c t s g i v e J e s u s a p l a c e a m o n g t h e m a n y m e s s i a n i c p r e t e n d e r s . I t is
t o d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e l a t t e r t h a t t h e m a i n i n t e r e s t o f R e i m a r u s is d e v o t e d .
S t i l l , f r o m h i s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e m e r g e s t h e s k e t c h o f a J e s u s w h o s e a c t i v i t y is
firmly rooted in the belligerent J e w i s h tradition. The difficulties of
e x p l a i n i n g , for e x a m p l e , t h e t r i a l o f J e s u s o n t h e b a s i s o f this d o n o t c o n c e r n
h i m , s o cjietermined is h e t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e rift b e t w e e n J e s u s a n d h i s
disciples.
S u b s e q u e n t r e s e a r c h h a d t o d e a l w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n a s it h a d b e e n p o s e d

7
§4 ( T a l b e r t , Fragmente, p p . 66f).
8
R e i m a r u s ' s statements are not always consistent. In the Fragmente he affirms with
v i g o u r the nationalistic character o f Jesus's message, whereas in the Schutzschrift -
o w i n g to the influence o f Semler ( c p . A l e x a n d e r , Apologie, i, 31) - he a d m i t s and even
praises s u c h 'herrliche L e h r e n J e s u ' ( A l e x a n d e r , Apologie, ii, 516, 173^ 176) as are
n o t c o n d i t i o n e d b y J e w i s h particularism, while castigating Jesus's messianic c l a i m s
at the s a m e time (e.g. A l e x a n d e r , Apologie ii, 156). T h i s does not, h o w e v e r , m e a n
that, as A . C . Lundsteen (H. S. Reimarus und die Anfange der Leben-Jesu-Forschung
( C o p e n h a g e n , 1939), p p . 46f, 146) assumes, in the o p i n i o n o f R e i m a r u s at a certain
time there was a turning-point in Jesus's activity.
9
§2 ( T a l b e r t , Fragmente, p . 137).
1 0
§8 ( I b i d . , p . 148).
1 1 1 2
A l e x a n d e r Apologie, ii, 176. I b i d . , 165.
1 3
I b i d . , 161. It is R e i m a r u s ' s intention to s h o w that Jesus's suffering c a n n o t h a v e had
a vicarious character. A s far as there is a bias in his w o r k , it is to b e found in this
direction; he himself is not at all interested in revolution.
1 4
T . C h u b b had already attempted to bring out differences b e t w e e n Jesus and his
disciples ( c p . L u n d s t e e n , Reimarus, p p . i32ff, 145); but his impressions lack any
consistent idea.
1 5
T h e Schutzschrift attributes a greater m e a s u r e o f b l a m e to the disciples even d u r i n g
the lifetime o f Jesus: they staged the scene o f the entry into J e r u s a l e m ( A l e x a n d e r ,
Apologie, ii, 1591).
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 13

1 6
b y R e i m a r u s . T w o different solutions w e r e offered. F. V . R e i n h a r d denied
a n y c o n n e c t i o n o n the side of J e s u s w i t h the idea o f a D a v i d i c m e s s i a h . H e
h i m s e l f n e v e r a c c e p t e d this a p p e l l a t i o n . H i s o w n d e s i g n w a s n o t h i n g b u t
spiritual. T h e other e x p l a n a t i o n , suggested b y H . E . G . P a u l u s , centres the
i d e a o f p o l i t i c a l m e s s i a n i s m in the p e r s o n o f J u d a s : he h o p e d to raise the
1 7
c r o w d s t o i n t e r v e n e f o r c e f u l l y for t h e i m p r i s o n e d J e s u s . A further step w a s
1 8
taken by K . H a s e , w h o noticed t w o different periods in the ministry o f
J e s u s , o n e in w h i c h he took u p the messianic ideas o f his e n v i r o n m e n t
w i t h o u t r e s e r v e , a n o t h e r in w h i c h h e w i t h d r e w in o r d e r to g o his o w n w a y .
Without necessarily interpreting the messianology of Jesus's time
politically himself, H a s e nevertheless s h o w e d the direction in w h i c h the sting
1 9
of a political interpretation could be removed.
T h e r e t h e m a t t e r r e s t e d for m o s t o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . T h e l i v e s o f
J e s u s a n d the detailed investigations o f the p r o b l e m - the books o f T .
C o l a n i , G . V o l k m a r a n d W . W e i f f e n b a c h - take u p one o f these lines w i t h
c e r t a i n q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ; t h e y s e t J e s u s firmly a g a i n s t m e s s i a n i s m , w h i c h t h e y
2 0
understand politically. It is i n t h i s r e s p e c t t h a t t h e n e w s c h o o l o f
eschatologists w h o followed the authors mentioned earlier, such as E . Issel,
O . S c h m o l l e r , J. W e i s s a n d A . Schweitzer, agree with their predecessors.
T h e i r o w n definition o f a n d interest in e s c h a t o l o g y as a supra-human

16
Versuch uber den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit
entwarf ( W i t t e n b e r g , 1781).
17
Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentums (Heidelberg,
1828).
18
Das Leben Jesu ( L e i p z i g , 1829).
1 9
A m o r e u n e q u i v o c a l e c h o o f R e i m a r u s ' s theory m a y possibly b e found in a
statement o f G o e t h e . H e writes in his Maximen und Refiexionen: ' D i e christliche
Religion ist eine intentionierte politische Revolution, die, verfehlt, nachher moralisch
g e w o r d e n ist' (Nr. 819 d a t e d 3 F e b r u a r y 1814; 'the Christian religion is an intended
political revolution w h i c h , after failing, subsequently b e c a m e an ethical o n e ' ) . It is
not absolutely clear w h e t h e r the political d o m i n a n c e G o e t h e detects in Christianity
refers to the time o f Jesus o r that o f the apostles. I f the former is the case, the
statement has to b e seen as the result o f considerations sparked off b y R e i m a r u s .
A s s u m i n g the latter, H . Petsch ( c p . H a m b u r g e r G o e t h e - A u s g a b e X I I , Nr. 82,
footnote) had tentatively thought o f the c o m m u n i s m o f the early Christians. T h i s
p h e n o m e n o n , h o w e v e r , w o u l d not merit the contrast b e t w e e n political and m o r a l
revolution w h i c h is stressed b y G o e t h e . W e will have to think o f the life o f J e s u s and
m a y possibly have to link G o e t h e ' s remark with the other reflection w h i c h was
found in an unfinished form in his literary remains. A c c o r d i n g to this Jesus c a m e to
an end not dissimilar to that o f H a m l e t , and this end was all the m o r e disastrous,
since he let d o w n those w h o m he had previously called (Maximen, Nr. 1305). T h e
fact that the v i e w o f Jesus expressed in m a n y statements o f different periods o f
G o e t h e ' s life ( c p . P. M e i n h o l d , Goethe und das Christentum (Freiburg, 1958)) points to
his appreciation o f Jesus's sittliche Hoheit makes it likely that the t w o citations
represent tentative reflections w h i c h he did not follow u p .
2 0
T . C o l a n i , Jesus Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps (Strassburg, 1864); G .
1882); W . Weiffenbach,
V o l k m a r , y * H t f Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit ( Z u r i c h ,
Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu (Leipzig, 1873).
 E. BAMMEL

i n t e r v e n t i o n l e d t h e m s o far a s to v i e w p o l i t i c a l m e s s i a n i s m a s a m e r e f r i n g e
2 1
feature even on the J e w i s h religious m a p , and as something that hardly
2 2
touched Jesus a n d is o f m i n i m a l c o n c e r n for t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f h i s
message.
A . R e m b e ' s Christus der Mensch und Freiheitskdmpfer s e e m s to b e a n
2 3
exception. H e pictures J e s u s as a w o r l d r e v o l u t i o n a r y , w h o c o m e s out
fervently against the w e a l t h y class w i t h o u t , however, touching their
2 4
wealth. J e s u s is t h e p r e a c h e r o f a n i d e a l s t a t e b e y o n d t h e c l o u d s , w h o
directs h i m s e l f against the T e m p l e a n d the L a w as the institutions that k e e p
2 5
the p e o p l e in s e r f d o m . T r i e d for t h i s r e a s o n , h e p r o v e s t o b e t h e t r u e
26
fighter who, when defeated, triumphs over himself. His disciples,
i n c a p a b l e o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g h i m , d e v e l o p t h e i r o w n i m a g i n e d i d e a s after
his death. But it h a p p e n s in the course of time that this 'geistige
2 7
Sozialdemokratie' is a m a l g a m a t e d w i t h a n d s w a l l o w e d u p b y t h e s t a t e . I t
is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e p i c t u r e is a n i m p r e c i s e r e h a s h o f R e i m a r u s ' s w i t h o u t a n y
n e w i m p u l s e to critical investigation.

II
2 8
A n e w d e p a r t u r e h a d a l r e a d y b e e n m a d e b y W . W e i t l i n g in 1 8 4 5 . Jesus,
l i k e P y t h a g o r a s , w a s s t r i v i n g for a r a d i c a l r e v o l u t i o n i n t h e s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s
2 9
- so W e i t l i n g a s s u m e s . J e s u s w a s , h o w e v e r , fully a w a r e b o t h o f the
d i f f i c u l t ) ^ expressing himself openly and of the shortness of time available
3 0
t o h i m . O w i n g t o t h i s w e find s t a t e m e n t s o f c a u t i o n a n d e v e n c a m o u f l a g e .
N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e m a i n p o i n t is c l e a r : it is a s o c i a l r e v o l u t i o n t h a t h e h a s i n
3 1
m i n d . I t s a i m is t h e a b o l i t i o n o f p r o p e r t y . L u k e 1 4 : 33 is a p o i n t e r t o t h e
kernel o f J e s u s ' s m e s s a g e . T h e c o m m u n a l i s a t i o n o f w o r k a n d o f the m e a n s
3 2
of p r o d u c t i o n , a n d in c o n s e q u e n c e o f leisure, a r e r e q u i r e d . I t s s u c c e s s is
3 3
forecast b y J e s u s in the s t a t e m e n t o f L u k e 18: 2 9 X T h e situation o f the

2 1
Schweitzer, Geschichte, p p . 232*! (Quest, p p . 237ft).
2 2
S y m p t o m a t i c is Schweitzer's discussion o f M a t t . 1 1 : 1 2 (Geschichte, p . 404; Quest, p p .
355Q: even this passage is taken to refer to those w h o try to w r i n g the k i n g d o m from
G o d b y p e n i t e n c e . Differently J. W e i s s , DiePredigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes ( G o t t i n g e n ,
2nd edn. 1900), w h o links the verse with the Z e a l o t m o v e m e n t ( p . 197).
" L e i p z i g , 1887.
2 5
™ Christus, p p . 27ft I b i d . p . 41.
2 6 2 7
I b i d . p . 63 I b i d . p . 75.
2 8
Das Evangelium eines armen Sunders (Bern, 1845). A m o r e extended edition a p p e a r e d
in 1846. It was this edition w h i c h was reprinted in H a m b u r g in 1971 (= Philosophic
der Neuzeit 22).
29
Evangelium, p . 25 (1845 e d n . ) .
3 0
W e i t l i n g assumes that J e s u s like J o h n was an Essene, and he toys with the idea that
b o t h m e n had been c o m m i s s i o n e d b y the o r d e r to spread its principles in disguise.
3 1
W e i t l i n g , Evangelium, p . 62.
3 2 3 3
I b i d . p . 80. I b i d . p . 80.
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 15

early community reflects e x a c t l y w h a t he had in m i n d : 'even those

c o m m u n i s t s o f our time, w h o take the most extreme position, could not g o
3 4
further t h a n this b o d y d i d ' . T h e p r i n c i p l e is d e s i g n e d n o t o n l y for J e s u s ' s
o w n f e l l o w s h i p b u t for t h e w o r l d a t l a r g e - a l t h o u g h J e s u s is a w a r e t h a t
a l l o w a n c e s h a v e to be m a d e . In the end, h o w e v e r , faced w i t h persecution
from the side o f the o v e r - p r i v i l e g e d , he h i m s e l f retaliates in a like m a n n e r :
3 5
'dass Extrem gegen Extrem gesetzt werde'. T h e 'revolutionary carpenter'
3 6
a d v i s e d his d i s c i p l e s to b u y a s w o r d a n d p r e a c h e d w a r . W e i t l i n g does not
3 7
g o further in interpreting the last p h a s e o f the activity o f J e s u s ; but he
e m p h a s i s e s t h a t J e s u s h a d w o r l d l y a i m s - J o h n 1 8 : 3 6 is o n l y d u e t o c a u t i o n
- a n d he d r a w s the conclusion that similar actions m a y b e c o m e necessary
3 8
as l o n g as the 'state o f C h r i s t e n d o m ' has not yet m a t e r i a l i s e d .
W e i t l i n g s e e s a d e v e l o p m e n t i n J e s u s ' s t e a c h i n g . I n h i s first p e r i o d h e
3 9
w a s still u n d e r the influence o f n a t i o n a l p r e j u d i c e s . T h a t means, the
d e v e l o p m e n t o f h i s p r e a c h i n g , t h e c i r c u m s p e c t n a t u r e o f its p r e s e n t a t i o n
a n d , e v e n t u a l l y , b l u n t c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h the p o w e r s t h a t b e are d u e to
4 0
J e s u s ' s e n e r g e t i c a n d i n q u i s i t i v e m i n d a n d h i s c o n c e r n for t h e p o o r . All
t h i s is d e s c r i b e d i n m o s t e n g a g i n g l a n g u a g e , i n a s t y l e r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h a t o f
4 1 4 2
the prophets a n d o f the s a m e dignity as that of H e b e l and B i i c h n e r . >
T h e s o c i a l a p p r o a c h w a s in k e e p i n g w i t h the feeling o f the y o u n g e r
l s
generation o f the period. T h u s Jesus in W a g n e r ' s s k e t c h o f 1 8 4 3
4 3
p o r t r a y e d a s s a y i n g , ' g e m e i n s a m sei e u c h H a b u n d G u t ' , while elements
o f political r e v o l u t i o n a r y a c t i v i t y are a b s e n t from his J e s u s d r a m a o f 1 8 4 8 ^

3 4 3 5 3 6
I b i d . p . 64. I b i d . p . 122. I b i d . p p . 1231*.
3 7
H e gives o n l y a p s y c h o l o g i c a l interpretation o f the betrayal o f J u d a s ( p p . 102-8).
3 8
In this context he interprets Xan(3dveiv (Luke 11: 10; J o h n 16: 24) as a permission
to take.
3 9
Evangelium, p . 98.
4 0
W e i t l i n g is genuinely inspired b y the person o f Jesus. His presentation is, h o w e v e r ,
partly c o n d i t i o n e d b y the fact that the bible is 'the b o o k , w h i c h is to b e found in
every h o u s e and w h i c h is still a c c e p t e d with c o n f i d e n c e ' ( p p . 1301), and that apart
from it there is n o basis for agitation. F o u n d i n g his c o m m u n i s m o n the teaching o f
Jesus is therefore partly a matter o f p e d a g o g i c a l consideration.
4 1
It seems that the v i e w taken b y J. A . R e i c h m u t h (Die Bibel in sozialistisch-
kommunistischer Beleuchtung ( B a d Lauchstedt, 1921); c p . the s u m m a r y given b y J.
L e i p o l d t , Vom Jesusbilde der Gegenwart (2nd edn., Leipzig, 1925, p p . 69Q is similar to
that o f Weitling.
4 2
T h e political revolutionary explanation o f Jesus's life can b e understood as the
secularised form o f another o n e , a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h Jesus went u p to J e r u s a l e m in
o r d e r to establish the messianic k i n g d o m from the T e m p l e , expecting divine
intervention to assist him in this task. T h i s v i e w is not infrequent, e.g. R . v . d . A i m ,
Die Urtheile heidnischer und jiidischer Schriftsteller . . . (Leipzig, 1864), p . 148.
4 3
Das Liebesmahl der Apostel in Derjunge Wagner. Dichtungen, Aufsdtze, Entwiirfe 1832-49,
ed. J. K a p p (Berlin, 1910), p p . 329^
4 4
R . W a g n e r , y * H t f (published Leipzig, 1887). H e clings to the social ideal: ' K e i n e r sage
v o n seinen Giitern, dass sie sein waren sondern es sei euch alles g e m e i n ' ( p . 96).
l6 E. BAMMEL

a l t h o u g h t h e a u t h o r h i m s e l f w a s s o o n t o b e c o m e a fighter o n t h e b a r r i c a d e s .
Both Weitling and Wagner m a k e Jesus dissociate himself from the
nationalism o f his environment: the o n e after having allowed for a
4 5
q u a s i - Z e a l o t initial phase, the other without such a concession, the former
d i s r e g a r d i n g the B a r a b b a s p r o b l e m ( a n d , i n d e e d , the trial itself), the latter
s t a t i n g expressis verbis t h a t J e s u s h a d n o c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e B a r a b b a s
4 6
rebellion. A d i c h o t o m y t h e r e b y e m e r g e s w h i c h w a s t o b e c o m e t y p i c a l for
the f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a t i o n s .
4 7
The interest changed after the failure o f the 1848 revolution.
Professional scholars tended to b e c o m e m o r e cautious, w h e r e a s radicals d i d
n o t feel a n y l o n g e r t h e s a m e n e e d t o s e e t h e m s e l v e s a s t h e m o u t h p i e c e o f
history a n d to v i e w the w h o l e cultural heritage as leading u p to a n d
4 8
c u l m i n a t i n g in their o w n p r o p o s i t i o n s .
4 9
H . K . H . D e l f f s p r e s e n t a t i o n is s y m p t o m a t i c . H e reduces the a p p e a l to
the P o o r to a G a l i l a e a n feature, w h i l e in his v i e w J e s u s ' s a c t i v i t y in
5 0
J e r u s a l e m w a s b y no m e a n s m a r k e d b y a social stance. H e even views the
P a r a b l e o f t h e G r e a t F e a s t a s a p o r t r a i t o f J e s u s ' s o w n a c t i v i t y : it is o n l y i n
5 1
the last i n s t a n c e t h a t he g o e s to the o u t c a s t . H e emphasises the need seen

4 5
W a g n e r a d v a n c e s the startling theory that the aristocracy w o u l d have s h o w n
interest in a political messiah (Jesus, p . 25).
4 6
In his v i e w a 'matt ausgelaufene M e u t e r e i ' ( W a g n e r , Jesus, p . 25; c p . 46).
4 7
It was the c o m b i n a t i o n o f social interest with mediating tendencies w h i c h resulted
in the p r o p o s i t i o n that a Christian has to b e responsible but anti-revolutionary.
T h i s v i e w b e c a m e m o s t influential in nineteenth-century conservative thinking.
T h i s was so especially o n the continent, w h i c h had been shaken b y the 1848
revolution a n d the e x p e r i e n c e o f the Paris C o m m u n e o f 1871. T h e formation o f the
Christian Anti-revolutionary Party in H o l l a n d in 1849 was a direct result o f such
consideration.
4 8
A reaction to the situation is to b e found in the important b o o k o f R . T o d t , Der
radikale deutsche Socialismus und die christliche Gesellschaft ( W i t t e n b e r g , 1877). H e
declares that w h e n basing o u r j u d g e m e n t o n the N . T . w e c a n n o t d e n y
' B e r e c h t i g u n g d e m Sozialismus n a c h seinem innersten W e s e n ' ( p . 370). It is his
intention to evoke u n d e r s t a n d i n g for socialism as it presents itself in his time and
simultaneously to criticise it from the basis o f the N . T . T h a t m e a n s , factors
i m p l y i n g a social m o t i v a t i o n in the N . T . are admitted but taken as m o d e r a t i n g
factors in an issue that is already v i e w e d as having c o m e into existence
i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f the Christian m e s s a g e . It is not that the N . T . is taken as a social
challenge a n d manifesto. W h i l e he d o e s not see it as taking the lead, it is certainly
the author's o p i n i o n that revelation in history will have the last w o r d - he takes u p
the ideas o f S w a b i a n speculation in o r d e r to demonstrate this. A n escape in the
o p p o s i t e direction was m a d e at the s a m e time b y E. v o n H a r t m a n n , w h o attributes
an asceticism hostile to w o r k , family a n d all possessions to Jesus, and views h i m as a
kind o f precursor o f his o w n p h i l o s o p h y o f pessimism (Briefe uber die christliche
Religion (Stuttgart, 1870), p . n o (the w o r k a p p e a r e d under the p s e u d o n y m F. A .
M i i l l e r ) ; Die Selbstzersetzung des Christentums ( L e i p z i g , 1874), PP- 5°0-
49
Jesus von Nazareth ( L e i p z i g , 1889).
50
Ibid. p p . 3i8f.
51
Ibid. p p . 337f.
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 17

b y J e s u s for n e w b o t t l e s o r f o r m s , s o t h a t t h e n e w f o r c e m a y n o t d i s p e r s e
5 2
itself in the 'formlose R e v o l u t i o n a r e ' , into revolutionary a n a r c h y ; a n d he
5 3
s e p a r a t e s J e s u s p o i n t e d l y from the a i m s o f his ' Z e a l o t b r o t h e r ' J a m e s and
5 4
equally from every kind o f z e a l o t i s m .

Ill
5 5
I t w a s left t o A . K a l t h o f f to take u p the g e n e r a l line o f W e i t l i n g , w h o s e
w r i t i n g s , h o w e v e r , w e r e u n k n o w n to h i m . T h e m a n n e r in w h i c h this w a s
d o n e s h o w s characteristic differences. W h i l e W e i t l i n g takes the sources as
t h e y a r e h a n d e d d o w n a n d e x p l a i n s d i v e r g i n g s t a t e m e n t s b y reference to
5 6
the a r c a n e discipline a n d the c a u t i o n w i t h w h i c h J e s u s h a d to p r o c e e d , it is
e x t r e m e s c e p t i c i s m vis-a-vis t h e t r a d i t i o n s i n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t t h a t g u i d e s
KalthofFs approach. E v e n t u a l l y he arrives at the conclusion that the
G o s p e l s w e r e p u r e l y m y t h i c a l in c h a r a c t e r a n d , c o m b i n i n g t h i s w i t h t h e
T u b i n g e n i d e a o f the origin o f C h r i s t i a n i t y in the belief o f the c o m m u n i t y
5 7
r a t h e r t h a n in the t e a c h i n g o f J e s u s , h e g o e s s o far a s t o d e n y t h a t a
p a r t i c u l a r e v e n t l i k e t h e c r u c i f i x i o n o f a c e r t a i n J e s u s , i f its h i s t o r i c i t y is
5 8
g r a n t e d , or that the person o f a ' f o u n d e r ' could be o f any constitutive
5 9 6 0
importance. R a d i c a l i s i n g t h e v i e w o f t h e T u b i n g e n s c h o o l i n this w a y he
a d v a n c e s a n e w p e r s p e c t i v e b y g i v i n g C h r i s t i a n i t y its s e t t i n g , e v e n its
o r i g i n , in t h e s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n o f t h e e m p i r e . I t is t h e p r o d u c t o f c e r t a i n
converging factors in the ancient world. The revival o f the social
p r e a c h i n g o f the p r o p h e t s in the form o f a p o c a l y p t i c i s m , the p h i l o s o p h y o f
the m i d d l e S t o a , the m o v e m e n t o f the proletariat and, m o s t important, the

5 2
I b i d . p . 332.
5 3
I b i d . p . 333. ' Z e a l o t ' seems to have a wider m e a n i n g in the context.
5 4
I b i d . p . 340.
5 5
A n informative sketch o f K a l t h o f f is supplied b y F. Steudel in his preface to the
p o s t h u m o u s edition o f KalthofFs Zukunftsideale (Jena, 1907), p p . V - X X X I I . For
criticism o f KalthofFs and K a u t s k y ' s views c p . A . D e i s s m a n n , Licht vom Osten, 2nd
edn. ( T u b i n g e n , 1923), p p . 336, 403ff.
5 6
W e i t l i n g , Evangelium, p p . 33ff, 43.
5 7
F. C . Baur, Kirchengeschichte derdrei ersten Jahrhunderte i, 3rd e d n . (Leipzig, 1863), 40;
cited b y A . Kalthoff, Entstehung des Christentums (Leipzig, 1904), p . 24 ( E T L o n d o n ,
1907, p . 29).
5 8
T h e e m p h a s i s on the personality o f Jesus is in his o p i n i o n n o t h i n g but an attempt at
m o d e r n i s a t i o n ; nay, w o r s e than this, it is 'die A n g s t v o r d e m kirchlichen
K o m m u n i s m u s , die in dieser L e b e n - J e s u - T h e o l o g i e nachhinkt'; this theology fears
for its 'privat-kapitalistische W e l t a n s c h a u u n g , w e n n es ihr nicht gelingt, in den
Evangelien den k o m m u n a l e n Christus d u r c h den individuellen zu v e r d r a n g e n '
(Entstehung, p . 98 etc.; E T p . 123 e t c . ) .
59
K a l t h o f f , Entstehung, p . 108 ( E T p . 139).
6 0
For B a u r ' s c o n c e p t o f Jesus, c p . W . G . K i i m m e l , Das Neue Testament. Geschichte der
Erforschung seiner Probleme (2nd e d n . Freiburg, 1970), p p . 174^ E T ( L o n d o n , 1973),
pp. i4if.
l8 E. BAMMEL

6 1
emergence o f semi-secret societies brought about something that m a y be
c a l l e d t h e f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e t i m e s , t h e r i p e fruit o f w h i c h w a s p r o d u c e d i n
C h r i s t i a n i t y : a l l t h e c u r r e n t s o f t h e t i m e flowed t o g e t h e r i n t o t h i s m o v e m e n t
because each of them had already absorbed ideas of economic
6 2
communism.
T h i s m e a n s that the Christian communities inherited a mentality a n d ,
already to some extent, a p r o g r a m m e o f radical social change. Revolution­
ary unrest w a s not s o m e t h i n g that i n v a d e d the c o m m u n i t i e s from time to
time a n d w a s c o m b a t e d especially b y Paul, b u t w a s the very essence o f these
c o m m u n i t i e s - the pointers to the c o n t r a r y in the Pauline letters are v i e w e d
6 3
b y K a l t h o f f as fabrications o f a later p e r i o d . T h e c o m m u n i t y is s e e n a s t h e
6 4
incarnation, as the C h r i s t - G o d ; the absolute unity of the m e m b e r s w a s
already a revolutionary factor within the context o f a totally different
structure o f t h e p o l i t i c a l w o r l d . T h e agape is c o n s t i t u t i v e for w h a t i s ,
s p e a k i n g in e c o n o m i c terms, a c o m m u n i t y o f c o n s u m p t i o n , the oblations
6 5
a n d primitiae p r o v i d e c o m m u n a l p r o p e r t y . A n e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e is t h e
abandonment o f private property in favour o f c o m m u n a l ownership.
C o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h i s is t h e e m p h a s i s o n w o r k , t h a t m e a n s o n c o n s u m p t i o n
a n d u s u f r u c t w h i c h is s o l e l y b a s e d o n p r o d u c t i o n . T h i s is a s t e p f o r w a r d
compared with t h e life o f t h e t h i a s i c congregations and a complete
departure from the R o m a n concept o f property (based o n loot or p o w e r ) .
W h a t e m e r g e s w i t h C h r i s t i a n i t y is a s t a t e w i t h i n t h e s t a t e , a n e c o n o m i c
6 6
entity o f co-operation within the agrocapitalistic society. T h e thrift w h i c h
is d e m a n d e d in so m a n y Christian r e g u l a t i o n s is o n l y o n e s i d e o f a
6 7
communist economic system. T h e ' p r o h i b i t i o n of interest, the e m p h a s i s o n
the fair p r i c e ( w i t h o u t a n y g a i n ) a r e o t h e r features. I n d e e d , w e o w e to t h e
church 'the most comprehensive communist manifesto that w a s ever
6 8
conceived'.
K a l t h o f F s v i e w is e n t i r e l y c o n d i t i o n e d b y t h i s a n a l y s i s o f t h e w h o l e

51
W h i c h , indeed, caused the c o n c e r n o f the state a n d , at times, suppression ( c p . Pliny,
Epist. x . 33 a n d 34).
6 2
For c o m m u n i s t i c tendencies in a p o c a l y p t i c i s m , c p . p p . yyf ( E T p p . o,8fl).
6 3
P p . 13ff; 11 iff ( E T p p . i6ff, 142). C p . B . Kellermann, Kritische Beitrdge zur
Entstehungsgeschichte des Christentums (Berlin, 1906), p p . 451T, w h o c o m b i n e s
KalthofFs ideas with those o f W r e d e . T h i s particular view w a s anticipated in s o m e
ways already b y the radical D u t c h school and R . Steck ( c p . R . Steck, 'Plinius i m
neuen T e s t a m e n t ' , Jahrbucher fur protestantische Theologie 17 (1890), 5451T).
64
K a l t h o f f , Entstehung, p . n o ( E T p . 141).
6 5
I b i d . p . 125 ( E T p . 162).
6 6
I b i d . p p . i05f ( E T p p . 135Q.
6 7
I b i d . p . 126 ( E T p . 163). C o m m u n i s t ideas were emphasised especially b y the
c h u r c h fathers o f the post-Constantinian period, as E. T r o l t s c h (Die Soziallehren der
christlichen Kirchen, G e s a m m e l t e Schriften i ( T u b i n g e n , 1912), 51) stated.
68
K a l t h o f f , Entstehung, p . 140 ( E T p . 181).
 T h e revolution theory from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 19

p e r i o d . H e t a k e s it a s a s i n g l e e n t i t y a n d d o e s n o t b e l i e v e i n c r u c i a l
d i v e r g e n c e s , e i t h e r for t h e b e t t e r o r for t h e w o r s e . T h e r e f o r e h e d o e s n o t
b e l i e v e i n J e s u s a s t h e t y p e o f a r e v o l u t i o n a r y ; t h i s i d e a is j u s t o n e f o r m o f a n
6 9 7 0
unhistorical, modernising individualisation, ' a tendency not in keeping
w i t h t h e n e c e s s i t y o f p l a c i n g e v e r y t h i n g i n t h e d e v e l o p i n g fluidum o f
7 1
Christian culture.
H a v i n g resisted the temptation to invoke R e i m a r u s or B a u r as patrons
a n d t o a d m i t s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g e , h e is c o m p e l l e d t o r e g a r d t h e b e g i n n i n g s
o f C h r i s t i a n i t y a s b e i n g o n o n e p l a n e a n d t o shift t h e p i e c e s o f e v i d e n c e s o
t h a t t h e y fit i n . H e t h e r e f o r e v i e w s t h e a c c o u n t s o f t h e p a s s i o n a s r e f l e c t i o n s
7 2
of w h a t h a p p e n e d in the time o f the persecution under T r a j a n , h e sees
7 3
Pliny under the mask o f Pilate, characterises Peter as the personification
7 4
of the R o m a n community, takes the G o s p e l reports as reflecting the
7 5
struggle o f the masses on the Italian estates a n d transfers the P a u l i n e
letters to the s e c o n d c e n t u r y . A t t h e price o f this n e w a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e
s o u r c e s h e is a b l e t o s k e t c h t h e p a n o r a m a he w a s interested in. T h e
high-handed re-arrangement of evidence shows how much of an
o v e r - s i m p l i f i c a t i o n it w a s t o b r i n g t h e C h r i s t i a n l i t e r a t u r e u n d e r t h e o n e
v i n c u l u m of social tension. Nevertheless KalthofFs venture h a s not only the
s u g g e s t i v e n e s s o f b o l d n e s s ; it is f a r s u p e r i o r i n c a l i b r e a n d b r e a d t h t o a n y
7 6
other attempt at 'social' understanding o f Early Christendom.

IV
7 7
(a) P a r a l l e l t o K a l t h o f F s , a n d y e t d i s t i n c t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t , is K a u t s k y ' s v i e w .
H i s a p p r o a c h is t i n g e d w i t h s c e p t i c i s m t o w a r d s t h e e a r l i e s t Christian
s o u r c e s , h e is d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r it is p o s s i b l e t o find o u t a n y t h i n g c e r t a i n
7 8
a b o u t J e s u s ' s life a n d t e a c h i n g a n d is e v e n n o t a v e r s e t o t h e t h e o r y o f

6 9
I b i d . p . 98 (Christ is j u s t the p a t r o n o f the c o m m u n i t y ; E T p . 126); p . 148 ( E T
p . 190); c p . Das Christus-Problem (Leipzig, 1903), p p . 38f.
7 0
In fact m o s t o f the n a m e s o f Christian literature are worthless (Entstehung, p . 92; E T
p . 122). H e d r a w s attention to the a n a c h r o n i s m s o f the h a g g a d a (Was wissen voir von
Jesus (Berlin, 1904), p . 39).
7 1
Reflections in the style o f R . R o t h e are to b e found o n p p . 132ft of Entstehung ( E T
p p . i73ff).
7 2
KalthofT, Was wissen wir von Jesus, p . 38.
7 3
Kalthoff, Das Christus-Problem, p . 43.
7 4 7 5
I b i d . p p . 50ff. Ibid. p p . 5 7 ^
7 6
KalthofFs mythical theory was taken u p (in a modified form) b y P. Alfaric, Origines
Sociales du Christianisme (Paris, 1959; G T D a r m s t a d t , 1963).
7 7
K . K a u t s k y , Der Ursprung des Christentums (Stuttgart, 1908). T h e r e are t w o English
translations: N e w Y o r k , 1925 (repr. 1973) and N e w Y o r k , 1953 ( b y j . F. M i n s ) . T h e
p a g e n u m b e r s refer to the former translation. T h e n e w G e r m a n edition ( H a n n o v e r
1968) contains an informative introduction supplied b y K . K u p i s c h .
7 8
I b i d . p . 25 ( E T p . 43).
20 E. BAMMEL

7 9
Jesus's unhistoricity. I n t h e m a i n , h o w e v e r , h e is i n c l i n e d t o a c c e p t t h e
s o u r c e s a s n o t t o o far r e m o v e d f r o m w h a t a c t u a l l y t o o k p l a c e , a n d to
a t t e m p t - w i t h p r e f e r e n c e for L u k e a n d w i t h d i s a p p r o v a l o f t h e r e v i s i o n i s t
8 0
Matthew - to d r a w a sketch of Jesus. Jesus's m i l i e u is t h e rural
81
proletariat; the nearest p a r a l l e l to the c o m m u n i t y w h i c h a d o p t e d his
name is t h e Essenes, w i t h the decisive difference, h o w e v e r , that the
C h r i s t i a n s w e r e essentially a city o r g a n i s a t i o n a n d therefore a b l e to c a r r y
8 2
on as a secret s o c i e t y . W h a t is m o s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f J e s u s h i m s e l f is h i s
8 3
rebellious mentality, which was directed against both the Jewish
8 4
establishment a n d the R o m a n s .
T h e Poor are called b y h i m because they are poor. T h e end, a n n o u n c e d
to t h e m in the w o r d s o f the J e w i s h k i n g d o m e x p e c t a t i o n , d e m a n d s v i o l e n t
a c t i o n o n t h e i r s i d e . L u k e 1 2 : 4 9 a n d 2 2 : 38ff a r e o f h e u r i s t i c v a l u e for
K a u t s k y . Correspondingly he reconstructs a planned revolt after the
successful assault against the T e m p l e , the b e t r a y a l o f w h i c h led to the
8 5
downfall of Jesus. H i s e x e c u t i o n is v e r y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e i f h e w a s a r e b e l ;
8 6
o t h e r w i s e it a p p e a r s a s a s e n s e l e s s a c t o f w i c k e d n e s s . I t is o n l y l a t e r
t r a d i t i o n , t r a d i t i o n t h a t a r o s e after A . D . 7 0 , t h a t p l a y s d o w n t h e s e f e a t u r e s
a n d is p a r t l y s u c c e s s f u l i n t h i s a t t e m p t . T h e p o r t r a i t o f t h e s u f f e r i n g C h r i s t
replaces the tradition o f the rebellious J e s u s .
I t is d u e to t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n t h a t h e h a d h i m s e l f a l r e a d y f o u n d e d t h a t h i s
n a m e s u r v i v e d a n d that the tradition w a s projected into the form o f the
r e s u r r e c t i o n m y t h . T h e b e l i e f in t h e c o m i n g C h r i s t g a v e i m p e t u s t o t h e
8 7 88
c o m m u n i s t organisation o f the outcasts a n d m a d e it ' i r r e s i s t i b l e ' .
8 9
K a u t s k y had twice before dealt w i t h the origin o f C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d h a d

7 9
I b i d . p . 384; c p . p p . 17f, 22f ( E T p . 364: ' w h e t h e r he actually existed o r was merely
an ideal figure o f m e n ' s visions . . .'; c p . p p . 35, 40).
8 0
I b i d . p . 352 etc. ( E T p . 335).
8 1
H e d r a w s the c o n c l u s i o n that the partisans o f the proletariat are m u c h better
e q u i p p e d to c o m p r e h e n d the beginnings o f Christianity than c h a i r b o u n d d o n s
( p . viii; E T p . 12).
8 2
K a u t s k y , Ursprung, p . 337 ( E T p . 320).
8 3
I b i d . p . 384 ( E T p . 363): differently M . R o b b e {Der Ursprungdes Christentums (Berlin,
1967), p . 75) w h o emphasises the o p e n , the e m b r a c i n g character o f the Christian
c o m m u n i t i e s as contrasted with the Essenes.
8 4 0
K a u t s k y , Ursprung, p p . 385ft ( E T p p . 3 6 4 0 ) .
8 5
I b i d . p p . 387ff ( E T p p . 365(1).
8 6
I b i d . p p . 389 ( E T p . 368).
8 7
I b i d . p . 402 ( E T p p . 3 7 9 0 - It has to b e e m p h a s i s e d that, a c c o r d i n g to K a u t s k y ( c p .
p . 434; E T p . 409), the c o m m u n i s t city organisation is singular and o f decisive
i m p o r t a n c e for the parting o f w a y s with J u d a i s m .
8 8
K a u t s k y , Ursprung, p . 403 ( E T p p . 380Q. T h e class hatred o f the early Christians
was a feature that a p p e a l e d to the non-Jews, while it b r o u g h t the Christians into
conflict with J u d a i s m , w h i c h believed in united forces.
8 9
' D i e Entstehung des Christentums' in Die neue Zeit 3 (1885), 481-99, 529-45; Die
Vorldufer des neueren Sozialismus (Stuttgart, 1895), 40, 46ff.
 T h e revolution theory from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 21

stated e m p h a t i c a l l y that the person of Jesus w a s 'of c o m p a r a t i v e l y small

9 0
importance', was even 'bedeutungslos'. T h e i n t e r e s t h e t o o k in t h e J e w i s h
b a c k g r o u n d i n h i s t h i r d a t t e m p t is o b v i o u s . I t s e e m s t h a t t h e s c r u t i n y o f this
w o r l d h a d o p e n e d his e y e s to the fact t h a t the d e v e l o p m e n t w a s m o r e
c o m p l e x t h a n h e h a d p r e v i o u s l y a s s u m e d . I t w a s i n this b e w i l d e r i n g w o r l d
o f J u d a i s m that he w a s a b l e to allot a p l a c e to J e s u s , as a n e x p o n e n t o f the
t h e n d o m i n a n t m o v e m e n t . H e is n e i t h e r p l a c e d a t t h e c r o s s - r o a d s b e t w e e n
t h e t w o c u l t u r e s n o r v i e w e d a s a homo sui generis. T h e s e a r e t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f
K a u t s k y ' s s k e t c h o f J e s u s . E a r l y C h r i s t e n d o m i t s e l f is s e e n e n t i r e l y a s a
9 1
social m o v e m e n t .
K a u t s k y h o l d s that m o d e r n times are totally different from the d a y s o f
the struggle o f the p e a s a n t proletariat. H e therefore refrains from taking
J e s u s a s a d i r e c t e x a m p l e - t h a t is t h e d i f f e r e n c e f r o m W e i t l i n g . H e s e e s
J e s u s himself, h o w e v e r , m o r e c l e a r l y t h a n K a l t h o f f w a s a b l e to d o in the
s i t u a t i o n o f t h e J e w i s h s t r u g g l e . T h e Z e a l o t f a c e o f it is i n h i s v i e w a f e a t u r e
o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n - h e h i m s e l f is n o t a t a l l i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s ( o r o n l y
n e g a t i v e l y , in o r d e r to d i s p u t e the C h r i s t i a n portrait o f J e s u s ) . It only
p r o v i d e s h i m w i t h t h e m e a n s t o g i v e h i s t o r i c a l c o l o u r a n d l o g i c t o a life, t h e
o u t c o m e o f w h i c h a p p e a r s a l m o s t ridiculous if v i e w e d from the basis o f the
C h r i s t i a n sources as they stand.
T h e a p p e a r a n c e o f K a u t s k y ' s book w a s followed b y a lively discussion.
T h e a n o n y m o u s ' A . D . ' held against K a u t s k y that Jesus w a s only interested
i n a n d c o n c e r n e d for i n d i v i d u a l s , a n d t h a t t h e r a d i c a l t e n d e n c i e s a r e d u e to
an Umbiegung i n the early communities, which happened when the
9 2
proletariat got control over them. F. M e h r i n g , on the other h a n d , stated
h i s b a s i c a g r e e m e n t w i t h K a u t s k y w h i l e p o i n t i n g to t h e i n f l u e n c e o f P a u l ,
93
w h o - so he holds, citing a famous statement o f Pfleiderer - had succeeded
9 4
in o v e r c o m i n g the t e n d e n c i e s hostile to a n y social o r d e r . H. Windisch
questioned the picture o f militant Christian beginnings a n d admitted such
t e n d e n c i e s o n l y for t h e A p o c a l y p s e , e x p l a i n i n g t h e m a s d u e t o s u b s e q u e n t
Judaisation (nachtrdgliche Judaisierung). I f t h e e a r l y C h r i s t i a n s h a d been
revolutionaries, they w o u l d h a v e j o i n e d the Z e a l o t m o v e m e n t a n d h a v e

9 0
Die neue Zeit 3 (1885), 543. H e m o c k s at the aim o f his fellow socialist A . Dulk to
recover early Christianity for his o w n belief ( p . 545).
9 1
C p . the criticism raised against him b y T r o l t s c h , Soziallehren, p p . 1
9 2
' D e r s o g e n a n n t e urchristliche K o m m u n i s m u s ' , in Die neue Zeit 26 (1908), 4820°.
9 3
O . Pfleiderer, Die Entstehung des Christentums ( M i i n c h e n , 1905, p . 186; E T L o n d o n ,
1906, p . 211): Paul rejected e m p h a t i c a l l y the c o m m u n i s t i c fanaticism related to the
early Christian t e n d e n c y to w o r l d - a b r o g a t i o n . T h i s statement is found o n c e and
again in socialist writings, and was o n l y recently used as a w e a p o n against Paul by
K . Farner ( c p . n o t e 394, p p . 6 i f ) . K a u t s k y himself w r o t e a very hostile review o f
Pfleiderer's b o o k {Die neue Zeit 25 (1907), ii, 760).
9 4
' D e r U r s p r u n g des C h r i s t e n t u m s ' in Die neue Zeit 27 (1909), i, 28iff.
22 E. BAMMEL

9 5
perished with it. H e points e s p e c i a l l y to the fact t h a t P s a l m 2 a n d A m o s
w e r e cited in A c t s 4 a n d 1 5 i n a w a y w h i c h is c o n t r a r y to t h e o r i g i n a l
militant m e a n i n g o f the p a s s a g e s . K a u t s k y refuted W i n d i s c h b y d r a w i n g
attention to comparable phenomena in Bohemian radicalism and
c o m m u n i s t sectarian m o v e m e n t s , w h e r e militant beginnings are followed
b y a n i n c l i n a t i o n t o p e a c e f u l n e s s . H e f a s t e n s o n t h e title 6 X Q t o r o g : t o c a l l
h i m s e l f m e s s i a h w o u l d h a v e b e e n a s a b s u r d for a p e a c e - l o v i n g m a r t y r a s i f
T o l s t o i h a d d e s c r i b e d h i m s e l f as a b o m b - t h r o w i n g terrorist. H e interprets
Windisch as h a v i n g a d m i t t e d three stages (Jesus peaceful, the first
c o m m u n i t y rebellious, the later d e v e l o p m e n t peaceful a g a i n ) , and claims
that in o r d e r to s a l v a g e J e s u s from the p r e s u m p t i o n o f a rebellious disposi­
t i o n W i n d i s c h is f o r c e d to a s s e r t J e s u s ' s i n a b i l i t y to e x e r c i s e a n i n f l u e n c e o n
his rebellious disciples. H e e m p h a s i s e s that the militant p a s s a g e s in the
9 6
N e w T e s t a m e n t are ' U b e r r e s t e einer tiefeingewurzelten T r a d i t i o n . '

(b) S o v i e t h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , i n its p r e s e n t a t i o n o f E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y , is m o r e
9 7
d e p e n d e n t o n F . E n g e l s a n d his i n d e b t e d n e s s to B r u n o B a u e r than on any
other radical Jesus researcher. K a u t s k y is r a r e l y c i t e d , a n d Kalthoff,
a l t h o u g h i n t h e c e n t r a l h i s t o r i c a l i s s u e m o r e a k i n to E n g e l s t h a n K a u t s k y , is
disregarded almost completely, while A . Drews was mocked by Lenin
himself.
O n the one hand, Soviet ideologists are attracted by w h a t appears from
their point o f v i e w as the parallel b e t w e e n early Christianity a n d
v the
socialist m o v e m e n t , w h i l e on the other h a n d the contents o f the bible are
abhorrent t o t h e m . I t is d u e to t h i s h i a t u s t h a t t h e y felt d r a w n t o t h e
9 8
conclusion o f the non-historicity of J e s u s . T h e d i v e r g i n g tenor o f the early
C h r i s t i a n s t a t e m e n t s o n force a n d w a r are e x p l a i n e d as p r o d u c t s o f different
9 9
stages in the development of Christendom. The radical ones are

9 5
H . W i n d i s c h , Der messianische Krieg und das Urchristentum ( T u b i n g e n , 1909).
9 6
K . J . K a u t s k y , J e s u s ' 'der R e b e l F , Die neue Zeit 28 (1910), i, 52. T h e o p i n i o n v o i c e d
b y Hitler (Jesus is r e c o m m e n d a b l e , while Paul was an 'instigator o f the proletariat';
Monologe, ed. W . J o c h m a n n ( H a m b u r g , 1980), p p . 96°, 150, 412°; the last
c o n v e r s a t i o n recorded!) was in all likelihood started off b y his reading o f this
controversy.
9 7
It was K a u t s k y w h o d r e w Engels's attention to Bauer, w h o ' b r a c h t e fast das, was
ich s u c h t e ' (Fr. Engels Briefwechsel mit K. Kautsky, ed. b y B. K a u t s k y ( W i e n , 1955), p .
179). F o r a critique o f Bauer, c p . E. Barnikol, Bruno Bauer, Studien und Materialien
( A s s e n , 1972), p p . 238f. C p . also J. I r m s c h e r , 'Friedrich Engels u n d das
U r c h r i s t e n t u m ' , Studii Clasice 3 (1961), 99ff.
9 8
B . Stasiewski, ' U r s p r u n g und Entfaltung des Christentums in sowjetischer Sicht',
Saeculum ii (i960), 169; idem in Sowjetsystem unddemokratische Gesellschaft iii (Freiburg,
1969), 343ff. R o b b e , Ursprung, p . 24, o n the other h a n d , declares the q u e s t i o n a
matter o f m i n o r interest: even if he lived it was not he w h o b e c a m e instrumental in
starting Christianity but it was a general m o v e m e n t w h i c h g a v e rise to it.
" S t a s i e w s k i , Saeculum, ii (i960) 163; c p . 170.
 T h e revolution theory from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 23

c o n s i d e r e d t o r e f l e c t t h e p r i m i t i v e s t a t e a n d it is for t h i s r e a s o n t h a t t h e
R e v e l a t i o n o f J o h n is v a l u e d a s t h e o l d e s t a n d m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t C h r i s t i a n
1 0 0
document. T h e o p i n i o n that the early c o m m u n i t i e s in their social unrest
lacked a w a r e n e s s o f their social position precludes these authors from
a p p r e c i a t i n g e a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y a s a n y t h i n g t h a t is s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t
from p r e - M a r x i s t c o m m u n i s m o f the b e g i n n i n g o f the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y .
T h u s , e v e n the r a d i c a l o r r e v o l u t i o n a r y t e n d e n c i e s f o u n d in e a r l y C h r i s t i a n
101
sources do not dispose them favourably towards it.
1 0 2
A s h a d e o f d i f f e r e n c e f r o m t h i s is f o u n d i n S . I . K o v a l e v . A considerable
d e p a r t u r e i s , h o w e v e r , n o t n o t i c e a b l e b e f o r e M . M a c h o v e c , w h o is t h e b e s t
i n f o r m e d a m o n g the eastern M a r x i s t a u t h o r s o f this g e n e r a t i o n a n d w h o s e
s k e t c h b e t r a y s s y m p a t h y a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g for J e s u s a n d e q u a l l y for h i s
1 0 3
message. H e s t a r t s w i t h t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t it w o u l d b e s u r p r i s i n g i f
J e s u s h a d n o t d e v e l o p e d a s t a n d e n t i r e l y o f h i s o w n vis-a-vis t h e q u e s t i o n o f
1 0 4
force, a n d t h e r e b y a v o i d s p i n n i n g d o w n J e s u s to o n e o f t h e e s t a b l i s h e d
1 0 5
positions in c o n t e m p o r a r y J u d a i s m . I t is t h e e m p h a s i s o n a c t i v i t y
1 0 6
w i t h o u t the use of f o r c e w h i c h is s e e n a s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f J e s u s , w h i l e t h e
e s c h a t o l o g i c a l p r o p h e t i c e l e m e n t - a f a c e t to w h i c h M a c h o v e c is a b l e to g i v e
1 0 7
considerable value is i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h o u t b e i n g b r o u g h t d o w n t o t h e l e v e l
1 0 8
o f social p r o b l e m s . H i s portrayal o f J e s u s a s Utopian i s , perhaps,

1 0 0
A v i e w - taken b y F. Engels - is thus repeated (similarly K a u t s k y , Ursprung, p . 380;
E T p . 360). R o b b e , Ursprung, p . 1 8 1 , deviates here from the d o m i n a n t line b y
e m p h a s i s i n g that the A p o c a l y p s e with its anti-state bias is not typical o f Christian
mentality.
1 0 1
T y p i c a l is A . B. R a n o w i t s c h , ' D a s U r c h r i s t e n t u m und seine historische R o l l e ' (in
Aufsatze zur Alten Geschichte (Berlin, 1 9 6 1 ) p p . I35ff). W h i l e p a y i n g tribute to the
idea that Christianity, being a religion, was o p i u m for the p e o p l e ( p . 1 3 5 ) , and
s u b s u m i n g it u n d e r the v i n c u l u m o f Sklavenhaltergesellschaft he characterises it as a
n e w stage in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f this society ( p . 139) w h i c h m a d e possible, for the
first time in history, a w o r l d religion. Its origin is sketched w i t h o u t any reference to
J e s u s . Its earliest and foremost d o c u m e n t is the A p o c a l y p s e with its hatred against a
' w o r l d o f suppression' ( p . 1 4 1 ) . T h e mentality o f revolutionary radicalism w h i c h
c o n d i t i o n e d certain features in the life o f the c o m m u n i t i e s ( p . 145) remained alive,
h o w e v e r , only in the side-branches o f C h r i s t e n d o m , while w h a t b e c a m e the official
c h u r c h d e v e l o p e d a hierarchy o f offices and e n c o u n t e r e d the w o r l d with the message
o f love instead o f hatred. T h i s olive-branch is a d e v e l o p m e n t o f the s e c o n d half o f the
s e c o n d century ( p . 1 5 8 ) ; it reflects the decrease o f messianism and o p e n s the d o o r
for an alliance with the w o r l d .
102
S t a s i e w s k i , Saeculum ii ( i 9 6 0 ) , 176f.
103
JesusfurAtheisten (Stuttgart, 1 9 7 2 ; E T under the t i t l e d Marxist looks atJesus, L o n d o n ,
1976).
1 0 4
I b i d . p . 128 ( E T p . 106).
1 0 5
I b i d . p . 133: love y o u r n e i g h b o u r is an iron d e m a n d w i t h o u t any c o m p r o m i s e
t o w a r d s yourself ( E T p . n o ) .
1 0 6
I b i d . p . 131 ( E T p . 108).
1 0 7
H e takes up ideas o f M . B l o c h (Das Prinzip Hoffnung i/ii (Berlin, 1 9 5 5 ) ) .
1 0 8
C p . his criticism o f K a u t s k y , p p . 287f ( E T p p . 2161).
24 E. BAMMEL

1 0 9
influenced b y the religious heritage of B o h e m i a b u t o n t h e w h o l e it is free
f r o m H u s s i t e m i l i t a n c y a n d c o m m u n i s t c l i c h e s . I t is t h e first s o c i a l i s t
1 1 0
approach that dispenses with the M a r x i s t economic yardstick.

1 1 1
(c) M a r x i s m i n t h e W e s t h a d g o n e a d i f f e r e n t w a y i n t h e m e a n t i m e . 'We
cannot expect a n y recovery o f the Jesus o f history in those w h o are
1 1 2
reconciled to the social order' is a statement as typical o f the
c o n s t e r n a t i o n a f t e r t h e first w o r l d w a r a s it is o f t h e s o c i a l t e n d e n c y , a n d still
w o r t h c o n t e m p l a t i n g . B y t a k i n g a l e a p f o r w a r d f r o m this p r e s u p p o s i t i o n i t
is m a i n t a i n e d t h a t J e s u s ' s c a l l f o r i n n e r r e p e n t a n c e r e s u l t e d o f n e c e s s i t y i n
h i s s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t t h e r u l i n g c l a s s e s - t h e r e o r g a n i s a t i o n o f s o c i e t y is h i s
1 1 3 1 1 4
real a i m - while he withstood nationalist suggestions once a n d a g a i n .
1 1 5
T h e c h a s m b e t w e e n socialist a n d nationalist i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f J e s u s is
o p e n e d thereby. T h e difference b e t w e e n these w a y s o f ' e n v i r o n m e n t a l '
understanding is, however, not exclusive: Jesus 'the social revolutionary'
1 1 6
holds t h e T e m p l e for three d a y s - t h e n a t i o n a l i s t t h e o r y is m a d e u s e o f
conveniently.
1 1 7
T h e early twentieth-century approach w a s taken u p b y A . Robertson.
H e describes Christianity as a 'mass movement conditioned b y a decaying
1 1 8
slave society of antiquity'. T h i s is t h e n o r m a l s o c i a l i s t s l o g a n . R o b e r t s o n
g i v e s it a s p e c i a l s l a n t b y c h a r a c t e r i s i n g t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f C h r i s t i a n i t y a s ' a
r e v o l u t i o n a r y m o v e m e n t l e d first b y J o h n t h e B a p t i s t a n d t h e n b y J e s u s t h e
N a z o r e a n , a n d a i m e d at the overthrow o f R o m a n a n d H e r o d i a n rule in
' v___
1 1 9
Palestine a n d the establishment o f a n earthly kingdom o f G o d ' . He
1 2 0
thereby c o m e s o u t for the historicity of J e s u s ; h e is m o s t d e f i n i t e i n t h i s
1 0 9
C p . P. R o u b i c z e k , Warrior of God ( L o n d o n , 1947).
1 1 0
F o r the c o n s e q u e n c e s , for the value attributed to Jesus as a m o n u m e n t , as a
stimulus to social activity, c p . the s u m m a r y in E. Grasser, ' M o t i v e u n d M e t h o d e n
d e r neueren Jesus-Literatur', Verkundigung und Forschung 18 (1973), 34-40.
1 1 1
T h e rejection o f Jesus h a d never been as t h o r o u g h g o i n g in the socialist parties o f the
W e s t as in the C o m m u n i s t w o r l d o f the East. C p . the statements cited in H .
H a r t m a n n , Die Stimme des Volkes ( M u n c h e n , 1920); G . N a u m a n n , Sozialismus und
Religion ( L e i p z i g , 1921), p p . 78, 83; L e i p o l d t , Jesusbild, p p . 68f; W . Ilgenstein, Die
religiose Gedankenwelt der Sozialdemokratie (Berlin, 1914), p . 195. A n element o f
p r o p a g a n d a c a n n o t b e ruled o u t in these l u k e w a r m appraisals. A n instructive
defence against the materialistic v i e w is to b e found in H . K o h l e r , Die sozialistische
Irrlehre von der Entstehung des Christentums (Leipzig, 1899).
1 , 2
J . L e w i s in Christianity and Social Revolution ( L o n d o n , 1935), p . 102.
1 . 3
J. M a c m u r r a y , Creative Society. A Study of the Relation of Christianity to Communism
( L o n d o n , 1935), p p . 84f.
1 . 4
T h e temptation story a n d J o h n 6:15 are interpreted along these lines.
l , 5
C p . p . 87.
1 1 6
M a c m u r r a y , Society, p . 88.
1 . 7
The Origins of Christianity ( L o n d o n , 1953; G T Stuttgart, 1965).
1 . 8
I b i d . p . 209 ( G T p . 235).
n , 2 0
* Origins, p . 93 ( G T p . 104). C p . n. 79, p . 20.
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 25

c o n c l u s i o n . W h i l e K a u t s k y h a d w a v e r e d , a t l e a s t for a m o m e n t , i n h i s
1 2 1
a p p r o a c h to the q u e s t i o n , R o b e r t s o n e v e n m o c k s at the m y t h s c h o o l . But
it is s y m p t o m a t i c t h a t h i s p o r t r a i t o f t h e B a p t i s t is d r a w n m o r e c l e a r l y t h a n
1 2 2
that of Jesus, and that he eventually r e d u c e s the i m p o r t a n c e o f b o t h o f
1 2 3
t h e m for t h e m o v e m e n t w h i c h t h e y i n i t i a t e d o r o n l y represented.
T h e 'primitive g o s p e l ' , a d o c u m e n t w h i c h purports to deal w i t h J e s u s ,
w h e r e a s in f a c t it w a s e m b e l l i s h e d w i t h i n c i d e n t s w h i c h h a d b e e n r e l a t e d o f
1 2 4
r e v o l u t i o n a r y l e a d e r s for g e n e r a t i o n s b a c k , is a r e v o l u t i o n a r y m a n i f e s t o
for w h i c h it is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t , w h i l e P h a r i s e e s a n d Sadducees are
d e n o u n c e d , the Z e a l o t s are not. It w a s c o m p o s e d at the time o f the J e w i s h
1 2 5
w a r , in w h i c h the C h r i s t i a n s took p a r t . I t is to b e m a i n l y r e c o v e r e d f r o m
1 2 6
so-called Q-material w h i c h was deliberately suppressed by M a r k . Its
1 2 7
m e n t a l i t y l i v e d o n in the A p o c a l y p s e . M a r k w a s w r i t t e n a f t e r 70 a n d tries
1 2 8
to d r a w the sting o f r e v o l u t i o n a r y m e s s i a n i s m . It does this b y fusing the
p r i m i t i v e gospel w i t h P a u l i n e theology: the old theory of M a r k ' s P a u l i n i s m ,
1 2 9
rejected already by M . W e r n e r , is t h u s revived. Paul himself had
e s t a b l i s h e d a different b r a n d o f C h r i s t i a n i t y , a religion t h a t h a d little or
n o t h i n g to d o w i t h J e s u s , t h a t r e p r e s e n t e d m i d d l e - c l a s s s e n t i m e n t s i n t h e
E m p i r e a n d w a s thus o p p o s e d to the revolutionary ' v e n o m ' spread by
1 3 0
slaves a n d the l i k e . T h e h i s t o r y o f t h e n a s c e n t c h u r c h is s e e n a s t h e
confrontation and reconciliation, and eventually union between these
t e n d e n c i e s : t h e T u b i n g e n t h e o r y , p r o j e c t e d o n t o t h e s o c i a l l e v e l , is t h u s
1 3 1
adopted. A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n from the m a t e r i a l o u t l o o k to a spiritual o n e
1 3 2
w a s t h e r e s u l t for t h e p r i m i t i v e c h u r c h .
C o m p a r e d w i t h K a u t s k y t h e w o r k d i s p l a y s a far b e t t e r c o g n i s a n c e o f t h e
sources and a scrutiny o f their respective value. C o i n c i d i n g w i t h B r a n d o n -

121
Origins, 76f. ( G T p p . 8of, 85).
1 2 2
C p . Kautsky.
1 2 3
'. . . r o u n d confused traditions o f m o r e than o n e leader the original gospel was
written' ( p . 209; G T p . 235).
1 2 4
R o b e r t s o n , Origins, p . 144 ( G T p . 163).
1 2 5
I b i d . p p . i4off ( G T p p . 158(f); the statements o f Eusebius and Epiphanius to the
contrary are rejected and positive evidence is found in R e v . 12: 7f; 14: 20; 17: gf.
1 2 6
I b i d . p . 150 ( G T p . 170).
1 2 7
I b i d . p . 156 ( G T p p . 1761).
>28 i b i d . p . 149 ( G T p . 169).
1 2 9
Der Einflusspaulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium (Giessen, 1923). It was revived
at the s a m e time in an even m o r e radicalised form ( M a r c i o n is the author o f M a r k )
b y H . R a s c h k e (Die Werkstatt des Markusevangelisten (Jena, 1924), p p . 31ft).
1 3 0
'Paul's attempts to inoculate the masses against revolutionary Messianism b y
spreading the cult o f a purely mystical C h r i s t . . .' ( R o b e r t s o n , Origins, p . 172; G T
p . 190). ' H e r e m o v e d the k i n g d o m o f G o d from this w o r l d to the next. T h i s was to
cause trouble with the revolutionary Messianists' ( p . 104; G T p . 116).
1 3 1
C p . the defence o f F . C . Baur in R o b e r t s o n , Origins, p . 102 ( G T p p . 2461).
1 3 2
I b i d . p . 80 ( G T p p . 8 f ) .
4
26 E. BAMMEL

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

T h e m a i n s t r e a m o f r e s e a r c h o n t h e life o f J e s u s c o n t i n u e d t o m o v e i n a
d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n . T h i s is n o t o n l y t r u e for t h e l i b e r a l l i v e s w h i c h g o o n ,
1 3 3
m o r e o r less, in the tradition o f H a s e . I t is e q u a l l y t h e c a s e w i t h w h a t w a s
then the modern theology, the eschatological a p p r o a c h . Thus Albert
S c h w e i t z e r s t a t e s t h a t t h e ' a p o c a l y p t i c m o v e m e n t i n t h e t i m e o f J e s u s is n o t
connected with any historical event' and that there w e r e no events
'calculated to give impulse to eschatological enthusiasm': 'Stille
1 3 4
ringsum.' It m a y be that the p u r e l y a n t i q u a r i a n a p p r o a c h o f Schiirer's
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes r e p e l l e d a n y a t t e m p t t o b r i d g e t h e g a p b e t w e e n
the political world and the theological writings. It m a y be that the
ingenious searching of nineteenth-century scholars for contemporary
a l l u s i o n s in a p o c a l y p t i c literature h a d b e e n found to h a v e r e a c h e d a d e a d
1 3 5
end. I n a n y c a s e , it w a s o w i n g t o t h i s t u r n i n g a w a y f r o m t h e p o l i t i c a l
scene t h a t a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the m e s s a g e o f J e s u s c o n t i n u e d to flourish
w h i c h h a d d i s p e n s e d b e f o r e h a n d w i t h the possibility o f a n y reference to
contemporary events.
E v e n t h o s e itfho p r o c l a i m e d a s o c i a l m e s s i a h , a J e s u s i n f e l l o w s h i p w i t h
1 3 6
the P o o r - a considerable n u m b e r o f writers did s o - did not really m a k e
u s e o f t h e p o l i t i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s t h e foil to s e t o f f t h e i r p o r t r a i t o f J e s u s .
1 3 7
E x c e p t i o n s , like M . M a u r e n b r e c h e r , w h o a l l o w e d for p o l i t i c a l s i d e -
1 3 8
issues, w e r e torn to pieces b y S c h w e i t z e r . Indeed, even the social message
itself w a s found incompatible with the principle of thoroughgoing

133 T y p i c a l for the English scene is the portrait o f j e s u s b y Seeley, o f w h o m it is said that
he did not discuss the relation o f this imperium in imperio ( L e w i s , Christianity p . 77).
1 3 4
Von Reimarus zu Wrede, p p . 366f; Quest, p . 368; c p . Geschichte, p p . 283f.
1 3 5
It is typical that W . Bousset, w h o was in his p e r i o d the o u t s t a n d i n g authority o n
a p o c a l y p t i c i s m , felt d r a w n , for a time at least, to the solution o f the unhistoricity o f
Jesus; c p . The Modern Churchman (1976), p . 106. For a o n e - s i d e d discussion o f
Bousset's motifs, c p . F. R e g n e r , 'PaulusundJesus'im igjahrhundert ( G o t t i n g e n , 1977).
1 3 6
L e i p o l d t , Jesusbild, passim.
137
Von Nazareth nach Golgatha (Berlin, 1909).
1 3 8
Geschichte, p p . 575f (not in E T ) . A n attempt was m a d e b y the p h i l o s o p h e r W .
B r o c k e r to insert the n o t i o n o f a violent Jesus and o f a riot c a u s e d b y h i m in
c o - o p e r a t i o n with his followers into the Schweitzerian s c h e m e ( W . Brocker and H .
B u h r , Zur Theologie des Geistes (Pfullingen, i960), p p . 6 i f ) . T h e a u t h o r himself leaves
b e h i n d this feature in o r d e r to m a k e r o o m for a synthesis o n another level, b y a
t h e o l o g y o f the spirit.
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 27

1 3 9
eschatology in the interpretation o f j e s u s . Mystical interpretations were
1 4 0
n o t u n t y p i c a l for t h i s p e r i o d .
I t is s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e C h r i s t i a n S o c i a l i s t i n t e l l i g e n t s i a i n G e r m a n y
b e c a m e i n c r e a s i n g l y a w a r e o f t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f m a i n t a i n i n g its p o s i t i o n .
A l r e a d y in 1894 A . v o n H a r n a c k tried to a n s w e r the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r the
g o s p e l w h i c h p r o c l a i m s a h o l y i n d i f f e r e n c e vis-a-vis w o r l d l y p r o b l e m s c a n
1 4 1
contribute towards the solution o f the social question. Friedrich
Naumann, who had proclaimed 'Jesus der VolksmanrC i n an earlier
1 4 2
pamphlet, stressed the incompatibility b e t w e e n Jesus's m e s s a g e a n d the
n e c e s s i t i e s o f c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y , a n d left t h e r e a d e r ( a s w e l l a s h i m s e l f ) w i t h
1 4 3
the d i l e m m a . T h e f a m o u s l a s t p a g e o f t h e first p a r t o f W e l l h a u s e n ' s
Einleitung, i n w h i c h h e p o i n t e d t o c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s i n t h e life o f j e s u s t h a t a r e
n o t a c c e p t a b l e to o u r o w n t i m e , a n d w h e r e h e w e n t so far as to state: ' W i r
1 4 4
konnen nicht ziiruck zu ihm, auch wenn wir wollten', made a deep
i m p r e s s i o n o n this g e n e r a t i o n .
T h e position w a s clarified in the c e l e b r a t e d p a p e r o f W . H e r r m a n n ' D i e
sittlichen G e d a n k e n Jesu in i h r e m V e r h a l t n i s z u d e r sittlichreligiosen
1 4 5
L e b e n s b e w e g u n g der G e g e n w a r t . ' W h i l e f r a n k l y a d m i t t i n g t h a t t h e r e is
1 4 6
n o t h i n g o f the z e a l o t i s m o f a political or e c o n o m i c reformer in J e s u s , he
d e c l a r e s t h a t t a k i n g h i s w a y o f life a s a n e w l a w ( a s w a s d o n e b y T o l s t o i )
w o u l d b e a b e t r a y a l o f j e s u s . H e c h a l l e n g e s u s to e t h i c a l Selbstandigkeit
1 4 7
(self-reliance). H e d o e s not d e f e n d J e s u s b y reference to his b e l i e f in
eschatology, but he sees h i m a s t h e s o u r c e o f stete Unruhe ( c o n t i n u a l

1 3 9
Schweitzer, Geschichte, p . 574 n. 3.
1 4 0
C p . H . W e i n e l and A . G . W i d g e r y , Jesus in the Nineteenth Century and After
(Edinburgh, 1914), p p . 448f.
141
Die Verhandlungen des5. Evangelisch-sozialen Kongresses (Gottingen, 1894), p . 141. C p .
the statement o f T r o l t s c h , w h o , pointing to the disinterest o f the Christians in
m u n d a n e affairs, holds that this is a revolutionary element but lacks any
revolutionary intentions (Willen zur Revolution), Soziallehren, p . 50.
142
Jesus der Volksmann (Gottingen, 1894).
143
Briefe uber die Religion (Berlin, 1903): the conflict, 'dass wir praktisch keine Christen
im g e n a u e n W o r t s i n n e des Evangeliums sein konnen, schatze ich . . . fur viel
peinlicher als alle Konflikte der L e h r e ' ( p . 58 in the edition o f 1916). T h e gospel o f
the P o o r is 'eine unserer L e b e n s n o r m e n , aber nicht die einzige. Nicht unsere ganze
Sittlichkeit wurzelt im E v a n g e l i u m , sondern nur ein Teil derselben, allerdings ein
ausserst wichtiger und leicht missachter Bestandteil' ( p . 66). H e confines himself to
speaking o f mere ' S t i m m u n g e n des E v a n g e l i u m s ' and maintains that they m o v e
'nur wie f e m e , weisse Sehnsuchtswolken iiber allem wirklichen T u n unserer Z e i t '
( p . 60). H e d r e w the c o n c l u s i o n in his influential address to the Evangelisch-soziale
K o n g r e s s in 1908, w h e n stating that the N e w T e s t a m e n t contains neither a political
n o r a social doctrine, and for this reason cannot serve as the basis for social politics
(Verhandlungen p . 39).
144
Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin, 1911), p . 104.
145
Verhandlungen (Berlin 1903) p p . gff.
1 4 6
I b i d . p . 19.
1 4 7
I b i d . p . 29.
28 E. BAMMEL

1 4 8
unrest) a n d t h e p r o m o t e r o f e t h i c a l a c t i o n w h i c h is c o n d i t i o n e d b y t h e
1 4 9 1 5 0
conscience o f the i n d i v i d u a l . '
O n l y i n d e p e n d e n t m i n d s v e n t i l a t e d the p o l i t i c a l issue in this p e r i o d .
W e l l h a u s e n , rejecting an a p o c a l y p t i c interpretation o f j e s u s , points to the
political e x p e c t a t i o n , considers w h e t h e r J e s u s m a d e use o f this, recalls the
violence at the c l e a n s i n g a n d at the arrest, w o n d e r s w h e t h e r other traces o f
t h i s k i n d m i g h t h a v e b e e n o b l i t e r a t e d , a n d c o n c l u d e s : 'bis zu einem gewissen
1 5 1
Grade konnte R e i m a r u s R e c h t h a b e n ' . I n t h i s w a y h e testifies t o t h e f a c t
that e v e r y c o n c e p t that takes the messianic terminology as constitutive a n d
refrains from s p i r i t u a l i s i n g it is u n d e r a c e r t a i n o b l i g a t i o n to admit
q u a s i - Z e a l o t ingredients in the G o s p e l a c c o u n t s .
On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h i s is t h e p e r i o d i n w h i c h , c h a l l e n g e d b y the
1 5 2 1 5 3
mythological theory of A. Drews, scholars, especially classicists,

1 4 8
I b i d . p. n .
1 4 9
I b i d . p . 27. C p . K . W e i d e l ' s statement: 'das Soziale liegt ihm liberhaupt fern, er hat
stets nur d e n einzelnen M e n s c h e n im A u g e ' (Jesu Persdnlichkeit (Halle, 1908), p . 25;
3rd edn. 1921, p . 49). C p . N a u m a n n ' s confession that J e s u s dealt with the Einzelseele
(Verhandlungen, p . 41), while he himself ventured into the w o r l d o f politics w i t h o u t
the guidelines given b y J e s u s . F o r general information, c p . G . K r e t s c h m e r , Der
Evangelisch-soziale Kongress (Stuttgart, 1972).
1 5 0
T h e radical w i n g o f the Christian socialists did not maintain this reserve and e n d e d
in an impasse. T h e y used the Bible as a m e a n s o f illustrating present-day p r o b l e m s
w i t h o u t qualification; nevertheless, the form o f the sermon p r o v e d i n a d e q u a t e for
the p u r p o s e s o f socialist agitation ( c p . W . D e r e s c h , Predigt und Agitation der religibsen
Sozialisten ( H a m b u r g , 1971), p p . 69ft). C p . A . Pfeiffer ( e d . ) , Religiose Sozialisten
(=Dokumente der Welt?evolution 6) ( O l t e n , 1976).
151
Einleitung, 2nd edn. p p . 82ff.
1 5 2
A . D r e w s , Die Christusmythe I/II (Jena, 1909-11); J. M . R o b e r t s o n , Jesus and Judas
( L o n d o n , 1927); c p . Schweitzer, Geschichte, p p . 444ff. T h e m y t h theory was taken u p
b y R a s c h k e (Werkstatt; Das Christusmysterium ( B r e m e n , 1954)) - his a r g u m e n t is far
m o r e original than that o f his predecessors - and m o r e recently defended b y the
s a m e a u t h o r in K . D e s c h n e r , Jesusbilder in theologischer Sicht ( M i i n c h e n , 1966), p p .
343ff. T h i s a p p r o a c h w a s followed b y G . A . W e l l s (The Jesus of the Early Christians
( L o n d o n , 1971), Did Jesus exist? ( L o n d o n , 1975)). H e tries especially to g i v e an
e x p l a n a t i o n o f the m e t a m o r p h o s i s from m y t h o l o g y to history (Early Christians, p . 6).
J. K a h l , Das Elend des Christentums ( H a m b u r g , 1968; E T L o n d o n 1971) c o m e s very
near to W e l l s ' s position. H e m o c k s at B u l t m a n n ' s emphasis o n the 'that o f J e s u s ' s
h a v i n g c o m e ' , finding it ' c r y p t i c and meaningless, indistinguishable from a m y t h '
( p . 70; E T p . 103), and c o m e s out in favour o f agnosticism a b o u t Jesus: ' w e j u s t d o
n o t k n o w ' ( p . 81; E T p . 121). O n the other hand, w h e n he c o m e s to charges against
Christianity, he d o e s not spare J e s u s ( p . 49; E T p . 73). T h e m y t h o l o g i c a l inter­
pretation did not meet with applause a m o n g Jewish students. It was, however, although
w i t h a characteristic deviation, taken u p b y J. b . G o r i o n , w h o identified J e s u s with
the J e s u s b e n A n a n u s m e n t i o n e d b y J o s e p h u s (Jeshu b.Hanan (Jerusalem, 1959)).
1 5 3
K . D u n k m a n n , Der historische Jesus, der mythologische Christus und Jesus der Christus
( L e i p z i g , 1 9 1 1 ) ; E. K l o s t e r m a n n , Die neuesten Angriffe auf die Geschichtlichkeit Jesu
( T u b i n g e n , 1912); J. W e i s s , Jesus von Nazareth. Mythos oder Geschichte? ( T u b i n g e n ,
1910); A . J e r e m i a s , Hat Jesus Christus gelebt? ( L e i p z i g , 1911); H . W i n d i s c h , ' D e r
geschichtliche J e s u s ' , ThR 13 (1910), i63ff and especially A . v o n H a r n a c k , ' H a t
J e s u s g e l e b t ? ' in Aus Wissenschaft und Leben ii (Giessen, 1911),
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n theory from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 29

1 5 4
e x a m i n e d the non-Christian testimonia to early C h r i s t e n d o m w i t h g r e a t
1 5 5
sagacity. E v e n the f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a t i o n benefited v e r y m u c h from this
s c r u t i n y , w h e r e a s t h i s h e r i t a g e a n d i n t e r e s t s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n l o s t to
present-day theological researchers. T h e scrutiny of the national m o v e ­
m e n t s led to a better u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the time o f j e s u s a n d a l r e a d y cast
certain d o u b t s o n the S c h w e i t z e r theory of a J e s u s w h o w a s not troubled b y
p o l i t i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n d e e d , it is u n l i k e l y t h a t h e l i v e d i n s u l a t e d f r o m
the political events o f his time. T h i s does not, h o w e v e r , m e a n that he j o i n e d
w i t h one o f the forces o f action.
T h i s w a s especially the time of investigations into the social conditions o f
the ancient w o r l d a n d o f nascent C h r i s t i a n i t y within t h e m , a n d o f at least
o n e a t t e m p t to set early C h r i s t e n d o m in the c o n t e x t o f social r a d i c a l i s m . R.
156
v o n P o h l m a n n ' s m a g i s t e r i a l Geschichte dersozialen Frage pictures Jesus as a
1 5 7
proletarian w h o addressed co-proletarians, as s o m e o n e w h o s e m e s s a g e ,
1 5 8
a l t h o u g h not w i t h o u t a different, a religious b a c k g r o u n d , became merely
a c l a s s g o s p e l (Klassenevangelium). I t p r o c l a i m e d t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e
existing e c o n o m i c s y s t e m a n d o f the social order. P o h l m a n n holds that
J e s u s h a d c o m p l e t e l y lost c o n t a c t w i t h reality a n d t h a t his v i e w s w e r e
159
f a t h e r e d b y Zusammenbruchswahn. I t is for t h i s r e a s o n t h a t n o p r o g r a m m e
o f social reform c a n be found in the G o s p e l s . T h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f the s p e e d y

1 5 4
C p . K . Link, De antiquissimis quae ad Jesum Nazarenum spectant testimoniis (Giessen,
i9'3)-
1 5 5
T h e L o n d o n p a p y r u s o f C l a u d i u s ' s letter to the A l e x a n d r i a n s , a source w h i c h c a m e
to light in 1923, was interpreted b y o n e scholar at least as giving direct evidence for
the subversive activities o f Christian propagandists ' a n a l o g u e , a ses y e u x , au peril
c o m m u n i s t e d o n t b e a u c o u p d'Etats se sentent menaces a u j o u r d ' h u i ' (S. R e i n a c h ,
CRAIBL, p . 315, subsection ofRArch 5th series, 33 (1931). T h e R e i n a c h theory was
s u p p o r t e d b y F. C u m o n t , ' L a premiere allusion au Christianisme d a n s Phistoire',
RHR 90 (1924), io8ff, and criticised b y H . J . Bell, HThR 37 (1944), i89f. For an
e x a m i n a t i o n o f the w h o l e letter, c p . S. L o s c h , Epistula Claudiana ( R o t t e n b u r g , 1930).
O f special i m p o r t a n c e is T a c i t u s Ann. x v . 44, the reference to the N e r o n i a n
persecution. M . J o e l considers it surprising that the Christians had not been
m e n t i o n e d before in T a c i t u s ' s a c c o u n t ; he points to the fact that T a c i t u s ' s report o f
the years 29 to 32 is not any longer extant and is inclined to assume that this is d u e to
the redactional activity o f s o m e Christians, and that it was in this report that Jesus
was pictured as a revolutionary w h o had been executed b y the R o m a n s for this
reason, and that the m o v e m e n t started b y him had messianic revolutionary aspects
as well (Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte ii (Breslau, 1883), 96ff). For a critical
investigation, c p . K . Btichner, ' T a c i t u s uber die Christen', Aegyptus 33 (1953), i8iff,
and P. C o r s s e n , ' D i e Z e u g n i s s e des T a c i t u s und Pseudo-Josephus iiber Christus',
Z W 1 5 (1914), n f f . 4
1 5 6
Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Sozialismus in der antiken Welt i/ii ( M i i n c h e n , 1912;
cited after the third edn. 1925).
1 5 7
I b i d . ii. 467. C p . the similarly s o u n d i n g but substantially different statement o f
N a u m a n n : Jesus put o n a fight within the p e o p l e and for the p e o p l e ('im V o l k und
fur das V o l k ' ) .
1 5 8
P o h l m a n n , Geschichte, ii, 464, 473.
1 5 9
I b i d , ii, 472.
30 E. BAMMEL

e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a n i d e a l w o r l d o n e a r t h is a l l t h e m o r e a r d e n t . T h e r a d i c a l
c h a r a c t e r o f the p h e n o m e n o n d o e s n o t consist in i n d i v i d u a l r e v o l u t i o n a r y
a c t i o n s b u t in the total a n d f u n d a m e n t a l denial of any reasonable and
a d v a n c e d form o f social order. P o h l m a n n points to the m e s s a g e o f the
p r o p h e t s a n d states t h a t J e s u s ' s o w n l a c k o f interest in p r o s p e r i t y w a s j u s t
p o s s i b l e in his o w n e n v i r o n m e n t : J u d a i s m h a d o n l y b e e n a b l e to d e v e l o p a
m
Halbkultur. H e rejects, h o w e v e r , the possibility o f s e c o n d a r y E s s e n e (or
E b i o n i t e ) influence: the c o m m u n i s t tendencies are g r o u n d e d in the b a s i c
i d e a s o f C h r i s t i a n i t y ( a Wahlverwandtschaft - a n e l e c t i v e a f f i n i t y - b e t w e e n
1 6 1
C h r i s t i a n a n d p a g a n s o c i a l r o m a n t i c i s m is n o t t h e r e b y r u l e d o u t ) . True,
the c o m m u n i s t o r g a n i s a t i o n o f the J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y w a s not i m i t a t e d
b y t h o s e i n t h e G r e e k w o r l d , b u t it s e r v e d a s a m o d e l a n d w a s c o n s i d e r e d a s
h a v i n g b e e n o f c r u c i a l i m p o r t a n c e . P o h l m a n n c i t e s o n e c h u r c h f a t h e r after
another - especially J o h n Chrysostom, whose optimistic hope of
'establishing h e a v e n on earth' does not l a g b e h i n d the 'fantasies o f [ A u g u s t ]
1 6 2
BebeP - a s w i t n e s s e s for t h e a n t i - c a p i t a l i s t s e n t i m e n t s . H e describes
1 6 3
Christianity as the greatest mass movement in world history; he
c h a r a c t e r i s e s it a s t h e c l i m a x o f s o c i a l m o v e m e n t s i n a n t i q u i t y a n d s e e s it a s
a m a s s i l l u s i o n for w h i c h h e h a s little t a s t e . H i s o l i g a r c h i c s e n t i m e n t s (not
1 6 4
dissimilar from M a c a u l a y ' s ) a n d his e c o n o m i c a p p r o a c h c a u s e h i m to
p i c t u r e C h r i s t i a n i t y in a light not a l t o g e t h e r different from Kautsky's
165
portraits - h o w e v e r m u c h he h a d p o u r e d scorn o n the latter's Halbbildung.
' C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y is t h e g r a n d m o t h e r o f B o l s h e v i s m ' - t h i s s t a t e m e n t o f
1 6 6
S p e n g l e r ( m a d e a f t e r t h e first w o r l d w a r ) c o u l d be taken as e c h o i n g
P o h l m a n n ' s c l a i m s . I n d e e d , S p e n g l e r sees the s a m e inclination towards
e g a l i t a r i a n i s m a n d s o c i a l i s m at w o r k in the C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h e s w h i c h
Pohlmann had marked down and which Nietzsche had previously
s t i g m a t i s e d . H e o b s e r v e s t h a t all sectarian m o v e m e n t s are in principle
1 6 7
hostile to state a n d w e a l t h , a n d thereby illuminates an early stage o f the
d e v e l o p m e n t . H e e m p h a s i s e s , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e c h u r c h is a b e t r a y a l o f
r e l i g i o n , o f t h e r e l i g i o n o f j e s u s e s p e c i a l l y ; h e p a r a p h r a s e s M a r k 8: 3 6 to
s h o w a l a c k o f interest o n the p a r t o f j e s u s in a b o l i s h i n g p r o p e r t y a n d h o l d s

1 6 0 1 6 2
I b i d , ii, 470. is* I b i d , ii, 486. I b i d , ii, 488.
1 6 3
I b i d , ii, 497. F o r a critique o f the position o f P o h l m a n n , c p . the remarks o f F. O e r t e l
in the third edn. ii., 567-70.
164 For a m o r e recent form o f a similar a p p r o a c h o v e r against Christianity, c p . the
w o r k s o f A . M o h l e r and his p u b l i c a t i o n s in the periodical Criticon.
, 6 5
C p . the b l o w administered b y him o n K a u t s k y in 1894 in ' E x t r e m e biirgerlicher und
sozialistischer G e s c h i c h t s c h r e i b u n g ' (reprinted in R . v o n P o h l m a n n , Aus Altertum
und Gegenwart ( M i i n c h e n , 1895), p p . 391-416 and, in an e x t e n d e d form, in the
second e d n . (1911), i, 346-84).
'66 O . Spengler, Jahre der Entscheidung ( M i i n c h e n , 1933; E T N e w Y o r k , 1934), p . 93 ( E T
P. 129).
1 6 7
I b i d . p . 90 ( E T p . 125).
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 31

t h a t t h e ' c o m m u n i s m ' o f t h e J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y is a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e i r
1 6 8
s c o r n for t h e m a t e r i a l w o r l d .
T h e first w o r l d w a r , w h i c h a l t e r e d t h e t h e o l o g i c a l s c e n e s o d e c i s i v e l y i n a
g e n e r a l w a y , b r o u g h t a b o u t certain n e w a c c e n t s in the portraits ofjesus.
1 6 9
T h e 'militant Christ' w a s only a slogan and of ephemeral importance. In
c o n t r a s t to t h i s , t h e e m p h a s i s o n t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n J e s u s a n d t h e i s s u e s
o f t h e d a y is a s y m p t o m a t i c f e a t u r e o f t h e p o s t - w a r p e r i o d . I n A m e r i c a a
1 7 0
n u m b e r o f studies a p p e a r e d w h i c h took this l i n e . O n e of them, V . G.
1 7 1
Simkhovitch's essay, sharpens the issue b y pointing out that J e s u s ' s
p o s i t i o n w a s u n i q u e : it w a s n o n - r e s i s t a n c e n e i t h e r o u t o f p r u d e n c e nor
o w i n g t o H e l l e n i s t i c i n c l i n a t i o n s , a n d it w a s t h i s a t t i t u d e t h a t brought
a b o u t the ' g r e a t a n d f u n d a m e n t a l c l e a v a g e ' w i t h the s e g m e n t s o f J e w i s h
1 7 2 1 7 3
society. T h e 'heroic J e s u s ' - heroic rather in action t h a n in suffering -
b e c a m e the w a t c h w o r d that characterised the attempts o f C h a m b e r l a i n
a n d o f other G e r m a n nationalists to c o n c e i v e o f a J e s u s w h o w a s c o n g e n i a l
1 7 4
to t h e m . T i n g e s of social colour in the characterisations o f j e s u s retreated
1 7 5
into the b a c k g r o u n d in this p e r i o d a p a r t from J. L e i p o l d t a n d his pupil
1 7 6 1 7 7
W. Grundmann and a few M a r x i s t sketches. O n the strictly scholarly
level J e s u s b o o k s a p p e a r e d w h i c h started from the S c h w e i t z e r i a n position
1 7 8
a n d i n c l u d e d , in o n e w a y or the other, ideas o f the n e w d i a l e c t i c t h e o l o g y .

1 6 8
Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlands ii ( M i i n c h e n , 1922), 6ofT; ( E T L o n d o n , 1928,
p p . 2i2fT; abr. E T L o n d o n , 1959, p p . 2801).
1 6 9
Like others o f a later p e r i o d : 'the greatest p r o p a g a n d i s t the w o r l d has ever k n o w n '
( L o r d B e a v e r b r o o k , The Divine Propagandist, L o n d o n , 1962, p . 39); or 'the greatest
revolutionary o f all times' ( F . C . zu S c h a u m b u r g - L i p p e , Dr. G. Ein Portrat des
Propaganda-ministers ( W i e s b a d e n , 1964), p . 87; c p . p . 172).
1 7 0
H . J . C a d b u r y , The Peril of Modernizing Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1937), p . 129.
171
Toward an Understanding of Jesus ( N e w Y o r k , 1921; 2nd e d n . 1927).
1 7 2
I b i d . p . 14.
1 7 3
A . R o s e n b e r g directs himself against the ' e x h a u s t e d ' t h e m e o f the suffering and
p r o c l a i m s the ' o l d - n e w ' m o t t o : J e s u s the h e r o (Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts, ed.
M i i n c h e n , 1936, p p . 604, 606, 616). R o s e n b e r g holds that an old Phrygian legend
a b o u t C h r e s t o s , the saviour o f the p e o p l e in serfdom, w h i c h was given c o l o u r b y the
fate o f M i t h r a d a t e s , w a s transplanted to Palestine, linked w i t h the messiah m y t h
and the person o f j e s u s . In this he is heavily d e p e n d e n t on W . Erbt, Weltgeschichte auf
rassischer Grundlage (Frankfurt, 1925), p p . 134fT. R o s e n b e r g d o e s not take notice o f
the fact that the passage in question was omitted b y the author in the s e c o n d edition
( L e i p z i g , 1934).
1 7 4
H . S . C h a m b e r l a i n , Worte Christi ( M i i n c h e n , 1901); A . Dinter, Das Evangelium
( L e i p z i g , 1923); c p . M E . W i n k e l , Der Sohn, 2nd edn. (Berlin, 1938).
175
Jesusb ild, passim.
116
Jesus der Galilaer ( W e i m a r , 1940).
1 7 7
See p p . 24f.
1 7 8
R . B u l t m a n n , y « M J ( T u b i n g e n , 1926; E T L o n d o n , 1935); E. Hirsch,Jesus Christus der
Herr ( G o t t i n g e n , 1926); M . Dibelius, Jesus (Berlin, 1939; E T L o n d o n , 1963); W .
Groenbech, Jesus der Menschensohn (Stuttgart, 1941); E. Seeberg, Christus, Wirklichkeit
und Urbild (Stuttgart, 1937).
32 E. BAMMEL

A t h e o l o g i c a l line w a s f o l l o w e d a l m o s t to the e x c l u s i o n o f a n y historical

1 7 9
b a c k g r o u n d a n d of the c o n t e m p o r a r y issues. E i s l e r ' s grosser Wurj'has t o b e
v i e w e d as a r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t this.

VI
1 8 0
Robert Eisler's w o r k is a n e w d e p a r t u r e o f t h e g r e a t e s t i m p o r t a n c e : it is
b a s e d m a i n l y on source material outside the G o s p e l s a n d the revolutionary
a m b i t i o n a n d f a i l u r e o f j e s u s is m a d e t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e o f h i s b o o k . T r u e , t h e
p a s s a g e s o n C h r i s t i a n origins in the S l a v o n i c v e r s i o n o f J o s e p h u s h a d b e e n
1 8 1
initiated, b u t n o t h i n g o f a c o m p a r a b l e penetration a n d so e n g a g i n g a n
i n g e n u i t y h a d b e e n p r e s e n t e d to t h e l e a r n e d w o r l d b e f o r e .
T h e s e p a s s a g e s g o b a c k , i n t h e o p i n i o n o f E i s l e r , b u t for Christian
m u t i l a t i o n s , to the o r i g i n a l A r a m a i c form o f the J e w i s h W a r . T h e y s p e a k o f
a g a t h e r i n g o f j e s u s , o f his 150 servants a n d o f a great multitude o n the
M o u n t o f O l i v e s , o f their insistence o n Jesus's entering the city and
1 8 2
defeating the R o m a n s , of J e s u s ' s c o n s e n t , the actual rising against G o d
1 8 3
and Caesar, the o c c u p a t i o n o f the T e m p l e area, the d e n u n c i a t i o n b y the
J e w i s h l e a d e r s to Pilate, the latter's interference w i t h the m o v e m e n t led b y
J e s u s , the seizure o f the T e m p l e b y R o m a n forces, J e s u s ' s arrest and
c o n d e m n a t i o n as sorcerer, robber, insurgent and w o u l d - b e ruler/king.
T h e G o s p e l a c c o u n t s a r e i n s e r t e d i n t o this s c h e m e : t h o s e o f t h e p a s s i o n
w e e k a n d d e t a i l s f r o m e l s e w h e r e , for e x a m p l e L u k e 1 3 : 1 - 9 , w h i c h is v i e w e d
as reflecting o n the failure o f the r e v o l t in the T e m p l e a n d , therefore, as
h a v i n g b e e n s p o k e n o r r j e s u s ' s l a s t d a y b e f o r e t h e a r r e s t . S o u r c e c r i t i c i s m is
n o t i n t h e m a i n l i n e o f E i s l e r ' s i n t e r e s t . H e lists t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n
1 8 4
M a t t h e w and L u k e on the question o f f o r c e , but he disregards them
i m m e d i a t e l y a n d p r o c e e d s to his selective use o f sources. E i s l e r c o n s i d e r s
m a n y passages as reliable pieces of evidence w h i c h are disputed by critical
r e s e a r c h , w h e r e a s h e i g n o r e s s o m e m a t e r i a l , for e x a m p l e t h e c o n t r o v e r s y
s t o r i e s o f M a r k 1 1 : 27 to 1 2 : 3 4 . M o s t s t r i k i n g is t h e a b s e n c e o f J u d a s a n d h i s

1 7 9
B u l t m a n n ' s radicalism and ahistoric position c o m e out most bluntly in the report o f
an e n c o u n t e r at a meeting o f the Alte Marburger given b y H . D i e m , Ja oder Nein
( M i i n c h e n , 1974), p . 267.
m
'lr\aovq BaoiXetig oi> paoiXevoag, i/ii (Heidelberg, 19291); The Messiah Jesus and
John the Baptist ( L o n d o n , 1931). T h e English edition contains o n l y certain sections o f
the G e r m a n text. For a characterisation o f Eisler, c p . G . S c h o l e m , Von Berlin nach
Jerusalem (Frankfurt, 1977) p p . i62ff.
1 8 1
E.g. A . Berendts, Die Zeugnisse vom Christentum im slavischen 'de bello Judaico' des
Josephus ( L e i p z i g , 1906); J. Frey, Der slavische Josephusbericht uber die
urchristliche Geschichte ( D o r p a t , 1908).
1 8 2
Eisler, 'Irjo. Baa. ii, 298.
1 8 3
I b i d , ii, 45of.
1 8 4
I b i d , ii, 255^ Messiah, p . 364.
 The r e v o l u t i o n theory from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 33

b e t r a y a l , a s t o r y t h a t , l i k e t h a t o f t h e d e n i a l o f P e t e r , w a s s o e m b a r r a s s i n g to
1 8 5
the C h r i s t i a n s t h a t it c a n n o t h a v e b e e n i n v e n t e d . T h e s e l e c t i v e u s e o f t h e
C h r i s t i a n sources w a s justified, if the S l a v o n i c J o s e p h u s c o u l d b e taken as
1 8 6
controlling evidence. In fact the account is o f a mixed character.
U n d e r l y i n g t h e C h r i s t i a n r e d a c t i o n it c o n t a i n s a J e w i s h a c c o u n t , w h i c h i s ,
h o w e v e r , b a s e d o n the references to J e s u s in S a n h . 4 3 a a n d w a s e x t e n d e d
into a form not dissimilar from the J e w i s h s u b s t r a t u m o f the A c t s o f Pilate
a n d t h e A r a m a i c T o l e d o t h J e s h u . I t s e v a l u a t i o n is o n l y p o s s i b l e i f its Sitz im
Leben i n t h e J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n c o n t r o v e r s y is r e c o g n i s e d a n d t h e d i r e c t l i n k
w i t h J o s e p h u s a n d t h e first c e n t u r i e s a b a n d o n e d . I t is a d o c u m e n t l i k e t h e
e l a b o r a t i o n o n t h e b a s i s o f J o s e p h u s w h i c h is c o m m o n l y c i t e d u n d e r the
n a m e o f H e g e s i p p u s ; t h e o n e is J e w i s h , w h i l e t h e o t h e r is C h r i s t i a n . It
s h o u l d n o t b e i m p o s s i b l e t o t r a c e c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s w o r t h c o n s i d e r i n g for t h e
s t u d e n t o f C h r i s t i a n o r i g i n s b u t t h e w a y t o t h i s is b a r r e d b y t h e t h e o r y t h a t
187
t h e t e x t r e p r e s e n t s t h e Urform o f J o s e p h u s ' s Jewish War.
T h e p i c t u r e o f j e s u s t h a t e m e r g e s o u t o f E i s l e r ' s v o l u m i n o u s effort is t h e
f o l l o w i n g : J e s u s ' s a p p r o a c h is c h a r a c t e r i s e d b y t h e a t t e m p t to p a c i f y the
w o r l d b y a ' m e r e m e s s a g e ' w h i c h is a n n o u n c e d b y t h e d i s c i p l e s s e n t o u t t o
1 8 8
perform the task. T h e i r l a c k o f f a i t h is a c h a l l e n g e t o h i m t o a d v a n c e to
r a d i c a l a c t i o n , the r e n u n c i a t i o n o f e v e r y t h i n g d e a r to m e n ' s hearts, the
r e t u r n to t h e d e s e r t o f t h e t i m e o f t h e p i l g r i m a g e : ' n o t r e v o l t , b u t m e r e l y a
b r e a k i n g o u t ' . T h i s e x o d u s is t o h a p p e n v i a J e r u s a l e m f r o m w h e r e h e w i l l
lead Israel b a c k over the J o r d a n a n d erect the tent of the patriarchal period.
A t t h e s a m e t i m e h e is a w a r e o f a f a t e o f i g n o m i n y a n d d e a t h t h a t h e h a s t o
1 8 9
encounter. T h e activists a m o n g his disciples, on the other h a n d , make
1 9 0
sure o f a m b i v a l e n t orders g i v e n b y the m a s t e r and, indeed, o f the w h o l e
j o u r n e y to J e r u s a l e m , i n o r d e r t o g a t h e r t o g e t h e r a l a r g e f o l l o w i n g , to g i v e
the entry into the H o l y C i t y the a p p e a r a n c e o f a messianic p r o c l a m a t i o n

1 8 5
C p . H . M e r k e l in The Trial of Jesus. Festschrift C.F.D. Moule (2nd e d n . L o n d o n ,
1971), 66flf. J u d a s is not m e n t i o n e d in o n e b r a n c h o f the J e w i s h lives o f j e s u s .
1 8 6
Points o f criticism, different from those a d v a n c e d a b o v e , were raised b y H . L e w y in
a famous review in DLZ 51 (1930), c o l . 48iff.; M . G o g u e l , Jesus et le Messianisme
politique (Paris, 1930; reprinted from Revue Historique 162 (1929), 217-67); H .
W i n d i s c h , ' U n s e r W i s s e n u m J e s u s ' , NeueJahrbucherf. Wiss.u.Jugendbildung 7 (1931),
289-307; W . Stapel, Der christliche Staatsmann ( H a m b u r g , 1932), p p . 451^ W .
Bienert, Der alteste nichtchristliche Jesusbericht (Halle, 1936) - his findings were
s u m m a r i s e d b y H . W . K a r s , ' D e r alteste nichtchristliche J e s u s b e r i c h t ' , ThStKr 109
(1937), 45ff; c p . J. W . J a c k , The Historic Christ ( L o n d o n , 1933) and C . J . C a d o u x ,
' T h e Politics o f J e s u s ' , Congregational Quarterly 14 (1936), 58-67.
1 8 7
F o r the evaluation o f the Greek text see Josephus-Studien. Festschrift 0. Michel
( G o t t i n g e n , 1974), p p . 9fT.
1 8 8
Eisler, TT]0. Bao. ii, 689f; Messiah, p . 569.
1 8 9
'IT^O. Bao. ii, 691; Messiah, p . 570. T h i s element o f Eisler's description is not really
integrated into his picture.
1 9 0
L u k e 22:36; c p . Eisler, 'IT]0. Bao. ii, 268, 691; Messiah, p . 570.
34 E. BAMMEL

a n d t o s t a g e t h e o c c u p a t i o n o f t h e T e m p l e . J e s u s is d r a w n i n t o t h e s e e v e n t s
rather t h a n h a v i n g p l a n n e d t h e m himself.
F o r t h e first p e r i o d o f J e s u s ' s a c t i v i t y t h e p i c t u r e is n o t t o o d i s s i m i l a r f r o m
the one given by Albert Schweitzer. The eschatological influence,
m a i n t a i n e d b y S c h w e i t z e r , in t h e s e n d i n g o u t o f t h e d i s c i p l e s i s , h o w e v e r ,
a b s e n t a n d it is d u e t o t h i s l a c k o f m o t i v a t i o n t h a t t h e s e c o n d p e r i o d a p p e a r s
e v e n less m a r k e d b y J e s u s ' s o w n p e r s o n a l i t y . T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f R e c h a b i t e
1 9 1
m o t i v e s w i t h t h a t o f a role to b e p l a y e d o n the s t a g e o f J e r u s a l e m is
artificial a n d results in the m i n o r figures d o m i n a t i n g the scene. Eisler's
p i c t u r e is i n f a c t t h e a t t e m p t to synthesise the a c c o u n t o f the S l a v o n i c
Josephus with an enfeebled version of Schweitzer's view.
T h e c o n c e p t o f a n e w d e s i g n c o n c e i v e d b y the disciples after the d e a t h o f
t h e m a s t e r , w o r k e d o u t b y R e i m a r u s , is a d o p t e d i n t o t h e i d e a o f a d i f f e r e n t
g o a l entertained b y t h e m a l r e a d y d u r i n g the lifetime o f j e s u s . I f this p i c t u r e
is c o r r e c t w e d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d w h y t h e a t t e m p t t o e x e c u t e t h i s m i l i t a n t
intention after the d e p a r t u r e o f the m a s t e r w a s not r e p e a t e d a n d r e p e a t e d
more vigorously. True, Eisler links almost every militancy in the
1 9 2
subsequent generations with the following o f j e s u s - e v e n B a r K o c h b a is
1 9 3
seen as a scion of Jesus's f a m i l y - b u t t h i s is m a n a g e d o n l y b y i n c l u d i n g
p e r s o n s w h o , in the o p i n i o n o f Eisler, m a d e use o f the n a m e o f j e s u s , a n d b y
leaning on the flimsiest evidence - the only piece o f e v i d e n c e worth
1 9 4
c o n s i d e r i n g , E v . Petr. 26, d o e s not r e c e i v e a close e x a m i n a t i o n . It is,
h o w e v e r , e x t r e m e l y u n l i k e l y t h a t a p e r s o n w h o a l r e a d y in his lifetime h a d
become more and more a mere figure-head should h a v e d r a w n so m a n y
u n d e r h i s v i n c u l u m a f t e r t h e d i s a s t r o u s f a i l u r e o f h i s o w n a t t e m p t . I t is e v e n
more unlikely that parallel movements should have made c o m m o n cause
w i t h t h e m . It w o u l d b e w r o n g to m a i n t a i n that, in Eisler's v i e w , J e s u s w a s
1 9 5
the ' a r c h - r e v o l u t i o n a r y ' . I t is a l l t h e m o r e s u r p r i s i n g t h a t J e s u s ' s name
should h a v e served as a focussing point w h i l e the n a m e s o f other persons
(e.g. o f the B a p t i s t w h o , a c c o r d i n g to Eisler, h a d d o m i n a t e d the scene
twice) h a d not received such recognition.
Eisler p l a c e s n a s c e n t C h r i s t i a n i t y in the w i d e r c o n t e x t o f the s o c i a l u n r e s t
1 9 6
o f the t i m e . H i s s k e t c h i s , s o t o s p e a k , t h e b o l d a t t e m p t to f o l l o w t h e l i n e o f
P o h l m a n n - to g o e v e n f u r t h e r t h a n h e d i d - a n d t o g i v e h i s findings a

1 9 1
It is most significant that a c c o r d i n g to Eisler it was Peter w h o tried to dissuade J e s u s
from g o i n g to J e r u s a l e m , whereas Jesus insisted o n d o i n g so flno. Bao. ii, 276).
J u s t the o p p o s i t e w o u l d have been in line with the designs attributed to each o f t h e m
respectively.
192
'Ino. Bao. ii, 69iff.
1 9 3
I b i d , ii, 717; Messiah, p . 590: 'the clan o f j e s u s w o u l d in that case . . . have p r o d u c e d
t w o kings anointed b y the L o r d . '
' " C p . p . 446.
1 9 5
A s J a c k , Christ, p . 97, wishes to d o . <*'li\o. Baa. ii, 72oflT(not in the E T ) .
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y f r o m R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 35

d e e p e r , a q u a s i - m e t a p h y s i c a l m e a n i n g at the s a m e time. T h e w o r k , p a c k e d
w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n , is a w a r n i n g a g a i n s t t h e d o m i n a n c e o f t h e s o c i a l s i d e i n
J e w i s h a n d C h r i s t i a n m e s s i a n i s m , w h i l e it a d m i t s t h i s i n f l u x i n t o the
m o v e m e n t o n c e it w a s o n t h e w a y . R e l e v a n t a s t h i s k n o w l e d g e is for t h e
d e v e l o p m e n t a n d s p r e a d o f C h r i s t i a n i t y , it d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , d o m o r e t h a n
c o n t r i b u t e t o k n o w l e d g e o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e life o f j e s u s , w h e r e a s
h i s m e s s a g e , e v e n i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f E i s l e r , is b a r e l y c o n d i t i o n e d b y s o c i a l
d e m a n d s . E i s l e r is t o r n b e t w e e n h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e o r i e n t a l o r i g i n a n d t h e
J e w i s h d e v e l o p m e n t o f a political m e s s i a n i s m - a t h e m e h e h a d i n t e n d e d to
1 9 7
tackle in a special b o o k - a n d h i s findings o n J e s u s w h i c h h a r d l y c o m p l y
1 9 8
w i t h this g e n e r a l line. E i s l e r m a y b e right in m o c k i n g l y a l l u d i n g to those
w h o w i s h to g i v e t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t J e s u s o n l y m a d e s p e e c h e s a n d n e v e r
1 9 9
p r o c e e d e d to a c t i o n . It d o e s not, h o w e v e r , follow that he performed s u c h
a c t i o n s as h a v e b e e n a t t r i b u t e d to h i m .
200
Eisler's theories caused an enormous stir. O n c e t h e d u s t h a d s e t t l e d , it
e m e r g e d that his thesis o n the origin o f the S l a v o n i c J o s e p h u s h a d m e t w i t h
2 0 1
little o r n o a p p r o b a t i o n , w h i l e h i s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e e v e n t s o f t h e life o f
Jesus w a s equally rejected. Neither J e w i s h nor M a r x i s t historians felt
2 0 2 2 0 3
c h a l l e n g e d to g i v e h i m s u b s t a n t i a l a n d m a s s i v e s u p p o r t . Only here and

197 198
Messiah, p . xi. 'Ino. Bao. ii, 461.
1 9 9
It is a citation from G . B. S h a w that Eisler takes u p in this (Messiah, p . x ) .
2 0 0
W h i l e J. W a r s c h a u e r , w h o had suggested a few years before Eisler that the
cleansing was a 'carefully p l a n n e d c o u p ' , that it was the intention o f j e s u s to force
the advent o f the k i n g d o m - 'like those m e n o f violence . . . with w h o m he
s y m p a t h i z e d ' (The Historical Life of Christ ( L o n d o n , 1927), p p . 257ft) - passed almost
unnoticed. H e had, h o w e v e r , a d d e d that Jesus had considered the rendering o f his
life as a p r e c o n d i t i o n for the c o m i n g o f the k i n g d o m .
2 0 1
C p . note 186, p . 33. Eisler answered Bienert, the most i m p o r t a n t o f his critics, in
his Flavius Josephus-Studien i ( L o n d o n , 1938). T h e p r o b l e m was given a n e w twist b y
F. Scheidweiler, 'Sind die Interpolationen im altrussischen J o s e p h u s wertlos?',
ZNW 43 (1950/1), 155ff, w h o selected a n u m b e r o f passages in the Slavonic
J o s e p h u s , for the possible antiquity o f w h i c h he gave reasons.
2 0 2
S. R e i n a c h ( c p . RArch 5th series, 33 (1931), 215; 35 (1932), 130Q is the exception o n
the J e w i s h , J. M a c m u r r a y (see p . 24) o n the Marxist side. E. Sahlin, while
dissociating himself from m u c h that Eisler has to say, describes his w o r k as an
'einzigartige Leistung' w h i c h enables scholars to understand part o f the activity o f
Jesus for the first time (Schmollers Jahrbuch, 55, ii (1931), 163ft). H e himself tries to
give a m o r e balanced v i e w , w h i c h is clearly influenced b y Eisler, in ' U r c h r i s t e n t u m
und Staat', Schmollers Jahrbuch 55, ii (1931), 2i3ff.
2 0 3
Eisler is given a s y m p a t h e t i c consideration by H . P. K i n g d o n , ' H a d the Crucifixion
a political Significance?', Hibbert Journal 35 (1936/7), 556ff. T h e author disagrees,
h o w e v e r , with Eisler o n the main issue: Jesus, in his o p i n i o n , gave himself up in
o r d e r to o p e n the eyes o f his followers (565). K i n g d o n enlarged o n this in a later
essay. W h i l e emphasising that the Palestine o f the time o f j e s u s was terrorised b y
'Jewish J i n g o e s ' , admitting the inclinations o f s o m e o f both his closer and his wider
circle towards political messianism and stressing that the B a r a b b a s uprising was 'in
s o m e w a y ' c o n n e c t e d with Jesus's entry into J e r u s a l e m , he separates Jesus from the
goal o f that revolt: 'the s u p p o s e d leader o f the revolution gave himself u p for
36 E. BAMMEL

2 0 4
there - not in every case from q u a r t e r s Eisler himself w a s friendly
2 0 5
disposed to - w e r e voices heard that took u p part o f his theory. S o u n d
2 0 6
scholarly reasons were produced for its r e j e c t i o n . T h e fact that
L i e t z m a n n s u g g e s t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l l y different solution o f the p r o b l e m o f the
2 0 7
trial o f j e s u s at the s a m e t i m e - a solution which became widely accepted
2 0 8
- did certainly play a role. A n o t h e r factor, h o w e v e r , c a m e in as well. T h e

e x e c u t i o n ' . T h i s w a s his design in o r d e r to bring them to understanding; ' h e w o u l d

save not o n l y their lives, but their souls. H e w o u l d give his life, a r a n s o m for m a n y '
( ' T h e Political circumstances o f the C r u c i f i x i o n ' , The Student Movement 43 (1941),
95). In this w a y he b e c a m e a challenge to ' o u r c o m p l a c e m e n t patriotisms and
shallow pacifisms'. It is a d r a m a presented almost in the Schweitzerian m a n n e r that
the author sketches o n these pages. J. T a u b e s (Abendlandische Eschatologie ( Z u r i c h
1947)) is heavily d e p e n d e n t o n Eisler. H e alters the timing, h o w e v e r , o f the
Eislerian s c h e m e and a d d s elements o f Schweitzerian p r o v e n a n c e : it w a s in the
m i d d l e o f his ministry that Jesus issued the call for a migration to the desert in o r d e r
to establish a n e w k i n g d o m . After having recognised his failure he d e c i d e s in
Caesarea to enter the course o f suffering and death.
2 0 4
Fr. M u r a w s k i , Jesus der Nazoraer, derKbnig derJuden (Berlin, 1940). T h e s a m e author
gives an ornate picture o f Early C h r i s t e n d o m : Christianity kept a l o o f from the state
b e c a u s e o f its eschatological belief a n d it s o o n d e v e l o p e d an attitude o f hatred
against this w o r l d (Die politische Kirche und ihre biblischen <Urkunden> (Berlin, 1938),
p p . 86f). Essentially it w a s the religion o f w o r l d revolution ( p . 83), a revolution
w h i c h it enacted b y w a y o f sabotaging the existing o r d e r ( p . 89). T h e d o c u m e n t s
c a m o u f l a g e this: certain terms m a y have a religious m e a n i n g but also carry political
o v e r t o n e s ; the a c c o u n t s o f Pilate's belief in Jesus's i n n o c e n c e are another w a y o f
hiding w h a t is the true kernel o f Christianity ( p . 54). T h i s picture is not m e a n t to
r e c o m m e n d a radical form o f Christianity. O n the contrary, it is painting b l a c k o n
black, m e a n t to b e a w a r n i n g against a political c h u r c h w h i c h indulges in
anarchistic d r e a m s ( p . 90). Eisler's theory is summarised with s y m p a t h y b y F.
Pzillas, ' D e r M e s s i a s k o n i g J e s u s ' in D e s c h n e r , Jesusbilder, p p . 181 ff. ( D e s c h n e r
himself tends to a d o p t Eisler p p . 4721). In E n g l a n d it was The Modern Churchman that
g a v e Eisler a favourable hearing t h r o u g h o u t the years o f the editorship o f M a j o r .
2 0 5
F o r certain political c o n n o t a t i o n s o f M u r a w s k i ' s writings c p . J. S. C o n w a y , The Nazi
Persecution of the Churches ( L o n d o n , 1968), p . 406.
2 0 6
C p . note 186, p . 33. Still, theologians were not uninfluenced b y Eisler. G o g u e l went
so far as to state that there was a time w h e n J e s u s was a b o u t to b e p r o c l a i m e d king
b y his followers, i.e. to b e put forward as the e n e m y o f R o m e , a n d that it w a s M a r k
w h o obliterated this feature b e c a u s e he did not want to cause d a m a g e to the spread
o f the g o s p e l a m o n g the loyal subjects o f R o m e (Jesus, G T p . 243; E T p p . 3761).
W i n d i s c h admitted that Eisler's c o m b i n a t i o n o f M a r k 15: 7 with the cleansing is
very d e b a t a b l e : Jesus g a v e expression to his messianic and kingly c l a i m b y causing
an 'uprising' ( ' U n s e r W i s s e n ' , p . 306).
2 0 7 0
Der Prozess Jesu, SBA 1931, p p . 313ft (repr. in Kleine Schriften 11 (Berlin, 1958), p p .
251ft). L i e t z m a n n holds that the Petruserz&hlung is fundamental a n d therefore the
arrest carried out b y the J e w s as well. T h e y d e c i d e d not to take the risk o f a religious
trial but to p r o c e e d a l o n g a m o r e p r o m i s i n g a v e n u e b y h a n d i n g o v e r J e s u s to the
R o m a n s . T h e a c c o u n t o f the Sanhedrin trial is therefore an addition to the original
narration.
2 0 8
J . Pickl c o m p o s e d a portrait o f j e s u s at a b o u t the same time w h i c h makes extensive
use o f J o s e p h u s , sets J e s u s against the b a c k g r o u n d o f Jewish Z e a l o t i s m a n d brings
o u t a sharp contrast b e t w e e n these t w o w o r l d s (MessiaskonigJesus ( M i i n c h e n , 1935);
3rd e d n . 1938). It is regrettable that his w o r k , w h i c h displays a masterly k n o w l e d g e
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 37

2 0 9
r e l u c t a n c e w a s p a r t l y d u e to t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s , accustomed
t o s l o w a n d s t e a d y p r o g r e s s i n r e s e a r c h , felt c o n s t e r n a t i o n a t w h a t a p p e a r e d
like the eruption o f a v o l c a n o . Besides, the time w a s not ideal for
t h o r o u g h g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n . It h a d to h a p p e n t h a t his theories w e r e t a k e n u p
b y s o m e o n e e l s e a n d e x p o s e d to t h e s c r u t i n y o f t h e l e a r n e d w o r l d o n c e
a g a i n . I t w a s , p e r h a p s , f o r t u n a t e t h a t this w a s u n d e r t a k e n b y a s c h o l a r
w h o s e m a n n e r o f a r g u i n g a n d p r e s e n t i n g his c a s e w a s so m u c h at v a r i a n c e
with Eisler's as S. G . F. B r a n d o n .
B r a n d o n s t a n d s o n t h e s h o u l d e r s o f E i s l e r a n d h e is n o t s l o w t o a d m i t
2 1 0 2 1 1
this. H e refers to the S l a v o n i c J o s e p h u s , so c h e r i s h e d b y E i s l e r ; he cites
the H e b r e w J o s i p p o n a n d a n u m b e r o f other sources o u t o f the w e a l t h o f
m a t e r i a l p r e s e n t e d b y E i s l e r . H e is, h o w e v e r , less e n t h u s i a s t i c a b o u t these
2 1 2
s o u r c e s t h a n E i s l e r i s . H i s a p p r o a c h is n o t u n c r i t i c a l i n d e t a i l , although
he has not really m a d e himself familiar wi t h the points of detailed criticism
r a i s e d a g a i n s t E i s l e r . M o r e t h a n t h a t , h e is l e s s d e p e n d e n t o n t h i s m a t e r i a l
t h a n is E i s l e r . H e f o u n d h i m s e l f a b l e t o r e c o n s t r u c t t o h i s o w n s a t i s f a c t i o n a
p i c t u r e o f n a s c e n t C h r i s t i a n i t y from s u c h sources as b e l o n g e d to the
t r a d i t i o n a l a r m o u r y o f s c h o l a r s , a p i c t u r e w h i c h m o r e or less c o i n c i d e d w i t h
E i s l e r ' s i m p r e s s i o n . I t is p r o b a b l y d u e t o t h i s t h a t t h e d e p e n d e n c e o n E i s l e r
2 1 3
is l e s s m a r k e d i n h i s l a t e r p u b l i c a t i o n s . T h e y a p p e a r , in part at least, like
a regression from Eisler to the nationalistic interpretation and the
2 1 4
treatment o f sources favoured b y the F r a n c o - J e w i s h writer R o d r i g u e s .

o f the Greek J o s e p h u s text, was never e x a m i n e d alongside Eisler's and used as a

corrective to h i m . Eisler received s o m e support. H . Braunert, ' D e r romische
Provinzialzensus und der Schatzungsbericht des Lukas-Evangeliums', Historia 6
(1957), i29ff, thinks that the date o f the birth o f j e s u s given b y Luke derives from a
J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n g r o u p w h i c h was eager to m a k e his birth c o i n c i d e with the date
given b y J o s e p h u s for the beginning o f the Z e a l o t m o v e m e n t . It was in his o p i n i o n a
Christian zealotic g r o u p w h i c h was responsible for this dating, a g r o u p which
w a n t e d to mark the date, w h i c h had a truly historical i m p o r t a n c e for the national
struggle. H e hints at the zealotic p r o v e n a n c e o f J u d a s and points to Farmer's
findings as s h o w i n g a close relation between Jewish nationalism and early
Christianity, while leaving it o p e n whether this merging took place d u r i n g the
ministry o f j e s u s o r later.
2 0 9
O n the other h a n d the writer M a x B r o d shows himself greatly influenced b y Eisler
in his The Messiah ( L o n d o n / N e w Y o r k , 1931) ( c p . G . J a s p e r , Stimmen aus dem
neureligidsen Judentum in seiner Stellung zum Christentum und zu Jesus ( H a m b u r g , 1958),
p p . iogff). T h e s a m e is true for F. A n d e r m a n n , Dasgrosse Gesicht ( M i i n c h e n , 1970).
2 . 0
The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church ( L o n d o n , 1951), p p . xf.
2 . 1
Ibid. p p . 32, ii4ff, i22f.
2 . 2
Ibid. p p . i2if.
2 . 3
A l t h o u g h - see Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p p . 3 6 7 ^ he is still inclined
to link the S l a v o n i c report o n Jesus with J o s e p h u s and for this reason to consider it
as a source o f the highest i m p o r t a n c e .
2 1 4
H . R o d r i g u e s , Histoire rationelle des premiers Chretiens (Paris, 1873). O n R o d r i g u e s , c p .
D . C a t c h p o l e , The Trial ofJesus . . . in Jewish Historiography ( L e i d e n , 1971), p p . 49f,
116.
38 E. BAMMEL

B e s i d e s , B r a n d o n c o n f i n e s h i m s e l f to a f e w l e a d i n g i d e a s , w h i l e E i s l e r fired
a salvo o f ideas at the reader, c a u s i n g simultaneously stimulation and
e m b a r r a s s m e n t . H i s p r e s e n t a t i o n is a t first c a u t i o u s l y w o r d e d i n d e t a i l ,
b u t t h e n his t e n t a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s are t a k e n as a solid basis in the n e x t
section a n d the final s u m m i n g u p o n l y too often lacks a n y features o f
caution.
T h e starting-point o f B r a n d o n ' s a p p r o a c h to the p r o b l e m s o f e a r l y
C h r i s t i a n i t y is a r i g o r o u s c r i t i q u e o f t h e s o u r c e s a f t e r t h e m o d e l o f t h e
2 1 5
Tubingen Tendenzkritik o f t h e l a s t c e n t u r y . T h e Gospels, which are
viewed as being almost completely products o f the pens of single
2 1 6
individuals, are seen as h a v i n g found their particular s h a p e u n d e r the
influence o f certain apologetic tendencies o f the respective evangelists.
M a r k , a G o s p e l w h i c h h a d o f t e n b e e n t a k e n a s p r i m i t i v e , is c h a r a c t e r i s e d
2 1 7
b y B r a n d o n as a sophisticated p e r f o r m a n c e , aimed at reversing the
i m p r e s s i o n the R o m a n p u b l i c h a d o f C h r i s t e n d o m . It carries t h r o u g h the
idea o f a pacific Christ, w h o taught love a n d w a s c o n d e m n e d b y Pilate as a
r e s u l t o f J e w i s h i n t r i g u e s , w h e r e a s in r e a l i t y t h e o p p o s i t e h a d h a p p e n e d : h e
h a d b e e n e x e c u t e d b y the R o m a n s o n the c h a r g e o f s e d i t i o n after h a v i n g
c o m e o u t o p e n l y a g a i n s t the p a y m e n t o f t a x e s , after a n a s s a u l t a g a i n s t the
T e m p l e a n d the preparation o f a r m e d resistance. H i s death g a i n e d h i m the
s y m p a t h y o f his f e l l o w - c o u n t r y m e n , a s y m p a t h y w h i c h the Christians
enjoyed likewise a n d w h i c h lasted b e y o n d the d e a t h o f J e s u s ' s brother
2 1 8
James a n d e n a b l e d the C h r i s t i a n s to j o i n the ranks o f the revolutionaries
i n t h e i r fight a g a i n s t R o m e .
T h e picture o f the events, c o i n c i d i n g w i t h the one d r a w n b y Eisler, does
deviate in one particular point. B r a n d o n emphasises that J e s u s w a s not a
m e m b e r of a Zealot underground organisation: he stayed independent and
his a c t i v i t y c a n o n l y b e d e s c r i b e d as p a r a - Z e a l o t in c h a r a c t e r . This,
h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t he w a s less a c t i v e t h a n t h e y w e r e ; o n the

2 , 5
W h i c h kept h i m fascinated; see his ' T u b i n g e n vindicated?', Hibbert Journal 49
(1951), 4iff. F o r the T u b i n g e n principles c p . K i i m m e l , Das Neue Testament, p p .
i 6ff.
5
2 1 6
T h i s is d o n e b y B r a n d o n in o p p o s i t i o n to the then ruling s c h o o l o f Formgeschichte and
w a s maintained b y him in spite o f the n e w Redaktionsgeschichte, a d e v e l o p m e n t he
barely took stock of.
2 1 7
T h e attribution to M a r k o f a tendency to belittle Jesus's disciples (Fall, i95ff;
similarly and with m u c h m o r e a c u m e n R a s c h k e , Werkstatt, p p . i04ff; a n d c p .
recently J. Schreiber, ' D i e Christologie des M a r k u s e v a n g e l i u m s ' , ZThK 58 (1961),
154ff, w h o actually maintains that M a r k is directed against the early c o m m u n i t y )
w o u l d b e m o r e credible if M a r k had given indications pointing to others besides the
disciples to b e taken as exemplary figures.
2 , 8
B r a n d o n holds a very l o w o p i n i o n a b o u t the tradition a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the
J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n s left J e r u s a l e m for Pella at the beginning o f the revolt. F o r his
mistranslation o f the decisive passage c p . W . W i n k , 'Jesus and R e v o l u t i o n ' , Union
Seminary Quarterly Review 25 (1969), 42.
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 39

2 1 9
c o n t r a r y , h e a n t i c i p a t e d t h e Z e a l o t s in a t t a c k i n g t h e T e m p l e , w h i l e in
2 2 0
d i r e c t i n g h i m s e l f a g a i n s t the T e m p l e a n d the priestly o l i g a r c h y he gave
2 2 1
a n i n d i c a t i o n that his e m p h a s i s d i d not c o m p l e t e l y coincide with that of
2 2 2
the Z e a l o t s , w h o w e r e p r i m a r i l y a n t i - R o m a n in their o u t l o o k . Eisler had
linked J e s u s m o r e closely w i t h the Z e a l o t m o v e m e n t w h i l e on the other
h a n d a d m i t t i n g t h a t J e s u s w a s likely to h a v e b e e n a m a n p u s h e d f o r w a r d b y
2 2 3
the masses a n d thus the v i c t i m of the situation. T h i s l a t t e r is e m p h a t i c a l l y
d e n i e d b y B r a n d o n : J e s u s w a s a ' d y n a m i c leader', not a V i s i o n a r y w h o w a s
2 2 4
swept away'.
A n o t h e r difference e m e r g e s in c o n s e q u e n c e o f this. In a t t a c k i n g the
T e m p l e J e s u s incurred the animosity o f the h i g h priests. B r a n d o n has
therefore n o difficulty in a s s u m i n g a S a n h e d r i n trial a n d , p e r h a p s , a J e w i s h
2 2 5
arrest, while the cleansing, an action that h a d involved 'violence and
2 2 6
pillage', l e d o f n e c e s s i t y to t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n b y t h e R o m a n s .
T h e e v i d e n c e is f o u n d i n c e r t a i n d a t a p r e s e r v e d i n t h e g o s p e l s w h i c h
c o u l d o n l y b e neutralised b y the evangelists, not rejected: the Roman
e x e c u t i o n a l o n g s i d e t w o Z e a l o t s , the c l e a n s i n g o f the T e m p l e ; s e c o n d l y in a
few details w h i c h h a p p e n e d to s u r v i v e b e c a u s e o f the less c i r c u m s p e c t
2 2 7
procedure of Luke: the tower o f S i l o a m , the t w o s w o r d s , etc. T h e s e data
a n d the a s s u m e d tendencies o f the evangelists are used b y B r a n d o n as the
f o c a l p o i n t s i n b e t w e e n w h i c h e v e r y t r a d i t i o n a t v a r i a n c e w i t h t h e s e is
2 2 8
eliminated. I s it, h o w e v e r , l i k e l y t h a t t r a d i t i o n w h i c h w a s n o t o n l y

2 , 9
B r a n d o n , Zealots, p . 338.
2 2 0
I b i d . p p . 342f.
2 2 1
A l t h o u g h the difference should not b e over-accentuated; thus B r a n d o n thinks that a
c o n n e c t i o n existed with the B a r a b b a s insurrection which h a p p e n e d at the same
time as the cleansing ( p . 339). E. Stauffer, o n the other hand, maintains that M a r k
11: 17f are a stray p i e c e o f tradition w h i c h referred originally to B a r a b b a s {Jerusalem
und Rom (Bern, 1957), p . 146 n. 18).
2 2 2
B r a n d o n is not fully aware o f the fact that the 'cleansing o f the house o f Israel' is
equally an aim o f the Z e a l o t s , a precondition for the c o m i n g o f the messiah, at least
as i m p o r t a n t in their v i e w as the defeat o f the R o m a n s .
2 2 3
'IT]0. B a a . ii, 5o8ff; Messiah, p p . 50of.
2 2 4
Zealots, p . 354.
2 2 5
The Trial ofJesus of Nazareth ( L o n d o n , 1968), p . 149; c p . p . 130.
2 2 6
Zealots, p . 338.
2 2 7
I b i d . p . 324.
2 2 8
G r a n t e d that B r a n d o n is right in assuming this, w h y then d i d the evangelists not
invent statements o f j e s u s giving an o p e n warning against zealotism? Surely they
w o u l d have been able to d o so if they so wanted. T h e lack o f such attacks against the
Z e a l o t s d o e s not m e a n what B r a n d o n (Zealots, p . 201) makes it to m e a n , the tacit
admission o f the evangelists that Jesus had been associated with them in s o m e w a y s ,
but rather that the w h o l e question was o f m i n o r i m p o r t a n c e within the Christian
c o m m u n i t i e s or had been solved o n the political level. T h e a b s e n c e o f any mention
o f the Z e a l o t s has its parallel in the almost c o m p l e t e silence a b o u t the priests and
S a d d u c e e s . T h i s s h o w s that the Christians put d o w n only such sayings as were still
relevant in their o w n times and vis-a-vis their o w n adversaries.
40 E. BAMMEL

a u t h e n t i c b u t g r e w w i t h o u t i m p e d i m e n t u n t i l A . D . 70 left n o m o r e t r a c e s
t h a n t h e s e ? Is s u c h a r i g i d c a r r y i n g o u t o f a s i n g l e t e n d e n c y r e a l l y t h e
a p p r o a c h t o b e a s s u m e d for a n e v a n g e l i s t ? C a n w e e v e n b e s u r e t h a t M a r k
2 2 9
was written after A.D. 70? Granted that Mark was stimulated by
a p o l o g e t i c t e n d e n c i e s t o t h e e x t e n t a s s u m e d b y B r a n d o n , is h e l i k e l y to h a v e
2 3 0
m e t the r e s e r v a t i o n s o f the R o m a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r s b y his p r e s e n t a t i o n ?
2 3 1
D o e s the treatment o f the T e m p l e really indicate a post-war o r i g i n ? Is the
d e s c r i p t i o n o f the m a t e r i a l t h a t in the o p i n i o n o f B r a n d o n o r i g i n a t e d after
2 3 2
A . D . 70 a l w a y s c o r r e c t ?
A b o v e a l l , w h a t a r e i n f a c t t h e c h a n g e s in h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e w h i c h
w e r e m a d e after A . D . 70? T h e r e c a n b e l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t t h e s e y e a r s left t h e i r
2 3 3
m a r k on the outlook o f those w h o w e n t through t h e m . Judaism provides
the most striking e x a m p l e o f this. A thorough investigation of the
d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h i s field, t h e l i s t i n g o f t h e c h a n g e s t h a t w e r e m a d e a n d t h e
w o r k i n g o u t o f t h e c r i t e r i a w h i c h b e c a m e i n s t r u m e n t a l for t h e c a r r y i n g o u t
o f t h e a l t e r a t i o n i n t h e Geschichtsbild m i g h t i n d e e d g i v e c r i t e r i a for t h e
s i n g l i n g o u t o f c o r r e s p o n d i n g features in C h r i s t i a n literature. T h i s m i g h t
e s p e c i a l l y b e p r o m i s i n g for t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e f r a g m e n t s of Judaeo-
C h r i s t i a n l i t e r a t u r e w h i c h h a v e c o m e d o w n to u s . N o t h i n g h a s b e e n d o n e
a l o n g these lines.
The evidence of Judaeo-Christianity plays an important role in
B r a n d o n ' s a r g u m e n t a t i o n . H e g e s i p p u s ' s report a b o u t the m i g r a t i o n o f the
J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y to P e l l a b e f o r e t h e e n c i r c l i n g o f t h e H o l y C i t y is

2 2 9
M a r k 13: i 4 f c o u l d b e taken to reflect a situation before 70.
2 3 0
T h e R o m a n s , tolerant^as they were, b e c a m e very irritated a b o u t religious
p r o p a g a n d i s t s , especially those with a m a g i c a l t o u c h . T o keep clean at least the
m e t r o p o l i s was the s o u n d principle o f the administration. T h e praefectus urbi s t e p p e d
in o n c e and again against the activities o f m a g i c i a n s in the capital. W e w o u l d
therefore e x p e c t a portrait o f j e s u s that is p u r g e d o f features that are o p e n to
m a g i c a l interpretation. T h e o p p o s i t e is the case. T h e G o s p e l describes Jesus as a
m i r a c l e w o r k e r and contains elements w h i c h might b e taken as indicating m a g i c a l
practices: 5: iff; 5: 28f; 9: 28 etc. Aeyicbv in 5:9 might have caused direct c o n c e r n .
T h e case s h o w s that the political t e n d e n c y assumed b y B r a n d o n is not likely to h a v e
p l a y e d a role either.
2 3 1
B o t h M a r k 15: 38fand t h e J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n tradition ( E v . N a z . fr. 21) indicate that
the T e m p l e lost its value after the d e a t h o f j e s u s . T h e p r o b l e m o f the delay o f its
d o o m worries M a t t h e w , w h o explains it b y reference to the lack o f faith o n the side
o f the Christians (21: 20-22). W o u l d w e not expect similar statements in M a r k , if
the contents o f the G o s p e l had been c o l o u r e d b y the experience o f the J e w i s h w a r ?
2 3 2
T h e t e n d e n c y to characterise the J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n gospels as p r o d u c t s o f a n e w
f o u n d a t i o n (Neubildung) in the s e c o n d century w h i c h had nothing to d o with the
J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y is spreading and finds b a c k i n g in the imprecise e m p l o y m e n t
o f the term J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n i t y ' as it is used b y J. D a n i e l o u (Theologie du
Jude'o-Christianisme ( T o u r n a i , 1958)). T h e theory is, h o w e v e r , o n l y s u p p o r t e d b y the
flimsiest evidence.
2 3 3
C p . H . W i n d i s c h , ' D e r U n t e r g a n g J e r u s a l e m s i m Urteil der Christen und J u d e n ' ,
Theologische Tydschrift 48 (1914), 519-50.
 The r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y f r o m R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 41

2 3 4
completely rejected by him and the J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n s are made
f e l l o w - c o m b a t a n t s in t h e u p r i s i n g a g a i n s t R o m e . I f i n d e e d h i s e s t i m a t i o n o f
t h e fall o f J e r u s a l e m w e r e s u b s t a n t i a t e d , w e w o u l d e x p e c t t h e c r i s i s a f t e r t h e
event to h a v e s h a k e n this b r a n c h o f C h r i s t e n d o m m u c h m o r e t h a n other
c e n t r e s . W h e r e , h o w e v e r , is t h e e v i d e n c e ? B r a n d o n a v o i d s t h i s q u e s t i o n b y
m a i n t a i n i n g that the J e r u s a l e m c h u r c h h a d fallen into ' c o m p l e t e o b l i v i o n '
2 3 5
and had been 'utterly destroyed b y the Romans'. He regards the
J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n g o s p e l s , t h e a n t i - c u l t i c t e n d e n c y o f w h i c h is s o b l u n t a n d
2 3 6 2 3 7
w h i c h is l i n k e d s o c l o s e l y w i t h b o t h t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n a n d the d e a t h of
J e s u s t h a t t h e r e is n o r o o m for t h e t h e o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t o f d i v i n e f o r b e a r a n c e
or the historical o n e o f a d e v e l o p m e n t , as c o n d i t i o n e d b y the a p p r o a c h o f
t h e Grosskirche. I t s e e m s t h a t t h e a t t i t u d e o f a n t a g o n i s m t o t h e T e m p l e , a s
w e find it in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t o n l y i n A c t s 7: 4 8 , w a s d e v e l o p e d i n t h e s e
c i r c l e s . T r u e , t h i s is n o t e a s i l y r e c o n c i l a b l e w i t h t h e H e g e s i p p a n r e p o r t o n
J a m e s , w h o wore priestly dress and frequented the T e m p l e so often in
2 3 8
p r a y e r that his knees g r e w h a r d like those of a c a m e l . T h i s c o u l d p o i n t to a
line m o r e rigid t h a n J a m e s ' s o w n a t t i t u d e b e i n g t a k e n u p after his d e a t h b y
his c o m m u n i t y a n d , o n the o t h e r h a n d , to the e m p l o y m e n t o f e m b e l l i s h i n g
c o l o u r s b y t h e a n n a l i s t s o f t h e Grosskirche. P r o b a b l y b o t h f o r c e s w e r e a t w o r k
o n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e l e v e l s . T h e r e is n o t , h o w e v e r , e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e t e n d e n c y
o f a n t a g o n i s m t o t h e T e m p l e h a d t o b e p u s h e d t h r o u g h for t h e v i e w t h a t t h e
p r i e s t l y e m p h a s i s i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f J a m e s is d u e to his o f f i c i a t i n g i n t h e
2 3 9
Temple, l e t a l o n e to h i s i n s t i g a t i n g t h e - nota bene J e w i s h - L e v i t e s a g a i n s t
the h i g h priests. O n the c o n t r a r y , the tradition, k e p t a l i v e in J u d a e o -
C h r i s t i a n i t y , a b o u t t h e c o l l a p s e o f t h e l i n t e l o f t h e T e m p l e after t h e d e a t h o f
2 4 0
Jesus implies the ineffectiveness o f the cult immediately after the
d e p a r t u r e o f t h e S h e k i n a h w h i c h is i n d i c a t e d b y t h i s e v e n t . N o t r a c e s o f a
crisis c a u s e d b y the y e a r 70, nor vestiges o f the e m p l o y m e n t o f the J e w i s h
catastrophe for a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e s are n o t i c e a b l e in this literature.
W i t h o u t s u c h e v i d e n c e t h e B r a n d o n t h e o r y , s u g g e s t i v e a s it m a y b e , is
b a s e d o n a petitio principii, is m e r e l y a Luftgebaude (castle i n t h e a i r ) .
B r a n d o n studies M a r k in detail b u t he a l m o s t b y p a s s e s the large b o d y o f

2 3 4
B r a n d o n follows the direction given b y J o e l (Blicke, ii, 841) and he is followed in this
b y G . Strecker, Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen (Berlin, 1958), p p . 229ff
and J. M u n c k , J e w i s h Christianity in Post-Apostolic T i m e s ' , NTSt 6 (1959/60),
104. For criticism c p . S. Sowers, ThZ 26 (1970), 305ff.
2 3 5
Religion in Ancient History ( L o n d o n , 1973), p . 281.
2 3 6
E p i p h a n i u s , Haer. 30.16.22.
2 3 7
J e r o m e , o n M a t t , 27.51.
2 3 8
Eusebius, H.E. 2.23.6.
2 3 9
Eisler, 'Irjo. B a o . ii, 584; Messiah, p . 542; B r a n d o n , Fall, p p . 98f.
2 4 0
It is to b e u n d e r s t o o d in line with Ps. 24: 7, 9: G o d is leaving, therefore the lintel is
collapsing.
42 E. BAMMEL

C h r i s t i a n m a t e r i a l w e p o s s e s s in t h e C o r p u s P a u l i n u m . T h e o u t l o o k , w i t h
r e s p e c t t o t h e R o m a n s , o f t h e l a t t e r is b a s i c a l l y t h e s a m e a s M a r k ' s . B u t
most o f these letters w e r e written before A.D. 70. T h e fact s h o w s that a
d e p a r t u r e - i f t h a t is w h a t it w a s - l i k e t h a t o f M a r k w a s p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t t h e
i m p a c t o f the J e w i s h w a r a n d already quite a n u m b e r o f years earlier.
2 4 1
Q u a s i - Z e a l o t antecedents are likely in the case o f P a u l . W h y then w a s he
s u s p e c t to the J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y ? W h y d i d he e m b r a c e the p a r a - Z e a l o t
belief o f C h r i s t i a n i t y at all if he w a s m o v i n g politically in a different
d i r e c t i o n ? W h y , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w a s a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g p o s i t i o n vis-a-vis
z e a l o t i s m like the o n e t a k e n b y the C h r i s t i a n P a u l n o t a l r e a d y p o s s i b l e for
J e s u s ? T h e differences b e t w e e n J e s u s a n d P a u l m a y b e far less m a r k e d o n
2 4 2
the political level t h a n in other q u e s t i o n s . T r u e , B r a n d o n gives his case
s u p p o r t b y r e f e r e n c e t o A c t s 2 3 : i6ff, i n h i s o p i n i o n t h e a t t e m p t o f Z e a l o t
m e m b e r s o f the J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y to get rid o f Paul b y w a y o f l y n c h
2 4 3
law. Q u i t e a p a r t , h o w e v e r , f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t P a u l is r e d u c e d i n s i z e t o t h e
figure o f a n apostate, the points at issue b e t w e e n h i m a n d the J e r u s a l e m
authorities are such that they can hardly be subsumed under the rubric o f
political zealotism.
I t is a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t s c h o l a r s s h o u l d l o o k o u t for fixed p o i n t s , i n o r d e r t o
d a t e the nascent C h r i s t i a n literature (a t e n d e n c y w h i c h w a s particularly
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y s c h o l a r s h i p ) a n d it is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e
t h a t t h e J e w i s h w a r is t a k e n a s a t o u c h s t o n e . T h e a r g u m e n t b a s e d o n t h e
r e f e r e n c e o r o t h e r w i s e t o t h i s e v e n t i s , h o w e v e r , often o v e r w o r k e d . T h e
C h r i s t i a n s , especially those w h o w e r e at h o m e in the R o m a n w o r l d , c o u l d
interpret many events as signs o f divine intervention, not only the
d e s t r u c t i o n o f J e r u s a l e m b u t e q u a l l y t h e a n a r c h y after N e r o ' s d e a t h , t h e
eruption of V e s u v i u s - even a chain o f such events might have been seen as
significant. T h e a b s e n c e o f s u c h references in w r i t i n g s scrutinised for t h e m
d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y m e a n t h a t t h e s e d o c u m e n t s a r e o f e a r l i e r d a t e {pace
2 4 4
J. A . T . R o b i n s o n ) ; it m a y v e r y w e l l m e a n t h a t t h e a u t h o r s w e r e l e s s
c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the general scenery t h a n w e w o u l d w a n t t h e m to be. I n the
s a m e w a y , a n a c t u a l reference (if proven) does not necessarily i m p l y that
the e v e n t referred to h a d substantially c h a n g e d the outlook o f the writers;
t h e r e f e r e n c e m a y h a v e b e e n a c a s u a l o n e o r o f a u x i l i a r y i m p o r t a n c e {pace
B r a n d o n ) . T r u e , t h e c o m m u n i t i e s in Palestine h a d e v e r y reason to see G o d
at w o r k in the actions of C a l i g u l a , the expulsion of the J e w s from R o m e a n d ,
s u p r e m e l y , in the d o o m of J e r u s a l e m . B u t they m a y h a v e b e e n readier to
interpret the persecution the Christians themselves were undergoing as a

241
C p . Z M 5 9 (1968), io8ff.
2 4 2
C p . W . R . Farmer, The Modern Churchman n.s. n (1967/8), 119.
243
Fall, p p . 135, 15if-
2 4 4
Redating the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1976).
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y f r o m R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 43

2 4 5
sign o f the f u t u r e a n d they certainly did interpret the events m e n t i o n e d
a b o v e as c o n s e q u e n t i a l to the C r o s s - a v i e w w h i c h s u b s t a n t i a l l y influenced
the presentation o f them.
B r a n d o n ' s s c h e m e , u n l i k e E i s l e r ' s g r a n d d e s i g n , r e c e i v e d little a t t e n t i o n
w h e n it a p p e a r e d i n 1 9 5 1 . T h e p o l i t i c a l a t m o s p h e r e h a d c h a n g e d s o m u c h
2 4 6
that the Z e a l o t theory w a s hardly noticed or found worth mentioning.
H i s treatment o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t sources w a s considered old-fashioned
a n d the interest he took in the J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n s militated against the then
d o m i n a n t a h i s t o r i c a l a p p r o a c h to the N e w T e s t a m e n t . It w a s the total
c h a n g e o f scene rather t h a n his o w n insistence in later p u b l i c a t i o n s that, in
2 4 7
c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the i m p a c t m a d e b y J e w i s h c o n t r i b u t i o n s , l e d to a
2 4 8
r e v i v a l o f the E i s l e r - B r a n d o n theories in the late s i x t i e s .

VII

T h e J e w i s h c o n t r i b u t i o n t o r e s e a r c h i n e a r l y C h r i s t e n d o m w a s for a l o n g
time dominated by apologetic motifs. While their forefathers had
m a i n t a i n e d the Tightness o f the c o n d e m n a t i o n o f j e s u s , the sons - from the
time o f M e n d e l s s o h n o n w a r d - d i s c l a i m e d i n v o l v e m e n t in the execution o f
2 4 9
Jesus. T h i s m e a n t that the actual teaching o f j e s u s - not the christology o f
the E a r l y C h u r c h - r e m a i n e d a kind o f adiaphoron, w h i c h could be v a l u e d
w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e . I n d e e d , a l r e a d y at the b e g i n n i n g o f the nineteenth
c e n t u r y it is s t a t e d that his t h o u g h t s are not at all at v a r i a n c e w i t h
2 5 0
Judaism. A t t h e s a m e t i m e it i s , h o w e v e r , felt t h a t t h e r e is s o m e t h i n g
l a c k i n g i n J e s u s , s o m e t h i n g t h a t is n o t o n l y d e a r t o t h e J e w i s h h e a r t b u t

2 4 5
T y p i c a l is the interpretation o f the expulsion o f the J e w s from R o m e , as w e find it in
1 T h e s s . 2: 16; c p . ZThK 56 (1959), 294^
2 4 6
C . F . D . M o u l e , JThSt, n.s. 3 (1952), 106-8 (review o f B r a n d o n , Fall). For a
penetrating critique o f B r a n d o n ' s views c p . J. J e r e m i a s , Neutestamentliche Theologie
( G u t e r s l o h , 1971), 2igf ( E T L o n d o n , 1971, p p . 2281).
2 4 7
It is typical that S. S a n d m e l , w h o confesses to b e a sceptic with regard to the
possibility o f reconstructing the historical Jesus (A Jewish Understanding of the New
Testament (Cincinnati, 1956), p p . 173ft), feels nevertheless d r a w n to B r a n d o n ' s
views and states his 'full a g r e e m e n t ' with his thesis (Saturday Review (1969), p . 88).
2 4 8
A l t h o u g h in the case o f B r a n d o n himself the findings are not m e a n t to serve as a
m o d e l for. the present ( W i n k , Union Seminary Quarterly Review 25 (1969) 50 is
mistaken in assuming this). O n the contrary, it is rather an attempt to dissociate the
c h u r c h from certain features o f its heritage. N i n e h a m ' s various papers (Explora­
tions in Theology ( L o n d o n , 1977); The Use and Abuse of the Bible ( L o n d o n , 1978))
m a y b e viewed as a parallel p h e n o m e n o n to that tendency - mutatis mutandis o f
course.
2 4 9
C a t c h p o l e , Trial, passim.
2 5 0
T h i s t e n d e n c y can g o so far that S. W i s e posed the question: ' b e c a u s e C h r i s t e n d o m
has r e n o u n c e d Jesus in fact, shall w e continue to d e n y him n o w that w e , his brother
J e w s , are free to face his life and teaching a n e w ? ' (cited by H . D a n b y , The Jews and
Christianity ( L o n d o n , 1927), p . 1 1 1 ) .
 E
44 - BAMMEL

f u n d a m e n t a l to the J e w i s h m i n d : the w e l l - b e i n g o f the J e w i s h n a t i o n as the

raison d'etre o f t h e c o d e o f b e h a v i o u r . T h i s is n o t i c e d w i t h disapproval
2 5 1
already b y J. S a l v a d o r and sharply criticised by J. J a c o b s : 'Jesus died . . .
2 5 2
for t h a t h e c a r e d n a u g h t for o u r n a t i o n a l h o p e s . '
T h e s a m e s e n t i m e n t is f o u n d i n J . K l a u s n e r , t h e first J e w w h o v e n t u r e d a
2 5 3
life o f j e s u s a n d w h o c o n c l u d e s with the statement: 'to a d o p t the t e a c h i n g
o f j e s u s is t o r e m o v e o n e s e l f f r o m t h e w h o l e s p h e r e o f o r d e r e d n a t i o n a l a n d
2 5 4
human existence'. B u t t h i s is l i n k e d w i t h a n o t h e r p e r s p e c t i v e , w i t h a
quasi-Zealot interpretation. ' D u r i n g t h e e a r l i e r s t a g e o f h i s m i n i s t r y it
s e e m e d as if he, too, w e r e a political-spiritual messiah like the other
2 5 5 2 5 6
m e s s i a h s o f his a g e . ' K l a u s n e r accepts the idea o f a M a r k a n watershed
a n d c o m e s o u t for t h e h i s t o r i c i t y o f t h e a n n o u n c e m e n t o f t h e s u f f e r i n g o f t h e
messiah. T h i s , he e m p h a s i s e s , does not m e a n the death o f the messiah.
J e s u s h a d it i n m i n d t o a n n o u n c e h i m s e l f p u b l i c l y a s m e s s i a h i n J e r u s a l e m
a n d to c l e a n s e the T e m p l e in this c o n t e x t ; he h a d foreseen h a r d times to
c o m e thereafter - t i m e s in w h i c h he m i g h t n e e d a r m e d p r o t e c t i o n a n d w a s
2 5 7
to w i t h d r a w to G a l i l e e - b u t h e b e l i e v e d i n d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n . T h e r e is
n o r e a s o n to a s s u m e t h a t he p l a n n e d a revolt a g a i n s t the R o m a n s a n d t h a t
2 5 8
the c l e a n s i n g h a s to b e seen as a political a c t i o n . T h e hostility of the
S a d d u c e e s he a r o u s e d thereby c o u l d not h a v e b r o u g h t a b o u t his d o w n f a l l ,
w e r e it n o t t h a t b y g i v i n g a n e v a s i v e a n s w e r o n t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e t r i b u t e
2 5 9
m o n e y h e forfeited the support o f the nationalistic masses. So the
high-priestly party, infuriated because of Jesus's T e m p l e action and
2 6 0
s o m e h o w r e g a r d i n g h i m as a m e n a c e to the p e a c e , got h o l d o f h i m in a
surprise action w h i c h w a s m a d e possible b y the information supplied b y
J u d a s r e g a r d i n g his w h e r e a b o u t s . T h e t r a g e d y o f the event consists in the
fact that J e s u s , w h o h a d relinquished Z e a l o t l e a n i n g s a n d returned to a
P h a r i s a i c t y p e o f belief, h a d s o m u c h c o m e t o b e a t l o g g e r h e a d s w i t h t h e
Pharisees about questions of detail that he did not receive protection from

2 5 1
Jesus Ckrist et sa doctrine i (Paris, 1838), 2g8fT, 3850".
2 5 2
As Others saw Him ( L o n d o n , 1895) p . 210. C p . 'All Israel was pining to b e freed from
the R o m a n y o k e , and he w o u l d h a v e us p a y tribute to R o m e for aye. D i d he feel
h i m s e l f in s o m e w a y as not o f o u r n a t i o n ? ' ( p . 202; c p . p . 161).
253
Jesus of Nazareth, H e b r . ed. J e r u s a l e m , 1922; E T L o n d o n , 1925; G T Berlin, 1930.
2 5 4
E T Jesus, p . 397.
2 5 5
I b i d . p . 206.
2 3 6
Characteristic for his a p p r o a c h is the reliance o n a h i g h degree o f credibility in the
Christian sources, especially o f M a r k ( c p . p . 294); in this he is an heir o f the o l d e r
t y p e o f Life-of-Jesus authors.
2 5 7
S o he interprets Luke 22: 36ff and M a r k 14:28.
2 5 8
K l a u s n e r , Jesus, p p . 3i2f.
2 5 9
I b i d . p . 318. T h e s u m m a r y w h i c h I. M a y b a u m (Trialogue between Jews, Christians and
Muslims ( L o n d o n , 1973), p . 85) gives o f K l a u s n e r ' s portrait o f j e s u s is o n e - s i d e d .
2 6 0
K l a u s n e r , Jesus, p p . 336, 348.
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y from R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 45

t h e i r s i d e a n d w a s , w h e n it c a m e t o t h e p o i n t , a t t h e m e r c y o f t h e S a d d u c e e s
2 6 1
w h o treated the case only as a matter o f c o n v e n i e n c e .
I n g i v i n g this outline K l a u s n e r s u c c e e d s in b r i n g i n g J e s u s y e t a n o t h e r
step nearer to the p a t e r n a l religion. For a time Jesus w a s the true
m o u t h p i e c e o f J u d a i s m a n d it is o n l y f a t a l d e v i a t i o n i n h i s a c t i v i t y , h i s
2 6 2
neglect of national life and, at the s a m e time, the features o f ' e x a g g e r a t e d '
2 6 3 2 6 4
Judaism in his t e a c h i n g , w h i c h s e p a r a t e h i m from J u d a i s m p r o p e r . 'He
lacks the P r o p h e t ' s political c o n c e p t i o n a n d the P r o p h e t ' s spirit o f national
2 6 5
c o n s o l a t i o n in the political n a t i o n a l s e n s e . '
T h i s a t t e m p t a t Heimholung - a t K l a u s n e r ' s t i m e e m p h a t i c a l l y o p p o s e d b y
2 6 6 2 6 7
orthodox Jews - was taken up by Winter. U n l i k e K l a u s n e r he m a d e
e x t e n s i v e u s e of, a n d c e r t a i n d e t a i l e d c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o , s o u r c e c r i t i c i s m .
M o r e i m p o r t a n t , his investigation a p p e a r e d at a time w h e n the C h r i s t i a n
c h u r c h w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o n e t o g i v e f u n d a m e n t a l r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o its
2 6 8
p o s i t i o n vis-a-vis t h e J e w s . I t w a s for t h e s e r e a s o n s t h a t t h e b o o k m a d e
history. A d o p t i n g that p a r t o f L i e t z m a n n ' s t h e o r y o n the trial that c l a i m s
the unhistoricity o f the report on the interrogation b y the S a n h e d r i n a n d
m a k i n g h i m s e l f a c h a m p i o n o f it, h e a t t e m p t s t o d e n y t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a
f o r m a l S a n h e d r i n t r i a l , w h i l e a l l o w i n g for a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n b y
2 6 9
the high priest and, perhaps, his c o l l a b o r a t i o n in the arrest. The
i n v o l v e m e n t is m i n i m a l a n d a f f e c t s o n l y a f e w , w h i l e t h e r e w a s n o d i s c o r d
2 7 0
b e t w e e n J e s u s a n d the P h a r i s e e s . T h e c h a r g e for t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n w a s

262
26i V e r y similar, J a c o b s , As Others, p p . 153ff. Jesus, p p . 37if.
2 6 3
I b i d . p . 374: 'nothing is m o r e d a n g e r o u s to national J u d a i s m than this exaggerated
Judaism'.
2 6 4 2 6 5
I b i d . p . 375: his teaching ' b e c a m e , in a sense, non-Judaism'. I b i d . p . 414.
2 6 6
C p . A . F. M o o r e , ' A J e w i s h Life o f j e s u s , ' HThR 16 (1923), iooff; H . K o s m a l a , 'J.
Klausners Jesus v o n Nazareth i m liberalen und o r t h o d o x e n j i i d . Urteil', Saat auf
Hoffnung 6Q(i i),6ff 93 :

2 6 7
The Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961; 2nd enlarged e d n . 1974).
2 6 8
C p . Die evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und dieJudenfrage (ed. b y O e k u m e n i s c h e r Rat
der K i r c h e n (Genf, 1945)); A . Bea, Die Kirchenunddasjudische Volk (Freiburg, 1966).
F o r a J e w i s h response c p . S. Zeitlin, ' T h e E c u m e n i c a l C o u n c i l V a t i c a n I I and the
J e w s ' in Studies ii ( N e w Y o r k , 1974), 582ff.
2 6 9
W i n t e r , Trial, p . 48; 2nd edn., p p . 66f. S. b . C h o r i n , o n the other hand, admits a
J e w i s h trial and c a m p a i g n s for its revision (Juden und Christen (Berlin, i960), p p .
ofl).
5

2 7 0
' I n the w h o l e o f the N . T . w e are unable to find a single historically reliable instance
o f religious differences between Jesus and m e m b e r s o f the Pharisaic guild, let alone
e v i d e n c e o f a mortal conflict' ( W i n t e r , Trial, p . 133; 2nd edn., p . 186). T h i s is m u c h
m o r e m a r k e d in the s e c o n d edition. I n d e e d , W i n t e r gives arguments for a later date
o f the passages stating a hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees, w h i c h are very
similar in kind to those presented at the same time by F. W e i s s (in R . M e y e r ,
Tradition und Neuschbpfung im antiken Judentum, L e i p z i g , 1965) and G . B a u m b a c h
(Jesus von Nazareth im Lichte derjudischen Gruppenbildung (Berlin, 1 9 7 1 ) ) . H e stresses at
the s a m e time the c o n n e c t i o n o f the Christians with the J e w i s h activists ('the
sympathies o f J e w i s h Christians were with those J e w i s h parties that o p p o s e d R o m e
46 E. BAMMEL

2 7 1
e n t i r e l y a p o l i t i c a l o n e ; it w a s t h e c h a r g e o f r e b e l l i o n . T h e evangelists,
2 7 2 2 7 3
especially M a r k , w e r e at p a i n s to c o n v e y the c o n t r a r y i m p r e s s i o n - it is
in t r y i n g to u n e a r t h s u c h a t e n d e n c y t h a t W i n t e r s t a n d s n e a r e s t to B r a n d o n
- a n d t h e y d i d s o b y i n v e n t i n g t h e s t o r y o f a S a n h e d r i n t r i a l . W i n t e r is
p r e d o m i n a n t l y interested in d e m o n s t r a t i n g w h a t w a s the R o m a n c h a r g e .
H e l e a v e s it o p e n h o w m u c h w a s t r u e i n it. I n d e e d , h e is e v e n i n c l i n e d , o r
2 7 4
rather not disinclined, t o d e n y t h e t r u t h o f t h e c h a r g e a s f a r a s J e s u s is
2 7 5
concerned - the case w a s v e r y different w i t h those w h o surrounded
2 7 6 2 7 7
him, v e r y likely so a l r e a d y in his l i f e t i m e . T h i s is n o t h e l d a g a i n s t

a n d fought the R o m a n s ' (2nd edn., p . 180) o r styles them as messianic

troublemakers, a ferment o w i n g to the activity o f w h i c h the respective J e w i s h
c o m m u n i t i e s as a w h o l e had to suffer (2nd edn., p . 182). H e g o e s even so far as to
c l a i m that the adverse portrait o f the H e r o d i a n s in the G o s p e l s is c o n d i t i o n e d b y the
fact that H e r o d A g r i p p a II tried to dissuade the J e w s from w a g i n g w a r against the
Romans.
2 7 1
W i n t e r , Trial, p . 50; 2nd edn., p p . 68f; c p . 1 8 1 , 189. It is o b v i o u s that these lines o f
a r g u m e n t are not consistent with each other. F o r criticism see C a t c h p o l e , Trial, p p .
72ff. W i n t e r ' s argument runs as follows: the R o m a n s were reluctant to interfere in
religious matters but eager to s t a m p out political unrest - so they acted in the case o f
J e s u s ( p p . 15ff). O n the other hand, the Sanhedrin had criminal jurisdiction, but
there is n o e v i d e n c e that it m a d e use o f it in the case o f j e s u s . Therefore it was
essentially a R o m a n matter. W i n t e r finds additional evidence in M a r k 1 4 : 4 8 b , 49,
w h i c h verses he considers as a faint e c h o o f a tradition a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h J e s u s was
arrested b y the R o m a n s as a precaution against insurrectionist activities ( p . 50).
W i n t e r ' s theory is s u p p o r t e d b y O . C u l l m a n n (DerStaat im N.T. ( T u b i n g e n , 1956)
p p . 2gf; E T L o n d o n , 1957, p p . 66f), w h o claims priority (Jesus and the Revolutionaries
( N e w Y o r k , 1970), p . 3 4 ) . C u l l m a n n is followed b y E. T r o c m e {Jesus de Nazareth
( N e u e n b u r g , 1 9 7 1 ) , p . 1 3 4 ) , whereas F. B o v o n (Les derniersjours de Jesus ( N e u e n b u r g
1 9 7 4 ) , p . 40) rejects a Zealcjt interpretation. W i n t e r receives s u p p o r t in the thesis
put forward b y G . B r a u m a n n ( ' D e m H i m m e l r e i c h wird G e w a l t angetan' ( M t .
1 1 . 1 2 ) , Z A W 5 2 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , I04ff; ' M a r k u s 1 5 : 2 - 5 und M a r k u s 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 ' , ZNW 52
(1961), 273ff), a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h M a r k 14: 55fT is a d o u b l e t o f M a r k 15: 2ff,
inserted in o r d e r to extend the guilt for the death o f j e s u s to the J e w s ( p . 2 7 7 ) . A
certain parallelism b e t w e e n the reports in the a c c o u n t s o f the R o m a n a n d the
J e w i s h p r o c e e d i n g s is o b v i o u s , but c o n d i t i o n e d b y the subject. M o r e e v i d e n c e is
n e e d e d to justify the c o n c l u s i o n .
2 7 2
W i n t e r , Trial, p . 24.
2 7 3
It is less the influence o f the disaster o f the year 70 than the a p o l o g e t i c needs o f the
u r b a n c o m m u n i t i e s that, in the o p i n i o n o f W i n t e r , caused the c h a n g e .
2 7 4
' O n l y w h a t his followers h o p e d . . . finds its expression in the gospels. W h a t Jesus
himself thought, . . . w e simply d o not k n o w ' ( ' T h e Trial o f J e s u s ' , The Jewish
Quarterly 16 (1968), N o . 2/3, p . 37).
2 7 5
W i n t e r , Trial, p . 50.
276 < \ y e c y without hesitation that Jesus's followers cherished aspirations o f
a n s a

J e w i s h national i n d e p e n d e n c e . W e c a n n o t say whether they were e n c o u r a g e d to

such aspirations by Jesus h i m s e l f (TheJewish Quarterly 16 (1968), N o . 2/3, p . 37); c p .
n. 274. H e seems to think o f d e v e l o p m e n t s similar to those that h a p p e n e d in the
e n v i r o n m e n t o f the Baptist: 'it was primarily the effect w h i c h his teaching exercised
o n certain sections o f the p o p u l a c e that i n d u c e d the authorities to take action
against h i m ' ( W i n t e r , Trial, 2nd edn., p . 189).
2 7 7
Interesting is W i n t e r ' s treatment o f Sanh. 43a; he translates the accusation: 'led
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y f r o m R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 47

h i m - W i n t e r differs a t t h i s p o i n t f r o m K l a u s n e r ; o n t h e c o n t r a r y , J e s u s
b e c o m e s to h i m a s y m b o l for t h e s u f f e r i n g o f t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n , i n h i s o w n
time at the hands o f the Romans, in o t h e r times at those of the
2 7 8 2 7 9
Christians. '
T h e r e s e e m s t o b e a f a r c r y f r o m E i s l e r to W i n t e r - i n d e e d n e i t h e r t h e
f o r m e r ' s n a m e n o r the s o u r c e f a v o u r e d b y h i m p l a y s a role in the latter's
a r g u m e n t . Still, there are points o f c o n t a c t w h i c h are obliterated b y the
predominantly a n a l y t i c a l p r o c e d u r e o f W i n t e r : the Z e a l o t inclination
a m o n g the disciples o f j e s u s , the m o r e restrained attitude o f j e s u s himself,
t h e R o m a n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for t r i a l a n d e x e c u t i o n , t h e m i t i g a t i n g t e n d e n c i e s
in the d o c u m e n t s o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t .
2 8 0
O w i n g to this, a b l e n d i n g o f W i n t e r ' s and Eisler's a p p r o a c h could be
a c h i e v e d i n t h e p o r t r a y a l o f J . C a r m i c h a e l . I t is E i s l e r ' s i n f l u e n c e t h a t is
d o m i n a n t , a n d t h u s w e find a d e s c r i p t i o n o f 'the v i o l e n c e t h a t a t t e n d e d
J e s u s ' s m o v e m e n t , its a n t i - R o m a n p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s a n d , a b o v e a l l ,
2 8 1
p e r h a p s its m a t e r i a l f a i l u r e ' . J e s u s w a s r e a r e d in the e n v i r o n m e n t o f the
B a p t i s t , w h o h i m s e l f h a d o r g a n i s e d a g r o u p 'to o p p o s e the authorities
2 8 2
t h r o u g h p h y s i c a l secession from their territorial j u r i s d i c t i o n ' . H e broke
2 8 3
away from J o h n a n d a t t e m p t e d to establish the k i n g d o m , not s o m e w h e r e

Israel to revolt'. H e assumes that, if it refers to Jesus's attitude to the R o m a n

g o v e r n m e n t , it derives - indirectly - from L u k e 23:2 and that, if it refers to the
T o r a h , it was pure mystification. In any case, he denies any evidential value. It is
necessary for him to disclaim the credibility o f the passage, b e c a u s e it states that
there was a J e w i s h trial and execution. H e thereby deprives himself o f the
possibility o f attributing revolutionary plans to Jesus and shifts the e m p h a s i s to
J e s u s ' s followers: 'there is reason for thinking that s o m e expression o f such
aspirations o c c u r r e d already in the life o f j e s u s ' [Trial, p . 145; 2nd edn., p . 202). T h e
Eislerian theory is re-established thereby in a weaker form.
2 7 8
C o n v e r s e l y S. A s c h pictures Jesus as having been crucified b y H e r m a n u s (The
Nazoraean ( E T L o n d o n , 1939)).
2 7 9
H . - W . Bartsch b e c a m e an advocate o f the views o f W i n t e r on the Trial (Jesus. Prophet
und Messias aus Galilaa (Frankfurt, 1970); Der Tod eines Revolutionars ( W u p p e r t a l ,
1968)). H e p r o c e e d s further, h o w e v e r , and expresses the o p i n i o n that the messianic
d e m o n s t r a t i o n s o f entry and cleansing caused o r necessitated J e s u s ' s h a n d i n g over
to the R o m a n s ( p p . 43,47, 53). H e goes even so far as to state that the activities o f his
followers were such that the Sanhedrin saw n o reason to enter into a collision course
with R o m e for the sake o f so small a minority ( p . 128).
2 8 0
D e p e n d e n t o n W i n t e r is P. E. L a p i d e , Jesus in Israel ( G l a d b e c k , 1970), p p . 53f.
Similar statements in L a p i d e ' s p o p u l a r and diffuse b o o k Der Rabbi von Nazaret
(Trier, 1974). Like W i n t e r in his s e c o n d edition L a p i d e , in his later work,
a p p r o a c h e s the Z e a l o t solution.
2 8 1
J. C a r m i c h a e l , The Death of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1963; Penguin edn. 1966), p . 157.
2 8 2
I b i d . p . 142. Similarly A n d e r m a n n , w h o maintains that Jesus entered the
u n d e r g r o u n d organisation o f J o h n , w h o was a ' T a m b o u r des W i d e r s t a n d s '
a l t h o u g h he remained a l o o f in the desert (Gesicht, p . 177).
2 8 3
H e r e w e notice a difference from Eisler. W h i l e the 'breaking o u t ' is the final goal o f
J e s u s a c c o r d i n g to the latter, it is the device o f an initial phase a c c o r d i n g to
C a r m i c h a e l ( c p . p p . 145Q.
48 E. BAMMEL

2 8 4
far a w a y , b u t b y s t o r m i n g J e r u s a l e m . H e held the T e m p l e in o c c u p a t i o n
for a time - the so-called thieves at the Cross acted as subsidiary
2 8 5
commanders, w a s p r o b a b l y supported b y the y o u n g e r m e n o f the T e m p l e
2 8 6 2 8 7
hierarchy and exercised sovereignty there. C a r m i c h a e l , like so m a n y
o t h e r s , s e a r c h e s for a t u r n i n g - p o i n t in the career o f j e s u s . H e finds it
a l l u d e d t o in M a r k 1 3 : 1 4 - a v e i l e d r e f e r e n c e t o P i l a t e ' s d e f i l e m e n t o f t h e
2 8 8
sanctuary by setting up Roman standards in its precinct. The
turning-point is t h u s n e i t h e r a n e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e S c h w e i t z e r n o r o f t h e
E i s l e r t y p e . I t is a n e x t e r n a l e v e n t t h a t s e t s i n m o t i o n a m a n w h o , t h r o u g h
his c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h the B a p t i s t a n d e v e n m o r e so after his b r e a k w i t h h i m ,
is a n y h o w ready for s u c h an action. The idea of an earlier period,
s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t , is q u i e t l y g i v e n u p . J e s u s is p a r t o f t h e mainstream
o f J e w i s h life o f h i s t i m e . M e s s i a n i c c o n s c i o u s n e s s , u s u a l l y a d m i t t e d by
2 8 9
J e w i s h s c h o l a r s , is d e n i e d . T h e S a n h e d r i n trial does not interfere with
this, b e c a u s e Winter's thesis enables Carmichael to d i s p e n s e with it
2 9 0 2 9 1
completely. T h e m a n w h o acted as a J e w 'died as a J e w ' at the h a n d s o f
t h e R o m a n s . T h e c l o s e r J e s u s h i m s e l f is l i n k e d w i t h h i s f a t h e r l a n d , the
r e a d i e r C a r m i c h a e l is to a l l o w for a q u i c k t r a n s m i s s i o n i n C h r i s t i a n i t y . T o
Jewish Christianity and the year 70 - the touchstones in Brandon's
c r i t i c i s m - n o s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e is a t t r i b u t e d .
2 9 2
H. Maccoby goes e v e n further than Eisler. W h i l e displaying an
extremely critical attitude vis-a-vis t h e Gospel reports, he bases his
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f j e s u s o n his o w n interpretation o f c o n t e m p o r a r y history,
w h i c h is l i n k e d w i t h c e r t a i n f a c e t s o f t h e J e s u s t r a d i t i o n i n s u c h a w a y t h a t
t h e s e a r e d r a w n i n l i k e m e t a l s h a v i n g ' s b y a m a g n e t . T h e p e r i o d is v i e w e d a s
d o m i n a t e d b y z e a l o t i s m - to the e x c l u s i o n o f a n y t h i n g else a n d therefore
J e s u s is m a d e a para-Zealot figure as well: 'his p r e a c h i n g m u s t have
2 9 3
contained denunciations o f the R o m a n rape . . , ' . He was a preacher of
2 9 4
the 'ideological world-victory of Judaism' and o f the 'overthrow of
2 9 5
Roman power'. Identifying h i m s e l f w i t h the task, he a l l o w s h i m s e l f to be

2 8 4
C a r m i c h a e l , Death, p . 143. Jesus was assisted b y 2,000 a r m e d followers - so
C a r m i c h a e l says, referring to w h a t he calls ' a medieval c o p y o f a lost version o f a
w o r k o f J o s e p h u s ' ( p . 117).
2 8 5 2 8 6 2 8 7
I b i d . p . 120. I b i d . p . 121. I b i d . p . 160.
2 8 8
I b i d . p p . i67f. T h i s is s u p p o r t e d b y general remarks o n ' c h r o n o l o g i c a l d i s l o c a t i o n '
in the G o s p e l s ( p . 159).
2 8 9
C a r m i c h a e l , Death, p p . 152ff.
2 9 0
C p . p . 158; although he admits that the cleansing m a d e J e s u s collide with the
J e w i s h authorities ( p . 133).
2 9 1
C a r m i c h a e l , Death, p . 165.
2 9 2
Revolution in Judaea. Jesus and the Jewish Resistance ( L o n d o n , 1973). M a c c o b y
d e v e l o p e d his views in 'Is the Political Jesus d e a d ? ' , Encounter 46 (1976), 8ofT(Feb.
N r . ) R e p l y , Encounter 48 (1977), 88ff (April N r . ) .
2 9 3 2 9 4 2 9 5
M a c c o b y , Revolution, p . 130. I b i d . p . 173. I b i d . p . 157.
 T h e r e v o l u t i o n t h e o r y f r o m R e i m a r u s to B r a n d o n 49

crowned a king, a scene which was transformed to that of the

2 9 6
transfiguration, to h e a d for J e r u s a l e m , to e n t e r t h e c i t y ' i n a n a c t o f
2 9 7
rebellion' to o c c u p y the T e m p l e a r e a a n d , p e r h a p s , to a p p o i n t a n e w h i g h
2 9 8
priest. B e i n g a n a p o c a l y p t i c i s t he did not, h o w e v e r , e n g a g e in battle
against the R o m a n s b u t e x p e c t e d salvation from a divine miracle, as had
2 9 9
b e e n a n n o u n c e d i n Z e c h . 9 - h e w a i t e d for it i n t h e a g o n y o f G e t h s e m a n e .
H e w a s arrested b y t h e R o m a n s , k e p t in p r i s o n for ' s o m e w e e k s o r
3 0 0
months' a n d c o n d e m n e d as a r e v o l u t i o n a r y . H i s p r e a c h i n g w a s o f the
3 0 1 3 0 2
Pharisaic type; n o t h i n g w a s o u t s t a n d i n g in i t ; he w o u l d h a v e been
f o r g o t t e n in J u d a i s m , w e r e it n o t t h a t C h r i s t i a n i t y h a d g o t h o l d o f h i m b y
3 0 3
w a y of'falsification of everything that Jesus stood for'. T h e d i f f e r e n c e is
s u c h that, o n e w o u l d think, the a s s u m p t i o n o f the unhistoricity ofjesus
would more easily explain the emergence of that 'sad masochistic
3 0 4
Romanticism' c a l l e d C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d its f a n t a s t i c G o s p e l s t h a n the
a u t h o r ' s p o r t r a y a l o f j e s u s . T h e r e are m a n y c r a c k s in the p i c t u r e a n d the
s p e e d w i t h w h i c h t h e a u t h o r p r o c e e d s f r o m a n u n p r o v e n h y p o t h e s i s t o its
u s e a s a s o l i d b a s i s for t h e n e x t i d e a is b r e a t h t a k i n g . T h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e
3 0 5
T o l e d o t h J e s h u is j u s t n o t i c e a b l e , an influence w h i c h h a d been m u c h
3 0 6
m o r e in p r o m i n e n c e in the J e s u s p o r t r a i t o f H . J . S c h o n f i e l d .
3 0 7
A f u r t h e r s t a g e is r e a c h e d b y H . C o h n . J e s u s h i m s e l f is firmly p l a c e d
w i t h i n J u d a i s m ; n o d e v i a t i o n is c a s t i g a t e d . N o r is t h e o n u s p u t o n t h e h i g h
3 0 8
p r i e s t s ; a n y t r e a c h e r o u s i n c l i n a t i o n o n t h e i r s i d e is d e n i e d . E v e n the
3 0 9
c l e a n s i n g h a d their support, at least t a c i t l y . I t is C o h n ' s b a s i c c l a i m t o
h a v e established the u n a n i m i t y o f the nation, w h i c h manifested itself in the
3 1 0
u t m o s t p r o t e c t i o n offered to J e s u s . T h e so-called S a n h e d r i n trial is, in

296 I b i d . p p . l67ff. 297 I b i d . p . 1 7 4 .

298 I b i d . p . I 7 9 . 299 I .
b i d p flT.
p > I93

3 0 0 3 0 1
Ibid. p. 2 1 7 . Ibid. p. 129.
3 0 2
Slightly different o n M a c c o b y , Revolution, p . 1 9 1 .
3 0 3 3 0 4
Ibid. p. 1 9 1 . Ibid. p. 135.
3 0 5
C p . n. 300 with the s c h e m e o f the T o l e d o t h .
306
Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1 9 3 9 ) . H e accepts the T o l e d o t h a c c o u n t o f the arrest as historical ( p .
254) and interprets it as referring to an action taken b y the disciples: after having
taken refuge they raised s o m e o f the Galilaean Z e a l o t s and m a d e a d e m o n s t r a t i o n in
force. T h e authorities w e r e forced to set Jesus free, but later o n he was c a u g h t in the
T e m p l e etc.
3 0 7
H . C o h n , The Trial and Death of Jesus (in H e b r e w T e l - A v i v , 1968; E T L o n d o n , 1 9 7 2 ) ;
c p . Reflections on the Trial and Death of Jesus (Jerusalem, 1 9 6 7 ) .
3 0 8
Trial, p . 36; J o h n 1 1 : 4 8 is cited in support o f this.
3 0 9
I b i d . p . 249.
3 1 0
Jesus was arrested b y the R o m a n s . But the J e w i s h police force was present at the
s a m e spot and o b t a i n e d permission to take Jesus into c u s t o d y until the next
m o r n i n g . H e was c o n d u c t e d into the high priest's palace and found the high priest
already waiting for him: s o m e t h i n g had to be d o n e quickly. W h a t ? ' T o prevent the
execution b y the R o m a n s o f a J e w w h o h a p p e n e d to enjoy the affection and love o f
the p e o p l e ' (Reflections, p p . 23Q. 'Witnesses had to be found to p r o v e his i n n o c e n c e '
50 E. BAMMEL

fact, n o t h i n g b u t the a t t e m p t o f the l e a d i n g m e n in J e w r y to shield J e s u s

a g a i n s t the R o m a n s a n d to a c h i e v e this b y w o r k i n g out a s c h e m e w h i c h
c o u l d b e s t a g e d o n the f o l l o w i n g m o r n i n g in front o f the prefect. T h u s , the
J e w s d i d for J e s u s a c c o r d i n g t o C o h n w h a t t h e y d i d for B a r a b b a s a c c o r d i n g
3 1 1
to the G o s p e l s . T h e old idea o f a s h o w t r i a l is t h e r e b y g i v e n a n e w t w i s t b y
3 1 2
Cohn. W h e n J e s u s refused to p l a y his p a r t , they h a d n o a l t e r n a t i v e b u t to

( p . 24). H e himself had to be p e r s u a d e d to p r o m i s e that he w o u l d not in future

e n g a g e in a n y treasonable activities ( p . 24). T h e night meeting takes place in o r d e r
to enable the Sanhedrin to intervene o n Jesus's behalf. T h e y satisfy themselves that
the incriminating witnesses were false ( p . 25). Jesus himself has to b e p e r s u a d e d not
to plead guilty. In fact, J e s u s remains silent for m o s t o f the time but w h e n asked b y
the high priest he not o n l y admits but even adds a p r o p h e c y o f revenge - so the high
priest 'gives u p in despair' ( p . 26). W h a t Jesus said was not c o n s i d e r e d as
b l a s p h e m y . T h e r e f o r e it is only the high priest w h o rends his clothes and not the
w h o l e c o u r t . T h e y deliver him to the R o m a n s - it is likely that he is led u n b o u n d .
W h e n J e s u s proves to b e unwilling to c o l l a b o r a t e with the leaders o f the Sanhedrin,
'they c o u l d d o nothing m o r e ' ( p . 32). ( N . N o t o w i t s c h , Die Liicke im Leben Jesu
(Stuttgart, 1894), presents a picture o f the Trial w h i c h is similar: the J e w s d o
everything in their p o w e r to free Jesus, while o n l y Pilate wants his e x e c u t i o n . H i s
sketch is b a s e d o n sources w h i c h , he claims, he himself had d i s c o v e r e d in T i b e t . )
T h e great a d v a n t a g e o f this theory is that the author is able to c o m b i n e (a) e m p h a s i s
o n the illegalities with (b) the suggestion that there was a meeting. But it is very
difficult to follow his reason for positing a J e w i s h c u s t o d y , if a R o m a n arrest a n d
incrimination had taken place. T h e interpretation o f the 'trial' is certainly
e n g e n d e r e d b y the m e m o r y o f w h a t h a p p e n e d in Palestine d u r i n g the time o f the
British m a n d a t e . But it needs m o r e than a p o e t ' s imagination to interpret the report
this w a y . A n d the w h o l e participation o f J e w s in the trial before Pilate h a d to b e
interpreted o u t o f existence. C o h n d r a w s attention to the possibility o f the J e w s
acting o n t w o levels. Rightly so.* It is most likely that understandings existed
b e t w e e n the J e w i s h parties o n the basis o f w h i c h o n e o f t h e m carried o u t
negotiations with the R o m a n s , w h i c h were flanked b y demonstrations o r other
actions engineered b y other parties. T h e c o n s i d e r a b l e success the official speakers
o f J u d a i s m had o n c e and again before the outbreak o f the J e w i s h revolt w o u l d b e
i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e otherwise. It is likely that the trial o f j e s u s was influenced b y
dealings o f this kind as well: several, if not all, o f the Jewish parties (the fashionable
v i e w that the Pharisees had n o share in the c o n d e m n a t i o n o f j e s u s ( W i n t e r , Trial,
passim; B a u m b a c h , Jesus, p . 91) has little to b e said for it) had b e c o m e i n v o l v e d ,
s o m e o f t h e m had b e c o m e very unfavourably d i s p o s e d towards h i m , w h i l e at the
s a m e time the fate o f B a r a b b a s , w h o was very dear to o n e o f these parties, h u n g in
the b a l a n c e . It is likely that this set o f circumstances w o r k e d against J e s u s .
3 1 1
C p . J. Blinzler, Der Process Jesu ( R e g e n s b u r g , 1969), p . 30.
3 , 2
T h e r e is, o f course, n o r o o m for the betrayal b y J u d a s (Trial, p p . 79fl). T h e relative
p r o m i n e n c e given to J u d a s is very often a test case in m o d e r n literature. T h o s e w h o
a d m i t a political issue in the life o f j e s u s tend to concentrate the p r o b l e m s a r o u n d
the figure o f j u d a s ( c p . G . Buchheit, Judas Iskarioth (Gutersloh, 1954); W . J e n s , Der
FallJudas (Stuttgart, 1975), w h o gives the Z e a l o t theory a s y m p a t h e t i c hearing ( p p .
32fl), a l t h o u g h the a u t h o r himself is inclined to look in a different direction for the
solution o f the p r o b l e m ) . It is in keeping with this that J. R . Harris views J u d a s as
the foremost disciple (The Twelve Apostles ( C a m b r i d g e , 1927), p p . 93f, while S h a w in
the u n p u b l i s h e d play The Household of Joseph g o e s so far as to picture J e s u s as h a v i n g
been lured b y J u d a s from his surroundings in Nazareth to the city o f J e r u s a l e m
( W . S. Smith, Shaw on Religion ( L o n d o n , 1967), p . 15). T h i s is not, h o w e v e r , the case
 T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon 51

let fate have its way. T h e condemnation because o f his pretension to be a

313
king - something that 'smacks o f treason' - was the inevitable result.
O n the basis o f this thesis it is hardly comprehensible that a special
fellowship o f followers o f j e s u s came into existence, let alone that they
diverged from the Jews and even less that they left Jerusalem for Pella and -
3 1 4
this is the view taken by the contemporary Jews according to C o h n -
turned traitors. Cohn's theory shows that the attempt to confine Jesus
within Judaism, if carried too far burdens the subsequent history with
insoluble problems. It is, however, most symptomatic o f how far Jewish
315
scholarship - not only literary imagination - can go in order to achieve
the Heimholung in das judische Volk.
According to these views Jesus belongs, more or less, to the Pharisaic
3 1 6
type. T h e question o f his o w n Zealot inclinations and those o f his
317
community is left more open. T h e success reached by the incorporation o f
Jesus in Judaism is such that the particular question o f affiliation to
zealotism could be treated with a certain latitude. It may be, on the other
hand, that the Zealot solution called for attempts to explore other
318
connections as well. T h e latest attempt to portray Jesus as a thaumaturge
may be seen as such a case. Is it too bold to assume that after other solutions
have been attempted the circle will be completed and Jewish scholarship
319 320
will return to favouring a quasi-Zealot c o m b i n a t i o n ? '

in J e w i s h tradition, w h e r e the 'traitor' d o e s not figure in the majority and, possibly,

the oldest forms o f the texts. Eisler's reconstruction manifests an affinity with this
strand o f J e w i s h tradition. H e is followed in this b y M a c c o b y w h o , b y ingenious
interpretation, rules J u d a s and the treachery o u t o f existence (Revolution, p p . 2630).
A n interpretation o f the betrayal, altogether different, is ventured b y C . R o t h ,
Iscariot ( L o n d o n , 1929). C p . recently H . L . G o l d s c h m i d t and M . L i m b e c k , Heilvoller
Verrat? Judas im Neuen Testament (Stuttgart, 1976).
3 1 3
C o h n , Reflections, p . 177.
3 1 4
I b i d . p . 262.
3 1 5
C p . A . A . K a b a k , The small path (Jerusalem, 1938; in H e b r e w ) .
3 . 6
G . V e r m e s , Jesus the Jew ( L o n d o n , 1973), p . 50: ' Z e a l o t o r not. . . .'
3 . 7
C o h n , Reflections, p . 249.
3 . 8
V e r m e s , Jesus, p p . 58ff.
3 . 9
A highly individual interpretation is given b y H . L a n d a u ('Jesus in j i i d i s c h e r Sicht'
in D e s c h n e r , Jesusbilder, p p . 397!!). It was Stephen, the Hellenist, w h o threatened
the J e w s with the destruction o f the T e m p l e to b e performed b y Jesus, w h o was -
this is. L a n d a u ' s suggestion - still alive at this time (J. O ' N e i l , The Theology of Acts
2nd e d n . ( L o n d o n , 1970) h o l d s an even m o r e radical v i e w in assuming that Stephen
was not a C h r i s t i a n ) . T h i s threat w a s found alarming, pressure w a s exercised o n the
Sanhedrin to get h o l d o f j e s u s , w h o was arrested without difficulty, whereas 'James
a n d the others' e s c a p e d after an unsuccessful attempt to resist ( p . 307). T h e trial
itself is seen as entirely a R o m a n o n e ( n o p r o p e r reason is g i v e n ) , the G o s p e l reports
- the earliest o f w h i c h , M a r k , w a s written a h u n d r e d years after the event ( p . 310) -
are stimulated b y the desire to win R o m a n favour a n d to dissociate Jesus from the
J e w s ; they are untrustworthy. T h e facts had b e e n different. Jesus, an Essene and
successor o f the T e a c h e r o f Righteousness ( p . 303) had enjoyed the veneration o f the
52 E. BAMMEL

T h e impulse given by the Zealot interpretation led on the non-Jewish

side to reflections which manifested themselves in three different
321
approaches. Pike's reconstruction - the title o f the b o o k is a m i s n o m e r -
follows most closely, both in details and outlook, the path o f interpretation
in terms o f revolution; it is in fact a florilegium with a definite preference for
Eisler and Brandon. T h e work, however, stops short o f attributing a
revolutionary intention to Jesus himself. T h e cleansing was meant to arouse
the conscience o f the nation and to bring about a situation which would
322
enable G o d to intervene. It was the divine action that Jesus was waiting
for at Gethsemane, the non-arrival of which led him to prohibit his disciples
323
from making use o f the swords they had collected. Deeply committed to
the liberation o f Israel, he wondered, however, whether the people were
able to comprehend 'the kind o f things he had been teaching his disciples
324
and that were taught at Q u m r a n ' or whether they had to be led through
d o o m to the final liberation. Without having launched a revolt he became
suspect because Barabbas had attacked the Antonia at the same time as he
cleansed the T e m p l e . He was arrested in a mopping-up operation after this
325
event - the Barabbas incident may be based on fact - and sent to the
Cross by the Prefect who made use o f his imperium.
T h e general view o f the course of history is the Zealot one into which the
326
New Testament data are inserted, a procedure which results in a
327
reluctance to accept all the consequences o f the Zealot interpretation.
328
T h e development o f Jesus's own action and, indeed, his reflection is not
thereby explained.
It is, on the other hand, a refinement o f the theory of Reimarus that is to

w h o l e p o p u l a t i o n ; they had p l e a d e d for his release - the B a r a b b a s a c c o u n t as it is

found in the G o s p e l s is d u e to a d u p l i c a t i o n ( p p . 31 iff). His m e m o r y was held in
high regard even in the T a l m u d , the crucified o n e b e c a m e the s y m b o l o f the state o f
the J e w i s h nation, and his n a m e was passed o v e r in silence until Israel's c o n d i t i o n o f
d e p r i v a t i o n c a m e to an end ( p . 308). Exploiting L i e t z m a n n ' s theory o n the
Sanhedrin trial the a u t h o r p r o c e e d s to theories o f his o w n w h i c h are d i s c o n n e c t e d
a n d confused.
3 2 0
T h e only author w h o breaks out o f this circle is H . J . Schonfield w h o maintains that
Christianity as a religion will have to g o , and equally J e w i s h nationalism will have
to g o , because they are b o t h misinterpretations o f the messianic idea (The Politics of
God ( L o n d o n , 1970), p . 52). F o r his reconstruction o f the historical events - he
makes use o f B r a n d o n at this point - c p . his The Pentecost Revolution ( L o n d o n , 1974).
3 2 1
The Wilderness Revolt b y D . K . Pike and R . S. K e n n e d y based o n ideas and notes o f
J. A . Pike ( N e w Y o r k , 1972).
3 2 2
Pike and K e n n e d y , Wilderness Revolt, p . 176.
3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 5
I b i d . p . 193. I b i d . p . 163. I b i d . p . 225.
3 2 6
I f there are difficulties, they are mastered b y means o f straightforward
c o m m o n s e n s e without a p p l y i n g critical tools.
3 2 7
Pike and K e n n e d y , Wilderness Revolt, p . 193.
3 2 8
T h e authors very often p o i n t to such 'reflections'. Is this a sign o f a portrait o f j e s u s
different from the o n e presented in the b o o k ?
 T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon 53
329
be found in the writings o f G . W . Buchanan, according to whose view it
was the ideology o f and obsession with conquest that directed both Jewish
and Christian theology. T h e concept o f the kingdom in the New Testament
330
is accordingly entirely nationalistic. O n the other hand, a concept o f
'passive ethics' had emerged which involved the toleration of hardship and
martyrdrom, the final goal o f which was, however, the same as that o f the
first concept. By suffering and the performance of ascetic practices and thus
the acquisition o f treasures in heaven, G o d will be forced to step in himself
and to bring about the fulfilment o f the covenant-conquest pledges.
Acquainted with both schemes Jesus, following the Baptist, adopted the
former one. But the death of John 'may have required Jesus to rethink his
331
whole program and to reconsider the role o f the M e s s i a h ' and, left
without a divine c o m m a n d , to abandon the aim o f military struggle in
favour o f meritorious suffering. It is again the idea o f change which is
developed here. It is presented in a way which combines Reimarus with the
second phase o f Schweitzer. This is done, however, in such a manner that
Jesus suffers his death in keeping with this scheme - no indication o f a new
experience, as was assumed by Schweitzer, is included. There is therefore
no r o o m or need for reconsideration by the disciples after his death. T h e
rapid formation and growth o f the communities and equally their
self-denying practice can be explained quite easily - this is the difference
over against Reimarus. By retrojecting back the turning-point into the life
332
o f j e s u s , Buchanan is also able to place militant and 'pacifist' sayings o f
Jesus side by side - both are original in their respective periods; the rigid
Tendenz-cnticism o f Brandon is avoided by this means. There is no doubt
that an impressive picture is presented o f forces which were for a long time
dominant. It is achieved at the price o f depriving both Jesus and nascent
Christianity o f anything that is outstanding and original. Both phenomena
are only projections o f concepts which had been in force already. Eisler's
portrait o f j e s u s was already faded, Buchanan's lacks any significant
features and makes it quite incomprehensible why early Christendom took
a development so different from the Jewish sects which Buchanan
emphasises as parallel phenomena.
333
Similar, although less one-sided, is J. L e h m a n n . H e more or less
accepts Carmichael'^ thesis o f political motives in the movement o f j e s u s
334
and points to Zealot leanings o f not less than six o f Jesus's disciples. He

3 2 9
The Consequences of the Covenant ( L e i d e n , 1970); H . S. R e i m a r u s , The Goal ofJesus and
his Disciples ( L e i d e n , 1970; i n t r o d u c e d b y B u c h a n a n ) , p p . 27-32.
3 3 0 3 3 1 3 3 2
B u c h a n a n , Covenant, p p . 69, 90. I b i d . p . 40. I b i d . p p . 38!*.
333
Jesus-Report. Protokoll einer Verfdlschung (Diisseldorf, 1970; E T N e w Y o r k , 1971;
L o n d o n , 1972).
3 3 4
L e h m a n n , Jesus-Report, p p . i 2 6 f T ( E T p p . 1040*).
54 E- BAMMEL

reprimands Carmichael, however, for having disregarded the new

335
Ansatzpunkt and for having done so for convenience's sake: this is Jesus's
connection with Qumran. Jesus taught like the men o f the desert
336
community; little in his message was original. H e was neither a saviour
337
nor a revolutionary but just a rabbi. It was due to historical accidents
that, at the end o f his life, he, like the Essenes, engaged in a form of action
338
which was interpreted as a political crime by the R o m a n s . Conversely,
ecclesiastical filtering tried to obliterate any traces o f both political
339
involvement and Essene heritage.
T h e Zealot theory is never far away from the Jewish mind when
approaching Jesus. It is the approach which is the supreme achievement o f
340
making him equal to oneself. It is so much the model that the social
341
interpretation o f j e s u s is still almost entirely absent from the Jewish
enterprises.
Whereas this works in favour of giving Jesus a place in the Valhalla o f the
Jewish nation it has rather the opposite effect on the non-Jewish side. If the
theory is carried through, and not only applied to one particular phase, it
creates a portrayal o f a Jesus engaged in particular questions, a portrayal
which is bound to dissociate him from the great questions o f mankind. This
342
is especially noticeable in L e h m a n n , w h o claims: 'the Christ w h o m the
church preaches has nothing but the name in c o m m o n with the historical

3 3 5
I b i d . p . 31 ( E T p . 28).
3 3 6
C p . Pike's v i e w . T h e u n g u a r d e d h o v e r i n g b e t w e e n a Q u m r a n and a Z e a l o t
a p p r o a c h is typical o f a g o o d p a r U o f the m o r e p o p u l a r literature. It w o u l d b e
justified if a closer link b e t w e e n Q u m r a n i t e s a n d Z e a l o t s c o u l d b e established. T h i s
is indeed the theory o f C . Rofti, w h i c h , h o w e v e r , has not met with universal
approval.
3 3 7
L e h m a n n , Jesus-Report, p p . 1 3 9 / ( E T p . 113).
3 3 8
I b i d . p p . 30, i2of, 140; c p . p . 188 ( E T p . 27f, 98. 113; c p . p . 149).
3 3 9
I b i d . p . 136 ( E T p . 1091); J. L e h m a n n , Die Jesus G.M.B.H. (Dtisseldorf, 1972), p p .
i8f. F o r a critique o f L e h m a n n , c p . E. L o h s e , EvK 3 (1970), 652ff. T h e views taken
b y E. B r o m m e (Allegorisierte Geschichte-gelebter Glaube (Berlin, 1975)) form an
imaginative c l i m a x . H e persuades h i m s e l f to his o w n satisfaction that the
t e r m i n o l o g y used in the N . T . represents an allegorical presentation o f military
terms a n d , i n d e e d , events; that ' b e l o v e d s o n ' m e a n s an eminent a n d trustworthy
emissary o f the Essenes; that the fight against the d e m o n s m e a n s battles against
h u m a n enemies; the healing o f the c e n t u r i o n ' s servant the c o n q u e s t o f C a p e r n a u m ;
J e s u s ' s teaching in s y n a g o g u e s m e a n s g i v i n g instruction to Essene c o m m u n i t i e s ;
the transfiguration is J e s u s ' s p r o m o t i o n to the p o s i t i o n o f i n d e p e n d e n t c o m m a n d e r ;
etc., etc.
3 4 0
It enables the J e w thereby to shake off a certain cultural inferiority c o m p l e x , w h i c h
w a s a p p a r e n t in former generations.
3 4 1
Perhaps with the e x c e p t i o n o f a remark in F. A n d e r m a n n : J e s u s ' k a m v o n d e r Basis
d e r gesellschaftlichen P y r a m i d e , u n d er b r a c h t e v o n unten her einen Radikalismus
mit, v o r d e m es d e m J o h a n n e s grauen musste' (Dasgrosse Gesicht ( M i i n c h e n , 1970),
P- 177)-
3 4 2
T h e s a m e is already true for F. M u r a w s k i .
 T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon 55

343
Rabbi J(esus)'; be is only used 'as an excuse for an entirely different
344
faith'. This being so, the church lost the integrity which is necessary in
order to approach the questions o f life.
T h e effect, however, is almost the same on both sides. T h e J e w who
incorporates Jesus into his own heritage does so at the cost o f moving him
away from Christianity, o f widening the gap between Jewry and
345
Christendom and o f denouncing Paul and Christianity. T h e non-Jew,
w h o pictures Jesus as Zealot takes this as a sufficient reason for dispensing
with a Christian heritage which is built on so strange a foundation. T h e
Zealot interpretation serves as a means o f and justification for dissociation
from Christianity.
T h e socialist writers explain the origin of Christianity without admitting
a constitutive influence o f its 'founder', o f the person o f j e s u s . Jewish
historiography tends to explain early Christendom as a deviation from
Jesus, who is interpreted solely within the Jewish context. Both views
converge. T h e y both benefit from the scheme o f the Tubingen school from
Baur to Bultmann and radicalise its findings.
O n the other hand, Christian scholars o f this generation find themselves
under a certain pressure not to depart (too much) from what has become
the communis opinio among Jews. A n important change o f climate is
indicated by this. While the generation o f Harnack felt - for scholarly as
well as practical reasons - that the Greek line of development taken by the
church's history, for all its shortcomings, was the right course, and while
they had a deep distrust towards the attempts to enliven the oriental and
Jewish roots o f Christendom, the opposite is now the case: the climate is in
favour o f as little departure from the Jewish heritage as possible and - in
certain questions at least - of a tacit agreement with what appears to be the
Jewish position.
T h e effect is a stalemate. Scholars eager to fall in with the interests o f
their Jewish fellow-workers develop the Zealot theme with great gusto
while they tend to remain silent about what is truly revolutionary in Jesus,
his animus against the law, his lack o f compliance with what was, on the
basis o f the law, the established order o f the day, his relationship to G o d

343
Jesus-Report, p . 187 ( E T p . 149; not c o r r e c t ) .
3 4 4
I b i d . p . 192 ( E T p . 153). H . M a r s c h (alias B e r m a n Saklatvala), The Rebel King ( N e w
Y o r k , 1975) is, in spite o f the title, not a Z e a l o t portrait o f j e s u s , but rather an
attempt to picture h i m as having parted c o m p a n y with the nationalistic expectation
at the time o f the temptation and as having remained disinclined to b e c o m e a ' R e b e l
King'.
3 4 5
It g o e s so far, in s o m e cases, that it even affects the picture o f the passion o f j e s u s ;
thus L a n d a u claims: not those w h o rejected the preaching o f j e s u s but those w h o
divinised him p l a c e d o n his shoulders the cross, w h i c h he had to carry and fixed to
w h i c h he was to die (Jesusbilder, p . 305).
56 E. BAMMEL

346
and his regard for the individual. M e n o f genius from Nietzsche to
347 348
Werfel and C a m u s noticed this, while it plays a minor role in
349
contemporary studies. Jesus revolted against the Torah o f his fathers,
nay he wrestled with G o d , but it is not likely that he descended to ordinary
revolutionary activity or allowed himself to be used by the mouthpieces o f
the different activisms o f his day.

VIII

T h e scene o f American intellectual church life in the first decades o f this

century was dominated by the eager zeal to present Jesus's message as a
350 351
social g o s p e l . ' It is typical for the American atmosphere that it was this

3 4 6
H e states: ' D i e s e r heilige A n a r c h i s t , d e r das niedere V o l k . . . z u m W i d e r s p r u c h
g e g e n die herrschende O r d n u n g aufrief- mit einer S p r a c h e , falls d e n Evangelien zu
trauen w a r e , d i e auch heute n o c h n a c h Sibirien fiihren wiirde, w a r ein politischer
V e r b r e c h e r , so weit e b e n politische V e r b r e c h e r in einer a b s u r d u n p o l i t i s c h e n
G e m e i n s c h a f t m o g l i c h w a r e n . Dies b r a c h t e i h n ans K r e u z ' (Werke, e d . K . Schlechta
( M i i n c h e n 1955), ii. 1189). C p . N i e t z s c h e ' s penetrating characterisation o f j e s u s :
'die Leidenschaft g e w o r d e n e Rechtschaffenheit' (Der Antichrist, p . 35).
3 4 7
H e makes G a m a l i e l say: ' I c h widerrufe m e i n e n W i l l e n iiber J e s u s v o n Nazareth!
M a g er ein heiliger P r o p h e t g e w e s e n sein, ich nenne ihn Feind. D e r alte
W i d e r s p r u c h ist er, d e r Aufruhr in d e r W o l l e des L a m m s ' (Paulus unter den Juden
( W i e n , 1927), p . 170). F o r the p r o b l e m c p . E. Stauffer, 'Jesus u n d seine B i b e l ' in
Abraham unser Vater. Festschrift Otto Michel, e d d . O . Betz, M . H e n g e l a n d P. S c h m i d t
(Leiden, 1963), p p . 44ofT.
348 ' W h y hast thou forsaken m e ? T h i s w a s a revolutionary cry ( u n cri seditieux), w a s
not it?' ( A . C a m u s , La Chute ( P a r i s 1956), p . 131; G T u8ff).
r

3 4 9
K l a u s Berger's Die Gesetzesauslegungjesu 1 ( N e u k i r c h e n , 1972), for all its merits, is a
telling e x a m p l e o f this state o f affairs.
3 5 0
S. M a t h e w s , The Social Teaching of Jesus ( N e w Y o r k , 1897); F. G . Peabody, Jesus Christ
and the Social Question ( N o w Y o r k , 1900; G T Giessen, 1903); W . R a u s c h e n b u s c h ,
Christianizing the Social Order ( N e w Y o r k , 1923); Christianity and the Social Crisis ( N e w
Y o r k , 1924). A different line is taken b y F. D . H e u v e r , The Teaching of Jesus concerning
Wealth ( C h i c a g o , 1903); c p . H . E. hucock, Jesus and the American Mind ( N e w Y o r k ,
1930). F o r criticism c p . H . Frick, Das Reich Gottes in amerikanischer und deutscher
Theologie der Gegenwart (Giessen, 1926).
3 5 1
It is parallel to the Christian Social m o v e m e n t in W i i r t t e m b e r g and Switzerland at
the b e g i n n i n g o f the century, w h i c h is m a r k e d b y the n a m e s o f B l u m h a r d t a n d
R a g a z . F o r an evaluation c p . U . v o n d e r Steinen, Agitation fur das Reich Gottes
( M i i n c h e n , 1977) and M . J . Stahli, Reich Gottes und Revolution ( H a m b u r g , 1980).
Christian S o c i a l i s m in G r e a t Britain had d e v e l o p e d along different lines. T h e
m o v e m e n t started earlier - before the G e r m a n lives o f j e s u s h a d b e c o m e a force.
T h e r e is little reflection o n Jesus's o w n position. O n e gets the impression that the
social tendencies e m e r g e d s p o n t a n e o u s l y and that the c o m b i n a t i o n with the N . T .
a n d , i n d e e d , the O . T . , is rather an afterthought (e.g. C . K i n g s l e y interpreted L u k e
4: 16 as referring to the Hall year in his famous s e r m o n o f 1851 and m a d e this the
starting p o i n t for his social p r o p o s i t i o n s ) . T h e link is performed b y the utilisation o f
certain N . T . features as m o t t o e s (e.g. J. L . D a v i e s , Morality according to the Sacrament
of the Lord's Supper ( L o n d o n , 1867)), while very o c c a s i o n a l l y m o d e r n thoughts ( ' T h e
w o r k o f j e s u s C h r i s t . . . is . . . s h o w n to b e secular w o r k ' : S. H e a d l a m , The Service of
 T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon 57

aspect of politics that was discussed. T h e attempt to modernise Jesus in this

way was carried out without much historical insight and with the help o f
arbitrarily selected citations from the works o f German theologians.
Something similar happened in the sixties when the view that Jesus was a
revolutionary spread like a prairie fire over the five continents.
In the time in between a claim, substantially different but in other ways
related, was made. T h e sentence Jesus was black' is recorded to have been
3 5 2
expressed in 1 9 2 4 . It is not clear what was meant by this: whether Jesus
353
was actually black in his lifetime, or the risen Lord gives his concern to
the black, or whether the expression was intended to be symbolic. In any
case, a special relation between Jesus and the black underdog is assumed.
This is a line that was taken up many times. W h a t may have been meant
initially as a sentiment, an expression o f consolation, became something
different when it was linked with black aims. Whereas it had been the
suffering Christ w h o had given comfort to the maltreated negro, it was now
354
claimed that Jesus's violent death sanctifies violent struggles for j u s t i c e .
Whereas G o d ' s compassion for the black man had been stressed, the
355
emphasis is now shifted: 'black is h o l y ' . Whereas the simple life ofjesus
had been taken as appealing to the black, it was now maintained that the
356
Zealot-type activism called for similar actions. Even where this

Humanity ( L o n d o n , 1882), p . 3) c r o p u p . C . N o e l is s o m e t h i n g o f an e x c e p t i o n . H e
describes Jesus as a revolutionary a n d his p r o c l a m a t i o n as directed t o w a r d s a n e w
w o r l d o r d e r , a k i n g d o m o f j u s t i c e and c o m r a d e s h i p , w h i c h he wishes m e n to build
u p o n earth (The Life of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1939), p p . 212, 486, 580). It is this 'collective
h o p e ' ( p . 582) he finds significant. H e therefore emphasises the political
implications o f the ministry and denies a pacifist interpretation ( p . x v m , (2nd e d n . )
p . 487), while c o m i n g o u t even m o r e sternly against a Z e a l o t understanding (he is
disinclined to follow Eisler ( p . xix: Jesus w o u l d p r o b a b l y not h a v e a p p r o v e d o f the
' m a d a c t i o n ' d e s c r i b e d in the S l a v o n i c J o s e p h u s ( p . 564)) a n d sets Jesus against the
imperialism o f the Zealots, p p . 274!!). T h e temptation o f the k i n g d o m is a
temptation for N o e l ' s internationalism as well; he avoids dissociating himself from
Jesus b y c l a i m i n g that the R o m a n pretensions were based o n external d o m i n i o n
and w e r e therefore 'essentially i n h u m a n ' ( p . 296). B y interpreting the temptations
as w a r d i n g off particular expressions o f political h o p e ( c p . p . 2841) he finds himself
able to maintain his c o n c e p t o f the k i n g d o m , an idea N o e l d e v e l o p s from the
p r o p h e t i c and Baptistic p r o c l a m a t i o n rather than from an interpretation o f the
d o m i n i c a l message. M u c h o f N o e l ' s c o n c e p t looks like a secularised version o f F. D .
M a u r i c e ' s Kingdom of Christ ( L o n d o n , i/ii 1937). F o r an evaluation o f the w h o l e
m o v e m e n t c p . L . B r e n t a n o , Die christlichsoziale Bewegung in England ( L e i p z i g , 1883)
a n d , m o s t recently, E . R . N o r m a n , Church and Society in England 1770-1970 (Oxford,
1976).
3 5 2
L e i p o l d t , > m y M < / , p . 286.
3 5 3
T h i s is the o p i n i o n o f A . B . C l e a g e , The Black Messiah ( N e w Y o r k , 1968).
3 5 4
B. C a r r at the L u s a k a C o n f e r e n c e o f 1974; c p . A . Hastings, 'Christianity and
R e v o l u t i o n ' , African Affairs 74 (1975), 360.
3 5 5
J . H . C o n e , Black Theology and Black Power ( N e w Y o r k , 1969), p . 69.
3 5 6
L i b e r a l i s m ' b y a n y m e a n s necessary' as J. H . C o n e puts it (Black Theology, p . n ) .
58 E. BAMMEL

reconstruction o f the life o f j e s u s was not accepted it is argued that 'the

Nazarene, although he was not a revolutionary Zealot, as risen Lord
357 358
became involved in the black r e v o l u t i o n ' . ' A link is established in this
way with the c o m m o n belief o f the black Christian. It is the returning
359
Christ w h o plays a role in his life, while the reference to the historic Jesus
as an inspiration to revolution comes primarily from white counsellors.
T h e black man himself is inclined to single out certain elements in the
Bible and to re-interpret them in the light o f his own expectation. This can
be done in a committed way and in a more detached manner which only
makes use o f the traditional material. Characteristic for the latter is the
motto: 'seek ye first the political kingdom and all the rest will be added to
360
you'.
Basically it is lack o f objective interest in Jesus and early Christianity
that becomes manifest in this way. Even the sketch o f the future as it is
drawn in Christian and post-Christian religions developed by the coloured
man tends to b e c o m e a future without Christ in the majority o f the
361
sources. It is, perhaps, symptomatic that the cypher 'Black Messiah' or

3 5 7
J. H . C o n e , ' S c h w a r z e T h e o l o g i e i m Blick a u f R e v o l u t i o n ' , EvTh 34 (1974), 13 (the
w h o l e issue, p p . 1-112 of EvTh entitled Zur schwarzen Theologie, w a s translated into
English a n d a p p e a r e d in Union Seminary Quarterly Review 31 (1975/6), iff).
3 5 8
T h e s a m e author maintains that J e s u s is 'the c o m p l e t e o p p o s i t e o f the values o f
white culture' (Black Theology of Liberation (Philadelphia, 1970), p . 215), an analysis
that w o u l d give him a position in b e t w e e n 'irrelevant for our times' and 'irrelevant
for the time o f the historical J e s u s ' ( p . 214) and he maintains ' I f Christ is not b l a c k
then w h o is h e ? ' ( p . 217). H e sees as the historical kernel o f the N . T . reports the
manifestation o f j e s u s as the O p p r e s s e d o n e w h o s e earthly existence was b o u n d u p
with the o p p r e s s e d o f the land ( p . 202). In his recent God of the Oppressed ( N e w Y o r k ,
1975) C o n e admits that a c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f j e s u s with the Z e a l o t s c a n n o t b e
d e f e n d e d o n historical g r o u n d s ( p . 274). H e turns, h o w e v e r , the 'uncertainty'
against those w h o a d v o c a t e a different o p i n i o n and asks: ' H o w can w e b e sure that
J e s u s w a s not violent?' ( p . 223). H e sees those w h o disagree with h i m as 'the
c o n t e m p o r a r y representatives o f the scribes a n d lawyers' ( p . 223), lists a w h o l e
series o f 'establishment s c h o l a r s ' ( p . 272Q and admits o n l y o n e e x c e p t i o n ,
K a s e m a n n . F o r a s y m p a t h e t i c a n d searching consideration o f C o n e ' s principles c p .
J. L . S e g u n d o Liberacion de la teologia ( B u e n o s Aires, 1975; E T N e w Y o r k , 1976, esp.
p p . 25ff). It must b e a d d e d that in the o p i n i o n o f C o n e the term ' B l a c k t h e o l o g y '
d o e s not c o m p r e h e n d the fullest m e a n i n g o f the D i v i n e revelation. It is, h o w e v e r , its
necessary w a y o f b e c o m i n g c o n c r e t e - like the liberation from E g y p t , like the
a p p e a r a n c e o f the m a n J e s u s (EvTh 34 (1974), 88, 90).
3 5 9
C p . note 361. A l s o c p . C o n e , God of the Oppressed, p . 119, w h o goes so far as to
state that the emphasis o n the h u m a n i t y o f Christ was the emphasis o f black slaves.
3 6 0
It is the nationalist version o f the 'translation' given b y S. H e a d l a m : 'live as m e m b e r
o f a righteous society, a n d individually y o u will benefit' ( W . S. Smith, The London
Heretics 1870-1914 ( L o n d o n , 1967), p . 185). For the statement itself c p . H . J . M a r g u l l ,
Aufbruch zur Zukunft (Giitersloh, 1962), p . 70; M . W a r r e n , Problems and Promises in
Africa today ( L o n d o n , 1964), p . 40.
3 6 1
T h i s b e c o m e s o b v i o u s from the sources cited b y M a r g u l l . T h e cases referred to o n
p p . 94 a n d 96 are rather the e x c e p t i o n a n d represent m o v e m e n t s o f a period already
b y g o n e . T h e e x a m p l e o f a revelation chain in w h i c h Christ represents a stage that is
 T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon 59

'Black Christ' tends to be supplemented by 'Black theology'. If that feature

should turn out to be o f a lasting nature, it would indicate a departure that
is far more crucial than the presentation o f the portrait o f a revolutionary
Christ.
362
It is mainly through C . M o r r i s that the latter idea is suggested to the
black man. T h e Winter-Cullmann theory, according to which Jesus was
executed as a political criminal, is taken by Morris as probably matching
363
the facts: Pilate may have been right in putting Jesus to death. It results
364
from this that Jesus was not non-violent. And indeed Morris finds
instances in the Gospels that support this view: Jesus's statement on the
365
tribute money is 'fighting talk'; the entry had to be understood politically
and the cleansing o f the T e m p l e , o f that 'haunt o f R o m a n collaborators',
366
was meant to be a 'symbolic condemnation o f any collaboration'. He
finds it significant that the Zealots are nowhere condemned in the New
Testament, considers the pacific portrait ofjesus given by the evangelists
as untrustworthy, nay, finds it hard to imagine that they themselves
367 368
believed i t and states his agreement with Brandon.
It may be that his sketch ofjesus is meant rather to awake the European
369
Christians than to foster revolution in Africa. His advocacy o f v i o l e n c e
370
may be taken this w a y . It has to be emphasised that it is action Morris is
interested in. His thinking revolves around what is said in the Parable of the
371
Last Judgement. H e has harsh words to say on a theology o f revolution
372
which is all too often a way o f avoiding action. While Morris's manifesto
373
had no immediate e c h o in Africa, where it was written; while it was

superseded b y the n e w p r o p h e t H u n g is given o n p . 103. F o r the t e n d e n c y to v i e w

Jesus as a figure o n the fringes o r to p r o c l a i m the returning Christ as a political
liberator, c p . E. D a m m a n n , ' D a s Christusverstandnis in d e n nachchristlichen
K i r c h e n u n d Sekten Afrikas' in E. Benz, Messianische Kirchen, Sekten und Bewegungen
im heutigen Afrika ( L e i d e n , 1965).
3 6 2
Unyoung, Uncoloured, Unpoor ( L o n d o n , 1969).
3 6 3 3 6 4 3 6 5
Ibid. p . i n . I b i d . p . 102. I b i d . p . 113.
3 6 6 3 6 7 3 6 8
I b i d . p p . u6f. I b i d . p . 102. I b i d . p . 121.
3 6 9
' V i o l e n c e m a y well not establish a Paradise but it can destroy an Inferno' ( C .
M o r r i s , s e r m o n in G r e a t St M a r y ' s , C a m b r i d g e , M a r c h 1970).
3 7 0
T h e r e are features in M o r r i s ' s activity w h i c h are o p e n to q u e s t i o n . It is his attempt
to j u m p o n the b a n d w a g o n and to b e trendy. A c t i o n for social and political j u s t i c e -
in the tradition o f o l d tendencies in the c h u r c h e s to r e d u c e and to abolish
o u t r a g e o u s injustice ( c p . e.g. P. M a r s h a l l , The Anti-Slave Movement and Bristol
(Bristol, 1968)) - tends to e r o d e interest in personal salvation a n d to politicise the
c h u r c h ( c p . R . E. K e n d a l l , 'Political i n v o l v e m e n t for the Christian', Epworth Review
2 0975)> M Q .
3 7 1
Include me out. Confessions of an Ecclesiastical Coward ( L o n d o n , 1968 and, in a revised
form, 1975), p p . 40, 113.
3 1 2
Include, p p . 41, 46f. F o r C . M o r r i s ' s basic attitude towards politics c p . L . C h a r l t o n ,
Spark in the Stubble ( L o n d o n , 1963), p p . 87f.
3 7 3
T h e situation lends s u p p o r t to the v i e w that the social structure o f Africa c o n t a i n e d
60 E. BAMMEL

374
treated with reserve even by the sophisticated negroes of North A m e r i c a ,
a parallel and far more radical battle cry had been promulgated already by
A . B. Cleage. Jesus is seen as the inaugurator of a movement which became
so widespread and well-established that the disciples could move freely
without worries about money and other support. T h e Zealots functioned as
375
the 'revolutionary underground part' o f the same organisation. In­
fluences stemming from Brandon are obvious at this point; the matter is,
however, expressed in overwhelmingly socialist terminology. This Jesus
376
was 'in constant opposition to the established power structure', he was
377
'engaged in a liberation struggle against the whole gentile w o r l d ' . It is the
black man's task to let himself be called back to this, Jesus's original
378
teaching. It is in this activity that Jesus serves again as an example, not so
379
much, or rather not at all, in his death. Dark shadows fall on the church's
380
attempts to give meaning to C a l v a r y , on the otherworldly conception o f
381
salvation, which is stigmatised as individualistic and branded as
382 383
counter-revolutionary, on justification by faith, against the 'old
384
theology', which is Paul's and not Jesus's - all this is nothing but a 'waste
385
o f the H o l y Spirit'.
Cleage names the 'Black experience' as basic for the developing o f a new
value system. T h e model for this experience is found in the history o f
386
Israel rather than in the life ofjesus. T h e latter is mentioned occasionally
but emphasis is given to the O l d Testament, the history of which is linked,
in a rather arbitrary way, with African tribal religion - so much so that the
387
black people are singled out and proclaimed as ' G o d ' s chosen p e o p l e ' .

s o m a n y b a l a n c i n g factors that an outburst w a s not inevitable (thus Hastings,

African Affairs 74 (1975), 3601). H o w different the African situation still is b e c o m e s
a p p a r e n t from J. S. P o b e e , Towards an African Theology ( A b i n g d o n , 1979).
3 7 4
M . J . J o n e s , Black Awareness (Nashville, 1971), p p . 12if.
3 7 5
A . B . C l e a g e , Black Christian Nationalism ( N e w Y o r k , 1972).
3 7 6
I b i d . p . 182; 'the R o m a n p o w e r structure i n c l u d i n g the temple in J e r u s a l e m ' (2071).
3 7 7
I b i d . p . 45; c p . p p . 53, 174.
3 7 8 3 7 9
I b i d . p . 175. I b i d . p . 188.
3 8 0
I b i d . p p . 6of, 183. H e c o m p a r e s it spitefully with 'the o l d U n c l e T o m ' s w a y s ' ( p . 58
etc.).
3 8 1
I b i d . p p . 183, 188, 201; c p . p p . 53, 73.
3 8 2 3 8 3
I b i d . p . 58; c p . p . 217. I b i d . p p . 186, 190.
3 8 4
I b i d . p . 136 a n d Y . b . J o c h a n a n ' s attack against the ' d r e a m e r ' Paul, w h o turned to
R o m e (in C l e a g e , Nationalism, p . 291).
3 8 5
I b i d . p . 256.
3 8 6
I b i d . p p . 192, 202, 2o6f, 239 etc.; c p . C o n e , God of the Oppressed, p . 137, and I . R .
W a s h i n g t o n , The Politics of God (2nd e d n . , Boston, 1970), p . 157.
3 8 7
C l e a g e , Nationalism, p . 175; c p . p . 239. In a similar vein W a s h i n g t o n , Politics, p . 156.
C l e a g e h o l d s that J u d a i s m is essentially a black religion. H e points to the E g y p t i a n
b e g i n n i n g s a n d lists a n u m b e r o f characteristic features w h i c h in his a n d his
c o l l a b o r a t o r s ' o p i n i o n derive from African tribal religion. T h e c o n c l u s i o n that Jesus
himself w a s black is o b v i o u s , and equally the d e d u c t i o n from it: 'historically b o t h
 T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon 61

Tendencies which are noticeable here and there are expressed much more
openly and crudely by this author than in other publications. Whatever
may be the outcome o f the political movement started by Cleage, the
tendencies he had given voice to are likely to come up again in this or
another form.
A third focussing point o f unrest was the explosive situation in South
America. It was met by a church which was at first and at best only
388
equipped with a Las Casas type o f t h e o l o g y , with compassion for the
suppressed which is given expression in the act o f protest. Even C . Torres is
no exception to this. Certain scriptural passages - especially the Parable o f
the Last Judgement and Romans 13:8 - figure as mottoes in his
389
pronouncements, while what reflection there is on the situation has to be
supplied from the Marxist intellectual armoury. T h e desire to enact an
390
imitation o f Christ may have led him to force his violent death.
Apart from the situation which sparked off these manifestos it was the
Christian-Marxist dialogue which influenced the state o f discussion and
led to theological penetration. This discourse, which started on a larger
391
scale in the sixties, was opened by the Marxists' confession that they were
392
in agreement with and had even taken up die Sache Jesu. Conciliation was
voiced, appreciation ofjesus was expressed although it was admitted that
3 9 3
Jesus was not a revolutionary 'like the Zealots, like Bar K o c h b a ' . It was
in this dialogue that the appreciation o f Jesus, described as the
revolutionary par excellence, was turned against the church, against those
394
w h o stamped out the fire which he had kindled. It was in the same

religions b e l o n g to us' (Nationalism, p . 175). T h e author p r o c e e d s even further and

declares that black p e o p l e as such have 'the legitimate right to b e Christian o r
J e w i s h if they w i s h ' ( p . 175). It is interesting that the terms 'Christian' and 'Jewish'
are used interchangeably.
3 8 8
C p . C . L a n g e , ' K o l o n i a l i s m u s - das Z e u g n i s v o n Las C a s a s ' (Diss. Berlin, 1972).
389 Q T o r r e s , Revolution als Aufgabe des Christen ( M a i n z , 1969), p p . 25f; Vom Apostolate
zum Partisanenkampf. Artikel und Proklamationen ( H a m b u r g , 1969), p p . 125^ 143. C.
Torres, Revolutionary Priest. Complete Writings, ed. J. Gerassi (Pelican edition, L o n d o n ,
1973) p p . 270I*. H e also refers to M a t t . 25 as a movens for his fight in his justification
for the petition for laicisation; c p . H . Liining, C. Torres, Priester und Guerrillero
( H a m b u r g , 1969), p . 115.
3 9 0
T h e statement his m o t h e r m a d e after his death ( ' W o u l d Christianity exist, if Jesus
had d i e d in his b e d ? ' ; Liining, Torres, p . 158) is an indication o f this.
3 9 1
S o m e o f them w e r e neutralised a n d r e p r i m a n d e d in their o w n parties subse­
quently.
3 9 2
C p . E. B l o c h ' s essay, Im Christentum steckt die Revolte ( Z u r i c h , 1971).
3 9 3
R . G a r a u d y , VAlternative (Paris, 1972), p . 124 ( G T W i e n 1973, p . 116, E T L o n d o n ,
1976, p . 96). Jesus is d e s c r i b e d as 'breaking tabus' ( p . 118; G T p . i n , E T p . 91).
' H e is not a r e v o l u t i o n a r y ' ( p . 124; G T p . 116; E T p . 96), but b y being the m a n he is,
he is j u s t the person a revolutionary is able to agree with a n d even 'to believe in'
( p . 126; G T p . 118; E T p p . 97Q.
3 9 4
T h e R e i m a r u s s c h e m e o f a radical c h a n g e after the death o f j e s u s is a p p l i e d b y K .
62 E. BAMMEL

dialogue that Jesus was attacked as the man of'total protest' whose attitude
is more akin to the 'anarchism' of Baader, Meinhof and Mahler than to the
395
principles o f Marxist revolution. O n the other hand, it was in this
discussion that Christian criticism in the manner o f the prophets was
invoked as the means o f tracing the authentic Karl Marx, w h o had been
396
neutralised by a satisfied Communist establishment and even to bring
397
about something like a permanent revolution. O l d patterns o f reaction
re-emerged in this way.
The reflection on the Christian side resulted in a 'theology o f
398 399
revolution', a political t h e o l o g y , political hermeneutics, a theology o f

F a r n e r in the following w a y : the c h u r c h turned Jesus's protest into a kind o f

non-protest, an opiate. T h e theology o f liberation might lead to a liberation o f the
t h e o l o g y . T h e theology o f revolution might result in a revolution o f the followers o f
Jesus: in a de-Christianisation in the direction o f j e s u s . H e a d d s to this the
i m p o r t a n t qualification: o n l y forces o f a general kind might b e a b l e to achieve this;
'the Christians are hardly a b l e to a c c o m p l i s h it: they h a v e b e e n already far t o o l o n g
"just C h r i s t i a n s ' " ( J e s u s als Brandstifter-Christus als Brandloscher' in I. Fetscher
( e d . ) , Marxisten und die Sache Jesu ( M i i n c h e n , 1974), p p . 62ff). C p . K . Farner,
Theologie des Kommunismus? (Frankfurt, 1969).
3 9 5
L . Kofler, 'Jesus u n d die O h n m a c h t ' , in Fetscher, Marxisten, p . 50. W h i l e Engels
h a d c o m p a r e d early C h r i s t e n d o m w i t h the p r e - M a r x i s t c o m m u n i s t societies o f the
early nineteenth century it is Kofler w h o sees Christ - he c o n s i d e r e d it as irrelevant
w h e t h e r he actually lived o r not - in the line o f those w h o p r o c l a i m e d 'total protest'
( p . 49), a line w h i c h culminates in a n a r c h i s m : 'it is for this reason that T o l s t o i c o u l d
b e a Christian and an A n a r c h i s t at the same time' ( p . 49). T h e total Ohnmacht
(helplessness) felt b y 'Christ' led to resistance to the established o r d e r , to
a b s t i n e n c e from it, to o p t i n g out entirely (Verweigerung). T h u s Christ is the e x p o n e n t
o f rebellion w h i c h is not at all identical with a revolution w h i c h is c o n s c i o u s o f its
a i m s . T h e use o f the n a m e 'Christ as a m o t t o in the m o d e r n political struggle is
therefore an indication o f the e m o t i o n a l , unreflected and non-rational character o f
the rebellion initially signalised b y that n a m e ( p . 52). T h i s is a caveat from the
M a r x i s t side w h i c h indicates the limits o f their appreciation o f early C h r i s t e n d o m .
T h e o b s e r v a t i o n , a l t h o u g h c o u c h e d in sociological language, is not without certain
grains o f truth.
3 9 6
A . T . v a n L e e u w e n , Revolution als Hoffnung (Stuttgart, 1970), p . 213.
3 9 7
R . Shaull in C . O g l e s b y a n d R . Shaull, Containment and Change ( N e w Y o r k , 1967), p .
238. F o r a critique from the side o f o r t h o d o x M a r x i s m c p . I. B a u e r a n d A . Liepert,
Die 'grosse Wende' des Roger Garaudy (Frankfurt, 1971), p p . 59ff, I32f, a n d , not
altogether different, C . O r d n u n g , Christ und Revolution. Theologische Konzeptionen
zwischen Desorientierung und Wegweisung (Berlin, 1974), p p . 42ff.
3 9 8
J . C o m b l i n , Theologie de la revolution (Paris, 1970). T h e term had already been c o i n e d
b y M . S c h r o t e r in 1964 ( c p . E . Feil a n d R . W e t h , Diskussion zur Theologie der
Revolution ( M u n c h e n / M a i n z , 1969), p . 291). C o m b l i n ' s w o r k w a s hailed b y
G a r a u d y ; the idea o f the nearness o f G o d in Christ appeals to h i m and he goes s o far
as to d e s c r i b e Christianity as a 'religion o f a c t i o n ' and indeed d e c i s i o n , and tojustify
'militant a c t i o n ' from this basis (De VAnatheme au Dialogue (Paris, 1965), G T in R .
G a r a u d y , J. B . M e t z a n d K . R a h n e r , Der Dialog ( H a m b u r g , 1966), p . 51 ( E T , b a s e d
o n G T ( L o n d o n , 1967), p . 46)); G a r a u d y , LAlternative, p . 118 ( G T p . i n ; E T
P- 96).
3 9 9
H . Peukert ( e d . ) , Diskussion zur politischen Theologie ( M a i n z , 1969).
 T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon 6 3

400 401
the w o r l d , a theology o f liberation, in the search for a liberation o f
402
theology. W h a t is typical for these designs which began to flourish at
about the same time is the attempt to give them a wider basis: in the exodus
403
which is viewed as an act o f legitimate disobedience, in phenomena o f
church history from J o a c h i m to Miintzer, in a covenant revelation, that
404
means in progressive revelation, in Jewish messianism, in Hegel's
405
philosophy o f history in the guise o f E. B l o c h , in the heritage o f natural
406
theology, while the reflection on Jesus plays only a minor role. It is typical
for this approach that its leaders, Moltmann and Metz, are heavily
indebted to the influence o f Federal theology and Aristotelian Thomistic
theology respectively.
407
M o l t m a n n deals with the question of Jesus's own position at length,
408 409
follows H e n g e l and is inclined to part with Brandon's Zealot theory,
410
while resurrecting a political theology for other reasons and claiming
that Christian theology postulates the 'Abbau politischer
411
Herrschaftsverhaltnisse', the destruction o f political power structures,

400
J. B. M e t z , Zur Theologie der Welt ( M a i n z / M u n c h e n , 1968; E T L o n d o n , 1969). M e t z
describes Jesus as a 'revolutionary w h o c o m e s , in action and suffering, into conflict
with the establishment' (Dialog, p p . 1261) and attributes to early C h r i s t e n d o m an
expectation w h i c h is p u g n a c i o u s (kdmpferisch) and w h i c h aims at the transformation
o f this w o r l d ; Christian h o p e is creative, it is to be d e s c r i b e d as ' p r o d u c t i v e
e s c h a t o l o g y ' . O n the other hand, he protests against the taking o f political t h e o l o g y
just as an ' i d e o l o g i c a l paraphrase o f progressivism' ( p . 129) and professes the
Christian task to 'deritualize' the progressive i d e o l o g y ( p . 130). T h i s t h e o l o g y is not
u n a w a r e o f the need for justification vis-a-vis Christ, without, h o w e v e r , b e i n g able to
give c o n c r e t e expression to this awareness. It is s y m p t o m a t i c that o n l y such
c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the Diskussion zur politischen T h e o l o g i e w h i c h take u p a critical
position ( H . M a i e r in Peukert, Diskussion, p . 8; W . Pannenberg, ibid., p p . 232ff)
refer to d o m i n i c a l sayings as p r o v i d i n g a n o r m .
4 0 1
G . Gutierrez, Theologia de la Liberacion ( S a l a m a n c a , 1972; E T L o n d o n , 1974; G T
M i i n c h e n / M a i n z , 1973).
4 0 2
J. L . S e g u n d o , Liberacion de la teologia ( B u e n o s Aires, 1975).
4 0 3
C o m b l i n , Theologie.
^J. M o l t m a n n , Theologie der Hoffnung ( M i i n c h e n , 1964), p p . 85ff; E T L o n d o n , 1967,
PP- 95ff-
^ M o l t m a n n , Theologie, p p . 3 i 6 f .
4 0 6
M e t z , Theologie; c p . G . Bauer, Christliche Hoffnung und menschlicher Fortschritt. Die
politische Theologie von J. B. Metz als theol. Begriindung gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung
( M a i n z , 1976).
4 0 7
Der gekreuzigte Gott ( M i i n c h e n , 1972), p p . 1 igff ( E T L o n d o n , 1974, p p . i37ff).
4 0 8
War Jesus Revolutionary (Stuttgart, 1970); 'Christus und die M a c h t ' in E. Kellner,
Christliche Politik ( W i e n , 1976), p p . i7ff. C p . , h o w e v e r , M o l t m a n n ' s qualification,
Gott, p . 135, note 59.
409
Ibid. p p . i33ff ( E T p p . 130.fi).
4 , 0
Ibid. p p . 293ff ( E T p p . 317!^).
4 1 1
I b i d . p . 304 ( E T p . 328 d o e s not give an adequate r e n d e r i n g ) . H e goes so far as to
say that the c o n d e m n a t i o n o f j e s u s in the n a m e o f the political authority o f the d a y
deprives such authorities o f their credibility: 'Political rule can o n l y b e justified
" f r o m b e l o w " ' ( p . 305; E T p . 328).
64 E. BAMMEL

412
and leaving open the way in which this liberation is to be achieved.
In South America itself a leap was felt to be necessary from a theology
which appeared so traditional that its values could hardly be brought to
413
life. North American influences, stemming from Niebuhr and his p u p i l s
on the one hand and from Bonhoffer on the other, had given some
preparation, when the revolutionary situation caused an eager appropria­
tion o f intellectual structures provided by Marxism and sophisticated
414
theologies mainly o f German p r o v e n a n c e .
Brandon's theory was picked up quickly in order to provide a biblical
basis for activism. M . Dutheil became the protagonist o f this approach in
415
South A m e r i c a . It is however significant that, partly under the influence
of Cullmann, this approach soon faltered. G. Gutierrez, while denying the
apolitical character o f the message ofjesus most emphatically, and drawing
out political connotations and dimensions to the maximum, comes to the
conclusion that 'the Zealots were not mistaken in feeling that Jesus was
416
simultaneously near and far a w a y ' - a sentence which indicates the
direction o f his search and the extent to which he is intrigued by Eisler and
417
Brandon. O n the one hand the measure o f agreement is emphasised and
Jesus's points o f departure are characterised by the phrase 'even more
418
revolutionary than the Z e a l o t s ' ; on the other hand the non-violent
aspects o f this activity are stressed and a theology of revolution - revolution
419
properly s p e a k i n g - i s treated with great reserve. J. Miguez Bonino, while
admitting that Jesus 'did not enroll himself with the Zealots' - 'for whatever
reason' - 'contends that he left no doubts about whether he was on the side
of the p o o r and oppressed or the power structures (religious and political)

4 . 2
After h a v i n g attempted to dissociate Christian e s c h a t o l o g y from any p h i l o s o p h y o f
history, he falls prey to the d a n g e r o f millenarianism w h i c h he himself h a d
previously attacked (Theologie, p p . 21 off; E T L o n d o n , 1967, p p . 230ft).
4 . 3
C p . A . P. N e e l y , 'Protestant A n t e c e d e n t s o f the Latin A m e r i c a n T h e o l o g y o f
L i b e r a t i o n ' ( D i s s . A m e r i c a n University, W a s h i n g t o n , 1977).
4 . 4
F o r general information c p . F. Siebeneichler, ' C a t o l i c i s m o p o p u l a r - P e n t e c o s -
t i s m o ' , Kirche: Religion in Lateinamerika (Frankfurt, 1976); S. W i e d e n h o f e r , Politische
Theologie (Stuttgart, 1976); A . Blatezky, Sprache des Glaubens in Lateinamerika
(Frankfurt, 1978); E. Dussel, History and the Theology of Liberation ( N e w Y o r k , 1976);
R . Gibellini, Frontiers of Theology in Latin America ( L o n d o n , 1980); M . H o f m a n n ,
Identifikation mit dem Anderen ( G o t t i n g e n , 1978); L . Boff, ' D a s A n l i e g e n d e r
Befreiungstheologie' in Theologische Berichte 8 ( Z u r i c h , 1979), 7ifT. M o r p h o l o g i c a l l y
not w i t h o u t parallels to the theology o f G e r m a n Christians, liberation t h e o l o g y
m a y , h o w e v e r , last longer a n d d e v e l o p differently b e c a u s e the external factors w o r k
rather in its favour than against it.
4 1 5
'El C r i s t o d e la n a t i o n y el C r i s t o del T e m p l o ' , in La fe,fuerza historica ( B a r c e l o n a ,
W O -
4 1 6
A Theology of Liberation, E T ( L o n d o n , 1974), p . 231 ( G T p . 223).
4 , 7
Ibid., p p . 226f, 245 ( G T p p . 2161).
4 1 8
I b i d . , p . 227 ( G T p . 217).
4 1 9
I b i d . , p . 250 ( G T p . 230).
 T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon 65
420
o f his t i m e ' , and he is able to deduce a justification o f violence from
421
Jesus's position. J. Sobrino states: Jesus 'shared some o f the basic views
422 423
and outlooks o f the Z e a l o t s ' , but adds important qualifications. The
outcome of the consideration of this historical problem is -mutatis mutandis-
not very different from the state o f discussion in Europe, and adds some
weight to the observation that the call for an indigenous theology has not
made much headway so far: Tor the m o m e n t . . . the theology o f liberation
424
has not offered any improvement on the current slogans'.
Symptomatic is the uneasiness about 'the lack o f any sense o f crisis about
425
the meaning o f C h r i s t ' and the attempt to draw out certain features in the
life o f j e s u s and to link them with other phenomena. So declares Fierro:
Jesus's confrontation with the powers o f his day is just as much a
paradigmatic history as the Exodus story; it 'includes a theology o f
426
messianism'.
427 428
T h e incorporation o f the Exodus motif, o f the prophetic criticism, of
429 430
the messianic longing for a new order, and the interest in John the Baptist,
431
provide the basis for the weaving o f a 'mythistory' o f a new kind that
becomes evocative for the man of today and enables him to proceed on what
432
is called engagingly the 'long m a r c h ' . It is in this context that M a r x is
433
viewed as standing in the tradition o f the O l d Testament prophets. Other
representatives o f liberation theology prefer to speak o f messianic

4 2 0
Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation ( U . K . title Revolutionary Theology Comes of
Age) ( P h i l a d e l p h i a / L o n d o n , 1975), p p . i22f.
4 2 1
I b i d . , p p . 117f; c p . p p . 125, 128.
4 2 2
J . S o b r i n o , Cristologia desde america latine ( R i o H o n d o , 1976; E T Theology at the
Crossroads, L o n d o n , 1978), p . 212.
4 2 3
I b i d . p p . 3691": an alternative to Z e a l o t i s m .
4 2 4
H . A s s m a n n , Practical Theology of Liberation ( L o n d o n , 1975 ( p u b l i s h e d in M a r y
K n o l l u n d e r the title Theology for a Nomad Church) — Teologia desde la praxis de la
liberacion, S a l a m a n c a , 1973), p . 76.
4 2 5
S o b r i n o , Cristologia, p . 2.
4 2 6
A . Fierro, El evangelio beligerante (Estella, 1974; E T The Militant Gospel,
L o n d o n , 1977), p . 160. Fierro writes in Spain, but is in close c o n t a c t with South
America.
4 2 7
J . S e v e r i n o Croatta, Liberaciony Libertad ( B u e n o s Aires, 1973).
428 M i g u e z B o n i n o , ' V i o l e n c e and L i b e r a t i o n ' in Christianity and Crisis 32 (1972), i68ff.
T h i s w a s sharply criticised b y K . L e h m a n n in 'Diskussion zur politischen
T h e o l o g i e ' , p . 193, and in K . L e h m a n n ( e d . ) , Theologie der Befreiung (Einsiedeln,
1977).
4 2 9
R . Shaull, ' T h e o l o g y and the T r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f Society' in Theology Today 25
(1968), 25.
4 3 0
N o t c o m p l e t e l y n e w : R a g a z had already pointed to this 'missing link' b e t w e e n O . T .
and N . T . revolutionary p r o p h e t i s m (Die Bibel. Eine Deutung I V , 1948, p . 102).
4 3 1
Fierro, Militant Gospel, p . 170.
4 3 2
H . G o l l w i t z e r in Feil a n d W e t h , Diskussion, p . 43.
4 3 3
M i g u e z B o n i n o , Christians and Marxists ( G r a n d R a p i d s a n d L o n d o n , 1976),
p p . 68f.
66 E. BAMMEL

434 435
presence or messianic humanism. T h e example o f j e s u s , directly or
436
indirectly, is o f varied importance. It becomes, however, central again
where suffering instead of revolutionary action is seen as the task o f the day.
T h e tendencies are outflanked by the challenge to dispose o f the
437
theologischer Mehrwert o f the theology o f revolution. This is directed against
the attempt to distil any direct advice from the teachings o f j e s u s , against
any rapid application o f his teaching, and instead suggests taking the way
ofjesus as a historical project which may function as a simile, working as a
438
factor in the process o f what is called 'socializing an entity'. T h e bible and
439
especially Jesus himself serve as a s y m b o l which evoke reflection on
present-day tasks. It is true, the historical dimension is thus maintained.
There is no hesitation in stating that Jesus is not completely identical, with
440
the political struggle of our d a y s . T h e identification with actual problems
under the motto 'Christ the revolutionary' or even 'Christ among the Poor'
441
is admitted to be short-sighted. It is the combination o f distance and
practicability that is striking in this approach. What wins victory is
serviceability for the strife: only such features in Jesus's way o f life as make a
contribution in one way or another speak to the revolutionary man.
442 443
T h e oscillation between eschatological and historical justification o f

4 3 4
P. L e h m a n n in Feil and W e i t h , Diskussion, p . 183. A n exegetical basis for this is
given b y J. P. M i r a n d a , Being and the Messiah. The Message of St John ( M a r y K n o l l ,
1977).
4 3 5
R . A l v e s , A Theology of Human Hope ( W a s h i n g t o n , 1969), p . 98.
436 M i g u e z c o n c l u d e s his Revolutionary Theology Comes of Age with the famous sentence
with w h i c h Schweitzer b r o u g h t to an e n d his Quest ( p . 174).
4 3 7
L . O s s a , Die Revolution - das ist ein Euch und ein freier Mensch. Zur Inkulturation des
Christentums in Lateinamerika ( H a m b u r g , 1973) p . 164.
4 3 8
I b i d . p . 151. T h e realisation that the present time is not to b e u n d e r v a l u e d in
relation to a post-revolutionary future ( p p . 1491) serves as an e x a m p l e for the
efficacy o f the c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f Jesus's w a y .
4 3 9
I b i d . p . 81.
4 4 0
' E i n gleichzeitiger, w e n n a u c h politischer Christus praesens musste s t u m m b l e i b e n ,
d a er nur d i e Gestalt der g e g e n w a r t i g e n Ideale darstellt, die seine Vertreter in ihn
projizieren' ( O s s a , Revolution, p . 147).
4 4 1
W h a t is the nature o f the difference? Is it the distance a revolutionary has to keep
vis-a-vis his less perceptive followers? T h e r e is something in this c o m p a r i s o n ,
a l t h o u g h its value is restricted b y the fact that it was not in a superficial w a y that
J e s u s intervened in the struggle o f his time. Instead, he a i m e d at the greater
Steuem.ngskapaz.itdt ( c a p a c i t y for self-determination) o f m e n . C p . J . G . D a v i e s ,
Christians, Politics and violent Revolution ( L o n d o n , 1976), p . 101.
4 4 2
C p . p . 58. C p . also H . M c C a b e : ' E v e r y revolution w h i c h deals with structure less
ultimate than this (death) is an i m a g e of, and a preparation for, the resurrection o f
the d e a d . T h e C u b a n or V i e t n a m e s e revolution is a type o f the resurrection in the
sense that w e speak o f O l d T e s t a m e n t events as types o f Christ' (Law, Love and
Language ( L o n d o n , 1968), p p . 133Q.
4 4 3
T h u s R . F. Smith, 'Eine T h e o l o g i e d e r R e b e l l i o n ' (in Feil a n d W e t h , Diskussion,
p p . 1590) claims that there is an affinity b e t w e e n J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n and rebellious
mentality. P. L . L e h m a n n sees Jesus as an offshoot o f this heritage (Feil and W e t h ,
 T h e revolution theory from Reimarus to Brandon 67

revolution is a feature which distracts from the main point, from the fact
that the whole attention o f these advocates o f change is devoted to the
present situation. Not only is it significant that this situation is given the
444
one-sided description 'revolutionary'; it is more revealing that the
criteria for reflection are taken from what appears to be the revolu­
tionary process. This process becomes the xaiQog, in which G o d is
found, it is on the verge o f becoming, so to speak, a source o f revelation
445
itself.
This sentiment - prepared already by the lack o f an objective foundation
446
in the Bultmannian t h e o l o g y - is a pervasive undercurrent, while
secondary questions like the one on violence versus non-violence are openly
447
discussed. It was unavoidable in the logic o f the process that the linkage
with the past, even with the historical Jesus, proved to be too tenuous to
last. Thus R. F. Smith turns against seeing as absolute an event o f the past
448
or o f the future.
L. Ossa tends to reduce the relevance o f j e s u s to those features in him
449
which may serve as mirroring the political and social process. J. H . C o n e
mocks at the emphasis on the humanity o f Christ as the attitude o f black
450
slaves. It is only a case o f drawing the consequences o f this, when the
451
reference to 'historical texts' is rejected with contempt and the relevance
452
o f the church is seen as entirely conditioned by its functioning in society.

Diskussion, p . 176). R e l i a n c e o n the J e w i s h heritage is a p h e n o m e n o n parallel to the

J e w i s h design to enlist Jesus in the J e w i s h p a n t h e o n .
4 4 4
J . M o l t m a n n , ' G o t t in d e r R e v o l u t i o n ' (in Feil and W e t h , Diskussion, p . 82).
4 4 5
C p . A . R i c h , ' R e v o l u t i o n als theologisches P r o b l e m ' (Feil a n d W e t h , Diskussion,
p . 142).
^ A d m i t t e d b y B u l t m a n n himself; c p . E. B u s c h , Karl Barths Lebenslauf ( M i i n c h e n
!975)> P- 403; ( E T L o n d o n , 1976, p . 389).
4 4 7
C p . M . H e n g e l , Gewaltund Gewaltlosigkeit (Stuttgart, 1971, E T Philadelphia, 1973;
L o n d o n , 1975); D a v i e s , Christians; A . K e e , A Reader in Political Theology ( L o n d o n ,
1974), p p . 136fT; J. Ellul, Violence ( L o n d o n 1970); N . N . , Violence in Southern Africa. A
Christian Assessment ( L o n d o n , 1970).
4 4 8
In Feil a n d W e t h , Diskussion, p . 170.
m
Die Revolution, p p . i42f.
4 5 0
Black Theology, p . 119.
4 5 1
W . D . B u c k o w , Das Elend der sozialistischen Opposition in der Kirche ( M i i n c h e n , 1969),
p . 115.
4 5 2
B u c k o w , Das Elend, p p . 99, 105f. C l e a g e is ready and eager to m a k e use o f the c h u r c h
as a basis for the b u i l d i n g o f ' B l a c k counterinstitutions' ( p p . 2271). H e rejoices in the
g r o u p experience, in the ' i n c a r n a t i o n ' a c c o m p l i s h e d in it ( p . 254). H e feels uneasy,
h o w e v e r , a b o u t the term ' c h u r c h ' and w o u l d like to replace it b y 'Black nation' ( p .
134; c p . p p . 240, 2461). T h e c h u r c h is, if anything, a cadre like the disciples, w h o
were trained b y Jesus to serve as cadres c o m m i t t e d to the revolution ( p . 221). T h e
message o f that institution w o u l d e m e r g e from the Black experience, its task w o u l d
b e the liberation o f the Black w o r l d rather than salvation, let alone an a p p e a l to the
individual (the animosity against the 'protestant heresy' o f individualism is very
strong; p p . 7of, 189, 251, 254 e t c . ) .
68 E. BAMMEL

Whether arising from contempt or not, from disregard or quiet moving

away - the tendency indicates the extent o f the inclination just to listen to
the voice o f the day, a tendency which may recall the saying: 'what shall it
453
profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own s o u l ? '

4 5 3
B r a n d o n ' s theory has recently b e e n taken u p b y G . Luling. H e sees the Passover
m e a l o f j e s u s as the initiatory rite for a holy w a r a n d interprets especially the
d i p p i n g o f h a n d s as a rite o f swearing in o f conspirators (Verschwdrungsritus) ( ' D a s
P a s s a h l a m m u n d die altarabische " M u t t e r der B l u t r a c h e " , d i e H y a n e , ZRGG 34
(1982), especially p . 141, 144-6). F o r a criticism o f B r a n d o n c p . J. H a d o t , Histoire
des Origines du Christianisme, Jesus et les Zelotes. Etude critique des theses de S. Brandon
(Brussels, 1977).
 F. F. B R U C E

The date and character of Mark

' T h e Gospel o f Mark' is our designation, but it is not Mark's: he sets out to
relate what he calls 'the gospel o f j e s u s Christ, the Son o f G o d ' , a gospel
which begins with the ministry of John the Baptist. John's ministry marked
the beginning o f the fulfilment o f those wide areas o f Hebrew prophecy
which looked forward to the consummation o f Yahweh's saving work on
earth. Jesus, introduced in the context o f j o h n ' s ministry, is the one through
w h o m this saving work is accomplished. His designation as Son o f G o d in
1
the prooemium is not textually certain, but no doubt o f his identity is left by
the heavenly voice which addresses him at his baptism, ' Y o u are my
beloved Son . . .' (Mark i: n ) , and acclaims him at the transfiguration,
'This is my beloved Son; listen to him' (Mark 9: 7 ) . At the end o f Mark's
narrative, where we might expect to hear a similar affirmation, we d o
indeed hear it, but not from heaven: it is voiced at the cross by the most
unlikely of the dramatis personae there. T h e Roman centurion, hearing Jesus's
last shout and seeing the manner of his death, says, 'Truly this man was the
Son o f God!' (Mark 1 5 : 3 9 ) .
Otherwise Jesus is hailed as Son o f G o d only by the demon-possessed,
w h o might be presumed to have some contact with the wider knowledge
2
available in the spirit-world (cp. Mark 5 : 7 ) . T h e disciples d o not speak to
him in these terms, and Jesus makes no such claim himself - not, at least,
until his appearance before the Sanhedrin. There, in answer to the high
priest's question, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son o f the Blessed?' he replies,
'I am'; but immediately recasts the words into those of his own choice: 'you
will see the Son o f man sitting at the right hand o f Power, and coming with
the clouds o f heaven' (Mark 1 4 : 6 1 1 ) .
In other words, says Mark, Jesus was indeed the Son o f G o d , but he
preferred to speak o f himself as the Son o f man - not by way o f antithesis,
but because the designation 'the Son o f man' provided a more suitable

1
In M a r k 1: 1 'Son o f G o d ' is o m i t t e d after J e s u s Christ' b y 8 * 0 28 and a n u m b e r o f
other witnesses. It is retained in N E B 'in view o f its strong attestation ( m o s t o f the
ancient G r e e k M S S and all the Latin e v i d e n c e ) and as in keeping with the " S o n o f
G o d " C h r i s t o l o g y o f M a r k ' ( R . V . G . Tasker, The Greek New Testament ( C a m b r i d g e
and O x f o r d , 1966), 413).
2
C p . M a r k 1: 24 ('the H o l y O n e o f G o d ' ) . T h e M a t t h a e a n addition o f ' t h e S o n o f the
living G o d ' to Peter's confession ( M a t t . 16: 16) is absent from M a r k 8:29.

69
70 F. F. BRUCE

vehicle for what he wished to convey about his person and mission than
'Son o f G o d ' or even 'messiah' would provide.

II
T h e story ofjesus, as told in the Gospel of Mark, takes the primafacie form o f
a continuous narrative, falling into a few well-defined divisions:
(a) Introduction: the baptism and the temptation ( i : i—13)
(b) T h e Galilaean ministry ( 1 : 1 4 to 9: 5 0 )
(c) T h e road to Jerusalem ( 1 0 : 1 - 5 2 )
(d) T h e Jerusalem ministry ( 1 1 : 1 to 1 3 : 3 7 )
(e) T h e passion narrative ( 1 4 : 1 to 1 5 : 4 7 )
(J) T h e empty t o m b ( 1 6 : 1-8)
But the appearance o f continuity could be due in large measure to the
evangelist himself. T h e passion narrative, it is generally conceded, was
handed d o w n in Christian tradition as a self-contained unit: this is implied,
for example, in Paul's remark that, on each occasion when the memorial
bread and cup were taken, the story of'the Lord's death' was recited (1 C o r .
1 1 : 2 6 ) . It should probably be added that Mark's general outline of Jesus's
movements was also handed down in the tradition and indeed corres­
ponded to historical fact, for he did teach in Galilee, he did meet his death in
Jerusalem, and however frequently he journeyed from Galilee to Jerusalem,
one such journey must have been the last, and that journey may well have
taken in a Peraean ministry, as is implied in Mark 10: 1. Moreover, that the
closing phase o f his Galilaean ministry included the feeding o f a multitude,
followed not long afterwards by a crucial acknowledgement o f his identity
by Peter, is attested in the narrative o f the~tk>spel of John, which represents
3
a quite independent stream o f transmission.
While Mark's Gospel consists almost entirely o f narrative, two bodies o f
discourse material are incorporated into the contexts o f the Galilaean and
Jerusalem ministries respectively: the parables o f the kingdom in the former
(4:1-34) and the Olivet prophecy in the latter ( 1 3 : 3 - 3 7 ) . It is not
unreasonable to expect that these discourses may illuminate the evangel­
ist's understanding o f the accompanying narrative.
W h e n we come to the detailed material within the broad divisions o f the
narrative, such sequence as may be traced is probably topical and literary
rather than chronological and continuous. T h e day is long since past when
Mark's record could be regarded as so consecutive and watertight that a
piece o f non-Markan gospel tradition which could not be fitted into that
4
record must be written off as unhistorical.

3
J o h n 6: 1-14, 66-71.
4
Cp. F. C . Burkitt's c o m m e n t s o n the historicity o f the narrative o f the raising o f
 T h e date and character o f Mark 71

T h e death-blow was given to this assessment o f Mark's narrative in 1 9 1 9

by K . L. Schmidt, whose Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin, 1 9 1 9 )
presented his narrative as comprising independentpericopae, transmitted as
separate units in primitive Christian tradition and arranged in their
Markan order by the evangelist himself, w h o linked them together with
5
short editorial summaries. While Schmidt's thesis greatly influenced later
interpreters o f Mark like A . E.J. Rawlinson, it is butjust to recall that many
o f his main emphases were anticipated by Allan Menzies, w h o in The
Earliest Gospel ( 1 9 0 2 ) expressed the view that what the tradition preserved
consisted of detached incidents and sayings; the historical connections were
forgotten. Some attempts to collect incidents and sayings together were
probably made before Mark wrote his Gospel, but Mark, so far as we know,
was the first 'to gather the narrative about Jesus together into a connected
history'. T o 'find the cord on which all these pearls were to be placed' and to
'fix their proper position on that cord' he 'must have been guided by one
w h o knew the life o f j e s u s not only as a set o f isolated stories but as a
6
connected whole inspired by a growing purpose'. In this last hypothesis
Menzies differs from most o f those w h o have more recently interpreted
Mark in terms o f form-criticism and redaction-criticism: at times, they
allow, tradition may g o back to eye-witness testimony but the idea that
redactional material should have a historical basis is so far out of the question
as hardly to be considered. Yet if an author, weaving independent units into
a connected narrative, had some independent knowledge o f the general
course o f events, there was no reason why he should not make use o f that
7
knowledge.
C . H . D o d d in 1932 endeavoured to demonstrate that K . L. Schmidt's
editorial summaries, when placed together, formed such a consecutive
outline o f the Gospel story as could be traced here and there in the New
8
Testament epistles and in some o f the speeches recorded in A c t s . His
demonstration covered only the section from the beginning of the Galilaean
ministry to the return o f the Twelve from their mission (Mark 1: 1 4 to 6:
9
3 0 ) , and was subjected to searching criticism in 1 9 5 5 by D . E. Nineham.

Lazarus in The Gospel History and its Transmission (3rd edn., E d i n b u r g h , 1911),
p p . 22 iff. C p . also J. A T . R o b i n s o n , b e l o w p p . 453-76.
5
K . L . S c h m i d t , Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin, 1919), p p . i 8 f f ^ passim.
6
A . M e n z i e s , The Earliest Gospel ( L o n d o n , 1902), p p . 27, 29.
7
T . W . M a n s o n goes farther: 'the title o f the M a r c a n framework to b e regarded as
respectable historical material is as g o o d as that o f any detailed story in the G o s p e l '
(Studies in the Gospels and Epistles ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1962), p . 6).
8
' T h e F r a m e w o r k o f the G o s p e l Narrative', ExpT 43 (1931-2), 396ff; reprinted in
New Testament Studies ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1953), p p . iff.
9
' T h e O r d e r o f Events in St M a r k ' s G o s p e l - an E x a m i n a t i o n o f D r D o d d ' s
H y p o t h e s i s ' , Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, e d . D . E.
N i n e h a m ( O x f o r d , 1955), p p . 223ft.
72 F. F. BRUCE

Professor Nineham doubted if any Sitz im Leben could plausibly be posited to

account for the preservation o f a skeleton outline o f the ministry. His
criticism o f Professor D o d d ' s thesis cannot be lightly ignored, but it would
probably be less telling against the earlier thesis o f Allan Menzies:
individuals - and here we may think either o f Mark himself or an older
informant - d o remember the general course o f events which have taken
place within their knowledge, even (or indeed especially) forty years before,
although they may find it difficult to say when or where certain incidents
took place or certain words were spoken. Historical or chronological
curiosity, which is commonly denied to the early Christians, does not enter
into such a situation.

Ill

W e cannot pronounce on Mark's sources with anything like the confidence

that characterises much source-criticism o f Matthew and Luke, for one o f
the main sources o f these two later evangelists has been preserved
independently in Mark. Behind Mark we can trace, in addition to the
continuous passion narrative, a collection of controversies and debates ( 2 : 1
1 0 a
to 3: 6 ) and possibly a second such collection ( 1 2 : 1 3 - 3 7 ) , collection o f
parables ( 4 : 1 - 3 4 ) , and the Olivet discourse ( 1 3 : 3 - 3 7 ) , which in its present
form may represent an elaboration o f some verba Christi which first
circulated in written form in A . D . 4 0 , when Caligula's attempt to have his
image erected in the Jerusalem T e m p l e seemed to portend a re-enactment
11
of Daniel's 'abomination o f desolation'.
Mark's record o f the Galilaean ministry includes two parallel series o f
incidents (4: 3 5 to 6: 4 4 and 6: 4 5 to 8: 10) each o f which begins with the
stilling o f a storm on the lake and ends with the feeding of a multitude. ( T h e
second series is missing from Luke's record.) Hilary o f Poitiers suggested
that the two feedings symbolise Jesus's communication o f himself to the
12
Jews and to the Gentiles respectively, and numerical and other elements in
the vocabulary o f the two parallel feeding-narratives have been thought to
13
confirm this suggestion. M o r e important in this regard is the fact that the

1 0
B . S. Easton, noting that the collection o f M a r k 2: 1 to 3: 6 ends with an alliance
b e t w e e n the Pharisees a n d H e r o d i a n s while that o f M a r k 12: 13-37 begins with
such an alliance, suggested that M a r k received the t w o as o n e c o n t i n u o u s collection
w h i c h he d i v i d e d [Christ in the Gospels ( N e w Y o r k , 1930), p . 35). But the life-setting
o f the earlier collection is Galilaean while that o f the latter is in J e r u s a l e m .
11 a r e
B . S. Easton points o u t that w h e n the parallels to M a r k 13 in M a t t . 10: 16-23
e x a m i n e d , s o m e o f the elements in the M a t t h a e a n version are earlier than s o m e in
the M a r k a n version. ' T h e result is o f c o u r s e a p r o b l e m o f great perplexity' [Christ, p .
20).
1 2
Hilary, Comm. in Matthaeum, M i g n e , PL ix. 999Cff, ioo6Aff.
1 3
C p . A . R i c h a r d s o n , The Miracle Stories of the Gospels ( L o n d o n , 1941), p p . 94ff.
 T h e date and character o f Mark 73

second feeding is preceded by a controversy between Jesus and the

Pharisees regarding purificatory customs and other features o f 'the
tradition o f the elders', leading up to a pronouncement in which Jesus
effectively abrogated the Jewish food-laws and 'declared all foods clean'
( 7 : 1 - 2 3 ) . Since the food-laws constituted one o f the principal barriers
between Jews and Gentiles, it is probably more than a coincidence that
Jesus's removal o f this barrier is followed immediately by his healing o f the
Syrophoenician woman's daughter and then by a journey with the disciples
through the Gentile territory north and east of the Lake, during which Jesus
cures a deaf man in the Decapolis w h o has an impediment in his speech.
But in the parallel sequence o f 4: 3 5 to 6: 4 4 Jesus bestows blessing in the
same Gentile regions: the Gerasene demoniac lives in Gentile territory (as
may be gathered from the part played by the herd o f swine in his
neighbourhood), and he tells the story o f his cure throughout the Decapolis
(5: 1-20).
T h e possibility o f Mark's dependence on Q , or on the sayings-collection
14
behind Q , has been discussed by some scholars, but it is practically
impossible to reach any conclusion on this, since Q has no existence save in
the non-Markan material c o m m o n to Matthew and Luke. It is difficult to
talk about Mark's dependence on a postulated document whose primary
characteristic is its non-Markan content.

IV

In the twofold geographical setting o f the Markan record - Galilee in 1: 1 4

to 9: 5 0 and Judaea from chapter 11 onwards, with chapter 10 providing the
transition - theological significance has been discerned. For Mark,
according to Ernst Lohmeyer and others, Galilee is the place o f action and
revelation, and Judaea (specifically Jerusalem) is the place of suffering and
death; hence the disciples have to g o back to Galilee for the revelation o f
1 5
their risen Lord (Mark 1 6 : 7 ) . If there is any theological significance in
these geographical data, it rests upon historical fact: Galilee was, after all,
the main area o f Jesus's public ministry, and Jerusalem was the place where
he was crucified.
Lohmeyer's view that Jesus's instruction to the disciples to meet him in
Galilee (Mark 1 4 : 28; 1 6 : 7 ) points to the expectation of his parousia there is
elaborated by Willi Marxsen, w h o links this instruction with Mark 1 3 : 1 4 ,
where the setting up o f the 'abomination of desolation' is the signal for those
in Judaea to 'flee to the mountains'. This is identified with the oracle

1 4
C p . Easton, Christ, p p . 19X
1 5
E. L o h m e y e r , Galilda und Jerusalem ( G o t t i n g e n , 1936), p p . iofT; R . H . Lightfoot,
Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels ( L o n d o n , 1938), p p . 59^, io6ff.
74 F. F. BRUCE

mentioned by Eusebius (H.E. iii. 5. 3) in accordance with which the church

o f Jerusalem migrated to Pella before the siege o f their home city began. As
Marxsen interprets this, Mark thought o f Pella as belonging to the general
area o f Galilee and, publishing his Gospel in Galilee, intended his readers
to take the angel's words in 1 6 : 7, 'there you will see him', as a promise that
16
the glorious coming o f the Son o f man ( 1 3 : 26) would be witnessed there.
There may, in fact, be more o f a deliberate contrast between Galilee and
the wilderness than between Galilee and Judaea. T h e wilderness was the
scene o f J o h n ' s ministry but for Jesus it was the scene o f temptation, not
ministry. For his ministry he turned his back on the wilderness (with its
Zealot associations?) and proclaimed the good news o f the kingdom o f G o d
17
in the populous and fertile region o f Galilee.
But so far as the theme o f revelation is concerned, no revelatory moment
in Galilee communicates so much o f the truth o f the Gospel as does Mark's
account o f what happened at the moment of Jesus's death.

T h e present arrangement o f the gospel material is generally held to be the

evangelist's own work. But Harald Riesenfeld has pointed out that this
'historically stylised' arrangement is crossed or overlaid by another, which
he describes as 'theologically systematic', in which the two main divisions
are:
(a) T h e Son o f man and Israel's call ( 1 : 1 4 to 8: 26)
(b) T h e Messiah as teacher^and prophet ( 8 : 2 7 to 1 3 : 3 7 )
The second of these falls into two subdivisions, the former of
which ( 8 : 2 7 to 1 0 : 5 2 ) , beginning with the Caesarea Philippi and
transfiguration incidents, goes on to describe Jesus's training o f the
disciples, with the situation o f the post-Easter and post-Pentecost church in

1 6
W . M a r x s e n , Der Evangelist Markus ( G o t t i n g e n , 1959), p p . 73flf. T h e L o h m e y e r -
M a r x s e n line, a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h M a r k 16: 7 points to the parousia and not (as
M a t t h e w u n d e r s t o o d ) to a resurrection a p p e a r a n c e o f Christ in Galilee, is specially
associated with the v i e w (held also b y s o m e w h o d o not follow that line) that M a r k
16:8 is the original and d e s i g n e d end o f the G o s p e l . Despite all the e v i d e n c e
a d d u c e d to s h o w that literary units c o u l d e n d with y&Q ( c p . , e.g., Lightfoot, Locality,
p p . iff; P. W . van der H o r s t , ' C a n a b o o k end with y&Q? A note o n M a r k X V I . 8',
JThSt n.s. 23 (1972), i72ff), I find it extremely difficult to believe that M a r k
intended to c o n c l u d e his record at this p o i n t .
1 7
A different v i e w is expressed b y U . M a u s e r , w h o finds that in M a r k , as in the O l d
T e s t a m e n t , the wilderness is 'the p l a c e o f G o d ' s mighty acts, significant for all
believers o f all times and all p l a c e s ' (Wilderness, p . 14). A c c o r d i n g to h i m , it is L u k e
w h o treats the wilderness as 'a t o p o g r a p h i c a l s y m b o l for the o l d e p o c h w h i c h is
superseded b y J e s u s ' ( p . 148); c p . H . C o n z e l m a n n , The Theology of St Luke ( E T
L o n d o n , i960), p . 27.
 The date and character o f Mark 75

mind, while the latter ( n : i to 1 3 : 3 7 ) , beginning with Jesus's entry into

Jerusalem, goes on to deal with his teaching in the capital.
Now this second, theological arrangement, giving expression to the
evangelist's theological outlook, is self-evidently redactional; but if that is
so, then the 'historically stylised' arrangement is probably traditional, part
18
of what Mark 'received'. A n d indeed a severely compressed form o f the
'historically stylised' arrangement may be recognised in the summary o f
Peter's speech in the house o f Cornelius in Acts 1 0 : 3 7 - 4 0 (verse 4 1 is
Lukan, but the preceding outline is mainly traditional). If the outline were
amplified - if, for example, the statement that Jesus 'went about doing good
and healing all that were oppressed by the devil' were illustrated by
instances o f his healing and exorcising activity - we should begin to have
something not unlike the Markan record, 'beginning from Galilee after the
baptism which John preached' and going on to the resurrection
19
announcement. Is it a mere coincidence with the second-century tradition
of the Petrine authority behind Mark's Gospel that this outline should be
ascribed to Peter?

VI
20
This second-century tradition is first attested by Papias, and appears in
another form towards the end o f the century in the anti-Marcionite
21
prologue to this Gospel. Embellishments of it in Irenaeus and later writers
probably have no factual basis independent o f the testimony o f Papias. O n
the authority o f someone to w h o m he refers as 'the elder', Papias reports
that:

Mark had been Peter's interpreter and wrote down accurately all that he
remembered, whether the sayings or the doings of the Lord, but not in
order - for he had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but followed
Peter later on, as I said. Peter was accustomed to teach as occasion
22
required, but not as though he were making a compilation of the

18
R i e s e n f e l d , Tradition ( O x f o r d , 1970), p p . 5 i f .
1 9
C p . C . H . D o d d , Apostolic Preaching, p p . 53H".
2 0
Q u o t e d b y E u s e b i u s , HE iii 39. 15. It m a y b e that o n l y the first part o f the q u o t a t i o n
c o m e s from 'the elder' a n d that the rest, from ' b u t not in o r d e r ' o n w a r d s , is
Papias's c o m m e n t .
2 1
C o n v e n i e n t l y accessible in H . G r e e v e n ' s revision o f A . H u c k , Synopsis of the First
Three Gospels ( T u b i n g e n , 1981), p . ix; but note G r e e v e n ' s reference in loco to J. R e g u l ,
Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe (Freiburg, 1969).
2 2 e a u t E A n a c
G k . JIQOS t a g X Q ^ 5 - B XQ ^ » also the technical rhetorical sense o f 'a
concise and pointed a c c o u n t o f something said o r d o n e , attributed to s o m e particular
person o r in keeping with s o m e p e r s o n ' ( T h e o n , Progymnasmata 5 ) , and this m a y b e
the m e a n i n g here. See R . O . P. T a y l o r , The Groundwork of the Gospels ( O x f o r d , 1946),
pp. 75ff; also M . D i b e l i u s , Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums ( T u b i n g e n , 3rd edn.
76 F. F. BRUCE

23
dominical oracles. So M a r k m a d e no mistake in writing d o w n certain
things as he called them to mind; for he paid attention to one thing: to omit
none o f the things he had heard and to make no false statements in any o f
them.

Since Papias derived this information from a man o f the generation

preceding his o w n , it may g o back to the end o f the first century. It was
composed for a purpose which must now be a matter o f speculation -
perhaps to explain why Mark deviates in content and sequence from
Matthew, or even from the recently published gospel of John.
T h e first part o f the anti-Marcionite prologue to Mark is missing; the
surviving portion runs:

. . . (as) was asserted by Mark, w h o was called stump-fingered, because

his fingers were short in proportion to his other bodily dimensions. H e was
Peter's interpreter, and after the departure o f Peter himself he wrote d o w n
this Gospel in the parts o f Italy.

Whatever the reason was for Mark's being called 'stump-fingered'

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

1959), p p . i 5 o f f ( w h e r e the XQtio. is related to the ' p a r a d i g m ' ) ; W . R . F a r m e r ,

' N o t e s o n a Literary a n d Formcritical Analysis o f S o m e o f the S y n o p t i c M a t e r i a l
Peculiar to Luke', NTSt 8 (1961-2), 30iff; especially 307ff.
2 3
G k . ovx (boneg ovvrafciv xti>v xvQiaxwv JIOIOTJIAEVOS Xoyiwv, as ( a c c o r d i n g to
Papias) M a t t h e w d i d (ap. H.E. iii. 39. 16); c p . the title o f Papias's w o r k : Xoyicov
xvoiaxdjv &=rjvTioig (ap. H.E. iii. 39. 1).
2 4
C . H . T u r n e r , ' T h e G o s p e l a c c o r d i n g to St M a r k ' , in A New Commentary on Holy
 T h e date and character o f Mark 77

T . W . Manson, following up this clue, drew up a 'tentative list o f Petrine

paragraphs', comprising those which exhibited 'Turner's mark' along with
others which attached themselves naturally to these. These 'Petrine
paragraphs', he found, fell naturally into two groups - one set against the
Galilaean background, with Capernaum as the principal centre, and the
other covering incidents on the last journey to Jerusalem, with events in
25
Jerusalem during Holy Week up to Jesus's arrest and Peter's denial.
H o w completely foreign this approach is to more recent studies o f Mark
may be seen if we compare it with D . E. Nineham's argument that, since by
general consensus some o f Mark's material 'bears all the signs o f having
been community tradition', it seems 'only logical' to go on and take the
same view about the rest of his material; indeed, in his view all of it bears the
26
same signs. Professor Nineham does not rule out the possibility that some
o f the material might ultimately derive from Peter, but he thinks that the
evidence rules out direct dependence on Peter. Probably we should
recognise sections which bear the signs o f community tradition and others
which bear the signs o f more positive Petrine influence, even if Professor
M a n s o n over-estimated the extent o f the latter.

VII

T . W . M a n s o n took seriously the statement in the anti-Marcionite prologue

that Mark composed his Gospel in Italy after Peter's 'departure'. He
thought, however, that later writers were wrong in thinking that Peter's
'departure' (excessio, probably reflecting Gk. e ^ o 5 o g ) meant his death. He
suggested rather that Peter and Mark visited R o m e between A . D . 5 5 and 60,
that when Peter moved on elsewhere Mark stayed behind (he was still in
R o m e during Paul's period o f house-arrest there, if this is the setting o f
Philem. 2 4 and C o l . 4: 10) and, at the request o f members o f the R o m a n
church, undertook to compile a written record o f what Peter had told them,
amplified by means o f other material to which he had access.
If it be asked if there was any circumstance in the history of early R o m a n
Christianity which would have brought Peter and Mark to R o m e early in
Nero's principate, one answer could be that the church was being
reconstituted then after being dispersed by Claudius's edict expelling the
Jewish community from R o m e , and a visit from the prince o f the apostles
was just what was needed to establish it. Such a visit could explain Paul's
language in R o m . 1 5 : 20 about his reluctance to 'build on another man's

Scripture, e d . C . G o r e etc. ( L o n d o n , 1928), NT, p p . 481; c p . C . H . T u r n e r , ' M a r c a n

Usage', JThSt 25 (1923-4), 3770°; a n d especially 26 (1924-5), p p . 225fT.
2 5
Studies, p p . 4ofT.
2 6
The Gospel of St Mark ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , 1963), p p . 26f.
78 F. F. BRUCE

foundation'. Professor Manson's suggestion - it was no more - involved a

dating for Mark before A . D . 6 0 , 'a few years earlier than is generally thought
27
likely'.
A c o m m o n e r view is that it was composed in A . D . 64 or soon afterwards.
This, o f course, is in line with the traditional interpretation o f Peter's
'departure' as meaning his death, and with the traditional dating o f Peter's
death to the persecution o f the R o m a n Christians in the aftermath of the fire
which devasted the imperial capital in July o f A . D . 64. C . H . Turner makes
Peter's death ( A . D . 64-5) the terminus a quo for the writing o f Mark, adding
that 'it will naturally have been rather soon after the martyrdom that the
28
need made itself insistently felt for a written record o f his teaching'.
But, quite apart from the tradition, this date is on various grounds
probable for Mark's Gospel. Such a work, appearing on the morrow o f a
murderous outburst o f hostility, 'had the character o f a call to Christian
29
loyalty and a challenge to a hostile w o r l d ' . T h e wildest travesties were in
circulation about the origin and character of those people, 'loathed for their
vices, w h o m the populace called Christians', as Tacitus puts it in his
account o f these events. H e himself notes, with greater accuracy but no less
unfriendliness, that 'Christ, from w h o m they got their name, had been
executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor';
thus, he adds, 'the pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, but
it broke out anew, not only throughout Judaea, where the trouble started,
but throughout R o m e itself, where all the horrible and shameful rites
30
collect and find a following'. But what did the R o m a n Christians
themselves know o f the origin o f their faith? W e r e they able to answer
current misrepresentations with a confident account o f the real facts? W a s
it true that their Founder had been executed by sentence o f a R o m a n
magistrate? If so, was not the movement which he founded properly suspect
in the eyes o f the authorities?
T w e l v e years previously, or a little more, another R o m a n magistrate had
given a ruling which worked for a time to the advantage o f the Christian
movement. W h e n the leaders o f the Jewish community in Corinth accused

2 1
Studies, p p . 38fT. C p . W . W . H a r v e y ' s note o n Irenaeus, Haer. iii. i. 1. Perhaps this
is the p l a c e to m e n t i o n J. O ' C a l l a g h a n ' s thesis that the Q u m r a n Greek fragments
7Q5 and 7Q6.1, from t w o separate manuscripts independently d a t e d o n
p a l a e o g r a p h i c a l g r o u n d s n o t later than A . D . 50, exhibit respectively the texts o f
M a r k 6: 52f a n d M a r k 4:28 ('tPapiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 d e Q u m r a n ? ' ,
1 2 1
Bb 53 ( 9 7 ) > 9 A) • T h e thesis has been conclusively refuted, o n the basis o f a study
o f the p a p y r u s fragments themselves (as distinct from p h o t o g r a p h s ) , b y P. Benoit,
' N o t e s sur les fragments grecs d e la grotte 7 d e Q u m r a n ' , RB 79 (1972), 32iff.
2 8
New Commentary, NT, p p . 44f.
2 9
C . H . D o d d , About the Gospels ( C a m b r i d g e , 1950), p . 2.
3 0
T a c i t u s , Annals x v . 44.
 T h e date and character o f Mark 79

Paul before Gallio, proconsul o f Achaia, o f propagating a religion not

countenanced by imperial law, Gallio ruled in effect that what Paul was
preaching was a variety o f Judaism, and therefore entitled to the protection
which imperial law extended to Judaism - provided, o f course, that public
31
order was not disturbed. Had Gallio ruled against Paul, his ruling would
have constituted a most unwelcome precedent for other magistrates. As it
was, his refusal so to rule may have served as a negative precedent, thanks
to which Paul in particular was able to discharge his apostolic ministry for
several years more, until he found himself under house-arrest in Rome, still
preaching the kingdom o f G o d and telling the story ofjesus to his visitors,
under the eyes o f the imperial authorities. Even so, by this time it was no
longer possible for R o m a n magistrates to regard Christianity as one among
many varieties o f Judaism, least o f all in a city like R o m e , where the
Christian community was now predominantly Gentile. Unprotected by the
law, the Christians o f R o m e provided convenient scapegoats when Nero
found it advisable to divert suspicion o f fire-raising from himself.
Near-demoralised by the sudden attack, they sorely needed to be reassured
of their identity. What was better calculated to restore their morale and
their sense o f identity than this little book which 'contained the Christian
society's own account of the events out of which it arose, and of its martyred
32
Founder'?
T h e story is based on the main body of apostolic preaching: its intention
is not biographical but kerygmatic and theological. It provided Christians
not simply with an account o f their historical antecedents but with an
understanding o f their identity over against Jews and pagans, especially in
its revelation that the recent persecution in R o m e was no strange or
abnormal experience, but something all o f a piece with the essence o f their
faith, which recognised in the suffering Son o f man the ultimate
manifestation o f G o d .
Reference has already been made to W . Marxsen's view that Mark is a
Galilaean Gospel, composed during the war o f A . D . 6 6 - 7 0 to prepare the
followers o f j e s u s for his impending parousia in Galilee. T h e generation
between the death ofjesus and the parousia is filled by the proclamation o f
the gospel to the nations (Mark 1 3 : 10) - Mark's interpretation o f the
3 3
'testimony' spoken of in the verbum Christi o f 1 3 : 9 .
A date two or three years later than Marxsen's was proposed by S. G. F.
Brandon, according to w h o m Mark's Gospel was written after the collapse
of the Jewish revolt and the confirmation o f its collapse in the triumph
granted to Vespasian and his two sons in A . D . 7 1 , in order to help the

3 1 3 2
A c t s 18: I2ff. D o d d , About the Gospels, p . 2.
3 3
M a r x s e n , Markus, p . 119. H e rightly links this p r o c l a m a t i o n with R o m . 11:25.
80 F. F. BRUCE

R o m a n Christians to see where they now stood in relation to an event

34
which, even for them, must have been traumatic. Professor Brandon held
that Jesus, though not a member o f the Zealot party, sympathised with
Zealot ideals and was consequently, and not surprisingly, executed by the
Romans, and that the Jerusalem church, under the leadership o f his
brother James, shared the same sympathies. T h e Gentile churches, and
pre-eminently the R o m a n church, would henceforth wish to be completely
35
dissociated from Zealot ideas and policies. T h e crushing o f the Jewish
revolt and the destruction o f the T e m p l e and city of Jerusalem not only
meant the dispersion o f the mother-church but indicated to Gentile
Christians that the Jews were not G o d ' s peculiar people and that Jerusalem
was not - or at least was no longer - the centre o f his work on earth. T h e
spectacle o f the T e m p l e furniture carried in the procession to the shrine o f
Jupiter Capitolinus (whence it was moved later to grace Vespasian's new
36
T e m p l e o f P e a c e ) proclaimed that the once holy place had been deserted
by the divine presence. If some o f them were disposed to think it sacrilege
that the purple curtains o f the T e m p l e were now hung in the imperial
37
palace, let them reflect that at the moment of Jesus's death the T e m p l e veil
38
was torn in two from top to b o t t o m . So Mark relates, arguing in effect from
this act o f G o d that, despite the Jewish origins o f Christianity, the logic o f
the passion o f the Christ detached Christianity from any essential
dependence on these origins. Even if it had earlier been politic to deny that
39
Jesus had ever spoken against the T e m p l e , now that the T e m p l e lay in
ruins it was apposite to recall how explicitly he had foretold that one stone
of it w o u l d not be left standing on another (Mark 1 3 : 2 ) . W h e n 'on that
fateful d a y ' the legionaries offered sacrifice to their standards within the
sacred precincts and hailed Titus as imperator, then indeed the 'abomination
of desolation' was seen 'standing where he ought not' - but Mark would not
make the identification more explicit: 'let the reader understand', he says
(Mark 1 3 : 1 4 ) . ^
But, confidently as Professor Brandon presented his reconstruction, it

3 4
' T h e D a t e o f the M a r k a n G o s p e l ' , NTSt 7 (1960-1), 126ff; c p . his Jesus and the Zealots
( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p p . 22iff.
3 5
H e n c e , he suggests implausibly, M a r k (followed b y M a t t h e w ) distinguishes the
s e c o n d S i m o n a m o n g the T w e l v e as 'the C a n a n a e a n ' ( M a r k 3: 18), k n o w i n g that
the A r a m a i c w o r d w o u l d b e unintelligible to the R o m a n s and less liable to suspicion
than its G r e e k equivalent ' Z e a l o t ' ( B r a n d o n , NTSt 7 (1960-1), i4of; Zealots,
p p . 2 3fl).
4
3 6
J o s e p h u s , BJ vii. i^M, 161.
3 7
J o s e p h u s , BJ vii. 162.
3 8
M a r k 15:38 (see p p . 87f b e l o w ) . In J e w i s h legend T i t u s sacrilegiously entered
the T e m p l e a n d slashed the curtain with his s w o r d ( T B Gittin 56b).
3 9
M a r k 14: 57-9.
^ B r a n d o n , NTSt 7 (1960-1), 134.
 The date and character o f Mark 81

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

VIII

An important milestone in the course o f Markan study was the publication

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

resurrection. Jesus was the messiah, so runs the 'traditional' and Markan
explanation, but he kept his messiahship dark. Thus, when three o f the
disciples were granted a vision o f his true glory on the mount o f
transfiguration and heard him acclaimed as the Father's dear Son, 'he
charged them', says Mark, 'to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son
o f man should have risen from the dead' (Mark 9 : 9 ) . But this vision
(according to W r e d e ) , like Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi, was
originally related as a resurrection appearance and was artificially
41
transposed back into the setting o f the historical ministry.
A realistic assessment o f the 'messianic secret', however, will give it its
most appropriate setting in the historical ministry. Jesus placed his o w n
interpretation on the designation 'messiah' and, if that interpretation was
conceded, he would not refuse the designation. But it was so regularly
interpreted in a political and military sense that he preferred not to use it
and discouraged its application to him by others. Even when Peter, at
Caesarea Philippi, confessed him to be the messiah, he showed that his
understanding o f Jesus's messianic mission was far from adequate and had
to be sharply rebuked for trying to dissuade his Master from thinking in
42
terms o f impending suffering. During the ministry o f j e s u s its messianic
character was not at all obvious.
T h e only parable o f the kingdom o f G o d which is peculiar to Mark, that
of the seed growing secretly (4: 2 6 - 9 ) , makes this point. W h e n the seed has
been sown, it does not matter that it is not seen: something is going on
underground and will appear in due course. So, when once the kingdom o f
God has begun to work, it is a matter o f small importance that its
significance is not appreciated here and now: one day, within the lifetime o f
43
the present generation, it will have ' c o m e with p o w e r ' and its effect will be
manifest to all.
That the significance o f the ministry was not generally appreciated is
indicated further in the quotation o f Isa. 6: 9 f which in Mark 4:1 i f
introduces Jesus's interpretation to his disciples of the parable of the sower.
W e are frequently invited to penetrate behind the background o f this 'hard
saying' and discern in the underlying Aramaic a rather different meaning,
related probably to a different context from that which Mark gives it. A n d if
we are to determine Jesus's intention in speaking thus, this is probably the
right procedure, and it is quite likely that he meant that, whereas the
mystery o f the kingdom, the divine purpose implicit in its proclamation,
has been divulged to the Twelve and to other believers, it remains a riddle

4 1
W . W r e d e , Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien ( G o t t i n g e n , 1901), p p . S^ttetpassim
0
( E T The Messianic Secret ( C a m b r i d g e and L o n d o n , 1972), p p . 35ft et passim).
4 2
M a r k 8: 32f (see p . 84 b e l o w ) .
4 3
M a r k 9: 1.
 T h e date and character o f Mark 83

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

44
so d o not repent and receive forgiveness. But if we look for Mark's intention
in recording the saying, we must examine his Greek text, not the underlying
Aramaic, and view it in the context where he places it. W e may then come
to the conclusion that he is concerned, as was Paul, about the problem o f
Jewish unresponsiveness to the gospel, and sees in it the effect o f that
judicial 'hardening' o f Israel which Paul also discerned, in fulfilment o f
45
prophetic words about unseeing eyes and unhearing ears. T o some an
understanding o f the 'mystery' was granted, but from others it was
withheld, even when it was proclaimed in the graphic language of parable.
This is not the only respect in which Mark presents parallels to Paul
without being dependent on him. If Paul lays it d o w n that food-restrictions
and the observance o f special days are matters o f religious indifference, on
which each one must be 'fully convinced in his own mind' ( R o m . 1 4 : 2 - 6 ) ,
M a r k records the sovereign freedom with which Jesus disposed o f the
Sabbath law ( M a r k 2: 2 3 to 3: 5 ) and recognises in his pronouncement on
the rules o f levitical purity a declaration making 'all foods clean' (Mark
4 6
7: I 4 - I 9 ) -

IX

While Martin Kahler's description of Mark's Gospel as a 'passion narrative

47
with an extended introduction' is an exaggeration, it contains more than a
little truth. T h e record o f Jesus's ministry preceding his arrival at

4 4
C p . T . W . M a n s o n , The Teaching ofJesus (2nd e d n . C a m b r i d g e , 1935), p p . 75ff; J-
J e r e m i a s , Neutestamentliche Theologie i (Giitersloh, 1971), 133^ 243f ( E T New
Testament Theology i ( L o n d o n , 1971), i2of, 256).
45
C p . R o m . 11:7ft
4 6
See p . 73 a b o v e . R . P. M a r t i n , ' A G o s p e l in Search o f a Life-setting', EspT 80
(1968-9), 36iff, argues that M a r k ' s G o s p e l w a s published after Paul's death in
o r d e r to p r o v i d e a safeguard against t w o tendencies w h i c h Paul's k e r y g m a t i c
t h e o l o g y h a d held in c h e c k - o n e w h i c h p r o m o t e d a messiah w h o p e r f o r m e d m a g i c a l
signs a n d another w h i c h p r o m o t e d the figure o f a heavenly r e d e e m e r d e t a c h e d from
: n a s
history. M a r k ' s use o f e v c r / Y ^ i - O V (1: 1, 14, 15; 8:35; 10:29; 3 J *4 9)
! : 1 0

Pauline affinities ( c p . p . 79 n. 33 a b o v e ) . M a r t i n ' s thesis is e l a b o r a t e d in his Mark:

Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter, 1972). T w o other theses c a n receive o n l y the
briefest m e n t i o n here: that o f E. T r o c m e (Laformation de l'£vangile selon Marc (Paris,
1963); E T The Formation of the Gospel according to Mark ( L o n d o n , 1975)), w h i c h h o l d s
that the original edition o f M a r k e n d e d with chapter 13 and w a s written a r o u n d A . D .
50 b y s o m e o n e o f the o u t l o o k o f Philip the evangelist, and that o f T . J . W e e d e n
(Mark - Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia, 1971)), a c c o r d i n g to w h o m M a r k
o p p o s e s the 6 e i o g ovrJQ c h r i s t o l o g y o f the disciples with the suffering messiahship
o f Jesus.
4 7
The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, E T (Philadelphia,
1964), p . 80. K a h l e r uses the expression in the plural, with reference to all the
gospels, but makes M a r k his c h i e f e x a m p l e .
84 F. F. BRUCE

Jerusalem at the beginning o f chapter 11 contains repeated adumbrations

of the coming passion. T h e series o f five controversies in Mark 2: 1 to 3: 6
includes a hint that one day the 'bridegroom' will be 'taken away' from his
friends ( 2 : 20) and ends with an account o f a plot against Jesus's life by an
unnatural combination o f Pharisees and Herodians. T h e list o f the Twelve
in Mark 3: 1 6 - 1 9 ends with 'Judas Iscariot, w h o betrayed him'. T h e story of
J o h n the Baptist's execution, told as a 'flash-back' in Mark 6: 1 7 - 2 9 , is
ominous, for H e r o d Antipas, w h o has put John to death, thinks ofjesus as
John redivivus when news o f the mission o f the Twelve reaches him. Later,
the parallel between J o h n and Jesus is made explicit: 'Elijah has c o m e ' ,
says Jesus to the disciples after their descent from the mount o f
transfiguration, 'and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written
of him' (Mark 9: 1 3 ) - that is, the recorded threats against the first Elijah's
life which his enemies were unable to carry out (1 Kings 1 9 : 2ff) have been
fulfilled in the death of the second Elijah at the hands of his enemies. A n d as
such things were 'written' concerning Elijah, so it is 'written o f the Son o f
man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with com tempt' (Mark
9: 1 2 ) . T h e last words, based in part on the fourth Isaianic Servant Song
(probably) and in part on Psalm 1 1 8 : 2 2 (certainly), belong to primitive
tradition (for their transmission along a non-Markan line c p . Luke
4 8
17: 2 5 ) . T h e y underlie the recurrent warnings o f the impending passion
which, according to Mark, Jesus impressed on his disciples from Caesarea
Philippi onwards. Immediately after Peter's confession 'he began to teach
them that the Son o f man must suffer many things, and be rejected . . . and
after three days rise again' (Mark 8 : 3 1 ) , but, for all the 'plainness'
(jiaQQTjoia) with which he said so, Peter bluntly deprecated such language,
expressing himself in terms which Jesus repudiated as a satanic, though
4 9
well-meant, temptation to deviate from his appointed path (8: 3 2 - 4 ) .
Later, in Galilee, he repeated the warning: ' T h e Son o f man will be
delivered into the hands o f men, and they will kill him; and when he is
killed, after three days he will rise' (9: 3 1 ) . 'But', says Mark, 'they did not
understand the saying, and they were afraid to ask him' ( 9 : 2 2 ) . Even on the
50
road to Jerusalem they failed to understand him, when he foretold his

4 8
• C p . W . M i c h a e l i s , TDNTv, p p . 9i3fT(s.v. Jidoxw).
4 9
T h e r e is a striking similarity b e t w e e n Jesus's rebuke o f Peter here ( ' G e t b e h i n d m e ,
Satan!') a n d his reply to the wilderness tempter in M a t t . 4: 10; p e r h a p s o n b o t h
o c c a s i o n s he recognised the s a m e t e m p t a t i o n - to fulfil his mission otherwise than
b y suffering a n d death.
5 0
T h a t these p r e d i c t i o n s are not sheer vaticinia ex eventu is suggested b y the fact that
n o n e o f t h e m speaks o f crucifixion; i n d e e d , apart from the reference to the disciples'
taking u p the cross in M a r k 8: 34, crucifixion is not m e n t i o n e d in this gospel before
the passion narrative p r o p e r . C p . R . H . Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St Mark
( O x f o r d , 1950), p . 36.
 T h e date and character o f Mark 85

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

appreciated what his words involved is emphasised by Mark in the
following pericope, where the sons o f Zebedee still imagine that their
Master is about to establish a kingdom in which the chief places will attract
such honour as is paid to dignitaries in the kingdoms o f this world. They
have yet to learn that their Master's closest associates must drink his cup
and share his baptism, that in his fellowship the highest honour consists in
rendering the lowliest service: T o r the Son o f man also came not to be
served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many' (Mark
10-35-45) •
This theme o f the suffering Son o f man so pervades the central section o f
Mark's narrative that it must be recognised as crucial to his understanding
o f the ministry. T h e suffering o f the Son o f man is, moreover, something
that is written concerning him: it is, in other words, foretold in O l d
Testament scripture. ' T h e Son o f man goes as it is written o f him', says
Jesus at the Last Supper when indicating the presence o f a traitor at the
table (Mark 1 4 : 2 1 ) , and later the same evening he submits to his captors
with the words: 'let the scriptures be fulfilled' ( 1 4 : 4 9 ) .
T h e Son o f man in Mark is the 'one like a son o f man' o f Dan. 7: 1 3 , who
comes 'with the clouds o f heaven' before the Ancient o f Days to receive
universal dominion from him when the beasts, which represent successive
pagan world-empires, disappear from the scene. This is evident from the
influence o f Daniel's vision on those Markan passages where the Son o f
man is said to come with 'clouds' (Mark 1 3 : 2 6 ; 1 4 : 6 2 ) . But it is difficult to
see in Daniel's vision the source o f the concept o f the suffering Son o f man.
True, the 'one like a son o f man' is interpreted in terms o f the saints o f the
M o s t High, with w h o m the 'little horn' (i.e. Antiochus Epiphanes) 'made
war . . . and prevailed over them, until the Ancient o f Days came, and
judgement was given for the saints o f the M o s t High, and the time came
when the saints received the kingdom' (Dan. 7: 2 i f ) . But nowhere in the
51
vision is the 'one like a son o f man' described as suffering, and while the
modern exegete can see quite clearly that his suffering is implied, the
earliest interpreters o f Daniel appear to have distinguished him from the
persecuted saints. He is associated but not identified with them: he is their
champion and avenger, as he is the j u d g e and executioner o f their
52
persecutors.
If those interpreters o f Mark are right who see behind the suffering Son o f

5 1
F o r the v i e w that D a n i e l ' s ' o n e like a son o f m a n ' is exalted after suffering, see C . F. D .
M o u l e , ' F r o m D e f e n d a n t to J u d g e - and Deliverer', SNTS Bulletin 3 (1952), 4off;
M . D . H o o k e r , The Son of Man in Mark ( L o n d o n , 1967), p p . 1 iff.
5 2
E.g. in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 E n o c h 48:4ff et passim); c p . H o o k e r , Son of Man,
PP- 33*f
86 F. F. BRUCE

5 3
man the suffering Servant o f Yahweh in Isa. 5 2 : 13 to 5 3 : 1 2 , they may in
some measure be bringing back to light the original intention o f the book o f
Daniel to re-present the suffering Servant in the form o f the suffering saints
54
or maskilim o f the persecution under A n t i o c h u s . But whether that is so or
not, the suffering o f the Son o f man in Mark demands a more explicit
biblical background than Dan. 7: 1 3 can supply. T h e Son o f man's giving
his life as 'a ransom for many' (Mark 1 0 : 4 5 ) is in line with the Isaianic
Servant's giving his life as a reparation-offering ('ashdm) and bearing the sin
5 5
of many (Isa. 5 3 : 1 0 , 1 2 ) . ' H o w is it written o f the Son o f man, that he
should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?' - h o w indeed, if
the Son o f man be not equated with the Servant o f Yahweh?
Yet before his passion the Son o f man is vested with exceptional
authority: he 'has authority on earth to forgive sins' (Mark 2: 10) and
claims to be 'lord even o f the sabbath' - evidently as representative of man,
for w h o m the Sabbath was made (Mark 2: 2 7 Q . His authority to forgive sins
is quite unlike the judicial authority granted to Daniel's 'one like a son o f
56
man' but is not unlike the Isaianic Servant's commission to 'justify the
many' (Isa. 53: 1 1 ) .
Jesus's own use o f the designation 'the Son o f man' - a designation almost
without exception found on his lips alone - is not our object o f study here.
By Mark, the Son o f man, whether exercising his present authority on
earth, suffering betrayal, contempt and death, or 'coming in clouds with
great p o w e r and glory' ( 1 3 : 2 6 ) , is identified with Jesus himself.
T h e Son of man and the kingdom o f G o d are so closely associated that the
one implies the other even if the other is not expressly mentioned. This is
what might be expected in view of the plain statement in Dan. 7: 1 3 f that the
eternal kingdom is bestowed on the 'one like a son of man' - to which might
be added the testimony o f the fourth Servant Song that the Servant o f
Y a h w e h , after his suffering and death, is to be 'exalted and lifted u p ' and
made 'very high' (Isa. 5 2 : 1 3 ) . As the Son o f man exercises his authority in
the ministry ofjesus, so the kingdom of G o d is at work in his ministry, as the
parables o f Mark 4 : 1 - 3 4 declare. Yet, according to these parables, the
kingdom's working is largely hidden at present, like the seed growing

5 3
C p . M a n s o n , Teaching, p p . 227ff; V . T a y l o r Jesus andhis Sacrifice ( L o n d o n , 1937), p p .
3gff; W . Z i m m e r l i and J. J e r e m i a s , The Servant of God, E T ( L o n d o n , 1957), p p . 79fT;
for a c o n t r a r y o p i n i o n c p . M . D . H o o k e r , Jesus and the Servant ( L o n d o n , 1959).
5 4
C p . M . Black, 'Servant o f the L o r d and S o n o f M a n ' , SJTh 6 (1953), p p . iff.
5 5 e w
C p . C . K . Barrett, ' T h e B a c k g r o u n d o f M a r k 10:45', ^ Testament Essays . . . in
Memory of T. W. Manson, e d . A . J. B . H i g g i n s ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1959), p p . iff, for the
v i e w that a b a c k g r o u n d to this saying s h o u l d b e sought rather in the M a c c a b a e a n
m a r t y r d o m s than in Isa. 52: 13 to 53: 12.
5 6
T h e j u d i c i a l authority granted to the ' o n e like a son o f m a n ' implies authority to
c o n v i c t a n d c o n d e m n rather than to p a r d o n a n d release.
 T h e date and character o f Mark 87

secretly; it is unimpressive to outward appearance, like the minute mustard

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

T h e portrayal ofjesus as the Son of man, commissioned by G o d , exposed to

suffering, destined to c o m e in glory, is Mark's way o f presenting him as Son
o f G o d . Whatever else he means by 'the Son o f G o d ' , he means the one in
w h o m G o d himself is fully revealed. Jesus is hailed by G o d , at the outset o f
his ministry, as his 'beloved Son' (Mark 1: 1 1 ) . If we ask what kind o f
person G o d ' s 'beloved Son' is, Mark lets us see him in action and teaching,
but he brings out the full significance o f his character and mission by
portraying him as the Son o f man. So Jesus himself replies to the high
priest's question, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?' with the
words: 'I am; and you will see the Son of man . . .' (Mark 1 4 : 6 if). A n d when
the Son o f man, betrayed and humiliated, has endured his final suffering,
the truth about his person is proclaimed in the centurion's words: 'Truly
57
this man was the Son o f G o d ! ' (Mark 1 5 : 39).
It is not by chance that, immediately before recording the centurion's
confession, Mark tells how, at the moment when Jesus breathed his last,
'the curtain o f the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom' ( 1 5 : 38). It is
unlikely that this has anything to d o with the display o f the T e m p l e
furnishings in Vespasian's triumph, or with other portents in and around
the sacred building which seemed in retrospect to foreshadow its
destruction in A . D . 70. For Mark, this is the climax of his narrative. H e may
have in mind, like the writer to the Hebrews, the fact that Jesus by his death
has opened up for his people a 'new and living way . . . through the curtain'
into the presence o f G o d ( H e b . 10: 2 0 ) ; but still more he implies that in the
death ofjesus G o d is revealed to men in the fullness o f his grace. O n c e his
presence was hidden from them behind the curtain which hung before the
holy o f holies, but now it is hidden no more. If in his works o f creation we
trace 'but the outskirts o f his ways' (Job 26: 1 4 ) , in the cross ofjesus he has
bared his heart. T h e rending o f the veil proclaims the same message as the
centurion's confession. T h e centurion, paradoxically and unwittingly,
divulges the messianic secret, which (as T . W . Manson said) 'is not

5 7
T h e c e n t u r i o n ' s confession sums u p M a r k ' s message as T h o m a s ' s confession, ' M y
L o r d and m y G o d ' (John 20: 28), sums u p J o h n ' s . W h a t e v e r the centurion might
have m e a n t by vibq 6 e o i ) , M a r k interprets the w o r d s as a confirmation o f his o w n
theme ( h e n c e 'the S o n o f G o d ' in the 1962 a n d 1971 editions o f R S V , as against 'a
son o f G o d ' in the editions o f 1946 and 1952).
88 F. F. BRUCE

58
concerned with the identity o f the Messiah but with the nature o f his task'.
W h e n Jesus himself declared it 'plainly', his disciples misunderstood him.
They took him to mean, perhaps, that the establishment o f the kingdom
would call for toil and tribulation, but that in the end the kingdom, with its
power and glory, would be theirs. Their messianic expectations were in
essence o f the same order as those o f most o f their fellow-countrymen. Not
until 'the Son o f man was risen from the dead' did the truth begin to dawn
on them, and even then it dawned gradually: the crucified Jesus is king -
king in his crucifixion - and the way o f the cross is the way o f the kingdom.
In emphasising this, Mark emphasises the heart o f Jesus's mission and
ministry. If his readers grasped this lesson, they would greet their own
sufferings as a participation in those of the Son o f man; let them confess him
thus, and they would find him unashamed o f them at his coming 'in the
59
glory o f his Father with the holy angels'.

Additional Note

In December i 9 6 0 Morton Smith reported to the ninety-sixth meeting o f

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

5 8
' R e a l i z e d E s c h a t o l o g y and the M e s s i a n i c Secret', Studies in the Gospels, ed. N i n e h a m ,
p . 220.
5 9
W i t h the negative formulation o f M a r k 8: 38 c p . the positive counterpart in L u k e
12:8.
 The date and character o f Mark 89

he had already published the shorter edition. At Alexandria he expanded

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

Some observations on Tendenzkritik

Tendenzkritik is a technique in historical research specially associated with

F. C . Baur and A . Schwegler and others of the Tubingen school, since it was
1
they w h o applied it to the reconstruction o f the early history o f the church.
In principle, it is a matter o f plain c o m m o n sense, and was already in use
a m o n g secular historians before the Tiibingenians adopted it. If it can be
established that a document was written with a clear propagandist
purpose, then it becomes probable (other things being equal) that its writer
2
bent the facts, or made a tendentious selection from among them, to fit his
purpose; and it is therefore necessary to make allowance for such distortion,
in any attempt to get back to the truth about what actually happened.
Accordingly, a question o f prime importance for the historian in
interpreting a document and estimating its worth is, W h a t was this
document for? What did its author hope to achieve by it? A classic example
o f Tendenzkritik is the estimate o f Acts reached by New Testament scholars
over against Galatians. It is a familiar fact that, whereas the Epistle to the
Galatians shows Paul at one point taking issue with Peter, and reflects a
difference (if not a conflict) between the leaders o f the Gentile and Jewish
missions respectively, the Acts presents a picture of basic harmony between
Paul and the leading figures in the Jerusalem church. Equally, it is well
known that, in certain details, Galatians and Acts are difficult, if not
impossible, to reconcile. Ergo, a strong case appears to emerge for treating
Acts - which, in any case, is later (perhaps much later) than Galatians - as
a tendentious re-telling o f the story for the purpose o f papering over cracks
which in fact existed between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders.
It is upon such assumptions, coupled with a particular chronology for the
writing o f the N e w Testament and related documents, that the Tiibinge-

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

91
92 C . F . D . M O U L E

nian version o f the early years o f Christianity rests. Subsequently to the

days o f Baur and his immediate successors, it has become habitual to
question, indeed, the chronology o f the Tubingen scholars (not least
3
because o f the massive criticism of it by J. B. Lightfoot and his colleagues),
but to endorse their assumption of tendentiousness in Acts, and, indeed, in
the Gospels. Baur himself had already applied Tendenzkritik to the Gospels,
4
bringing out Matthew as the earliest and most free from bias; and
Redaktionsgeschichte, so fashionable at the present time, has in some respects
affinities with the method, although critical opinion today is not wont to set
Matthew on any pedestal o f objectivity above his fellows. Form-criticism
too employs Tendenzkritik on a miniature scale, in its dealings with the
small, independent units o f tradition. O n e o f the assumptions o f
form-criticism is that each unit had its own particular purpose in the life o f
5
the Christian church; and when that purpose was an apologetic or
propagandic one, then one must reckon with the possibility that the
contents o f the unit were shaped and modified so as to enhance its force: the
size of a miracle or the effect of a polemical saying may be exaggerated; and
so forth.
N o w any man o f integrity and c o m m o n sense will agree that Tendenzkritik
is not merely a legitimate but a necessary factor in the process o f getting at
the truth. It is on this principle (though not by that name) that the system o f
advocacy in a law court rests; and we use it every day, consciously or
unconsciously, when estimating the truth of what we are told. Instinctively
we make allowance for the fisherman's bias in his description o f the size o f
his catch. But the principle ought not to be used uncritically. Tendenzkritik is
a delicate tool, not a crowbar.
It involves two questions, which may subtly react on one another; and,
when all is said and done, the answers to them have only a limited scope:
and this needs to be recognised and accepted. O n e question concerns the
author's aim and intention, and therefore the a priori likelihood o f
distortion; the other concerns the actually demonstrable extent of distortion
in his tale. If it be established, in answer to the first question, that the
author is indeed dominated by an apologetic or propagandic purpose, the
presumption may be that he has distorted facts to gain his ends. If, in

3
Especially t h r o u g h Lightfoot's edition o f Ignatius.
4
S e e K u m m e l , Neue Testament, p p . 1 7 i f ( E T p p . 1381), referring to Kritische
Untersuchungen. But Baur is careful to qualify this j u d g e m e n t (Kritische Unter-
suchungen, p p . 6201). H e believed that, in its present form, M a t t h e w was not earlier
than the s e c o n d century.
5
F o r s o m e recent observations o n this topic, see M o r t o n Smith, ' F o r m s , M o t i v e s ,
a n d O m i s s i o n s in M a r k ' s A c c o u n t o f the T e a c h i n g o f Jesus', in J. R e u m a n n ( e d . ) ,
Understanding the Sacred Text (in h o n o u r o f M o r t o n S. Enslin, V a l l e y Forge, 1972),
PP- i53*f
 Some observations on Tendenzkritik 93

answer to the second question, distortion can in fact be demonstrated, and

demonstrated in the expected direction, then the existence o f a dominant
purpose is confirmed. A fisherman's story is a priori likely to be told to
enhance his prowess; and if a palpable minnow comes out (not from the
water, but from the story) as a sturgeon, then this intention is confirmed.
But there are strict limits to the effectiveness of the method. If a definite aim
is established, it still does not necessarily follow that there must be
distortion. Conversely, if distortion is established, it may not invariably be
due to bias, unless a whole series o f distortions is detected, all pointing in
the same direction. So there are many factors to be reckoned with, and it
would not be wise to follow slavishly Baur's principle o f requiring that the
veracity o f narrative material should be judged by a writer's tendency
rather than by direct comparison with other sources (unless indeed the
6
other sources are suspected o f being themselves untrustworthy). In this,
Baur seems to have been over-reacting against D . F. Strauss's divide et impera
7
methods. There are many possibilities which must not be ignored.
Suppose the man with w h o m we have to d o happens to be not only a
fisherman (and therefore, by definition, tempted to exaggerate) but also a
modest and truthful man; in this case, he may successfully resist the
temptation to elongate his minnow. And suppose he is as keen a naturalist
as he is a fisherman, he will have an added reason for preferring accurate
records about his catch to romances about his prowess. O n the other hand,
there might still be factors, not included in any o f these circumstances,
leading to mis-statements in his story. These are childish parables; but d o
but transfer them to the serious matter in hand, and it will be evident what
damage can be done to scholarly judgement by the uncritical application o f
Tendenzkritik without sufficient regard for its limitations.
T h e thesis o f Professor Brandon's Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester, 1 9 6 7 )
depends on an estimate o f Mark's Gospel as deliberately tendentious.
Brandon believed that this Gospel was written, for use in Rome,
immediately after the Flavian triumph o f A . D . 7 1 . This triumph, he
believed, profoundly affected the Roman Christians: 'it brought, distur­
bingly, to their attention the fact that their faith stemmed from this Jewish
people who had so fiercely revolted against Roman rule, and it faced them
also with the serious possibility that they might be regarded by their pagan
neighbours and the R o m a n authorities as being themselves infected with
Jewish revolutionary ideas' (pp. 242f). T h e Gospel according to Mark
reflects - so Brandon believed - the resulting embarrassment. For instance,
Mark renders the disciple's name which, in Luke 6: 1 5 and Acts 1 : 1 3 ,
appears undisguisedly as Ziu.u)V 6 (xaXoi)|ievog) Zr\kiOxr\(; by the less

6 7
Kritische Untersuchungen, 7iff. S e e H o d g s o n , Historical Theology, p . 198.
94 C . F . D . M O U L E

easily recognisable Aramaic form Sijxcov 6 Kavovaiog (Mark 3: 1 8 ) . T h i s

masking o f the fact', wrote Brandon, 'that one o f the Twelve had been a
Zealot indicates that the author o f Mark was not concerned to present an
accurate historical record of the career ofjesus, but that he was moved by a
definite apologetical motive' (p. 2 4 5 ) .
Such argumentation oversimplifies the matter. First, Brandon's estimate
of the occasion and purpose o f the writing o f Mark's Gospel is by no means
8
conclusive. Starting from the assumption that Mark was written between
A . D . 6 0 and 7 5 (rather than, as many - probably most - scholars would
suggest, before A . D . 7 0 ) , he proceeded to look for the date and occasion
between these limits which seemed best to explain its contents, and lit on
A . D . 7 1 , for the reasons already indicated. But it is difficult to be sure that
this is right. Is Mark's reference to the tearing in two o f the veil o f the
Temple so obviously related to the sight o f the T e m p l e curtains
(presumably intact) being carried in triumph? Were the R o m a n Christians
oblivious, till then, o f the fact that the Jews from w h o m their faith stemmed
were openly rebellious against the Romans? T h e Epistle to the Romans and
Acts 1 8 : 2 (to mention no further evidence) suggests that there had for long
been a large Jewish element among them, who must surely have been aware
of what had been going on for so long. Again, if it was as vital as Brandon
made out that Jesus should be shown as advocating the obedient payment
of tribute to Caesar, why are his words in this connection as ambiguous as
Brandon subsequently (pp. 3 4 5 - 9 ) makes them out to be? Brandon thinks
that the original saying was a strongly pro-Zealot one, and meant that
among the things not belonging to Caesar was Palestine, which must at all
costs not be 'rendered' to him. But if one is going, to extract this meaning
from the saying at all, it is as easy to d o so from the form o f it which now
appears in Mark; and it would surely be precarious indeed if the 'innocent'
interpretation o f the words could be so easily turned in a 'dangerous'
direction by any hearer w h o was 'in the know'. Even if Brandon's answer
was that the dialogue would have sounded very different in Palestine, and
that Mark has de-fused it by the context in which he has set it, the argument
9
still remains decidedly speculative. O n c e again, if it was so important to
establish that Christians were not disloyal to the emperor, why does Mark
quote the seditious phrase, 'the Abomination of Desolation' at a l l - e v e n if it
is sufficiently oracular to be 'discreet' (p. 2 3 3 ) ? If the presence among the
10
Twelve o f one w h o may (though the term does not actually prove i t ) have

8
See F. F. B r u c e ' s essay, p p . 69-89 a b o v e .
9
See F. F. B r u c e ' s essay, p p . 249-263 b e l o w .
1 0
See M . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten ( L e i d e n , 1961), M . Borg, ' T h e C u r r e n c y o f the T e r m
" Z e a l o t " \JThSt n.s. 22 (1971), 504ff, and M . Smith, ' Z e a l o t s and Sicarii: T h e i r
O r i g i n s a n d R e l a t i o n ' , HThR 64 (1971), iff.
 Some observations on Tendenzkritik 95

been a Zealot is so damaging to the Christian cause, why risk even an

Aramic version o f the term? If Mark 'is not concerned to present an
accurate historical record', why does he trouble to preserve the offending
term in any form? A n d why did he not, instead, call attention, in the list o f
the Twelve (as Brandon himself, for his own purposes, avoided doing), to
the fact that they included also one w h o had been a c o l l a b o r a t o r - o n e of the
tax collectors so hated by the Jews and so useful to the Romans? It suits
Brandon's reading o f the situation to regard as part o f Mark's propaganda
the whitewashing of Pilate. But it is generally agreed (and Brandon himself
agrees) that, whatever Mark does to Pilate, Luke goes further in this
direction. Yet Luke it is who is not embarrassed to call a Zealot a Zealot.
Something seems to have gone wrong here in the interpretation o f motives.
If Brandon's Sitz im Leben for Mark were correct, Mark's Pilate ought to
have been more like Luke's (or, rather, more like the Pilate o f Luke's story
of the trial: not the Pilate of Luke 1 3 : 1 ) . Conversely, if Brandon's reason for
Mark's use o f Kavavaiog were correct, then Luke ought also to have
disguised the offensive Zr]Xo)Trjg. A n d if Brandon's answer were to be that,
by the time Luke wrote, the word had lost its dangerous connotations (and,
admittedly, Luke freely uses the word and its cognates in a non-
revolutionary sense), this would need a good deal of evidence to establish it.
Yet it is these unproved assumptions about the circumstances and purpose
of Mark, and about his readers (or hearers), and about his readiness
deliberately to misrepresent the facts, that provide the foundation on which
rests Brandon's radical reconstruction o f the story o f j e s u s . Whatever
tendentiousness there may be in Mark, the evangelist does not appear to
11
have the monopoly o f it. N o doubt, the strength of Brandon's case is his
construction of a total situation in which he can interpret Mark as he does.
But so many o f the links in his chain are weak that it cannot be accepted in
its totality.
If one sets aside guesses as to what Mark is likely to have done, what
more substantial evidence is there that Mark has misrepresented the facts?
The whitewashing o f Pilate has been mentioned; and even if Mark is
surpassed in this direction by Luke, it might still be argued that the Pilate
even o f Mark is not the Pilate o f Philo and Josephus (or, for that matter, o f
12
Luke 1 3 : 1 ) . But the issue is not as clear-cut as this. In the first place,
Tendenzkritik must, of course, be applied to Philo and Josephus, no less than
to the Gospels, before it is assumed that they are right and the Gospels

11
M . H e n g e l suggests that B r a n d o n ' s m e t h o d is 'a reductio ad absurdum o f the o l d e r
Tendenzkritik', in his review o f Jesus and the Zealots in JJSt 14 (1961), 231 fT (233, note 1).
12
For a j u d i c i o u s estimate, with full b i b l i o g r a p h y , see E. B a m m e l in RGG 35, S p p .
383^ also W . H o r b u r y , ' T h e Passion Narratives and Historical C r i t i c i s m ' , Theology
75.620 (Feb. 1972), 8ff (65Q.
5
96 C. F. D. MOULE

wrong. But what a tangle o f motives there is to be unravelled! Philo's

account (Legatio 2 9 9 - 3 0 5 ) , in any case, occurs in a passage purporting to be
quoted from Agrippa's letter (see Legatio 2 7 6 - 9 3 ) , and that is hardly likely to
be unbiased. Moreover, the story in it is notoriously difficulty to reconcile
13 14
with that in Josephus. As for Josephus's references to Pilate, it is as difficult
to make allowance simultaneously for Josephus the Pharisaic Jew and
Josephus the R o m a n collaborator as it is to give a simple account o f the
motives o f the evangelists. A n d , when all is said and done, the
non-Christian portraits o f Pilate differ from the Christian mainly in no
more than that they are explicit about his brutality (though Luke 1 3 : 1 is
explicit about this also, in another context). In the Christian accounts, it is
only Luke and J o h n who show him as having any serious concern to rescue
Jesus. A s for the evangelists' representation o f Pilate as convinced that
Jesus was not guilty, this is something that, in any case, has no parallel in
Philo or Josephus, and must be j u d g e d independently; and even on this
point Mark's emphasis is minimal. A n d even if the Barabbas story sounds
implausible, it is a hasty verdict and an illegitimate use o f the argument
15
from silence to declare it an apologetic fiction without more substantial
evidence than that there is near silence elsewhere, and that, in general, the
Gospels were probably tendentious.
At any rate, even if it were established that Mark has deliberately
distorted the picture o f Pilate, this would still not serve to eliminate the
conflict between Jesus and the Jews as fictitious. O n the contrary: it is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that, before ever it came to the trial, Jesus's
16
ministry had constituted a head-on collision with the Judaism o f his d a y .
Mutatis mutandis, the account in the latter chapter^ o f the Acts o f Paul's
position vis-a-vis Judaism and R o m e respectively (see the summary in Acts
28: 17ft) presents a close parallel to what the Gospels, broadly speaking,
suggest regarding the position ofjesus: in violent collision with many o f the
theological attitudes o f Judaism, but politically and legally difficult to
convict. A n d , details apart, this is perfectly plausible in both cases.
It is difficult to think where else to look in Mark for evidence of the sort o f

1 3
See E. M . S m a l l w o o d ' s note in her edition o f the Legatio ( L e i d e n , 1961), p . 291.
14
BJ ii. 169-77, AJ xviii. 35; 55-9; 62; 64 - the testimoniumflavianum,p r o b a b l y to b e
d i s c o u n t e d ; certainly not to b e read in the S l a v o n i c form, despite B r a n d o n ' s attempt
to revive Eisler's theory; 87-9; 177.
1 5
See o n c e again, G . M . Styler, p p . 101-7 b e l o w ; a n d H o r b u r y , Theology 75.620,
(Feb. 1972), 66f.
1 6
See H . M e r k e l ' s essay, ' T h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n Jesus and J u d a i s m ' , p p . 129-44
b e l o w ; and his J e s u s und d i e Pharisaer', NTSt 14 (1967-8), 1940°; a n d H o r b u r y ,
Theology 75.620 ( F e b . 1972), 64^ and D . C a t c h p o l e , ' T h e P r o b l e m o f the Historicity
o f the Sanhedrin trial' in The Trial ofJesus, ed. E. B a m m e l ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 47ff
( 8fl).
4
 Some observations on Tendenzkritik 97

tendentiousness postulated by Brandon. If we turn from Mark to other

N e w Testament writings, one instance o f evident tendentiousness that
springs to mind is the devastating attack on the scribes and Pharisees in
Matthew 2 3 . Even if it can be shown that some Pharisees were guilty o f the
offences here described, it is clearly a selective and one-sided account when
j u d g e d by the ample evidence from Jewish sources about the character o f
Pharisaism. It may, at least in this form, spring from a period subsequent to
the time ofjesus himself, and reflect the bitter antagonism that had sprung
up between church and synagogue in the latter decades o f the first
17
century. M u c h the same applies to the strictures on 'the Jews', as they are
generically called, in the Gospel according to St John. These, too, may well
reflect actual clashes with opponents o f Christ or o f Christians, and
epitomise the conflict between legalism generally and the Christian gospel.
Such phenomena undoubtedly point to tendencies in these writers; but it is
to be noted that the tendency is deduced not from any independent
evidence o f the writer's purpose, but from the evidence o f a number o f
straws in the wind all blowing in the same direction: it is a matter o f
tendencies detected (contrary to Baur's principle) by comparing each
relevant passage with some independent source, rather than o f tendencies
deduced from knowledge (actual or alleged) o f the writer's purpose. T h e
same seems to be true, notoriously, o f the 'heightening' o f Matthew's
christology, o f which it is only one familiar example that when, in Mark,
Jesus appears to question his own goodness, Matthew seems deliberately to
alter the phrase:
Mark 1 0 : 1 8 xi \kt XeyEiq dyaBov;
Matt. 1 9 : 1 7 t i \IE EQCOtQig JieQt xov &YCX0OX);
Similarly, Luke, as is well known, seems fairly consistently to reduce the
18
'eschatological tension' in comparison both with Mark and Matthew.
( O n a more trivial level and in parenthesis, it is possible that Luke is
displaying a measure o f tendentiousness when he simply says (in the best
text o f 8: 4 3 ) that the w o m a n with the haemorrhage could not be cured by
anyone. Possibly they are right w h o think that it was the physician's
professional pride that forbade him to reproduce Mark's assertion (Mark
5: 2 6 ) that she had undergone treatment at much cost at the hands o f many
doctors with no success. But that is a special and isolated instance o f a
guessed Tendenz.)
But the main tendencies alluded to, and many besides, are detected by

1 7
See, for a recent allusion to the question, A . F . J . Klijn, J e r o m e ' s q u o t a t i o n s from a
N a z o r a e a n Interpretation o f Isaiah', RechSRbo (1972), 24iff, suggesting (254) that
it is the author o f M a t t h e w w h o i n t r o d u c e d the idea o f h y p o c r i s y .
1 8
F o r a recent treatment o f this theme, see J. M a n e k , ' G e s c h i c h t e und G e r i c h t in der
T h e o l o g i e des L u k a s ' , Kairos 3-4 (1971), 243ff.
98 C. F. D. MOULE

comparison with other documents, and by the frequency and consistency

with which they occur, rather than deduced from generalisations about the
writer's purpose. T h e y still d o not constitute examples o f the successful
application o f the principle that events may be reconstructed by making
allowance for distortion deducible from apologetic purposes. Nor,
conversely, does a demonstrable mis-statement or distortion in itself
constitute evidence for tendentiousness, but only (as has been said) if it is
one o f a series all pointing in the same direction.
These observations apply - if we now g o back to the point from which we
19
set out - to the Tiibingenian estimate o f the Acts. It was J. B. Lightfoot,
replying to the Tubingen scholars, w h o pointed out h o w little solid
evidence there was for the alleged antagonism between the apostle to the
Gentiles and the Jerusalem apostles, and how the assumption o f the
tendentiousness of Acts is thus called in question at the outset. T h e purpose
o f Acts might indeed have been to show that it was not the leaders on either
side w h o were at variance but only the lesser men w h o were their adherents.
But, if so, it might have been no more than the truth that it was showing. It
may be added that if, contrary to Lightfoot's judgement, Galatians be
assigned an early date, then certain other alleged discrepancies between
Galatians and Acts also disappear. But this is not the place to pursue details
20
o f this prolonged controversy. Perhaps it is, however, the place where a
light-hearted aside may be permitted, calling attention to two passages in
the Acts where the author seems deliberately to be giving an account o f
tendentiousness in others. In the story o f Paul's arrest in Acts 2 1 , the
Roman commandant (whose name, it subsequently transpires, was
Claudius Lysias) discovers only after the arrest - and that by chance and to
his great surprise, when he is on the verge o f having Paul beaten - that Paul
is a R o m a n citizen. But the letter that Lysias is represented as writing to
Felix when he sends Paul on to him in chapter 2 3 says (verse 2 7 ) : 'This man
was seized by the Jews and was on the point o f being murdered when I
intervened with the troops and removed him because I discovered that he was a
Roman citizen.' T h e N E B is surely right in so translating the last clause: it
would need the most improbable syntactical gymnastics to extort from
(ia0d)V o n T a ) ( i a i 6 g eoxiv any other tense-sequence; which means that
Lysias is deftly represented by the narrator as claiming for himself more
merit than the facts warranted: a surreptitious little bit o f tendentiousness

1 9
S e e , for instance, J. B. L i g h t f o o t ' s f a m o u s dissertation o n 'St Paul a n d the T h r e e ' in
his c o m m e n t a r y o n Galatians (8th e d n L o n d o n , 1884), p p . 2g2ff; with interesting
c o m m e n t s b y C . K . Barrett in J o s e p h B a r b e r Lightfoot', The Durham University
Journal 64, 3 (n.s. 33.3) (June, 1972), 1930".
2 0
See F. F. B r u c e , 'Galatian P r o b l e m s . 4. T h e D a t e o f the Epistle', BJRL 54.2 ( S p r i n g
1972), 250ff.
 Some observations on Tendenzkritik

in one o f the dramatis personae. Whether we are to believe that it was itself
tendentiously introduced by Luke, w h o can say? It certainly looks like an
example o f the novelist's imaginative characterisation, which may or may
not have been true to life, but is certainly plausible. T h e other passage is in
Acts 2 5 : 20, where Festus is represented as telling King Agrippa that he had
asked Paul whether he would like to go to Jerusalem to be tried, because
Festus was at a loss (ctJlOQOlJjxevog) over details of Jewish religion and over
Paul's assertions about the aliveness ofjesus. But the narrative in 2 5 : 9 had
already made it clear that Festus's real reason for suggesting that Paul
should g o to Jerusalem was to win favour with the Jews, w h o wanted him
sent to Jerusalem because they were plotting to assassinate Paul on the way
(cp. verse 3 ) .
Actually, when it comes to attempting to assess the motives o f New
Testament writers, there are not very many instances involving the
narration of events when one may be quite sure of them. N o b o d y can doubt
that in the little piece o f narrative in Gal. 2: 3 - 5 Paul is struggling hard to
establish a point which evidently had been and was being contested. W e
can no longer be certain whether Titus was or was not circumcised; but,
whichever it was, Paul is evidently telling the story in order to make it plain
that it in no way undermines the case for the freedom o f the Gentiles. But it
so happens that, whereas we are certain that he had this aim and held to it
with passionate feeling, it is almost equally certain that he could hardly
have distorted the facts, even if he had wished to, without being detected
and ruining his cause. Here, then, is a case o f known apologetic intention
where the corollary o f tendentiousness is resisted by the circumstances.
There are few other passages of the New Testament involving the narration
o f events that can be decisively furnished with a purpose. If Brandon's
arguments from contents are not conclusive, there is no support from
tradition for the view that Mark's Gospel was written as apologetic to
exculpate Christians from complicity in the Jewish revolt. Papias's
hackneyed words state that Mark's aim was to record fully and accurately
21
what Peter had said. T h e newly-discovered fragment attributed to
Clement o f Alexandria contradicts the 'fully', saying rather that the
Gospel represents only a selection o f Peter's reminiscences, intended for
22
the use o f beginners. But in both cases, the motive ascribed to the writer is
simply to preserve traditions. Luke's Gospel (and, by implication, the Acts)
claims for itself accurate investigation and declares the intention o f
instructing the reader ( 1 : 3f). John's Gospel states for itself an evangelistic
purpose (20: 3 1 ) . T h e epistles (including those, such as the Epistle to the
Hebrews, which may be more in the nature o f treatises or homilies than o f

2i
Apud E u s e b . H.E. 3.39.15 2 2
See F. F. B r u c e , a b o v e p p . 88f.
100 C. F. D. MOULE

normal letters) are clearly written with pastoral intentions. A n d the

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

Argumentum e silentio

T h e title o f this note might perhaps be better in the plural: argumenta e

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

1
O r ' p r o b a b l y not true' etc., a c c o r d i n g to the strength o f the c o n v i c t i o n with w h i c h
(a), (b) a n d (c) are asserted.

IOI
102 G.M. STYLER

sound. As far as logical form is concerned, it will often be possible for

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

2
(d) figures in the 'reverse' a r g u m e n t o n l y .
 Argumentum e silentio 103

the whole o f Dr Brandon's case, in which he takes great pains in trying to

establish each one; other essays in this collection examine individual points
in detail. What is emphasised here is that arguments from silence cannot
stand in isolation; they take their place and have their force in conjunction
with the discussion, interpretation, and evaluation of every relevant piece o f
evidence and argument.

It will perhaps be of interest to proceed now to a brief summary of the main

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

itself, Jesus did not openly and definitely repudiate the outlook of zealotism;
that, far from repudiating it, some of his actions and above all his execution
by the Romans on the charge o f sedition compel us to see him as, at least in
some measure, in sympathy with it. With Dr Brandon's positive arguments
we are not here concerned. What we here note is his use o f the 'direct'
argument from silence: viz. his claim that Mark, in contrast with passages
in the later gospels, does not portray Jesus as openly repudiating the use o f
force and resistance to R o m e . At most he does so by implication. T h e
contrast with passages in the later gospels is significant, and highlights
Mark's silence. So too, he claims, is the contrast between the strong
criticism which the Jesus o f Mark levels against the Jewish groups - against
the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians - and his silence
concerning the Zealots.
(5) Similarly, D r Brandon claims that the other early traditions ofjesus's
teaching (i.e. what is generally denoted as Q ) contain no evidence o f the
'pacific' Christ. T h e main passages which explicitly portray him as 'pacific'
are found only in the later gospels, and are independent additions to the
3
tradition.
(6) Finally, separate mention should be made o f Mark's omission to
supply a translation o f the word 'Cananaean'. Dr Brandon uses the reverse
argument here, and holds that, contrary to his usual practice, Mark gives
no translation, because he does not want to draw attention to the fact that
one of Jesus's disciples was a member o f the Zealot party.
O u t o f these instances o f the argument from silence it will be seen that
items 1, 2 , 3, and 6 employ the 'reverse' argument, and items 4 and 5 the
direct argument. A s has already been said, an answer to these arguments
would have to cover as many points as Dr Brandon covers in his advocacy
of them; and some o f this is attempted in other essays. In particular it may
be noticed that much will depend on what was listed as point (c) on page
1 0 1 , viz. h o w strong is the expectation that the writer w h o is in fact silent
ought to have spoken, and how strong is his alleged motive for concealment?
But an attempt to answer the most direct use of the argument from silence is
called for here, and it is to this that the final section o f this note is devoted.

H o w complete, then, is the silence o f the most important witnesses on the

vital points? T h e three witnesses to be re-examined are Paul, Mark, and Q ;
and the vital points are those that define the traditional picture ofjesus as
one w h o is essentially opposed to the use o f violence for the sake o f asserting
one's rights. If that picture is basically veridical, then, whatever affection

3
C p . especially Matt. 5:3, 5, 9; 26:52-4; Luke 9:52-6; 13:1-3; 19:38b, 42; 22:51;
23: 34; J o h n 18:36-7.
 Argumentum e silentio 105

Jesus doubtless had for Israel and its national heritage, it follows that he
would ultimately be opposed to Zealot activism. T o those brought up in the
ordinary tradition it comes as a shock to find that this picture of Jesus is
under suspicion o f being a forgery, made for the purposes o f political
apologetic, or to underpin a non-historical religious myth. T o many it will
remain inconceivable - however the battle o f scholarly argument turns out
- that this picture ofjesus can be anything but a true picture of one w h o was
uniquely creative, inconceivable that it could have been put together by
accident and coincidence out o f apologetic motives. Such judgements are o f
course 'subjective'. But perhaps 'intuitive' would be a better word to
describe them. 'Subjective' has become a pejorative word, and is too often
used to denote a judgement that is hasty or ill-considered. But the intuition
which recognises in the traditional picture ofjesus something that is both
unique and compelling is neither hasty nor ill-considered. At any rate, the
widespread assurance that the character ofjesus is of priceless worth does
at the least demand that D r Brandon's assertions and arguments should be
subjected to criticism as rigorous as he has applied to the New Testament.
T h e evidence o f Paul ought not to be too quickly dismissed as irrelevant.
It is true that the harvest o f biographical information about Jesus from
Paul's epistles is meagre. But the testimony to his essential character is
4
steady and convincing. Even on the traditional view it is remarkable how
brightly the character o f Jesus shines through in Paul's own ethical
9
principles and teachings. It is certainly 'remarkable , in view o f the fact that
Paul had not been a disciple ofjesus; but it is not incredible, given that Paul
did receive the Christian tradition. What to the present writer would be
incredible is that Paul, or his Hellenistic-Christian predecessors, should
first have invented a soteriology out o f the fact o f the cross, and then have
constructed this picture o f Jesus to underpin that soteriology. If the
soteriology alone could win converts, why bother to invent the picture? A n d
if the picture is as old as the soteriology, where could it have originated,
except in Jesus himself?
T h e evidence o f Mark is twofold. First, there is the passage about the
5
tribute-money. Dr Brandon argues that the logion 'Render unto Caesar
. . .' stood originally by itself and bore the meaning that no Israelite should
concede to a pagan ruler the obedience due only to G o d , that is, it
advocated resistance; and that Mark has reversed the original meaning by

4
C p . e.g., R o m . 12: 14-21; 1 3 : 1 ; 15: if; 1 C o r . 2: 16; 9 (not asserting o n e ' s rights);
together with 11: 1; 13; 2 C o r . 10: 1; E p h . 4:2, 2of; Phil. 2: iff; C o l . 3 : 1 2 - 1 5 . T h e r e
is little to be g a i n e d b y e x a m i n i n g every passage in detail, although the quantity o f
the e v i d e n c e is i m p o r t a n t to the argument. T h e argument has b e e n vividly stated in
the form: ' T h e picture o f dydjiT] painted b y Paul in 1 C o r . 13 is not a self-portrait.'
5
See p p . 241-63 b e l o w .
106 G.M. STYLER

giving it its present setting. Against this, it must be argued that the
concentration o f attention on an actual imperial coin clearly guarantees a
positive teaching that taxes ought to be paid, and by implication that R o m a n
rule should not be resisted; and that this very concentration on the coin and
its inscription will seem to many, as it does to the present writer, to be
highly characteristic ofjesus himself, and his concrete approach to abstract
questions. It is hard to believe in either the ingenuity or the perversity which
Dr Brandon's suggestion ascribes to Mark.
Secondly there is the constant teaching o f the divine necessity that the
Son of man must suffer. It is possible, of course, along with D r Brandon and
many scholars, to impugn this evidence, to see it as a Pauline or post-Pauline
construction, and to deny that Jesus, if he predicted his death, ever did so in
these theological terms. But at least it is clear that Mark is not silent about
6
Jesus's central convictions. A n d if there is an essential germ of truth in this
picture o f Jesus's understanding o f his vocation, then that confirms the
traditional picture o f his character.
T h e estimate we make, then, o f Mark's silence will depend on a number
of things: how complete we deem that silence to be, how far the exceptions
to it can be explained away as motivated apologetically, and how far the
situation in Jesus's own lifetime must have compelled him to speak openly if
he wished to dissociate himself from revolutionary sympathies. Dr Brandon
contrasts Jesus's silence here with his open denunciation o f Pharisees,
Sadducees, and Herodians. H e is right in saying that the Jesus o f Mark
openly criticises the Pharisees; but his attitude to the Herodians is less
7
plain, and his attitude to the Sadducees emerges scarcely more frequently
than his attitude to revolutionaries.
T h e kernel o f any reply to Dr Brandon must be a defence o f the
traditional view that Jesus urged a religious dependence on G o d which
treated human establishments, rights, and loyalties as secondary.
Sometimes the details o f what is implied are spelt out; but the context in
which this is done is accidental, and the implications for any one range o f
human activity may be made plain only in one passage, and that may be
one that occurs in only one gospel.
It is when we turn to examine the Q-material that Dr Brandon's case

6
I f the p r e d i c t i o n s o f his d e a t h are retained, but radically rewritten, then o f c o u r s e a
different inference will be indicated. But what h a p p e n s o n a modest rewriting o f
t h e m ? E.g., if Jesus predicted that he must die, in line with the fate o f p r o p h e t s
before h i m , but without explicit reference to the details, or to the d e e p e r theological
m e a n i n g ? D r B r a n d o n seems to m e to be too q u i c k in identifying loyalty to the
p r o p h e t i c ideas with a p r o - Z e a l o t o u t l o o k . Surely J e r e m i a h and Deutero-Isaiah
m i g h t warrant a different estimate.
7
A s against their attitude to h i m . W h a t is 'the leaven o f H e r o d ' ( M a r k 8: 15)? T h e
answer is not o b v i o u s .
 Argumentum e silentio 107

seems most vulnerable. True, it gives no explicit disavowal o f the use o f

force in revolutionary situations. But the general injunctions o f the spirit o f
love are so strongly expressed that the pacific implications are surely
inescapable. 'Love your enemies; d o good to those who hate you; bless those
w h o curse you; pray for those w h o treat you spitefully. W h e n a man hits you
on the cheek, offer him the other cheek too; when a man takes your coat, let
8
him have your shirt as well.' Even Q , o f course, is not immune from
criticism and the suspicion that the genuine sayings o f j e s u s have been
amplified in subsequent tradition. But in the passage quoted the present
writer cannot doubt that we are hearing words that substantially represent
the mind o f j e s u s , and that are incompatible with active zealotism. Q at
least has broken silence.

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

The Poor and the Zealots

T h e economic conditions o f Palestine were marked by a sharp rise in

prosperity in the Hasmonaean period and a decline in the middle of the first
century B . C . , caused by the civil wars, the R o m a n intervention with its
financial burden, and the remigration o f such Jews as had been settled by
the Hasmonaeans in territories which were separated again from the Jewish
commonwealth by the Romans. T h e rule o f Herod, the son o f the financial
ejtiTQOJtoS o f the last Hasmonaean, meant a sophistication o f the taxation
system and, perhaps, an increase o f the levy, but, by and large, a slow rise in
prosperity. T h e many public edifices which were erected under Herod
indicate the existence o f certain financial resources and the new possibility
o f long-term commitments. T h e expansion of certain crafts and, indeed, the
1
new establishment o f others must have been the consequence o f this
building wave. T h e economic situation was such that no special reason for
discontent existed. T h e same is true for the Roman period. T h e new
2 3
valuation o f property, a certain alteration in the fiscal system, caused
discontent, but there is no substantial evidence for an increase in the
4
burden on the population. Occasional sequestrations, like the appropria­
tion o f Temple-money for the improvement o f the water supply o f
5
Jerusalem, were for the benefit o f the people, and major wars, such as
would have demanded the use o f the resources o f Palestine, did not take
6
place. The pilgrimages, which were very important especially for
7
Jerusalem, are likely to have increased considerably in the times o f the Pax
Augusta. T h e conditions were different in the tetrarchy o f Antipas, the
8
wealth o f which was minimal compared with that o f the R o m a n province,

1
C p . H . Kreissig, Dir sozialen Zusammenhdnge des juddischen Krieges, Schriften zur
Geschichte und Kultur der Antike i (Berlin, 1970), 58.
2
E . Stauffer, Die Dauer des Census Augusti Festschrift E. Klostermann, T U 77 (Berlin,
1961), p p . gff. C p . A . G r a n o v s k y , Land Taxation in Palestine (Jerusalem, 1927).
3
T h e details m e n t i o n e d in K e t . 17: 16 a n d B . B . 127b m a y reflect this.
4
T h e c o r r u p t i o n o f the R o m a n administration (for Syria in the time o f T i b e r i u s see
T a c i t u s , Ann. ii. 43) w a s p r o b a b l y m o r e than m a t c h e d b y the decrease in costly
donations to foreign countries, w h i c h was so very typical o f the H e r o d i a n style o f rule.
5
5/2§i75fl"-
6
T h e r e m o v a l o f the threat o f w a r b y the agreement between the R o m a n s and
Parthians in 37 A . D . is o f the greatest i m p o r t a n c e .
7
J. J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, 3rd edn. ( G o t t i n g e n , 1969), p p . 89-98 ( E T
L o n d o n , 1969, p p . 77-84).
8
H . H o e h n e r , Herod Antipas ( C a m b r i d g e , 1972), p p . 65<f.

109
I 10 E. BAMMEL

while Antipas nevertheless had to try to keep up the pattern of expenses set
by his father.
T h e famine at the end o f the forties, aggravated by the preceding
9
Sabbath year, and the uncertainty o f communications, conditioned by the
10
guerilla warfare o f the sicarii, are likely to have resulted in a certain
economic decline. T h e completion o f the T e m p l e in A . D . 64 meant the
redundancy o f a great number o f skilled workers and posed short-term
economic problems. T h e only strike o f which we know, however, is an
11
action taken by the bakers o f Temple bread and makers o f incense.
In fact the social condition o f the Poor was not comparable with that o f
12
similar social strata in the surrounding countries. T h e soil was not
13
PaoiXixf) X ^ Q a but private property. T h e peasants were not just Xaoi,
labourers without legal titles to land, but personae. T h e position had been
different in Galilee, where the country had been divided between
14
Hellenistic cities and royal estates in Seleucid times. T h e conquest by the
Hasmonaeans meant on the one side the dissolution of the city constitutions
15
and on the other an improvement o f the situation o f the indigenous rural
16
population.
True, a certain part o f the land became the private property o f the
17
Herodians, and the majority o f this was subsequently sold by the R o m a n s .

9
J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem, p . 159 ( E T , p . 142), W h e t h e r these e p i s o d e s h a d a m o r e
far-reaching effect o n first-century Palestine than previous events still awaits
investigation.
1 0
T h i s is stressed, perhaps even o v e r - e m p h a s i s e d , b y J o s e p h u s .
11
A c c o r d i n g toJeremias,ymtfa/*m, p . 27 ( E T , p . 25), the o n l y social m o v e m e n t at this
time.
1 2
T h e e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s resulting in c o m p a r a t i v e calmness, as they are
p r e s u p p o s e d in the G o s p e l s , are m u c h closer akin to those o f the reformed p e r i o d o f
the R o m a n Kolonat than to those o f the O r i e n t o r o f pre-Spartacus R o m e . T o
c o n c l u d e from this that the G o s p e l s reflect R o m a n c o n d i t i o n s rather than
Palestinian o n e s , as w a s d o n e b y A . K a l t h o f f (Die Entstehung des Christentums
( L e i p z i g , 1904), p p . 42f; E T p p . 541), is w r o n g h e a d e d .
1 3
Kreissig, Zusammenhange, p p . 26f; E. B i c k e r m a n n , Les Institutions des Seleucides (Paris,
1938), p . 179. O n e - s i d e d and not very c l e a r l y - d e v e l o p e d views are expressed b y
H . G . K i p p e n b e r g , Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Judda ( G o t t i n g e n , 1978),
p p . io6ff. F o r the c o n d i t i o n s after the J e w i s h war, c p . A . b e n - D a v i d , Talmudische
Oekonomie (Hildesheim, 1974), p p . 58ff.
1 4
A . A l t , Kleine Schriften ii ( M i i n c h e n , 1953), p p . 4o8f.
1 5
T h e o p i n i o n o f W . Bauer (Festgabe fur Ad. Julicher, T u b i n g e n , 1927, p . 21), that a
j u d a i s a t i o n o f Galilee w a s i m p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e o f lack o f settlers, is not s u p p o r t e d b y
e v i d e n c e . F o r the m o s t recent discussion, c p . E. M . M e y e r s , ' T h e Cultural Setting
o f Galilee: T h e C a s e o f R e g i o n a l i s m and Early J u d a i s m ' in Aufstieg und Niedergang der
rbmischen Welt ii (Berlin, 1970), 686-702.
1 6
T h e alliance between the H a s m o n a e a n s and the penniless rural p o p u l a t i o n w h i c h is
stressed s o m u c h b y W . W . Buehler, The Pre-Herodean Civil War and Social Debate
(Basel, 1974), p . 67, m a y b e partly d u e to this factor. T h i s segment o f the p o p u l a t i o n
was, h o w e v e r , m u c h m o r e p r o n e to being attracted to messianic figures.
" J o s . AJ 18 §2.
 T h e Poor and the Zealots 111

But this happened under conditions which were more favourable for
18
husbandmen and tenants than in the surrounding countries. T h e number
of smallholdings was comparatively large. This means that the percentage
of those who were dependent either as tenants or as casual labourers was
reduced in proportion. Slaves, at least Jewish slaves, were rare. Rural unrest
was less motivated than in most countries o f the Mediterranean world.
Nevertheless, Jewish literature is aware of the social differences as well as
of the unnatural state o f the Poor. T h e consciousness is kept alive by the
memory o f the Deuteronomic legislation, according to which the land was
to be divided anew into equal allotments after fifty years, and is conditioned
19
by the experience - spelled out chiefly in the Psalms - that G o d is
especially the G o d o f the Poor. Thus those w h o were in a less destitute
position than the corresponding classes in the neighbouring countries were
able to give voice to their grievances in the knowledge o f the divine
assistance; and on the other side, whatever oppression existed in the Jewish
commonwealth, it could not be carried to extremes, because even the
oppressors were aware o f the divine promises for the Poor. It is due to this
almost unique conjunction o f circumstances that something like a
movement o f the Poor could arise in Palestine, while the rest o f the Orient
remained silent and the Occident was shaken by uprisings o f a purely
e c o n o m i c nature.
20
T h e expression o f their discontent is traceable only here and there,
testifying both to a subliterary status o f the Poor and to the inseparable
amalgam o f social consciousness with other, religious, themes. T h e first
document is derived from the end of the second century B . C . , after the end o f
the M a c c a b a e a n wars and the emergence o f a new and disappointing
establishment. Incorporated in the Book o f Sirach ( 1 3 : 17fT), it is a piece on
21
its o w n . It states plainly that there is nothing in c o m m o n between rich and
2 2
poor, that there exists no xoivoovict between them (verse 15), a

1 8
A different view is taken b y F. C . Grant, The Economic Background of the Gospels
( O x f o r d , 1926), p p . 1 if. C p . A . O p p e n h e i m e r , The 'Am Ha-aretz'. A Study in the social
history of the Jewish people in the Hellenistic-Roman Period ( L e i d e n , 1977). T h e r e is n o
e v i d e n c e for the a s s u m p t i o n o f H . G . K i p p e n b e r g and G . Theissen (Soziologie der
Jesusbewegung ( M i i n c h e n 1977), p . 42 ( E T L o n d o n 1979, p . 41); it is an otherwise
interesting sketch) that the sale resulted in an increase o f social tension.
19
V e r y characteristic is Ps. 145:7-9: a&ixoi>ii£voi, Jtetvarvreg, JIEJIE&Tjuivoi,
xaTeQQaYnevoi, xixpXoi, 6 i x a i o i , JIQOOTJA.VTOI, ogcpavog, xr\QO\.
2 0
E.g. m o s t strikingly in the Q u m r a n pesher to Ps. 37.
21
It is framed b y a passage that gives casuistic advice (13:9) at the beginning and
c o m e s o u t with a qualified s u p p o r t for wealth at the end (13: 24); a different view is
taken b y G . W o h l e n b e r g , J e s u s Sirach und die soziale Frage', Neue kirchliche
Zeitschrift viii (1897), 342.
22 ( = nman); that m e a n s that Volksgemeinschaft d o e s not exist any longer between
them.
112 E.BAMMEL

characterisation o f class disruption that is highlighted by the fact that it

starts off with the citation o f the Stoic phrase: homo homini amicus ( 1 3 : 1 5 ) ,
and goes on to emphasise that, contrary to this, the poor man is like an
23
6vaYQO£ in the desert which is the prey o f the lion and even considered as
a t n e 24
a (35eXvYM' by rich. T h e passage, which disagrees with the whole
25
outlook o f W i s d o m literature, seems to have been taken from a manifesto
o f those who consider themselves as JlTO/CH and at the same time as
eijoepeig and xajieivot.
It is this intertwining o f social and religious language that becomes
typical for this literature. Characteristic are Enoch iogff and Ps. Sol. with
their equation o f JITCD/CH and o a i o t . T h e conviction that the Poor are the
very tool o f G o d finds its most thoroughgoing and forceful expression in the
statement of Ass. Mos. 1 : 1 2 : the world was created because o f the plebs (=
26
Amme ha-arez)
Formulations similar to those o f the Book o f Enoch occur in the
2 1
Magnificat o f Luke 1 a passage that belongs to a set o f stories on the
28
birth o f the Baptist, the speaker of which is thought to have been originally
29 30
Elizabeth the mother of J o h n . T h e social radicalism o f these verses is in

2 3
S o already J o b 24:5. T h e e n e m y o f G o d is pictured as a lion in i Q H o d . 5 : 7 - 1 9 ; c p .
A c h i k a r 2: 57.
2 4
Is this a phrase used b y the rich w h o b r a n d e d the p o o r as an element inimically
d i s p o s e d t o w a r d s the present o r d e r ?
" C p . ThWNTVi 8 9 f ( E T vi, 894Q. 3

2 6
It is not necessary to s m o o t h a w a y the stern saying b y suggesting a conjecture (as
has been d o n e b y C . C l e m e n in his edition, Die Himmelfahrt des Mose ( B o n n , 1904), p .
5). T h e r e is s o m e truth in the famous statement o f Nietzsche: ' I n dieser U m k e h r u n g
d e r W e r t e (zu d e r es gehort, das W o r t "'arm" als s y n o n y m fur " h e i l i g " u n d
" F r e u n d " zu b r a u c h e n ) liegt die B e d e u t u n g des j i i d i s c h e n V o l k s : mit i h m b e g i n n t
d e r Sklaven-Aufstand in d e r M o r a l ' (Jenseits von Gut and Bose, A p h o r i s m u s 195).
2 7 cs
L u k e 1: 53 is given b y s y in the form: he has filled the p o o r with his g o o d n e s s a n d
d e s p i s e d the rich, since they are e m p t y (translated a c c o r d i n g to A . M e r x , Die vier
kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem dltesten bekannten Texte (Berlin, 1897), p . 106. F. C .
Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe ( C a m b r i d g e , 1904), ad. l o c , regards the s e c o n d
h a l f o f the sentence as c o r r u p t . T h e spiritualising reading is certainly s e c o n d a r y ,
b u t is p o s s i b l y a parallel version that g o e s b a c k to an early ( c p . R e v . 3:17), p e r h a p s
e v e n pre-Christian p e r i o d . T h e Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, w h i c h derives from
Italy, also reads: pauperes impleuit bonis (PL 56. 809).
2 8
M . D i b e l i u s , Die urchristliche Ueberlieferung von Johannes dem Taufer ( G o t t i n g e n , 1911),
p p . 67fT.
2 9
T h e derivation o f the Psalm o f M a r y from the Baptist tradition is m a d e certain b y
the parallels L u k e i:68ff and the prehistory and c o m p o s i t i o n o f Protoluke,
i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f the reading 'Elisabeth' e m p h a s i s e d b y A . v a n H a r n a c k , ' D a s
M a g n i f i c a t d e r Elisabet ( L u k . 1, 46-55) nebst einigen B e m e r k u n g e n zu L u k . 1 u n d
2', SBA (1900), p p . 538ff; reprinted in Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments und
der alten Kirche (Berlin, 1931), 62ff; c p . A . M e y e r , Das Ratsel des Jakobusbriefes,
(1930), p . 149, n. 3; H . Sahlin, Der Messias und das Gottesvolk, Acta Seminarii Neotest.
Upsaliensis xii (1945), p p . 15gff; a different interpretation in L. G o p p e l t , ThWNT\\,
17 n. 43 ( E T vi, 17 n. 43). O n the possibility o f an earlier origin, w h i c h w o u l d not
 T h e Poor and the Zealots ii3

keeping with the tenor o f what is, according to tradition, the general
31
preaching o f the Baptist, whereas the special advice in Luke 3: 1 0 - 1 5 is so
much o f a piece with Luke's own social teaching that it can only be regarded
as the evangelist's replacement o f something that was more radical in
32 33
character and offensive to the ears o f the R o m a n government. The
Baptist's attack against Antipas can be seen as a symbolic action in
imitation o f Phineas the Zealot. Confirmation for this is to be found in
Josephus. His report, which states that a wider audience (aM.01) became
34
excited (fJQ0T)aav) and that it was possible to interpret the call ^anxio\i(b
35
owievai as an undertaking that constitutes nouarum rerum cupiditas and
might lead to aJTOoracug and (iexa|3oX,rj, makes sense only if the Baptist's
preaching contained elements o f the kind that is indicated in the Gospels.
36
T h e Zealot m o v e m e n t , which - according to Josephus at least - arose in
A . D . 6, immediately aimed at the consent and co-operation o f the masses by
focussing their resistance on the valuation o f property (for the purpose o f
taxation) and the counting o f the population. Social unrest, quite apart
37
from the theological argumentation, was bound to have been stirred up by
38
this - Simon is said to have already destroyed the mansions o f the wealthy.
T h e guerilla actions, carried out in the open countryside, depended equally
on some kind o f assistance given by the rural population. T h e social side o f
the activity is emphasised by the fact that one o f the first actions carried out
by the insurgents in Jerusalem in A . D . 66 consisted in setting fire to the
archives where the deeds o f loans were deposited, inciting thereby the

e x c l u d e h a n d i n g d o w n via and elaboration b y Baptist circles, c p . M e y e r , Das Ratsel,

a n d P. W i n t e r , ' M a g n i f i c a t a n d Benedictus - M a c c a b a e a n Psalms?', BJRL 37
(1954), 328ff.
3 0
F o r the reversal t h e o l o g y c p . D . L . M e a l a n d , Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels
( L o n d o n , 1980), p p . 4iff. It must, h o w e v e r , b e emphasised that the d o m i n a n t forces
in J u d a i s m m o v e d a w a y from this position. T a r g . Is. 53. 9 states that the wealthy
will b e an object o f c o n t e m p t , while nothing is said o f the exaltation o f the P o o r .
Syriac B a r u c h 70:4 g o e s s o far as to maintain that the preference given to the P o o r
will b e a sign o f the eschatological w o e s , w h i c h m e a n s a negative feature.
3 1
H i s a u d i e n c e is the masses ( M a r k 1:5; M a t t . 1 1 : 7 ) , not the leaders ( M a r k 11:27ft*).
3 2
C p . NTSt 18 (1971/72), i05f. Kreissig's interpretation o f the passage misses the
point completely.
3 3
F o r L u k e ' s caution in this respect see W . H . C . Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the
Early Church ( O x f o r d , 1965), p p . 15iff.
3 4
F o r this reading see W . Brandt, Diejudischen Baptismen, B Z A W 18 (1910), p . 145.
3 5
C p . E . L o h m e y e r , Das Urchristentum i ( G o t t i n g e n , 1932), 3if.
3 6
F o r the p r o b l e m o f the priority o f the sicarii a n d their relation to the Z e a l o t s see G .
B a u m b a c h , ' Z e l o t e n u n d Sikarier', ThLZ 90 (1965), c o l . 727ff; Die antiromischen
Aufstandsgruppen (in J. M a i e r a n d J. Schreiner, Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums
( W i i r z b u r g , 1973), p p . 2730), a n d recently M . H e n g e l , Josephus-Studien. Festschrift
0. Michel ( G o t t i n g e n , 1974), p p . i75ff.
3 7
M a t e r i a l in M . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten ( L e i d e n , 1961), p p . 132ff.
38
J o s e p h u s , BJ, 2 §57.
114 e.bammel

39
aJlOQOt against the EVJlOQOl. Their leader could be characterised as an
40
oixeiog dialog. Simon b . Giora, one o f the leaders of the last phase o f the
rebellion, managed to gather a following by promising freedom to the
41
slaves.
It is evident that the currents o f social unrest that existed in Israel were
swallowed up by the Zealots. There is, however, no evidence that the
terminology o f the theology o f the Poor played any role in their argument.
O n the contrary, the very fact that it was not before the end o f the
B a r - K o c h b a rebellion that a re-emergence o f the Jtioxog-consciousness,
42
albeit with a significant change, is noticeable among those w h o had been
the activists, indicates that the ways o f Zealots and the Poor had parted in
the preceding period.
In the meantime the theology o f the Poor was adopted by the
Judaeo-Christians. This had already happened in Jerusalem in the first
43
decades o f the Christian c h u r c h and became a constituent factor in the
outlook o f that branch o f Christendom. Such a phenomenon is intelligible
only if there existed no other movement that seized upon the terminology o f
the Poor. It is reasonable to suppose that such elements among the Poor as
did not agree with the activism o f the Zealots found shelter, a new
perspective and at the same time receptivity towards their o w n ideology in
certain communities o f nascent Christianity.

II

T h e problem o f a possible influence on nascent Christianity consists o f two

questions: firstly, whether early Christianity emerged from those levels o f
44
society and whether it in turn tried to influence them; and secondly,

3 9 4 0
I b i d . 2 §427. I b i d . 2 §443.
4 1
I b i d . 4 §508. D o e s J o s e p h u s a p p l y a topos? F o r an interpretation o f the p a s s a g e c p .
O . M i c h e l , 'Studien zu J o s e p h u s . S i m o n bar G i o r a ' , NTSt 14 (1967/68), 402f; M .
H e n g e l , Gewaltund Gewaltlosigkeit ( T u b i n g e n , 1971), p p . 30,59f. ( E T L o n d o n , 1975,
PP. 59*) •
4 2
It is Krroaon = serfdom, n o t nvas = p o v e r t y , that is seen b y A k i b a as the state
o f Israel that indicates the i m p e n d i n g salvation.
4 3
C p . ThWNTv'x, 908, 9 1 1 - 1 3 ( E T vi, 908, 912-14).
4 4
Galilee h a d b e c o m e n o t o r i o u s as the h o t b e d o f nationalist unrest already at the
b e g i n n i n g o f H e r o d ' s reign, and c o n t i n u e d to gain equal fame w h e n the R o m a n s
took o v e r ( c p . E. Stauffer, Jerusalem und Rom ( B e r n , 1957), p p . 81 f). T h e fact that
s o m e o f the disciples o f j e s u s h a d n a m e s w h i c h c o m m e m o r a t e d the M a c c a b a e a n
heroes s h o w s that tendencies o f this kind had taken root in the p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s
d o e s not, h o w e v e r , m e a n that e v e r y o n e in Galilee w a s ready to s u p p o r t z e a l o t i s m
actively. T h e fact that Jesus started his p r e a c h i n g in s y n a g o g u e s , that is to say in
essentially Pharisaic institutions, a n d that his a r g u m e n t a t i o n is d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s
the Pharisees and against Pharisaic accusations s h o w s that it w a s this w o r l d a n d
c l i m a t e that was his starting-point. T h e remark in L u k e a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h
 T h e Poor and the Zealots 115

whether leaders o f the church had special connections with political

activists.
T h e indications given in the gospels on the first followers ofjesus point
45
to the lower stratum o f independent or at least semi-independent
46
professions, without entirely excluding other spheres (Mark 2: 1 4 ; Luke
4 7
8: 3; J o h n 18: 1 5 ) . T h e conclusion that they therefore represented the piety
48
of the Anawins is mistaken. Nor can the followers characterised by the
term JlQOo5ex6|l£VOl (Luke 2: 2 5 , 3 8 ; Mark 1 5 : 4 3 ) be brought into close
association with this movement.
There is more evidence for some kind o f a connection with the Zealots.
Judas Iscariot was, according to the plausible suggestion o f Wellhausen, a
9
sicarius* Simon is called Kavavaiog, a word that probably equals Zealot.
50
Instead o f Thaddaeus the name Judas Zelotes is used in abh and some

7iQOo6ex6nevoi w e r e a m o n g the associates o f Jesus's parents - a detail w h i c h is

a m o r e integral part o f that tradition than the Magnificat - provides a further
indication for a 'spiritual h o m e ' in a climate o f peaceful expectation, although the
k n o w l e d g e o f activist m a c h i n a t i o n s can never have been far a w a y from Jesus's
sphere o f action. T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e for a Z e a l o t p r o v e n a n c e , let alone for m o r e
extravagant views such as the o n e a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h ' M a r y seems to have trained
several [ o f her s o n s ] as pioneers o f n e w revolutionary thought and a c t i o n ' ( H .
J o h n s o n , Christians and Communism ( L o n d o n , 1956), p . 49). N o r is there any foothold
for the v i e w entertained b y F. A n d e r m a n n that Jesus's father met the end o f a rebel
(Das grosse Gesicht ( M i i n c h e n , 1970), p . 172).
4 5 ax l
C p . A c t s 4:13: d Y Q a w i ° • • • i&tdraxi.
4 6
For the p r o b l e m o f the social level o f the early Christian c o m m u n i t i e s c p . A .
D e i s s m a n n , Das Urchristentum und die unteren Schichten ( G o t t i n g e n , 1908); M . W e b e r ,
Grundriss der Sozial-Oekonomie 3 ( T u b i n g e n , 1922), p p . 275ff; B . G r i m m ,
' U n t e r s u c h u n g e n zur sozialen Stellung der friihen Christen in der r o m i s c h e n
Gesellschaft' (Diss. M i i n c h e n , 1975), p p . 36f and especially A . v o n Harnack, ' D a s
Urchristentum u n d die sozialen Fragen', Preussische Jahrbucher 131 (1908), 449f: 'the
proletariate p r o p e r l y speaking has never exercised a d o m i n a n t influence in the
c o m m u n i t i e s and those proletarians w h o j o i n e d the Christians were raised to a
higher level thereby'.
4 7
L u k e points with a certain emphasis to p e o p l e b e l o n g i n g to the higher strata o f
society in the e n v i r o n m e n t o f j e s u s o r o n the fringes o f Early C h r i s t e n d o m ; this is
p r o b a b l y a s e c o n d a r y feature. T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e that Jesus had been reared in a
wealthy house as G . W . B u c h a n a n , J e s u s and the U p p e r C l a s s ' , NovTest 7
0
(1964/65), 195ft , assumes.
4 8
T h i s is the line taken b y W . Sattler in his influential c o n t r i b u t i o n to the Festgabe fur
A. Julicher ( T u b i n g e n , 1927), ' D i e A n a w i m i m Zeitalter Jesu Christi' ( p p . iff).
Similar ideas are found already in M . Friedlander, Die religibsen Bewegungen innerhalb
des Judentum im Zeitalter Jesu (Berlin, 1905).
49 0
Das Evangelium Marci (Berlin, 1903), p . 25; F. Schulthess, ZNW 21 (1922), 250ft .
Different suggestions are m a d e b y H . Ingholl, Studia Orientalia. J. Pedersen dedicata
( C o p e n h a g e n , 1953) and recently b y B. Gartner, Die rdtselhaften Termini Nawarder und
Iskarioth ( U p p s a l a , 1957), p p . 4iff; c p . D . Schirmer, ' R e c h t s g e s c h i c h t l i c h e
0
U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u m J o h a n n e s - E v a n g e l i u m ' (Diss. Erlangen, 1962), p p . 179ft ,
w h o adopts the theory o f C . C . T o r r e y ' T h e N a m e " I s c a r i o t " ' , HThR 36 (1943), 57IE
5 0
J. R . Harris, The Twelve Apostles ( C a m b r i d g e , 1927), p p . 8of, g o e s so far as to identify
him with Nathaniel.
I 16 E.BAMMEL

5 1
other old Latin M S S . o f Matt. 1 0 : 3 . This evidence has to be taken
together with the indications for Baptistic antecedents o f some o f the
52 53
disciples and the activist inclinations o f two o f them. This is enough to
54
show that the circle was not a community far removed from the questions
55
of the d a y . But the fact that they had moved away from their former
loyalties to Jesus and that Jesus acted as the undisputed authority among
them is p r o o f that nothing like a direct and immediate zealotic
impregnation took place in the company o f j e s u s .
T w o o f the documents o f nascent Christianity show a special interest in
social questions. While Mark contains an ethical code ( 1 0 : 1—31) with a
5 6
short section on the dangers o f wealth (verses 1 7 - 3 1 ) , Q is filled with
remarks on the vicissitudes o f the faithful. T h e special regulation for the
disciples not to carry money etc. (Matt. 10:9) may reflect this situation.
T h e allusions to persecution and the appeal not to worry (Luke I2:22ff) are
the dominant theme. There are, however, two sayings, the tenor of which is
different and which demand special attention.

5 1
T h i s m e a n s that the last three n a m e s in the list o f M a t t h e w represent Z e a l o t
activists. W h e t h e r this reading originated b y accident o r goes b a c k to an
i n d e p e n d e n t tradition must b e left u n d e c i d e d .
5 2
C p . D i b e l i u s , Johannes der Tdufer, p p . io6ff.
5 3
M a r k 3: 17; L u k e 9:54; c p . A . Stumpff, ThWNTii, 888 ( E T ii, 886).
5 4
It m a y b e that the difference between the Baptist (and his circle) and Jesus w a s felt
already at an early stage. A n u m b e r o f those w h o surrounded J o h n and J e s u s had
b e e n given additional n a m e s w h i c h characterised them. It is not unlikely that the
s o l e m n phrase o f J o h n 1:29 (i6e 6 d^ivog xxA.) is an extension o f the s i m p l e
appellation djivoc; and that, in this form, it goes b a c k to the Baptist. I f that is the
case, the n a m e alludes to Jesus as to a m a n o f p e a c e in contradistinction to inter alia
t h e ' s o n s o f thunder'.
5 5
R . Eisler, Jesous Basileus ii ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1931), 69°, links Peter (and J o h n ) with the
B a r j o n i m w h o are m e n t i o n e d in Gittin. S u p p o s e that this c o m b i n a t i o n were c o r r e c t ,
it w o u l d rather point to an appellation c o i n e d with the intention o f d a m n i n g the
Christians b y giving the revolutionaries a 'Christian' n a m e than to a linkage o f
Peter with revolutionary activists. It is, h o w e v e r , m u c h m o r e likely that barjonim is
an o p p r o b r i o u s appellation b y w h i c h the Z e a l o t s are sarcastically called ' G r e e k s '
(thus L . G o l d s c h m i d t , Der babylonische Talmud, ed. minor, vi (Berlin, 1932), 364) - a
characterisation w h i c h is very c o m p r e h e n s i b l e from the b a c k g r o u n d o f R a b b i n i c
t h e o l o g y . I f this is true, the appellation ceases to have any c o n n e c t i o n with the
Christians. In any case, the reference to the B a r j o n i m derives from a Sammelbericht
o n the destruction o f J e r u s a l e m (Gitt. 55b~57a), the elements o f w h i c h are o f
different p r o v e n a n c e . T h e Syriac version o f J o h n 18: 10 makes Peter carry a s w o r d
habitually ( c p . A . M e r x , Das Evangelium des Johannes (Berlin, 1911), p . 428) - an
interpretation w h i c h is not unnatural in the oriental e n v i r o n m e n t and h a r d l y
sufficient an indication for listing h i m as a Z e a l o t .
5 6
T h e passage is largely parallel to 9: 33ff. 10: 13-16 equals 9:36°, 42; 10: 17-28 is
parallel to 9: 43-8; 10: 29-31 to 9:49°; 10: 32-4 equals 9: 30-2 and 10: 35-45 is to b e
taken together with 9:33-5. T h i s s h o w s that c h . 10 is based o n an earlier
formation, w h i c h is i n t r o d u c e d b y the regulation o n marital life (verses 1-12) a n d in
w h i c h the section o n offence is replaced b y a p a r a g r a p h o n the specific d a n g e r o f
wealth.
 The P o o r and the Zealots 117

III

Jesus's answer to the question o f the disciples sent by the Baptist (Matt.
1 1 : 4ff; Luke 7:22(1) is given in the tradition o f the Lukan text almost
57
without variants. Its sixth phrase should not be regarded as an addition
58 s a rt 0
by the evangelist; Luke 7: 1 8 - 2 3 * ^ ° c o m p l i c a t e d to be laid in its
59
entirety to the a c c o u n t o f the writer and it is verse 2 1 that strikes o n e as a
redactor's insertion in w h i c h Luke m a d e his o w n addition (KV£V\I&T(OV
novr\Q(bv).
It is m a d e u p o f a formula based o n expressions from Isaiah: 2 9 : i 8 f
(xoocpoi, Tvcptan, jctcdxoi), 3 5 : 5 1 * (xucpAoL, x o x p o i xu>\oi, (lOYitaxtan),
6 1 : i f ( j i x o x o i , o w e x Q i M i E v o i , aiX(xdX.0)TOi, T/uqptan), but it cannot be
wholly explained from this source. Certain other lists are even closer. T h e
substratum o f the formula o c c u r s in the form o f a pattern in references to
60
those excluded from the special c o m m u n i t y . It is also handed d o w n as a
61
catalogue in connection with the i n a d e q u a c y o f i d o l s and in connection
62
with the charitable actions d e m a n d e d o f m a n . Finally it o c c u r s as an
eschatological doctrine, which proclaims the acceptance, healing, or
63
preferential treatment in the messianic age o f those indicated in its list. In

5 7
O m i s s i o n o f the fourth phrase b y 998 b 1, o f the fifth phrase b y 1574 033. T h e reversal
s ( c )
o f the fifth and sixth phrases b y s y 700 is the result o f schematising application o f
the principle o f c r e s c e n d o . T h e T a t i a n tradition too gives the Lukan text almost
w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n - the m o r e remarkable since T a t i a n otherwise often follows
Matthew.
5 8
T h u s E . v o n D o b s c h u t z , ' D e r heutige Stand der L e b e n - J e s u - F o r s c h u n g ' , ZThK
N.F.5 (1924): deriving from the 'pauperistisch gestimmten L u k a s ' . T h e s a m e v i e w
in G . D . Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew ( O x f o r d , 1946),
p . 125 (the latter apparently following F . C . Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe ii
( C a m b r i d g e , 1904), 239).
5 9
T h e passive form o f the v e r b ( c p . 4: 18, 43) makes a L u k a n origin unlikely.
6 0 6 1
I Q S a . 2:5f. E p . Jer. 35-7. 62 £ s r . ( = 2 Esdr. 1-2) 2: 18-20.
5

6 3
G i n z a R . 1: 201 (sick, blind, lepers, cripples, those crawling o n the g r o u n d ( c p . E .
Stauffer, 'Antike Jesustradition u n d J e s u s p o l e m i k i m mittelalterlichen O r i e n t ' ,
ZNW 46 (1955), 2, 17), deaf-mutes, the d e a d , preaching t o the J e w s ) . Parallel
traditions: G i n z a R . 2: 1, 136; J o h a n n e s b u c h 243 ( t w i c e ) . Paraphrases: (a)
J o h a n n e s b u c h 79f ( b l i n d , l a m e , d u m b ) ; (b) Slav. J o s . Bell. 1, 364ff ( l a m e , blind,
w
p o o r ) ; (c) S i b . 8, 2050° (vexooi, x ^ot> xoxpoi, xvcpXoi, ov taxXeovxeg, xotvog (3iog
xal JtXoiJxog; the position o f vexQOi at the beginning is c o n d i t i o n e d b y the
exclusively eschatological e m p h a s i s ) ; S i b . 1, 35iff (vooeooi, &jii|ico|ioi, xucptan,
0
XwXoi, xoocpoi, ov XaAiovxeg, 6aiu,oveg, vexooi); S i b . 8, 279H (oixxooi, vexuag,
vooov) (d) Ps. C l e m . Horn. 1, 6, 4 (xcocpoi, xucpXoi, xvM.01, x<*)A.oi, Jiaoa vooog,
6ai|ioveg, XeJiooi, vexooi; c p . S i b . 1, 351 ff); (^) T e s t . A d a e ( e d . E. R e n a n , Journal
Asiatique (1853), ii, 4441)? 3> 2f ( b l i n d , lepers, deaf, d u m b , h u n c h b a c k s , those sick o f
the palsy, d e m o n s , possessed, the d e a d , the b u r i e d ) . Contrast with this the miracles
o f the Antichrist: O r . S i b . 3: 66: vexvag oxrioei xat or|u.axa nok\6\ Jtoirjaei ( c p . 2:
167); the same in the A n d r e a s - C o m m e n t a r y o n R e v . 56: 27 a n d the E l u c i d a r i u m o f
H o n o r i u s {PL 172:1163); Ps. H i p p . 23, 106, i4:XejiQoi, jiao&Xuxoi, Saiuoveg
. . . vexooi (the m o r e striking since Ps. H i p p . - a c c o r d i n g to W . Bousset, Der
I 18 E.BAMMEL

64
all these variations the formula points back to a pre-Christian period.
Noteworthy are (a) an original core: blind, lame, deaf (and d u m b ) ; (b) the
introduction o f the possessed or (respectively) 5ai[ioveg not until the
65
Judaeo-Christian tradition; (c) the omission o f the Poor outside Q , with
the exception o f 5 Esr. 2 (egens) and Slav. Jos. Bell. This allows one to
conclude on the one hand that the formula already showed a certain
tendency to vary in its Jewish setting, while on the other hand one may
recognise tendentious elaborations as well as supplementary or decorative
66
phrases. T h e inclusion o f the Poor must be regarded as one o f the former.
In content this addition breaks the uniformity o f the formula, which can
otherwise be summarised under some such heading as J i d o a vooog. T h e
67
difference is further emphasised by Evayyeki^ovxai; as compared with

Antichrist ( G o t t i n g e n , 1895), p . 25 ( E T L o n d o n , 1896, p . 4 1 ) - a p a r t from this is from

c. 22 d e p e n d e n t o n E p h r a e m . T h e confutation o f the raising o f the d e a d must be a
case o f a m o r e recent, possibly Christian, counter-form; in addition the other type:
A p . Eliae 33: iff.: lame, deaf, d u m b , blind, lepers, sick, possessed, but n o raisings
from the d e a d (the s a m e in A p . Z e p h . 125, and similar E p h r a e m Syr., Horn, de
Antichristo 9; further material in Bousset, Antichrist, p p . u6f).
C o m p a r e with this the depictions o f the A g e o f Salvation a c c o r d i n g to L e v . R .
18:4 o n c h . 15: 2 ( S - B 1 , 5941): those with h a e m o r r h a g e s , lepers, lame, blind, d u m b ,
deaf, cretins; Pesiq R . 7 (28a): lame, blind, d u m b , deaf, those with h a e m o r r h a g e s ,
lepers; M i d r . S o n g o f S o l . 4:7, 1: those with haemorrhages, lepers, lame, blind,
d u m b , deaf, cretins, simpletons, idiots, those with cleft palates.
6 4
E p . Jer. 'nicht spater als 2 J h d t . v. C h r ' . ( O . Eissfeldt, Einleitung in dasAlte Testament
( T u b i n g e n , 1964), p . 737; E T O x f o r d , 1965, p . 595); 5 Esr. 2nd century A . D . (thus
H . W e i n e l in Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, ed. E. H e n n e c k e 2nd edn. (1924),
p . 391; c p . o n the other h a n d idem in HAT, p p . 332, 335); but 2: 20-233 ( o r b ? ) is
m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y a foreign b o d y . O r . S i b . 3:63ff first century B . C . ( c p . Bousset,
Antichrist, p p . 59f; E T p p . 951); v a g u e r R z a c h , / W I I A , 2131);in the same w a y O r .
S i b . 8: 205ff is J e w i s h ( c p . R z a c h , PWIIA., 2144). T e s t . A d a e , 3, 2ff has received
Christian additions; for the J e w i s h basis c p . H . W e i n e l in Eucharisterion furH. Gunkel
ii ( G o t t i n g e n , 1923), 162. T h e r a b b i n i c p r o n o u n c e m e n t s o n the p e r i o d in the desert
have n o firm textual foundation and are therefore secondary historisations o f what
w e r e originally purely eschatological statements. T h u s they point u n a m b i g u o u s l y
to an origin before the time o f the floreat o f those in w h o s e n a m e s the tradition is
h a n d e d d o w n ( S i m o n b . J o c h a i , Elieser b . J o s e , both m i d d l e o f the 2nd century
A.D.).
6 3
Ps. C l e m . Horn. 1, 6, 4 ( c p . note 58) and, in a shorter form Rec. v. 10. T h e formula in
Pistis S o p h i a (ed. C . S c h m i d t , p p . 1801), w h i c h even starts the list with the
d a i u o v i a , seems to derive from this strand o f the tradition. T h e s u m m a r y in Jesus
M e s s i a h Sutra, logion 179 (P. Y . Saeki, The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China
( T o k y o , 1951), p p . 1421) also includes the d e m o n s . T h e s a m e is true for the
b e g i n n i n g o f Acta Pil. ( c h . 1) and the letter o f Pilate to C l a u d i u s .
6 6
Interesting is the c h a n g e o f emphasis in Justin's presentation: the preaching to the
P o o r c o m e s first (Dial. c. Tr. 12). T h i s feature p r o b a b l y derives from a
Gemeindetradition w h i c h reflects J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n influences ( c p . T U 93 (1964),
p . 61). C p . notes 78 and 79, p . 120.
6 7
Isa. 29: 19, 5 Esdras 2: 20 and Slav. J o s . 1, 364ff are to be u n d e r s t o o d in terms o f a
state o f material prosperity. In Isa. 61:1 (summarising title), this will be the case
too despite the zvayytkioaaftm.
 T h e Poor and the Zealots 119

the preceding verbs this indicates something quite different. T h e fact

however that evaYY^^ovxai is made formally parallel to &va(3Xijiouoiv
X T X . emphasises the effectiveness o f the activity therein indicated: the Poor
68
are put in possession of the message, they alone. This emphasis is achieved
by means o f a new direction in content, made all the more striking when
viewed against the formal reminiscence o f Isaiah, the replacement of
69
Isaiah's double event by a single happening. T h e formula (Matt. 1 0 : 8 ,
1 5 : 3of; Mark 7: 3 7 ; on the other hand Matt. 10: 1 = Luke 9: 1 ( c p . 10: 9 ) )
thus reveals itself to be the expression o f a conscious turning aside from the
70
normal Jewish tradition (nor can it be brought into connection in its
71
acumen with the other formulae containing a phrase on the P o o r ) . Perhaps,
however, this passage, which has its roots in the tradition of ideas about the
72
Messianic Prince o f Paradise, also has an idiosyncratic position in Q ,
72
where Jesus is, apart from this, never designated as XQIOT6<;.
74
In both parts the formula is not dominical. It must have c o m e into
existence before the time of Q . That it should go back to Jewish circles is in
itself possible, but the complete silence o f the Jewish sources with regard to
a phrase on the Poor, when they are so abundant apart from this, is against
it. M o r e likely it came into being within the Baptistic circles which
had turned to the early Christian community, circles in which the political
75
ingredient had apparently quickly evaporated. Its later history - apart
76
from the insertion o f the 5ai|ioveg or 6ai[xovi£6p,evoi - is marked by: (a)
the disappearance o f the gospel o f the Poor in the early tradition o f
77
Matthew; (b) the remodelling o f the gospel o f the Poor into a teaching

^ T a n c h u m a B §7 a n d L e v . R . 18:4 have their acumen in the fact that even the blind etc.
are t h o u g h t o f as i n c l u d e d in the A g e o f Salvation o f the w a n d e r i n g in the desert,
whereas in the formula o f L u k e 7 it is for the blind etc. especially and preferentially
that salvation is c l a i m e d .
6 9
In Isaiah a passage o f time is envisaged b e t w e e n the p r o c l a m a t i o n and the event
itself. W h e t h e r this w a s still the intention in the source o f L u k e 4: 17ff remains
uncertain. Luke himself ( c p . A c t s 10:38) conflates the t w o .
7 0
W i t h regard to w h i c h the breadth o f this tradition - right u p to the Q u m r a n i t e s and
on the other side into the N e w T e s t a m e n t - is to b e taken into a c c o u n t .
71
5 Esra 2 is just an imperative, it d o e s not reflect o n the objects o f charitable
activity. Slav. J o s . Bell. 1 is certainly post-Lukan - whether o r not it is possible to
attribute historical weight to the passage (as d o e s F. Scheidweiler, 'Sind die
Interpolationen i m altrussischen J o s e p h u s wertlos?', ZNW 43 (1952), 168).
7 2
C p . R . M e y e r , Der Prophet aus Galilaa (Leipzig, 1940), p p . 26f. T h e tradition is not
otherwise taken u p in Q , p r o b a b l y h o w e v e r in e.g. M a r k 1:13. T h e possibility o f
priestly tradition is c o n s i d e r e d b y G . Friedrich, ' B e o b a c h t u n g e n zur messianischen
H o h e p r i e s t e r w a r t u n g in d e n Synoptikern', ZThK 53 (1956), 286.
7 3
C p . m o r e recently E. Stauffer, ' M e s s i a s o d e r M e n s c h e n s o h n ? ' , NovTest 1 (1956), 83.
7 4
C p . ThWNTvi, 907 ( E T vi 908).
7 5
It w o u l d have d e m a n d e d the m e n t i o n o f the release o f prisoners.
7 6
T h u s already L u k e 7:21.
7 7
T h a t it b e l o n g e d to the original M a t t h a e a n text is m a d e likely b y : {a) the general
120 E.BAMMEL

78
topic for the Jews in the Judaeo-Christian tradition; (c) the cutting out o f
EvayyekitpvTai in favour o f Jixcoxot e u q p g a i v o v x a i in a side stream, in
79
particular o f the Tatian tradition, by means of which the last line loses its
80
emphasis; and (d) certain abbreviating formulations.
81
T h e Baptist's questioning o f j e s u s is historical. T h e genuine core o f
what was handed d o w n as Jesus's answer is to be found in Luke 7: 2 3 / M a t t .
8 2
11:6 - perhaps it was spoken while Jesus was performing an act o f
83
healing.
84
T h e first o f the beatitudes was given by Luke in a special form o f its
own, which relates directly to the audience (6: 1 9 , more direct than in
85 86
Matthew) and secondly addresses them merely as JITCDXOI. The

i m p r o b a b i l i t y o f p o s t - M a t t h a e a n L u k a n influence; (b) the witness o f the T a t i a n

tradition, w h i c h follows L u k e here - b e c a u s e the texts o f M a t t h e w w e r e not
u n a n i m o u s ! (c) the substantial r e m o d e l l i n g w h i c h M a t t h e w has undertaken in the
parallel passage 1 5 : 3 0 ^ (d) if M a t t . 1 1 : 3 is a piece o f its o w n with separate
derivation in Q , it e n d e d the sayings s o u r c e in this and n o other form; t w o forms at
7 8
the time o f Q are unlikely. C p . Stauffer, Jerusalem und Rom, p p . i6f.
7 9 c al
T h u s s y a n d the M S S . B and C o f syP in b o t h s y n o p t i c passages (for the
al
d e p e n d e n c e o f syP o n the T a t i a n tradition c p . M . Black, ' T h e Palestinian Syriac
G o s p e l s a n d the Diatessaron', OrChr 36 ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 101, and C . Peters, ' P r o b e n eines
b e d e u t s a m e n arabischen Evangelientexts', OrChr 33 ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 1 9 5 ) , and also the
Persian Diatessaron ( e d . G . M e s s i n a (Biblicaet Orientalia 14 ( 1 9 5 1 ) ) , 9off. In c o n t e n t
al
this m e a n s (a) a b r i d g e to Isa. 29: 19 (just as syP and A r a b . D i a t . correct L u k e 4: 18
a c c o r d i n g to the L X X ) a n d (b) a c o m p r o m i s e with regard to the division in the
textual tradition o f M a t t h e w .
8 0
T h u s in C h r y s o s t o m ' s h o m i l y twice ( b l i n d , lame, deaf, p o o r ; W . T i l l , Mitteilungen d.
Dt. Arch. Inst. Kairo 16 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , p . 324. and in Sharastani (deaf, blind, palsy;
H a a r b r u c k e r , Ash-Sharastanis Religionspartheien und Philosopken-Schulen i ( H a l l e ,
18501), 260). O n the other hand, elements o f the formula are forged together with
other n o t i o n s , in o r d e r to give a full picture o f Christ's activity (thus Ev. N i c . 1 : . . .
c o m m a n d i n g the w i n d s , walking o n the lake and m a n y other m i r a c l e s ) .
8 1
W . G . K i i m m e l (Verheissung und Erfullung (2nd e d n . Z u r i c h , 1 9 5 3 ) , p . 1 0 3 , E T
i
L o n d o n , 1 9 5 7 , p . 1 1 1 ) regards the narrative as an im wesentlichen alte, zuverlassige
Ueberlieferung'; ( c p . also O . C u l l m a n n , Christologie des Neuen Testaments ( T u b i n g e n ,
J
9 5 7 ) > P- 1 6 2 , E T L o n d o n , 1959, p . 159; and Dibelius, Johannes der Tdufer, p p . 33fF).
8 2
B u l t m a n n , Tradition (3rd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1958), p p . i 6 3 f ( E T O x f o r d , 1 9 7 2 , p p .
1511) regards verses 5 f as original, but detaches the formula from the situation.
8 3
Even if L u k e 7 : 2 1 is frame-narration, n o n e the less there m a y b e o l d tradition
b e h i n d the detail; L u k e here treats his s o u r c e m o r e carefully than d o e s M a t t h e w . F.
Spitta, ' D i e S e n d u n g d e s Taufers zu J e s u s ' ThStKr8% ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 5346°, regards verse 21
as o l d e r than verse 22.
8 4
F o r the latest investigations see C . M i c h a e l i s , ' D i e Ji-alliteration d e r Subjektsworte
d e r ersten vier Seligpreisungen', NovTest 10 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , I48ff; H . Frankemolle, ' D i e
M a k a r i s m e n ' , BZ n.s. 15 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 52ff. C . K a h l e r , 'Studien zur F o r m - u n d
T r a d i t i o n s g e s c h i c h t e der biblischen M a k a r i s m e n ' (Diss. J e n a , 1 9 7 4 ) .
8 5
A t an earlier stage o f the tradition those w h o are addressed as jixcdx°£ are the
uxxGrjxai ( c p . 6 : 2 0 a , 40), a state o f affairs w h i c h , h o w e v e r , L u k e ( s e d u c e d b y the
cries o f w o e ? ) alters b y m e a n s o f the n e w addressees ( c p . 6: 1 9 ; 7: 1; 6: 17 (levelling
out f o r m u l a t i o n ) ) . A d o l f Schlatter, Lukas (Stuttgart, 1 9 3 1 ) , p p . 238f d o e s not
differentiate.
8 6 c
T h e M a t t h a e a n form, w h i c h often appears in the textual tradition - already in s y
 T h e Poor and the Zealots 121

pronouncement is elucidated by means o f the following beatitudes, which

87
address those w h o are oppressed or persecuted, and therefore permit the
conclusion that, in the first example as well, it is a case o f outwardly visible
suffering. T h e JCTCD/CH differ only in so far as their lack of impediment (for in
the context JITCDXOI is also a heading for the sick who are designated in
6: ljf) is a permanent condition, whereas the other addressees suffer the
88
effects o f particular situations in salvation history. T h e saying is further
illuminated by the symmetrically recurring cry o f woe oval iJ^iiv TOig
Jttaruaioig . . . (6: 2 4 ) , which explains JITCDXOI e contrario and excludes the
89
possibility o f an understanding according to Matt. 5: 3, but also makes it
clear that the (3aoiX,eia is intended as a recompense (jTaQaxX/n,oic;). This
recompense takes place in the future - to this extent the saying can be
90
understood eschatologically but partly already in the present, since the
9 1
addressees are already healed ( 6 : 1 9 ) .
T h e saying, which is made up o f eight parts, is not uniform. Items 4 and 7
92
(verses 2 2 f and 2 6 ) are clearly amplifications, whose removal makes the
reference o f items 2 , 3, 6 , and 7 (verses 21 and 2 5 ) to the situation o f
persecution uncertain, particularly since the pointer vi3v is also an
93
addition. N o n e the less this does not entirely get rid o f the difference
between 1 (verse 2 0 b ) and 2 and 3 (verse 2 1 ) , as the various O T I
formulations that follow indicate. A separate provenance for 1 and 2 + 3
must therefore be regarded as possible. At least by this point 1 will already
have had a social flavour. For the association o f 1 with 2—3 is to be
attributed also to the fact that the enemies of the Poor - the Rich - were the
chief persecutors, with regard to which it is significant that the word
JlTcaxog, clearly because it was traditional, was no longer adequate as an
expression o f the experience o f persecution. A parallel to the amalgamation
poor/persecuted may be seen in the formula [xax&Qioi 01 JTCOOXOI xai 01
6ia)x6jA£VOi evexev 5ixaiocn3vr]s . . . (Pol. Phil 2:3), which should most

( c p . H . v o n S o d e n Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer dltesten erreuchbaren

Textgestalt i ( L e i p z i g , 1902) ad. l o c . ) - is a later assimilation. T h e earliest witness for
the u n c o r r u p t L u k a n text is Tertullian ( c p . A . v o n H a r n a c k , Marcion 2nd e d n .
L e i p z i g , 1924), a n d , i f H . v o n S o d e n is correct in his criticism o f H a r n a c k ( ' D e r
lateinische Paulustext bei M a r c i o n und Tertullian', Julicher-Festschrift, e d d . H . v o n
S o d e n a n d R . B u l t m a n n , T u b i n g e n , 1927, p . 239), even M a r c i o n .
8 7
T h e description in verse 22 is l o n g - w i n d e d , b e c a u s e it aims at a c c u r a c y .
8 8
T h e r e f o r e vvv o r ev exeivfl xfl riuiocjt is there a d d e d .
8 9
T h u s G . Bomkamm, Jesus von Nazareth (Stuttgart, 1956), p . 184, n. 21., E T p . 202,
n. 21.
9 0
T h u s M . D i b e l i u s , Botschaft und Geschichte i ( T u b i n g e n , 1953), 120.
9 1
A l t h o u g h it seems as if the interpretation that is given to verse 20c in 24b intends to
m a k e the (3aoiA.eia an exclusively future blessing.
9 2
W h i c h p e r h a p s took p l a c e already at the time w h e n the beatitudes and the cries o f
w o e were combined.
9 3
C p . E . K l o s t e r m a n n , Das Lukasevangelium ( T u b i n g e n , 1929), p . 79.
122 E.BAMMEL

likely be regarded as a separate formulation o f Jewish or community

94
theology origin, independent o f Matthew and L u k e .
T h e indications that have emerged about the genesis o f the Lukan
passage show that the first beatitude does not derive from Luke himself
(and cannot therefore be used for the evaluation o f his own social
tendencies without certain caveats). This does not yet, however, decide the
question o f the priority o f either the Lukan or the Matthaean form. T h e
hypothesis, occasionally ventilated, o f a derivation from two independent
sources finds support in the fact that the formula mv^atf = JlTCO/oi TCp
jrv8i)(iaTi, the non-occurrence of which had been taken as the decisive
argument for the more reliable wording o f the Lukan beatitude, has been
traced recently in a Qumran source (i Q Mil 14.7). T h e assumption that
different forms of makarisms of the Poor (with or without a promise) existed
side by side - four formulae are known to us - and exercised their influence
on different Christian manifestos is to be preferred to the attempt to trace
them back to one form. T h e beatitudes were, in one form or another, a stock
phrase at the time o f j e s u s and it is therefore unlikely that one o f them
belongs to those sayings which are typical o f the dominical preaching.
O n the other hand, the prominence given to the JITCDXOI -formulae and
their variety evince the flooding o f the early communities with elements o f
the theology of the Poor and indeed the readiness of the Christians to expose
themselves to such influences.
T h e growing influence o f the Baptistic heritage in the early community is
likely to have played its part in this development. It may have fostered and
95
stimulated the emergence o f the adulation o f the P o o r .

IV

T h e view o f the twelve disciples which became the standard one certainly
militates against the hypothesis o f Zealot influences on Jesus and his circle.
J o h n calls Judas ToxaQiobTrjg and at the same time xXeJtTT)g. Both terms
seem to describe the same thing. xXeJtTY)g is an unfavourable expression for
96
what is c o m m o n l y called >.r|OTrjg - a term applied to both Zealots and

9 4
J . W e i s s , Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (2nd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1900), p . 181,
conjectures that P o l y c a r p used a ' v o r k a n o n i s c h e R e d a k t i o n d e r M a k a r i s m e n ' . H o w
far 6ia)x6u.evoi wck. goes b a c k to M a t t h e w himself, as is a s s u m e d b y H . K o s t e r
(Synopt. Ueberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vdtern, T U 65 (1957), 118), is not clear.
9 5
T h e c l a i m that C a i a p h a s took offence especially at Jesus's praising o f the P o o r a n d
his p r o m i s e o f earthly r e d e m p t i o n ( R e c . 1. 61) m a y reflect such d e v e l o p m e n t s in the
early c o m m u n i t y .
9 6
In J o s e p h u s the term XT)crcai points clearly to insurrection activity. Its m e a n i n g
includes the notion o f pretension to authority in certain cases (see R . M a c M u l l e n ,
The Roman Concept Robber-Pretender, R I D A 3rd Series 10 (1963), p p . 2211). In the
political p r o p a g a n d a language o f the e m p i r e it even describes the usurper.
 T h e Poor and the Zealots 123

sicarii. T o this is added in J o h n 1 2 : 6 an interpretation which casts even

98
more doubt on Judas's integrity. T h e basis of the whole development in the
blacklisting o f Judas is the linking o f the traitor with the Zealots and
therefore, by inference, the separation ofjesus and his true followers from
that movement.
It is in this context that an allusion in J o h n 1 0 : 8 gathers momentum:
98
XXEJIXCU xai Xr\oxai are called 'those w h o c a m e ' . This may refer to figures
who came as contemporaries ofjesus and made saviour claims, to men w h o
were o f the Zealot type. T h e phrase had been used before in the parable o f
1 0 : 1, although only the first part o f it was developed both in the course o f
the parable and in its subsequent interpretation (verse 1 0 ) . T h e positive
example is only expressed by one term. It is therefore likely that in a more
primitive form the parable had contained only one negative term. As
xXeJiXTig is the term which fits the contents of the parable it is to be assumed
99
that this word belongs to the original narration, while h(]Oxr\(; came in in
order to make a new point. It goes with the direct identification o f the
100
shepherd with Jesus as we find it in verses 1 iff. T h e xaXog Jioi^ir|V, a term
capable o f political interpretation in the ancient world, is reinterpreted in
these verses. T o give the negative term a political direction by the addition
o f xai A.T]Oxa£ would be a corresponding re-emphasis. It results from this
that the Xr|Oxrjg with its political associations is likely to have been brought
in in order to emphasise the difference between Jesus's position in his
church and that o f pretenders among their followers.
T h e dominical kernel o f the parable alludes to the religious leadership in

9 7
T h e characterisation o f the J u d a s as a m o n e y - g r a b b e r (John 12:6) is thus to b e
taken as an artificial reinterpretation o f the m e a n i n g o f the attribute. T h e c h o i c e o f
the term xXejrrng (rather than Xriarrjg) m a y b e partly d u e to the fact that the thief s
w o r k is often associated with night, while the very action w h i c h d e t e r m i n e d the
portrait o f J u d a s in the early c h u r c h took p l a c e in 'the h o u r o f darkness'.
9 8
JIQO i\iOV is to b e found o n l y in part o f the tradition. It is significant that the Syriac
tradition, w h i c h is d o t t e d with anti-Jewish statements d o e s n o t seize u p o n this. O n
the o t h e r h a n d , it is equally characteristic that K , a text w h i c h tends to c o m p r o m i s e
b y o m i s s i o n , d o e s not r e p r o d u c e these w o r d s . M i g h t it b e that s o m e t h i n g like the
reading o f N o n n u s (Jiaoog eu,oxJ) was the alternative before the scribe o f S and
perhaps even the original reading? C p . As. Is. 4:6: I a m G o d , before m e there has
been n o n e . T h e s e c o n d half o f the saying w a s refashioned in G n o s t i c tradition.
Basilides claims that all the p r o p h e t s before the saviour spoke from the ruler o f the
• firmament (Hipp. Ref. vii. 25:5) and the Naassene B o o k o f B a r u c h is even m o r e
specific: they had prophesied, because they had been enticed b y the serpent. Failing
to a c c o m p l i s h the s a m e with Jesus, the serpent crucified h i m . It is in keeping with
this t e n d e n c y that Pistis S o p h i a , c h . 102 (257.25), gives the phrase 'keep a w a y from
r o b b e r y ' (originally an extension o f J o h n 10:8b?) an entirely m e t a p h o r i c a l
meaning.
9 9
M e r x , Johannes (Berlin, 1911), p . 250, holds the o p p o s i t e v i e w .
1 0 0
A c c o r d i n g to J. W e l l h a u s e n , Das Evangelium Johannis (Berlin, 1908), p . 48, already in
verse 7.
124 E.BAMMEL

Israel, which will not be accepted by the door-keeper, that is, G o d . It is

without direct political connotations. Its meaning could, however, be easily
extended to refer to the new political self-styled leaders as well; and it
certainly exposed Jesus and his followers to the animosity and even hatred
of those w h o in their political direction pressed the nation into their own
101
fold.
102
O f crucial importance is the cleansing o f the T e m p l e . It is this event
that comes nearest to revolutionary activity and it is this narrative that
contains the watchwords indicating Zealotism: £f|X,og and h(]OTr\<;.
T h e story is preserved in two strands o f tradition - surprisingly there is
no record o f it in Jewish or extracanonical sources. T h e narrative itself is
supplemented by interpretative remarks. T h e Johannine report contains
103
two sentences o f this kind, each o f them introduced by e^vrjo9r]aav.
Mark on the other hand contains a statement o f j e s u s , preceded by the
description o f an action ( 1 1 : 1 6 ) , which, however, is due to the redactor, as
it is reproduced neither by Luke nor even by Matthew, to whose theology it
would have been congenial. T h e statement itself is a combination o f O l d
Testament passages in the manner of a Teacher of Righteousness exegesis -
something that is in keeping neither with the Markan presentation nor with
what we know o f the dominical references to the O l d Testament. It is
therefore likely that the original form o f the narrative lacked any
interpretative statement, beyond, perhaps, a reference to the violated
104
sanctity o f the House - probably not in the form o f a quotation. An
interpretation is, however, supplied by the story o f the cursing o f the
fig-tree, which in its two parts frames the cleansing and whjch seems to
105
form a unit with the latter already in pre-Markan tradition. Jesus's action

101 F o r recent investigations c p . O . Kiefer, Die Hirtenrede (Stuttgart, 1967) a n d A .

S i m o n i s , Die Hirtenrede im Johannes-Evangelium ( R o m , 1967).
102 F recent studies see G . A b r a m z i k in Festschrift M. Plaut ( B r e m e n , 1971), 69fTand
o r

E. Salin, J e s u s und die W e c h s l e r ' in A . b e n - D a v i d , Jerusalem und Tyros

( B a s e l / T u b i n g e n , 1969), p p . 490°.
1 0 3
T h e s e c o n d o f these refers b o t h to the event itself and to the fragment o f a
c o n t r o v e r s y r e p r o d u c e d in J o h n 2: 18-20. W h i l e it is the intention o f verses 2 i f f to
give a d i s a r m i n g interpretation o f the p r e c e d i n g verse, this verse itself defies
explanation; Jesus applies the t e c h n i q u e o f o u t m a n o e u v r i n g the challenge o f his
enemies b y p r o v o k i n g t h e m to d o s o m e t h i n g - the actual suggestion to pull d o w n
the T e m p l e w a s not o u t o f place, as the b u i l d i n g o f the H e r o d i a n T e m p l e w a s not
undertaken w i t h o u t misgivings.
1 0 4
T h e action thus o p e n e d itself to different explanations: the possibility that it w a s
directing itself against the trade set u p a n d m o n o p o l i s e d b y the h o u s e o f A n n a s w a s
o n e o f t h e m . A n o t h e r , e m p h a s i s e d in M a r k 11: 16, w a s that Jesus was expressing his
o p p o s i t i o n to the H e r o d i a n T e m p l e . T h e a m b i g u i t y o f his action to the outside
w o r l d is a p h e n o m e n o n that should not b e d i s r e g a r d e d .
1 0 5
It is not c o n n e c t e d with the entry pericope, as the lack o f jrdXiv in M a r k 11: 15 shows
(whereas in verse 27 it is present). T h e t w o locations given in 1 1 : 1 are puzzling; but
 T h e Poor and the Zealots !25

deprives the fig-tree o f its raison d'etre. T h e cleansing interrupts the

execution o f the sacrificial system for one moment and thereby makes it
106
invalid. T h e two actions correspond to each other: the cursing o f the
fig-tree is the interpretation o f the cleansing. It is a symbolic gesture that
points to the end o f the cultic approach to G o d . T h e re-interpretation
offered in the two strands o f the Gospel tradition portrays Jesus as a restorer
of the original quality o f the T e m p l e , as someone who directs himself just
107
against certain practices and possibly is in favour o f the more modest
108
Zerubbabel T e m p l e . While the term £f)X.og, which was about to replace
the older term zedaka at this time, is characteristic in the Fourth Gospel for
109
the description o f the attitude o f j e s u s , it is in Mark that the anti-divine
world is described by \X\QTT\Z,. T h e former indicates a time in which the
110
Christians were still able to use terms dear to the Jewish activists and
even to advocate their master's action by hinting at the example o f the
111
zealous Phineas, whereas the latter marks a separation. T h e Johannine
usage must be the earlier one, while the Markan, although a citation from
Jeremiah, is probably employed here with the secondary intention o f
separating Jesus's action from the activities o f the Zealots. Although this
latter interpretation is a rewriting, it is not at this point at variance with the
original meaning o f the event: it is prophetic action that, by interrupting
those procedures which precede the cultic performance (even the
ayoQa^ovxeg, the would-be worshippers, are turned away by Jesus,
according to Mark 1 2 : 1 5 ) , symbolises the end o f the cult, and it is not a
political or revolutionary action. This interpretation agrees both with the
112
Judaeo-Christian tradition on Jesus's attitude with respect to the T e m p l e
113
and with the role attributed to the T e m p l e saying in the Sanhedrin trial.

they find their interpretation in the assumption that o n e o f them was transferred
w h e n the units 11: i f f and n : i2ff were forged together.
1 0 6
A different v i e w is taken b y W . R . T e l f o r d , The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree
(Sheffield, 1980).
1 0 7
T h u s especially D . C h w o l s o n , Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes (2nd
edn. L e i p z i g , 1908), p . 127. Reinterpretations o n the redactionary level are
discussed b y R . E . D o w d a , ' T h e C l e a n s i n g o f the T e m p l e in the S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s '
(Diss., D u k e U n i v . , 1972).
108 M a r k 1 1 : 1 6 c o u l d b e taken as prohibiting the c o m p l e t i o n o f the H e r o d i a n T e m p l e .
1 0 9
D e r i v i n g from Psalm 69: 10 - a p s a l m w h i c h c a m e to b e used christologically ( c p .
M a r k 15: 36).
, 1 0
C p . R e v . 2:9; 3:9, where the term ' I o u 6 a i o g is still c l a i m e d b y the Christian
c h u r c h , whereas it is a b a n d o n e d in the Fourth G o s p e l .
1 1 1
Later Christian tradition, h o w e v e r , makes h i m a d e s c e n d a n t o f C a i n .
112
J e s u s is said to have c o m e in o r d e r to abolish sacrifices. It is not until the
c o m p i l a t i o n o f the A p o s t o l i c Constitutions that the J e w s a c c u s e Jesus as destroyer
o f the T e m p l e and taker a w a y o f sacrifices (verse 14).
1 , 3
Both M a t t h e w a n d M a r k , although displaying significant differences in detail,
agree in so far as they emphasise that the T e m p l e accusation did not lead to the
desired result. H a d it been otherwise, a verdict w o u l d have been reached without
126 E.BAMMEL

A third focussing point is to be found in the saying in Mark 1 1 : 2 3 : the

6 9 0 5 must be a particular mountain; in all probability it is the T e m p l e
mount. Taken in this way the logion is a parallel to the form o f Jesus's
T e m p l e saying which is expressed in Matt. 26: 6 1 : 5i>vaum xaxcdvacu x d v
vaov xov Qeov. W h a t Jesus is said to have claimed for himself in the latter
passage is promised to the very faithful disciple in the former. T h e two
sayings are complementary. They display a similarly radical attitude
vis-a-vis the T e m p l e as is found in both the cleansing and cursing scenes.
Jesus equally kept aloof from Schwarmertum, from apocalypticism, the
disposition which once and again amalgamated with national expectation
and Zealotism. Statements like Luke 1 7 : 2 1 express unequivocally his
114
reserve vis-a-vis apocalyptic speculation and expectation. His departure
from apocalypticism is the counter-proof, the proof for his parting from
political expectation.
Matthew 2 6 : 5 2 : Jidvxeg . . . 01 A.a|36vxeg (i&xaiQav ev ^laxaiQY]
ajtotayuvxai, a proverbial saying which, possibly under the influence o f
Mark 8: 3 4 , came into existence in the early church, sums up fairly the
115
position o f j e s u s .
It is not inconsistent with this that a document, possibly going back to
the first century, describes the hatred felt towards Jesus as caused by the
116 117
fact that he had no zeal, or was not a Z e a l o t . An echo o f the impression
of the time is found in a Jewish source o f the Tannaitic period which claims
1
that Jesus was put to death by Phineas, the r o b b e r . 118
riNDC ?, the
Aramaic form o f the Greek A.r)Oxrjg, is obviously taken as an honorific title
(like the Dutch 'geuzen'), while Phineas, the hero of the Zealots, is referred to

a d o . T e m p l e s were protected in the R o m a n e m p i r e and any violation was treated as

an action against the p u b l i c peace and punished m o s t severely. C p . D . Juel, Messiah
and Temple ( M i s s o u l a , 1977).
1 1 4
E v e n the s y n o p t i c a p o c a l y p s e , a passage w h i c h is heavily o v e r l a i d b y material o f
b o t h J e w i s h a n d Early Christian p r o v e n a n c e , directs its readers to p h e n o m e n a
w h i c h , c o n t r a r y to a p o c a l y p t i c time-tables, are viewed under the heading O V J U D T O
xekoq ( M a r k 13:7); and is designed, it its redactionary form at least (verse 10 is
s y m p t o m a t i c ; the addition o f verses 32ff seems to express similar sentiments), to
c a l m d o w n rather than to w h i p u p expectations.
1 , 5
It is doubtful whether m o r e detailed a d v i c e was given in the c o m m u n i t y . T h e v i e w
that M a t t . 5: 41 refers to the R o m a n practice o f forced l a b o u r a n d that the a d v i c e is
implicitly p r o - R o m a n and anti-Zealot ( L . E. K e c k , A Future for the Historical Jesus
( L o n d o n , 1972), p . 254) is too neat.
1 1 6
O d . Sol. 28: 10 - transl. J . H . Bernard (Texts and Studies 8.3 (1912), u o f ) ; J . R .
Harris, An Early Christian Psalter ( C a m b r i d g e , 1910), p . 50.
1 , 7
T h u s translated b y J . R . Harris, The Twelve Apostles ( C a m b r i d g e , 1927), p . 34. For
the negative m e a n i n g applied to tflXoc, in early Christian literature c p . Ps. C l e m .
Horn. 3.42, where the n a m e C a i n is interpreted b y £f|Xoc; and every kind o f
Z e a l o t i s m is blacklisted thereby.
1 , 8
S a n h . 106b. T h e theories that Phineas is a mistake for Pilate and that lista derives
from a Syriac losta = august are, o f course, far-fetched.
 T h e Poor and the Zealots 127

as an indication of Zealot activity. T h e statement describes Jesus's death as

119
due to or influenced by punitive action taken by Zealot elements.
N o definite tendency can be deduced in those passages on the Poor - they
are by far the smaller proportion - that can be attributed to Jesus. The
challenge given to the rich young man is not intended as a principle, nor is it
120
meant to be an indication of the virtue of doing good to others; it demands
121
action, the action which Jesus's loving call recognises as necessary.
Jesus's love is directed to the individual; the words in which it is expressed
are not meant to be understood as law. Occasionally the word Jixooxog
1 2 2
occurs in a Beispielerzahlung (Luke 1 4 : 1 3 ) or is taken up in the words in
which Jesus characterises a procedure which takes place before his eyes
(Mark 1 2 : 4 2 ) . None the less, this happens surprisingly seldom. When
Jesus describes the circle o f men to w h o m especially he has turned his
compassion he prefers other words. It is to the vr|Jiioi (Matt. 1 1 : 25) that
his glory is revealed; he himself calls the HOJiLWVxeg x a i Jtecpooxiofxevoi
(Matt, n : 2 8 ) , he blesses the Jiai&ia (Mark 10: 1 4 ) , he portrays men in
their special needs (Matt. 2 5 : 2 5 ( 1 ) .
The xojtiujvxeg are primarily those who suffer under the burden of the
law. It is, however, true that the exercise o f religion had become a privilege
of those who had had some training in the law and of those who could afford
to observe the law punctiliously. Those who suffer under the yoke of the law
123
are therefore likely to belong to the lower strata o f society.
T h e only clearly defined pronouncement on the JTXCDXOI is Jesus's refusal
1 2 4
(Mark 1 4 : 7 ) to allow himself to be tied down to a social principle or
indeed to let his sympathies be regimented at all. Jesus does good himself
(cp. Acts 10: 38 with Mark 1 4 : 7 ) , but he does not bind men to a law, nor

1 1 9
It is to b e m e n t i o n e d too that J o h n 16: i f refers, a c c o r d i n g to M e r x , Johannes,
p . 400, to a persecution o f the Christian c o m m u n i t y initiated by Z e a l o t s .
1 2 0
T h u s J. J e r e m i a s , ' D i e Salbungsgeschichte M c 14 3-9', ZNW35 (1936), 79.
1 2 1
T h e oldest traceable form o f the answer given b y Jesus is near to the o n e h a n d e d
d o w n in the Ev. H e b r . , in that the central section o f M a r k is lacking there. O n the
other hand, this pointing to the c o m m a n d o f love is to b e taken as a s e c o n d a r y
transformation o f the M a r k a n r\yanr]ae\.
1 2 2
C p . A b o t h 1:5; T o s . Ber. 4:8, where the P o o r appear only as a s u p p l e m e n t to the
invited guests.
1 2 3
T h e r e are, it is true, features in his teaching, w h i c h militate in favour o f the Poor.
T h e restriction o f business life w h i c h was necessitated b y a rigid o b s e r v a n c e o f the
T o r a h ceased to exist. I n d e e d , the blessing given to the transgression o f the Sabbath
law, as w e find it in the D version o f Luke 6: 5 at least, o p e n e d u p a n e w avenue. T h e
abolition o f the hereditary law w h i c h b e s t o w e d titles exclusively o n the male
offspring, must have been b r o u g h t about, if not b y Jesus himself, very soon in
Judaeo-Christianity ( S h a b b . 116a) and resulted in a better social c o n d i t i o n both o f
w i d o w and virgin. T h i s does not, h o w e v e r , m e a n that social considerations played a
role in Jesus's preaching.
1 2 4
T h e story is 'wahrlich wert, im E v a n g e l i u m zu stehen' - this is W e l l h a u s e n ' s
j u d g e m e n t {Marcus, 2nd e d n . p . 109).
128 E.BAMMEL

does he emphasise the law; where he is, other legal principles with­
draw.
All the same Jesus's way o f life corresponds to that of the Poor. It is not
just that his illustrations and sermons prefer to address the Poor and that it
is chiefly the ox^og (John 7: 49) that attaches itself to him; he proceeds
through the country as a man without possessions, dependent on help and
protection from others (e.g. Mark 1 : 3 1 ) . He is put under pressure,
persecuted (Luke 9: 58; 1 3 : 3 3 ; 2 1 : 3 7 etc.) and takes refuge (John 1 1 : 5 4 ) .
He is conscious o f his identity with the exploited and humiliated (Matt.
1 1 : 2 8 ) . Yet he does not make use o f the slogan which indicated their
position and their hopes. This is clearly because it had been excessively
125
overlaid and distorted by glowing expectations. Instead of this it is to the
individuals in their various needs that Jesus speaks.
The most telling expression is given to this connection in Mark
8: 3 8 / L u k e 9: 26. This saying, the original wording o f which seems to be
'whoever is ashamed o f me and my (companions) . . .', refers to those
individuals in his environment w h o are less respectable and less
126
presentable, rather than to his disciples a l o n e . T h e verse expresses more
than Jesus's concern for his group, it indicates his total identification with
those w h o m he chooses to associate with.
T h o s e w h o had to abandon their abode because o f political or religious
causes, or who from poverty had let themselves be led into actions o f
despair, will have experienced similar ways o f life, although their backing
in the population and the support given by their fraternities may have been
more effective. Jesus's proclamation does not, however, coincide with the
127 128
key-words o f the activists' appeal. ndxQtog v6|iog, £X.£v8eQia,
129
salvation o f Israel are absent from his language. His actions d o not give a
different impression; even the Cleansing of the T e m p l e is rather a symbolic
action than a political manifesto. Compared with the political movements
of his day Jesus is what is expressed by Paul, albeit in a different context, in
the one word JtaQeioeXBcov: he is the one whose words and deeds were
different both from the preceding and from the surrounding world.

1 2 5
T h e attempt o f Sattler (Ad.Julicher, p p . iff), which was taken u p b y W . G r u n d m a n n
(Jesus, der Galilder ( W e i m a r , 1940)), to illustrate Jesus's self-consciousness from the
b a c k g r o u n d o f the piety o f the A n a w i m is thus hardly tenable.
1 2 6
It is o n l y the present c o n t e x t in M a r k 9: 1 (if the verse is not meant as an
i n t r o d u c t i o n to the transfiguration story) w h i c h makes o n e think o f the disciples.
1 2 7
J o s e p h u s , AJ 14 §41.
1 2 8
A . Reifenberg, Ancient Jewish Coins (Jerusalem, 1947), p p . 60-6 (Jmn,).
129
R e i f e n b e r g , Coins, p p . 58, 6of, 63f ( n t o w ) .
 HELMUT MERKEL

The opposition between Jesus and Judaism

1
Jesus was a J e w . This indisputable fact long ago led H . S. Reimarus, the
founder o f the study o f the historical Jesus, to regard Jesus completely
within the framework o f Judaism, and to consider it evident 'that Jesus had
not the slightest intention o f doing away with the Jewish religion and
2
putting another in its place'. From this it became necessary to explain the
N e w Testament accounts o f conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees as
3
the product o f exchanges between church and synagogue - an early
4
position which the form-critical approach has appeared to confirm. But if
Jesus lived in harmony with his contemporaries, then the reason for his
violent end must have lain in his political activity. Accordingly, from
Reimarus to R . Eisler d o w n to S. G . F. Brandon Jesus has again and again
5
been placed in the company o f Zealot resistance fighters.
Since the Enlightenment, too, the representation o f j e s u s as an Essene
wisdom teacher has often been placed alongside representations o f him as
6
an orthodox Pharisee and a nationalistic resistance fighter. Since the
publication o f the Q u m r a n texts particularly, repeated attempts have been
7
m a d e to connect Jesus with the Essenes.

1
O . M i c h e l , J e s u s d e r J u d e ' , in H . R i s t o w a n d K . M a t t h i a e ( e d s . ) , Der historische
Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1961), p p . 31 off.
2
Q u o t e d b y A . Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus ( E T L o n d o n , 1910), p . 17.
3
C p . G . L i n d e s k o g , Die Jesusfrage im neuzeitlichen Judentum ( U p p s a l a , 1938). M o r e
recent studies from this point o f v i e w i n c l u d e j . Isaac, Jesus et Israel (Paris, 1948), p p .
96ff; P. W i n t e r , The Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p p . 11 iff; S. B e n C h o r i n , BruderJesus
( M i i n c h e n , 1967), p p . i6f, 22, 74f; D . Flusser, Jesus ( R e i n b e c k bei H a m b u r g , 1968),
p p . 43ff, E T Jesus ( N e w Y o r k , 1969), p p . 44-64. See also G . J a s p e r , Stimmen aus dem
neureligibsen Judentum ( H a m b u r g , 1958).
4
R . B u l t m a n n , Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (6th e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1964), E T The
History of the Synoptic Tradition (2nd e d n . O x f o r d , 1968), p . 54. J . C . W e b e r , Jr.,
J e s u s ' s O p p o n e n t s in the G o s p e l o f M a r k ' , JBR 34 (1966), 2i4ff, entirely follows
B u l t m a n n ' s c o n c l u s i o n s . A substantially different v i e w is taken b y H . F. W e i s s , ' D e r
Pharisaismus i m L i c h t e d e r Uberlieferung d e s N e u e n T e s t a m e n t s ' in R . M e y e r ,
Tradition undNeuschbpfung im antiken Judentum ( L e i p z i g , 1965), p p . 89ff. C p . also his
article ' O a o i o a l o g ' in ThWNT'w, 36ff.
5
R . Eisler, I H Z O Y Z B A 2 I A E Y 2 O Y B A 2 I A E Y Z A 2 ii ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1930);
S. G . F. B r a n d o n , Jesus and the Zealots: A Study in the Political Factor in Primitive
Christianity ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967). Further literature is cited in M . H e n g e l , War Jesus
Revolutiondr? ( T u b i n g e n , 1970) ( E T Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Philadelphia, 1971)).
6
C p . S. W a g n e r , Die Essener in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion vom Ausgang des 18. bis
zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, i960).
7
C p . especially A . D u p o n t - S o m m e r , Les ecrits esseniens decouverts pres de la mer Morte

129
I30 HELMUT MERKEL

O v e r against all these stands an impressive list o f scholars who have

taken seriously the opposition ofjesus to his contemporaries which comes
to light in various places in the Gospels. David Friedrich Strauss, the first
radical critic o f the Gospel tradition, recognised

as the simple historical outline of the life ofjesus that he grew up in

Nazareth, had himself baptized by John, gathered disciples, wandered
around the Jewish countryside teaching, set himself in opposition to
Pharisaism throughout and summoned men to the Messianic kingdom;
that he was finally brought down by the hatred and jealousy of the
8
Pharisaic party, and died on the cross.

Since Strauss's time, the significance o f the opposition between Jesus and
the Pharisees has been often emphasised by both radical and conservative
9
scholars. Rudolf Bultmann lists the 'breaking o f the Sabbath c o m m a n d - ,
ment, violation o f the rules o f purity, polemic against Jewish legalism,
association with outcasts like tax-gatherers and prostitutes, sympathy for
women and children' among the characteristics of Jesus's actions that can
10
'with some caution' be ascertained. M o s t o f the more recent critical
portraits ofjesus also take account o f the opposition between Jesus and the
11
Pharisees, though to be sure it has been a matter o f debate whether Jesus
12
attacked only Pharisaic casuistry or the Torah itself as well. Recent study
of the trial o f j e s u s has regarded this opposition as the decisive factor

(Paris, 1959), E T The Essene Writings from Qumran ( O x f o r d , 1961), p p . 368-78.

Further material m a y b e found in H . Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament ii
(Tubingen, 1966), 54fT, 850".
8
D . F. Strauss, Das Leben Jesu 1 ( i s t e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1835), 72.
9
T . K e i m , Geschichte Jesu von Nazara ii (Zurich," 1871), 337H" ( E T History ofjesus of
Nazara'w ( L o n d o n , 1879), 4-27); B . W e i s s , Das Leben Jesuii (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1884),
99ff ( E T The Life ojJesus ii ( E d i n b u r g h , 1883), 2 8 9 - 3 0 5 ) ^ . Beyschlag, Das Leben
Jesu ii ( H a l l e , 1886), 259ff; W . Bousset, Jesus, E T ( L o n d o n , 1906), p p . 59-70; P.
\Nern\t, Jesus (3rd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1917), p p . 1070°; M . G o g u e l , La vie de Jesus (Paris,
1932) ( E T The Life of Jesus (London, 1933), p p . 343-6), G T ( Z u r i c h , 1934), p p . 219f;
W . Heitmiiller, Jesus ( T u b i n g e n , 1913), p p . 97f.
1 0
R . B u l t m a n n , ' D a s Verhaltnis der urchristlicheh Christusbotschaft z u m histori-
schen J e s u s ' ( E T as ' T h e Primitive Christian K e r y g m a and the Historical J e s u s ' , in
C . E. Braaten and R o y A . Harrisville ( e d s . ) , The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic
Christ ( N e w Y o r k and Nashville, 1964), p . 22). T h e present translation differs
slightly.
11
G . B o r n k a m m , Jesus von Nazareth (5th e d n . Stuttgart, i960), p p . 88ff, ET Jesus of
Nazareth ( L o n d o n , i960), p p . 98-100; E . Stauffer, Die Botschaft Jesu (Bern, 1959),
p p . 361T; E. H a e n c h e n , Der Wegjesu (Berlin, 1966), passim; M . H e n g e l , Nachfolgeund
Charisma (Berlin, 1968), p . 63; H . Braun, Jesus (Stuttgart, 1969), p p . 72ff. C p . m y
survey in NTSt 14 (1967-8), 194-208.
12
A n attack b y Jesus o n the T o r a h itself is disputed b y J. J e r e m i a s , Neutestamentliche
Theologie i (Giitersloh, 1971), ig8ff ( E T New Testament Theology i ( L o n d o n , 1971),
204-8). F o r the contrary v i e w see especially Stauffer, Botschaft; H a e n c h e n , Weg;
H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p p . 78f.
 T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism 131

13
behind Jesus's indictment. T h e supposed affinity of Jesus and the Zealots
has also been recently questioned; it has indeed been proposed that there
14
was an unbridgeable gulf between them. T h e representation of Jesus as a
15
Q u m r a n Essene has not remained uncontested either.
W i t h such an abundance o f opposing positions and views on the
question, we might feel justified in giving up, especially since to many
questions we feel able with a clear theological conscience to give a verdict o f
16
non liquet with an appeal to Kahler and Bultmann. O n the other hand, it
17
has been shown thatfaith has an interest in the historical facts about Jesus,
although this subject will not concern us further here. But what can we say
about the actual possibility o f historical reconstruction?

It is today generally recognised that the Gospels are o f a kerygmatic nature,

18
so that an uncritical estimate o f their value is out o f the question. The
fundamental breakthrough to this recognition was made by form-criticism,
although it had already operated in 'liberal' study around the turn o f the
century. A d o l f Jiilicher, for example, set out the problem strikingly in an
evaluation o f the achievements o f Wrede, Wellhausen, and Harnack:

The task will always be for us to distinguish within the Synoptic tradition
what can probably be ascribed to the community, or perhaps what was
composed by the community in venturing to correct older material, and
what is more probably to be traced back to Jesus himself. Whenever

1 3
S o G . L i n d e s k o g , ' D e r Prozess J e s u i m judisch-christlichen R e l i g i o n s g e s p r a c h ' ,
in Abraham unser Vater (Festschrift O . M i c h e l ) (Leiden, 1963), p p . 325(1; D . R .
C a t c h p o l e , ' T h e P r o b l e m o f the Historicity o f the Sanhedrin T r i a l ' , in E . B a m m e l
( e d . ) , The Trial of Jesus, (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1971), p p . 47!!, a n d idem, The Trial of Jesus
( L e i d e n , 1971), p p . io7ff.
, 4
H e n g e l , War Jesus Revolutionary \ O . C u l l m a n n , Jesus und die Revolutionaren seiner Zeit
( T u b i n g e n , 1970) ( E T Jesus and the Revolutionaries ( N e w Y o r k , 1970)).
1 5
C p . the s u m m a r y in Braun, Qumran ii, 541T, 85(1.
1 6
G . Strecker, ' D i e historische u n d theologische Problematik d e r Jesusfrage', EvTh 29
(1969)* 4 5 3 ^
17
O . M i c h e l , ' D e r "historische J e s u s " und d a s theologische G e w i s s h e i t s p r o b l e m ' ,
EvTh 15 (1955), 349fT; J. J e r e m i a s , Das Problem des historischen Jesus (Stuttgart, i960)
E T The Problem of the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia, 1967); W . G . K i i m m e l , Die
Theologie des Neuen Testaments nach seinen Hauptzeugen (Gottingen, 1969, p p . 22Q; P.
S t u h l m a c h e r , ' K r i t i s c h e M a r g i n a l i e n zur gegenwartigen Frage nach J e s u s ' , in Fides
et communicatio (Festschr. M . D o e r n e ) , ed. D . Rossler et al. ( G o t t i n g e n , 1970),
p p . 34iff.
1 8
T h i s is the weakness o f the c o m p r e h e n s i v e study o f W . Beilner, Christus und die
Pharisaer ( W i e n , 1959). T h e w o r k o f K . Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu
( N e u k i r c h e n , 1972), while rich in material, also raises d o u b t s a b o u t m e t h o d . W h a t
the a u t h o r considers a ' c o m p r e h e n s i v e traditio-historical m e t h o d ' ( F o r e w o r d ) ,
often operates like ' c o m b i n a t o r i a l m a g i c ' . C p . also note 79, p . 140.
132 HELMUT MERKEL

characteristic traits are striking in a disorganized mass o f material,

whenever w o r d s o f peculiar stamp and character meet us, then this is . . .
19
the surest p r o o f o f authenticity.

Wilhelm Heitmiiller, whose presentation o f j e s u s was debated by the

20
Prussian chamber o f deputies, formulated five critical canons, o f which
the first was

that in spite o f legendary and mythological elements and in spite o f the not
inconsiderable overlaying attributable to the belief o f the c o m m u n i t y that
w e have to clear away, w e have material o f historical value in the gospel
tradition whenever there are elements in it which cannot be reconciled
with the belief o f the c o m m u n i t y to which the material as a whole belongs.
W h a t is not consonant with this belief cannot have g r o w n out o f it. T h e s e
elements often s h o w themselves to be at variance with the belief o f the
21
c o m m u n i t y through their omission or alteration by later writers.

' W e can have complete confidence [in the residuum o f material satisfying
this criterion]. W e can extend this confidence to everything that stands in
22
an organic relation to it.' Further indicators o f authenticity were the local
colour o f narratives, Aramaisms, and forms o f traditional material suitable
for memorisation. With these principles Heitmiiller offered a way of making
Jiilicher's methodology more precise. Ernst von Dobschiitz expressed
23
himself similarly.
This position changed with Bultmann. He wanted to abandon any
24
presumption o f reliability in dealing with the Gospel tradition, believing
that nothing more than the earliest stratum o f the tradition could ever be
discerned; to what extent Jesus was behind it could no longer be
25
determined. H e also extended the criteria for authenticity: Jesus must

1 9
A . Jiilicher, Neue Linien in der Kritik der evangelischen Uberlieferung ( T u b i n g e n , 1906),
pp. 73^
20
Jesus ( T u b i n g e n , 1913). C p . the F o r e w o r d , p p . iiiff.
2 1
I b i d . p p . 34f.
2 2
I b i d . p . 40.
2 3
' D e r heutige Stand d e r Leben-Jesu-Forschung', in ZThK N . F . 5 (1924), 64!!. In
o r d e r to p r o v e that the G o s p e l ' d i d not originate in the ideas o f the time o r the
aspirations o f m e n ' , v o n D o b s c h i i t z emphasised t w o facts: (1) ' T h e gospel tradition
m a d e c h a n g e s in w o r d s a n d narratives, a sign that it found s o m e things offensive.'
(2) ' I n this process, s o m e individual traits were preserved w h i c h c o u l d n o t have
been m a d e u p since they are in direct contradiction with later attitudes . . .' ( p . 65).
H e went o n to refer to the local c o l o u r , A r a m a i s m s , and Jewish c o n c e p t s in the
Gospels.
2 4
A p r e s u m p t i o n still shared b y Heitmiiller, Jesus, and M . Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte
des Evangeliums (4th e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1961) ( E T From Tradition to Gospel ( L o n d o n ,
1934), p p . 2931), and Jesus (3rd e d n . Berlin, i960, p . 19 ( E T Jesus (Philadelphia,
1949), p . 22).
2 5
R . B u l t m a n n , Jesus (Berlin, 1926) ( E T Jesus and the word ( N e w Y o r k a n d L o n d o n ,
I2
J934). PP- 0-
 T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism 133

stand out not only from the later community but also from Jewish moral
26
teaching and piety.
O n this foundation rests the 'criterion o f underivability' developed by
27
Ernst Kasemann in his famous lecture. Inasmuch as this formulation has
28
been acknowledged in principle by scholars of widely differing opinions, it
can be considered an accepted result o f the discussion o f method to date.
T h e most weighty objection that can be raised - and which has been
29
repeatedly raised - against this criterion, was stated by Kasemann
himself, viz., that 'we shall not, from this angle of vision, gain any clear view
o f the connecting link between Jesus, his Palestinian environment and his
30
later c o m m u n i t y ' . T o get a complete picture o f the proclamation o f Jesus,
we could overcome this objection in part by following Heitmuller's method
and regarding everything that was 'in organic relation' to the residuum o f
underivable material as authentic. However, for the question at issue here
we have to discover first what this residuum o f material is that
unmistakably goes back to Jesus, and for this undertaking by itself the
'criterion o f dissimilarity' (as Norman Perrin calls it) is suitable. Criteria o f
31
form, however, can provide valuable checks: source-critical, form-critical,
and redaction-critical analysis must obviously be combined with con­
siderations o f content.
32
This comprehensive method o f investigation may well overcome the

2 6
R . B u l t m a n n , Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition ( G o t t i n g e n , 1964), p . 222, E T
History of the Synoptic Tradition ( O x f o r d , 1972), p . 205.
2 7
E. K a s e m a n n , ' D a s P r o b l e m des historischen J e s u s ' , in Exeget. Versuche i ( G o t t i n g e n ,
1965) ( E T ' T h e P r o b l e m o f the Historical J e s u s ' , in Essays on New Testament Themes
( L o n d o n , 1964), p p . 15-47): ' I n o n l y o n e case d o w e have m o r e o r less safe g r o u n d
under o u r feet: w h e n there are n o g r o u n d s either for deriving a tradition from
J u d a i s m o r for ascribing it to primitive Christianity, and especially w h e n Jewish
Christianity has mitigated o r modified the received tradition, as having found it t o o
b o l d for its taste' ( p . 37).
2 8
W . G r u n d m a n n , Die Geschichte Jesu Christi (2nd edn. Berlin, 1959), p p . i6f; H .
C o n z e l m a n n , 'Jesus Christus', RGG iii, 623; Stauffer, Botschaft, p p . 10, 16; O .
C u l l m a n n , ' U n z e i t g e m a s s e B e m e r k u n g e n z u m "historischen J e s u s " d e r Bult-
m a n n s c h u l e ' , in R i s t o w and M a t t h i a e , Der historische Jesus, p p . 266ff, esp. p p . 277f;
E. L o h s e , ' D i e Frage n a c h d e m historischen Jesus in der gegenwartigen
neutestamentlichen F o r s c h u n g ' , ThLZ 87 (1962), 168; E. B a m m e l , ' E r w a g u n g e n
zur Eschatologie J e s u ' , in StEv iii, 3fT, esp. p . 19; C . B u r c h a r d , J e s u s ' , in Derkleine
Pauly ii (Stuttgart, 1967), 1346; N . Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus ( L o n d o n ,
1967), p p . 38f; H . G . K l e m m , ' D a s W o r t v o n d e r Selbstbestattung der T o t e n ' , NTSt
16 (1969/70), 6ofT, esp. 74;Jeremias, Theologie i 2 ( E T p . 2); H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p . 96.
2 9
C u l l m a n n , ' U n z e i t g e m a s s e B e m e r k u n g e n ' ; P. Stuhlmacher, 'Kritische M a r g i n a -
lien'; J e r e m i a s , Theologie i, 2.
3 0
K a s e m a n n , ' D a s P r o b l e m ' ( E T p . 37).
3 1
Jeremias, Theologie, p p . igff ( E T i, 3-37).
3 2
M . L e h m a n n , Synoptische Quellenanalyse und die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus (Berlin,
1970), also p r o p o s e s a ' c o - o p e r a t i o n o f criteria'. For similar proposals, see P.
Stuhlmacher, ' T h e s e n zur M e t h o d o l o g i e gegenwartiger Exegese', Z A W 6 3 (1972),
134 HELMUT MERKEL

sceptical attitude (which seemed at first to be required by form-criticism)

that it is impossible to get back behind the post-Easter community. W e
appeal here to the fundamental remarks o f H . Schurmann, w h o has shown
that it is not the post-Easter community but the pre-Easter circle o f
33
disciples that is the earliest recoverable social entity. W e may resolutely
give up all a priori guarantees for the trustworthiness o f the tradition as a
34
whole. Everything depends on the examination o f individual traditions.

II

T h e Gospel tradition has preserved several instances in which Jesus placed

himself in direct opposition to Jewish religious practice.
(a) First o f all there is the saying in Matt. 8: 22 par. in which Jesus
invites the violation o f something that is a religious duty in all cultures.
Matthew and Luke have blunted the edge o f the saying by altering its
context, and the further history o f its exegesis shows that this saying
35 36
remained offensive. There can, then, be no doubt o f its authenticity.
(b) It has long been recognised that Jesus's attitude to women was
37 38
unusual. T h e extraordinarily low estate o f women in J u d a i s m and the
39
generally reserved and critical estimate o f them in early Christianity
guarantee, at least in principle, that those traditions in which the 'religious
40
equality o f w o m e n ' can be read d o go back to Jesus.
(c) Jesus's rejection o f fasting, in its original form in Mark 2: i8f, must
41
have been astonishing and, for a religious teacher, disqualifying. T h e fact

i8ff, esp. 22; and D . G . A . Calvert, ' A n E x a m i n a t i o n o f the Criteria for

Distinguishing the A u t h e n t i c W o r d s o f Jesus', NTSt 18 (1971-2), 2090°, esp. 219.
3 3
H . S c h u r m a n n , ' D i e vorosterlichen A n f a n g e d e r L o g i e n t r a d i t i o n ' , in R i s t o w a n d
M a t t h i a e , Der historische Jesus, p p . 342ff.
3 4
A g a i n s t H . Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings ( O x f o r d , 1957), a n d B.
G e r h a r d s s o n , Memory and Manuscript ( L u n d , 1961). T h e references to the r a b b i n i c
transmission o f tradition m a y perhaps serve as a c o u n t e r w e i g h t to radical
scepticism, but they d o not bear e x a m i n a t i o n in individual cases. C p . the criticism
o f W . D . D a v i e s , The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount ( C a m b r i d g e , 1964), p p . 464!^
a n d H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p p . 58ff.
3 5
C p . also K l e m m , ' D a s s W o r t ' .
3 6
S o also H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p . 16.
3 7
C p . A . O e p k e , ' v i m ] ' , in TDNT'i, 784^ Stauffer, Botschaft, p p . 68ff; Braun, Jesus, p .
I02f; H e n g e l , ' M a r i a M a g d a l e n a und die Frauen als Z e u g e n ' , in Abraham unser Vater,
p p . 243fT.
3 8
C p . esp. S - B iii, 61 if; iv, i226f; and J. Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu (3rd e d n .
G o t t i n g e n , 1962), p p . 395ff ( E T Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1969), p p .
359-76).
3 9
1 C o r . 11: 7f; 14: 341T; 1 T i m . 2:1 if; L u k e 14:26; R e v . 14: iff.
^ H e n g e l , ' M a r i a M a g d a l e n a ' , p . 243.
4 1
F o r this see m y a r g u m e n t in ' M a r k u s 7.15 - das J e s u s w o r t liber die innere
V e r u n r e i n i g u n g ' , ZRGG 20 (1968), 360-3; and J. Roloff, Das Kerygma und der irdische
Jesus (Gottingen, 1970), p p . 223ff.
 T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism 135

alone that this pericope in its Markan form actually constitutes a justi­
fication for the practice o f fasting in the church (zktvoovxai 5e f ^ e Q a L
. . . T O T E VT)OTElJOOuaiv), 42
shows that verse 1 9 a , which is critical of fasting,
cannot be derived from the thinking o f the early church, which (as Matt.
43
6: i6ff and Did. 8.1 clearly show) placed a high value on Christian fasting.
T h e form-critical objection to the authenticity o f Mark 2: i 8 f holds that
Jesus is here defending not his own but his disciples' conduct, and that by
44
this device the community is appealing to Jesus to justify its own c o n d u c t .
45
This line o f argument is spelled out twice by Bultmann; none the
less it should now be given up, since it is quite natural that Jesus should
have been called to account for shortcomings in the conduct o f his
46
followers.
Jesus's critical position toward the Sabbath and ritual purity will be
treated in detail below, since in these cases it is a question not only o f
characteristically Jewish custom but o f the Law itself.

Ill

Jesus's attitude to the outcasts o f society must have given rise to very
serious conflicts.
(a) Tax-gatherers were among the most hated classes o f people in ancient
47
Judaism. Their profession belonged to that class of occupations which
'were not only despised, nay hated, by the people; they were de jure and
48
officially deprived of rights and ostracized'. T h e special favour of Jesus for
49
the tax-gatherers, evidenced in all strata o f the tradition, has to be
understood as an outrageous provocation from the Jewish point of view. O n
the other hand, the question was no longer a problem for the later church,
whose references to tax-gatherers, although widely distributed, are few in

4 2
D i b e l i u s , Formegeschichte, p p . 62f ( E T p p . 65Q.
4 3
Roloflf, Kerygma, p . 226, continues to defend the authenticity o f the rule o f fasting in
M a t t . 6: i6ff. N o n e the less, the picture o f Jesus as a reformer o f the religious
institutions o f J u d a i s m seems to fit the M a t t h a e a n christology rather than the
historical Jesus.
4 4
B u l t m a n n , Synoptischen Tradition, p . 17 ( E T p . 16).
4 5
Ibid. p . 48.
4 6
S o especially, E. Stauffer, ' N e u e W e g e der Jesus F o r s c h u n g ' , in Gottes ist der Orient
(Festschrift O . Eissfeldt) (Berlin, 1959), p p . 167!!. C p . the earlier essay o f C . H .
D o d d , 'Jesus as T e a c h e r and P r o p h e t ' , in G . K . A . Bell and A . D e i s s m a n n ( e d s . ) ,
Mysterium Christi ( L o n d o n , 1930), p p . 53-66; Roloff, Kerygma, p . 55; and D . D a u b e ,
'Responsibilities o f M a s t e r and Disciples in the G o s p e l s ' , NTSt 19 (1972-3), iff.
47
C p . S-B i, pp. 378f.
48
J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem, p . 346 ( E T p . 3 1 1 ) .
4 9
M a r k 2 : 1 5 - 1 7 ( p r e - M a r k a n ; see R . Pesch, ' D a s Z o l l n e r g a s t m a h P , in Melanges
Bibliques en hommage au R. P. Beda Rigaux ( G e m b l o u x , 1970), p p . 630); M a t t . 11: 18f
par. ( Q ) ; Luke 18:9-14; 19:2-10 ( L - m a t e r i a l ) ; M a t t . 21: 3 i f ( M - m a t e r i a l ) .
136 HELMUT MERKEL

50
number. This fact admits o f the conclusion that the texts which describe
Jesus's association with tax-gatherers correspond to neither Jewish nor
Christian thinking, and so reflect Jesus's own attitude. It must have been
scandalous to all Jesus's contemporaries that he received into his company
the 'notoriously sinful Israelites who have separated themselves from the
51
true Israel'. T h e reproach taken up by Jesus that he was a 'glutton and a
drinker, a friend o f tax-gatherers and sinners' (Matt. 1 1 : i 8 f par.) is the best
52
possible illustration o f this attitude o f j e s u s and its rejection. It is not
merely a moral disqualification that is expressed here, but the accusation
according to religious law that Jesus was a 'disobedient son', w h o ,
53
according to Deut. 2 1 : 2of, was punishable by stoning.
(b) T h e mixed race of the Samaritans was just as hated and scorned in the
54
time o f Jesus as the tax-gatherers. W h e n Jesus, in the undoubtedly
55
authentic parable o f the 'good Samaritan' (Luke 10: 3off), let the deed o f
human kindness be performed ideally by none other than a Samaritan, it
must have been taken as an insulting affront by any patriotic Jew. H . G .
K l e m m has rightly pointed out that in Luke 10: 3 0 - 5 , just as in the parables

5 0
In the s y n o p t i c s , the m e n t i o n o f tax-gatherers is almost always taken o v e r in
traditional material. R . Pesch, ' L e v i - M a t t h a u s ' , ZNW$g (1968), 4off, tries to s h o w
a redactional origin for Mark 2: ijf. T w o facts tell against this thesis: (1) the
discontinuity between verses 14 and 15 ( n o t i c e d as early as J. W e l l h a u s e n , Das
Evangelium Marci (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1909), p . 17, w h i c h w o u l d have been a v o i d ­
able if verse 14 was editorial; and (2) the a b s e n c e o f the n a m e Levi from
M a r k ' s list o f apostles in 3: i6ff. Matt. 5:46 has been regarded since A . H a r n a c k ,
Spruche and Reden Jesu ( L e i p z i g , 1907), p p . 46f ( E T ( L o n d o n , 1908), p . 62), as the
m o r e original form o f the saying paralleled in L u k e 6: 32f. Matt. 18:17 seems to have
its origin in p r e - M a t t h a e a n tradition (see R . H u m m e l , Die Auseinandersetzung
zwischen Kirche undJudentum im Matthausevangelium .(2nd e d n . Miincheri, 1966), p . 23.
Matt. 21:32 m a y b e redactional (so B o r n k a m m , ' E n d - E x p e c t a t i o n and C h u r c h in
M a t t h e w ' , in G . B o r n k a m m , G . Barth and J. H e l d , Uberlieferung und Auslegung im
Matthausevangelium ( N e u k i r c h e n , i960), p p . 22ff, E T Tradition and Interpretation in
Matthew ( L o n d o n , 1963), p p . 27f; G . Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (2nd e d n .
G o t t i n g e n , 1966), p . 153; H u m m e l , Auseinandersetzung; U . L u z , ' D i e Jiinger i m
M a t t h a u s e v a n g e l i u m ' , ZNW 62 (1971), 154), o r indeed the w h o l e parable: see m y
a r g u m e n t in ' D a s Gleichnis v o n d e n " u n g l e i c h e n S o h n e n " M t X X I . 28-32', NTSt
20 (1972-3), 2540°. T h e J o h a n n i n e tradition ignores all encounters b e t w e e n Jesus
a n d tax-gatherers.
5 1
O . M i c h e l , ThWNT viii, 103 ( E T TDNT viii, 104).
5 2
O n the authenticity o f M a t t . 11: i8f, see E. Schweizer, ' D e r M e n s c h e n s o h n ' , in
Neotestamentica (1963), 72f; C . C o l p e , ThWNT v\\\, 434, E T TDNTviii, 431; and J.
J e r e m i a s , Die Gleichnisse Jesu (7th e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1965), p p . i6of ( E T The Parables of
Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1963), p p . 1611).
53
S t a u f f e r , ' N e u e W e g e ' , p . 175; J e r e m i a s , Theologie, i, 265f ( E T 2611). B r a n d o n
touches o n this c o m p l e x o f issues only in a subordinate clause (Zealots, p . 201),
w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g its far-reaching implications.
5 4
S - B i, 538ff; Jeremias, Jerusalem, p p . 387ff ( E T p p . 352ff).
55
J e r e m i a s , Gleichnisse, p p . 202ff ( E T p p . 202ff); Perrin, Teaching, p p . i22ff; H . G .
K l e m m , ' D a s Gleichnis v o m Barmherzigen Samariter' (Diss. E r l a n g e n - N u r n b e r g ,
1967).
 T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism 137

0
in Matt. 1 8 : 23!!, 2 5 : 32ft , and Luke 1 5 : 1 iff, a 'reversal o f perspectives, a
victory o f human kindness over inflexible principles and hardened
56
attitudes' is accomplished. Jesus's lack o f prejudice, evident in this %

parable, is reflected also in the story o f the 'grateful Samaritan' (Luke

1 7 : 1 iff) and in the conflict between his disciples and the inhabitants o f a
5 7
Samaritan village (Luke 9: 52ft) , O n l y the saying in Matt. 1 o: 5 f shares the
prejudice o f the time against the Samaritans. Joachim Jeremias has to be
58
sure demonstrated the great antiquity o f this text, but the evidence o f
Aramaic idioms proves only that the saying was handed down by the
earliest, Aramaic-speaking church. Since Matt. 1 0 : 5 f fits into the Jewish
and Jewish-Christian horizon and at the same time contradicts authentic
tradition about Jesus, the conclusion that it is o f secondary origin is
59
attractive.
(c) If our assignment o f Matt. 1 0 : 5 f to the Jewish-Christian church is
correct, then one o f the most difficult texts for the problem of'Jesus and the
Gentiles' is removed from the discussion. N o planned limitation o f the
Christian mission can be seen in the earliest sources; the historical Jesus
60
could not have imposed it on himself or his disciples. T o be sure, we may
61
not follow F. Spitta and make Jesus the first missionary to the Gentiles,
but the texts make it clear that Jesus displayed a fundamental openness to
Gentiles which corresponded to his attitude to 'tax-gatherers and sinners'
and Samaritans. As illustrations there are several specific individual cases
0 0
( M a r k 7: 24ft par., Matt. 8: 5ft par.), whose original history is in any event
Il:2
not easy to reconstruct, as well as the sayings in Luke 1 0 : 2 3 , 9ff>
62
13: 28f, in which Jesus sets up the Gentiles as contrasting examples over

5 6
K l e m m , Gleichnis, p . 421.
5 7
T h e authenticity o f L u k e 17: 1 i f f was d o u b t e d already b y P. W e r n l e , Die synoptische
Frage (Freiburg, 1899), p . 94, a n d t h o r o u g h l y disputed b y R . Vtsch,Jesu ureigene
Taten? ( F r e i b u r g - B a s e l - W i e n , 1970), p p . 350°. C p . , h o w e v e r , the reply to this
criticism b y M . H e n g e l , Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit ( T u b i n g e n , 1971), p . 65. Roloff,
Kerygma, considers the narrative to b e i n d e p e n d e n t tradition but the m e n t i o n o f the
Samaritan s e c o n d a r y . O n L u k e 9: 52ff, c p . H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p . 67. B o t h texts are
o r g a n i c a l l y related to the r e s i d u u m o f underivable material.
58
J - J e r e m i a s , Jesu Verheissung fur die Vblker (2nd edn. Stuttgart, 1959), p p . i6f ( E T
y
Jesus Promise to the Nations ( L o n d o n , 1958), p p . 19Q.
5 9
S o t o o E. K a s e m a n n , ' T h e B e g i n n i n g s o f Christian T h e o l o g y ' , in New Testament
Questions of Today ( E T ( L o n d o n , 1969), p . 87); F. H a h n , Das Verstandnis der Mission im
Neuen Testament, (2nd e d n . N e u k i r c h e n - V l u y n , 1965), p . 87; H a e n c h e n , Weg, p . 228;
M . H e n g e l , ' D i e U r s p r i i n g e d e r Christlichen M i s s i o n ' , NTSt 18 (1971/72), 36. T h e
a r g u m e n t o f H . K a s t i n g , Die Anfdnge der urchristlichen Mission ( M i i n c h e n , 1969),
p p . 11 off, that M a t t . 10:5 a n d 15:24 are c o m p o s i t i o n s o f the evangelist, is not
c o n v i n c i n g , since A r a m a i s m s d o not o c c u r in redactional material.
6 0
A g a i n s t J e r e m i a s , Verheissung.
6 1
F. Spitta, Jesus und die Heidenmission (Giessen, 1909).
6 2
J e r e m i a s , Verheissung, p . 48 ( E T p . 85), favours the M a t t h a e a n form o f this saying,
but W . Trilling, Das wahre Israel (3rd e d n . M i i n c h e n , 1964), p p . 88f, has s h o w n that
i 8
3
HELMUT MERKEL

against the failure o f Israel. Finally, this openness ofjesus even with regard
to non-Jews, is connected with the fact that Jesus detached religion from
63
national soil. By this 'un-limitation' he made the essential preparation for
64
the Gentile mission. This fact, that Jesus burst through traditional ways o f
thinking in his position toward tax-gatherers, Samaritans, and Gentiles,
goes unappreciated by Brandon. Every representation o f Jesus as a
religious conformist runs aground on it.

IV

It was a binding axiom for all Jews that the Torah was the final
dispensation o f the purpose o f G o d , although differences might appear in
65
the interpretation o f this divine precept. It is widely assumed that Jesus
66
shared this contemporary v i e w , but several texts have to be adduced in
which a conflict o f j e s u s with the Torah can be denied only by a forced
exegesis.
(a) T h e saying o f Matt. 8: 2 i f par. discussed above not only represents a
disregard for part o f the 'core of Jewish piety' but can be 'taken as an attack
67
on the reverence toward parents enjoined in the Fifth C o m m a n d m e n t ' .
T h e same goes for the narratives o f the calling o f the disciples in Mark
1: i6ff, which, as Rudolf Pesch has shown, rest on 'recognizable historical
68
foundations'. 'In Mark 1: 2 0 , the unconditional willingness to follow Jesus
is at stake. In this case the call o f j e s u s requires a break with the Fifth
69
Commandment.'
70
(b) Strict observance o f the Sabbath was required by the T o r a h , and
special halakhot for its more exact observance were developed in Q u m r a n as
71
well as Pharisaic circles. N o w there is widespread agreement among

L u k e is the earlier. A g a i n s t J e r e m i a s ' s w i d e - r a n g i n g c o n c l u s i o n s from the L u k a n

'inaugural s e r m o n ' , c p . H a e n c h e n , Weg, p . 272, n.2.
6 3
A . H a r n a c k , Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums i (4th e d n . L e i p z i g , 1924), 39
( E T The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (2nd e d n .
L o n d o n , 1908), p . 36).
6 4
C p . H e n g e l , NTSt 18 (1971-2), 36.
6 5
S. W . G u t b r o d , ThWNT iv, 1054-9; H . Braun, Spdtjudisch haretischer undfruhchrist-
licher Radikalismus i ( T u b i n g e n , 1957), 2ff, 150°, 48ff, goff.
6 6
See the literature cited in note 3, p . 129, and J e r e m i a s , Theologie i, 204-8.
6 7
H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p . 29.
6 8
Pesch, 'Berufung und S e n d u n g , N a c h f o l g e und M i s s i o n ' , ZKTh 91 (1969), i f f
( q u o t a t i o n p . 18).
6 9
Stauffer, Botschaft, p . 29.
7 0
F o r this a n d w h a t follows, see W . Rordorf, Der Sonntag ( Z u r i c h , 1962); ( E T Sunday
( L o n d o n , 1968)).
7 1
Q u m r a n : C D X . 1 4 - X I . 1 8 ; c p . Braun, Radikalismus \, 69^ E. L o h s e , Umwelt des Neuen
Testaments ( G o t t i n g e n , 1971), p p . 73f, i28f; S. T . K i m b r o u g h , Jr., ' T h e C o n c e p t o f
S a b b a t h at Q u m r a n ' , RdQ 5 (1966), 483!! For r a b b i n i c material see S - B i, 6i5ff.
 T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism 139

scholars that the controversies over the Sabbath reported in both the
72
Synoptic and Johannine traditions reflect the attitude of Jesus. It is not
merely a matter o f an attack on the Pharisaic Sabbath halakha, as Jeremias
73
maintains, since the sayings in Mark 2 : 2 7 and 3 : 4 plainly qualify the
absolutely unquestionable commandment to keep the Sabbath holy, whose
violation is made punishable in the Torah by death.
Even the oldest Gospel did not tolerate the saying in Mark 2: 2 7 in its
unconditional form, in which the welfare o f man is placed above the norm
fixed by the T o r a h , but blunted it by a christological argument: not man,
74
but the 'Son of man', is lord of the Sabbath. Finally, Matthew omits Mark
75
2: 2 7 and lets the conflict over the Torah fade away. In the same way,
Matthew recasts the second controversy over the Sabbath in Mark 3: iff.
' T h e Sabbath commandment remains in force in principle. T h e T o r a h is
the c o m m o n ground o f the debate. Only its interpretation and practical
76
application are at issue.' From all this, the underivability o f Jesus's
criticism o f the Sabbath can be concluded.
(c) T h e subject o f cultic purity and impurity is also among the most
important elements o f the Torah; in Q u m r a n and among the Pharisees it
77
underwent various halakhic treatments. T h e saying in M a r k 7: 1 5 , OU&8V
eoxiv e^coBev xov dvBQWJtou eiojioQeu6(ievov eig avxov 6 5i>vaTai
xoivdxjai auxov, offers a radical criticism o f this whole concept. I have

7 2
C p . E. L o h s e , 'Jesu W o r t e u b e r d e n S a b b a t ' , in Judentum-Urchristentum-Kirche,
Festschr. J. Jeremias (2nd edn. Berlin, 1964), p p . 79-89; a n d Rordorf, Der Sonntag,
p p . 551T ( E T p p . 61-5).
" J e r e m i a s , Theologie i, 201 ( E T p . 209).
7 4
C p . K a s e m a n n , ' D a s P r o b l e m ' , 38f; Braun, Radikalismus i, p . 70 n. 1; R o r d o r f , Der
Sonntag, p p . 631!. T h e analysis o f Roloff, Kerygme, overlooks the c o n n e c t i o n between
M a r k 2: 25f and 28 d e m o n s t r a t e d b y B a m m e l , ' E r w a g u n g e n ' and also p o i n t e d out
by H . H i i b n e r , Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition ( W i t t e n , 1973), p . 120.
7 5
B y the introduction o f £ j i £ i v a o a v , M a t t h e w emphasises the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e to the
e x a m p l e o f D a v i d ( M a t t . 12: 1), he a d d s a s e c o n d proof-text w h i c h , in contrast to
M a r k 2:27, actually satisfies the r a b b i n i c d e m a n d s (see D . D a u b e , The New
Testament and Rabbinic Judaism ( L o n d o n , 1956), p . 71), and he calls the disciples
i n n o c e n t (12: 7). T h e o m i s s i o n o f M a r k 2:27 b y M a t t h e w a n d L u k e seems to have
been differently m o t i v a t e d : w h a t s e e m e d to J e w i s h Christians t o o critical o f the
T o r a h c o u l d have s e e m e d to G e n t i l e Christians t o o partial to the institution o f the
S a b b a t h . T h e conjecture o f W e r n l e , Synoptische Frage, p . 55, that the o m i s s i o n c o u l d
reflect an earlier text o f M a r k is thus unnecessary, and m o r e than unnecessary since
L u k e ' s takeover in 6:5 o f the M a r k a n transitional formula x a i eksyev a i i x o i g
betrays his k n o w l e d g e o f M a r k 2: 27. T h i s tells against the hypothesis o f Hiibner,
Gesetz, p p . 117ff, w h o supposes that M a t t h e w and Luke were influenced b y a Q form
o f the c o n t r o v e r s y . But even if he were correct, it w o u l d remain unexplained w h y
M a t t h e w and L u k e s h o u l d simultaneously desert M a r k in favour o f Q .
7 6
H u m m e l , Auseinandersetzung, p . 45.
7 7
L e v . 1 if; 15; N u m . 5: iff; 19; D e u t . 14: 3ff; 23:9ff; etc. For the r a b b i n i c material see
S - B i, 695ff; for Q u m r a n material see Braun, Radikalismus i, 29, 34f, 54,58, i04ff. O n
the w h o l e question see W . Paschen, Rein und Unrein ( M i i n c h e n , 1970).
140 HELMUT MERKEL

elsewhere presented a detailed survey o f the many softenings and

re-interpretations that this saying o f j e s u s has suffered in the last 200
78
years. Unbiased exegesis, however, can only maintain that 'the man w h o
denies that impurity from external authority can penetrate into man's
essential being is striking at the presuppositions and the plain verbal sense
79
of the Torah, and at the authority o f Moses himself. Again in this case the
state o f the secondary additions and later omissions offers the most
probative check on the authenticity o f the saying. Mark himself blurs
Jesus's opposition to the Torah by connecting 7: 1 5 with the controversies
over hand-washing and the validity o f the halakha (7: iff). H e also limits the
saying, which applies to all the commandments about purity, to the food
laws (7: 1 9 c ) , and he diverts attention from the deeper opposition by means
o f the peremptory, 'parenetically sonorous but theologically inoffensive
80
catalogue o f v i c e s ' . T h e transformation o f the whole debate by Matthew, a

78
ZRGG 20 (1968), 341-50.
7 9
K a s e m a n n , Exeget. Versuche i (1965), 39; so B o r n k a m m / « M j , p . 90, E T p . 98; Braun,
) v

Qumran ii, 72; Stauffer, ' N e u e W e g e ' , in Gottes ist der Orient, p . 171; H a e n c h e n , Weg,
p p . 256^ Perrin, Teaching, p p . i46f; S. K a w a s h i m a , J e s u s u n d d i e j i i d i s c h e n
Speisevorschriften' (Diss. Erlangen-Niirnberg, 1969); H u b n e r , Gesetz, p p . i42ff.
A g a i n s t this, it represents a step b a c k w a r d s w h e n Paschen, Rein, understands
the w h o l e saying o n the basis o f verse 15b. V e r s e 15a s h o u l d be taken at
least as seriously! T h i s must also be said against Jeremias, Theologie i, 202 ( E T
p p . 2091).
T h e attempt o f Paschen and H u b n e r to trace an earlier form o f the tradition
b e h i n d the saying o f j e s u s in M a r k 7: 15 c a n n o t b e discussed here. M y o w n
reconstruction is treated critically b y W . G . K i i m m e l , 'Aussere u n d innere Reinheit
bei Jesus', in Das Wort und die Worter (Festschrift G . Friedrich) (Stuttgart, 1973), p p .
35-46. T h e difference o f views is d e t e r m i n e d b y a difference in the degree to w h i c h
the 'criterion o f dissimilarity' is a c c e p t e d . H a p p i l y , K u m m e l ' s recognition o f the
force o f J e s u s ' s criticism o f the T o r a h is not i m p a i r e d .
Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, p p . 463ff, g o e s t o o far in softening the criticism o f the
T o r a h in saying ' T h e n o t i o n o f purity is not abolished, but o n l y transferred to
the realm o f the spiritual' ( p . 464), in order to b e able to illustrate 'the great
p r o x i m i t y o f this m a x i m to Hellenistic J u d a i s m ' with a c o m p a r i s o n with Philo, de
Spec. Leg., iii, 2o8f. I have previously s h o w n ( Z R G G 20 (1968) see note 41, p . 135)
that the spiritualised n o t i o n o f purity w a s well k n o w n , but Berger is still at fault in
his c o n t e n t i o n that the a n n u l m e n t o f the letter o f the T o r a h w e n t along with this
internalising in Hellenistic J u d a i s m . Philo, Berger's authority, expresses h i m s e l f
definitely to the contrary: ' T h e r e are s o m e w h o , regarding laws in their literal sense
in the light o f s y m b o l s o f matters b e l o n g i n g to the intellect, are o v e r p u n c t i l i o u s
a b o u t the latter, while treating the former with easy-going neglect. Such m e n I for
m y part s h o u l d b l a m e for handling the matter in t o o easy and off-hand a m a n n e r :
they o u g h t to have given careful attention to b o t h aims, to a m o r e full and exact
investigation o f what is not seen and in what is seen to b e stewards w i t h o u t
r e p r o a c h . . . . T h e s e m e n are taught b y the sacred w o r d to have thought for g o o d
repute, and to let nothing g o that is part o f the c u s t o m s fixed b y divinely
e m p o w e r e d m e n greater than those o f our time.' (de Migr. Abr. 89^ transl. b y F. H .
C o l s o n in L o e b Library, Philo, iv, p . 183).
8 0
Stauffer, ' N e u e W e g e ' , in Gottes ist der Orient, p . 172.
 T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism 141

81
masterpiece o f his scribal method, keeps the conflict over the Torah out o f
sight, and implies by the concluding formula TO 6e aviJixoig X E
Q O L V
^pctyetv
oi) xoivoi xov avSoawrov that only the problem o f hand-washing had been
discussed. 'In fact, the debate in Matthew ends with Jesus formulating a
particular halakha concerning hand-washing which contradicts the Phar­
82
isaic o n e . ' Here too the tradition has preserved the attitude of Jesus only
with qualifications, and so testifies to the individuality o f Jesus.
(d) Finally, the saying in Mark 1 0 : 9 , which denies the possibility o f
83
divorce, is in explicit contradiction to the Torah (Deut. 2 4 : iff). Already in
the oldest tradition it was thought necessary to underpin the unconditional
8 4
saying o f Jesus with a proof-text (Mark 10: 6 - 8 ) , and it is supplemented
85
with casuistic stipulations (verses 1 i f ) in which the possibility of divorce is

8 1
T h e earlier thesis o f v o n D o b s c h u t z that M a t t h e w was a c o n v e r t e d rabbi
('Mat^thaus als R a b b i und K a t e c h e t ' , ZNW 27 (1928), 338ft) has b e e n m o r e
recently s e c o n d e d b y H u m m e l , Auseinandersetzung, and (cautiously) b y W e i s s , ' D e r
Pharisaismus' in M e y e r , Tradition, p . 127, and still awaits refutation. T h e latest
a d v o c a t e o f a Gentile Christian origin for M a t t h e w , R . W a l k e r (Die Heilsgeschichte im
ersten Evangelium ( G o t t i n g e n , 1967)), has d o n e m o r e h a r m than g o o d to this thesis. It
will not d o to assert o f all the J e w i s h elements in M a t t h e w that they are ' c o m p l e t e l y
antiquated' o r have o n l y 'illustrative value' o r are 'purely homiletical e x a m p l e s ' ,
etc. Certainly W a l k e r ' s m a g i c formula 'that traditional material is o n e thing, the
literary use m a d e o f it b y the author o f the G o s p e l is another' ( p . 128) c o m e s to grief in
the controversies b e t w e e n Jesus and the Pharisees: in these M a r k is clearly the
s o u r c e , and the r a b b i n i c elements are to be credited to M a t t h e w . T h e case is similar
to the u.T|&e oap(3dT(p o f M a t t . 24: 20, w h i c h W a l k e r asserts is 'an a n a c h r o n i s m
w h i c h has remained in the text as an irrelevancy' ( p . 134); a g l a n c e at the synopsis
contradicts this. T h e j u d g e m e n t o f the r a b b i n i c scholar D . D a u b e still applies:
' M a t t h e w ' s is a R a b b i n i c G o s p e l ' (Rabbinic Judaism, p . 60). F o r the J e w i s h Christian
p r o v e n a n c e o f M a t t h e w , see also H . S t e g e m a n n , ' " D i e des U r i a . " Z u r B e d e u t u n g
der F r a u e n n a m e n in der G e n e a l o g i e v o n M t 1. 1-17', in Tradition und Glaube,
Festgabe fur K . G . K u h n , e d . G . Jeremias et al. ( G o t t i n g e n , 1971), p p . 246-76, esp.
p p . 274^ E. L o h s e , Entstehung des Neuen Testaments ( S t u t t g a r t - B e r l i n - K o l n - M a i n z ,
1972), p p . 88f; W . G . K u m m e l , Einleitung in das Neue Testament (14th edn.
H e i d e l b e r g , 1965), E T 1966, p p . 8ofT; A . W i k e n h a u s e r and J. S c h m i d , Einleitung in
das Neue Testament (6th edn. F r e i b u r g - B a s e l - W i e n , 1973), p p . 243!!.
8 2
H u m m e l , Auseinandersetzung, p . 46.
8 3
W e l l h a u s e n long a g o recognised the criticism o f the T o r a h in this saying (Marci, p .
79), and he is followed b y B o r n k a m m , Jesus, p p . 9of ( E T p p . 98^; Stauffer, ' N e u e
W e g e ' , in Gotte* istder Orient, p . 175; Braun, Radikalismus, p . 110; Jeremias, Theologie,
i, 200 ( E T 207); H a e n c h e n , Weg, p . 341. For the authenticity o f M a r k 10:9 see also
B. Schaller, ' D i e S p n i c h e uber E h e s c h e i d u n g u n d W i e d e r h e i r a t in der synoptischen
Uberlieferung', in Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde, Festschrift J. Jeremias
(Gottingen, 1970), p p . 226fT.
8 4
O n this see H a e n c h e n , Weg, p p . 339^.
8 5
Since the discussion o f E. B a m m e l , ' M a r k u s 10: 1 if. und d a s j u d i s c h e Eherecht',
ZNW 61 (1970), 95fF, this verse c a n n o longer be c o n s i d e r e d a late, Hellenistic
addition (against Schaller, ' D i e S p n i c h e ' , in Der Ruf Jesu, p . 229, n. 7). For the
question o f authenticity, w h i c h B a m m e l explicitly leaves o p e n ( p . 101), the
c o n t r a d i c t i o n with J e s u s ' s absolute prohibition o f d i v o r c e in 10:9 is still the
d e c i d i n g factor.
142 HELMUT MERKEL

again presupposed. Matthew tacitly restores the authority o f Moses by

putting the exception for adultery on the lips o f Jesus as part o f his
concluding pronouncement (Matt. 1 9 : 9, c p . 5: 3 2 ) . In the Matthaean form
86
of the debate, Jesus is again presented as a Pharisaic scribal authority w h o
defends the view o f the school o f Shammai in what was at the time a
87
much-debated subject, but who upholds the Torah according to its
original intention.
It emerges clearly from the foregoing texts we have briefly examined that
for Jesus the T o r a h formed 'no longer the focus and ultimate standard. . . .
Jesus - unlike the whole body o f his Jewish contemporaries - stood not
88
under, but above the Torah received by Moses at Sinai.' This is the deepest
reason why there could be no understanding between Jesus and a J e w o f
Q u m r a n or Pharisaic practice. T h e attack ofjesus on the Torah confronts
us finally with the unprecedented claim ofjesus to authority, a fact which is
89
being increasingly recognised by scholars.

V
90
Since the Zealots stood near to the Pharisees doctrinally, they too must
have been shocked by Jesus's criticism o f the Torah, as well as by his
association with those w h o collaborated with the occupation government
91
and by his openness towards the Gentiles. If only by reason o f the
fundamental difference in their ways o f thinking which appears here, any
alliance between Jesus and the Zealots is quite improbable. Three texts,
however, have to be pointed out which imply Jesus's unequivocal
renunciation o f the Zealot ideology.
92
(a) T h e discussion o f tribute-money (Mark 1 2 : 136*), whose authen­
93
ticity cannot be d o u b t e d , presupposes the problem raised by Judas o f
Galilee in forming the resistance movement: tribute to the pagan ruler was
94
idolatry. In his answer to the artful question, Jesus neither allowed
himself to be lured into conferring divine status on the existing power

8 6
C p . H u m m e l , Auseinandersetzung, p . 344.
8 7
S o already v o n D o b s c h i i t z , ZNW 27 (1928), p . 344.
8 8
H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p . 78.
8 9
I b i d . p p . 761; Jeremias, Theologie, i, 239fT, E T p p . 25ofT. C p . also H . v o n
C a m p e n h a u s e n , Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel ( T u b i n g e n , 1968), p p . iof, E T The
Formation of the Christian Bible ( L o n d o n , 1972), p . 13.
9 0
M . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten ( L e i d e n , 1961), p p . 89!^ c p . War Jesus Revolutionary, p p . 3of
( E T pp. 1 if).
9 1
H e n g e l , Die Zeloten, p p . igoff.
9 2
F o r this see Stauffer, Die Botschaft Jesu, p p . 95ff; B o r n k a m m , Jesus, p . n o ( E T
p p . I2lfl).
9 3
S o even B u l t m a n n , Tradition, p . 25 ( E T p . 26).
9 4
H e n g e l , Die Zeloten, p p . i43ff.
 T h e opposition between Jesus and Judaism 143

structure, nor concurred with the revolutionaries w h o wanted to change the

existing order and compel the coming o f the K i n g d o m o f G o d by the use o f
95
force.' Brandon's attempt to discover beneath the Markan form o f the
discussion o f the tribute-money an anti-Roman statement o f j e s u s which
96
was recast for apologetic reasons, lacks any support.
(b) T h e Parable o f the Patient Husbandman (Mark 4: 26ff) is best
explained on the hypothesis that Jesus is here placing himself in opposition
97
to Zealot activism. Just as the husbandman cannot advance the moment
o f the harvest, avTO\iaxr\ f| yf\ xaQJiocpoQei, so neither can anyone force the
K i n g d o m o f G o d to come. Faith should wait for everything from G o d .
Indeed, Jesus reinterprets the conception o f the coming o f the K i n g d o m o f
G o d still further: it is no longer merely in the future, but in his work has
98
already broken in! This is expressed not only in a number o f parables but
also in a saying from the sayings-source in Luke 1 1 : 2 0 par.: et 6e ev
6axT/uXq) QEOV iytb exPaXXa) xa 6at|i6via, a o a ecp6aaev eqp' tijiag f|
paauXeia xov BeoxJ." Here again it becomes clear that the proclamation o f
Jesus cannot be separated from his person. Brandon overlooks this range o f
issues.
(c) T h e crucial difference between Jesus and the Zealots, however,
becomes clear in the matter of the attitude to one's fellow-men. Whereas the
Zealots believed that it was necessary in the service o f G o d ' s cause to root
100
out rigorously all law-breakers, Jesus demanded unconditional love o f
one's neighbour and even one's enemy (Matt. 5: 43ff par.). In dealing with

9 5
L o h s e , Umwelt, p . 59.
9 6
B r a n d o n {Zealots, p p . 346-9) a d d u c e s t w o arguments, w h i c h c a n n o t h o w e v e r b e
sustained b y the texts in question: (1) Jesus w o u l d not have been recognised as
messiah if he had not refused to p a y the tribute. Against this o n e must at least say
with O . C u l l m a n n , Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments (3rd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1963), p .
126, E T The Christology of the New Testament (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1963), p . 126, that
J e s u s s h o w e d extreme reserve t o w a r d the title M e s s i a h . H e actually considered the
specific ideas c o n n e c t e d with the title as satanic temptations.' (2) Jesus is accused
b y the J e w s in L u k e 23: 2 o f forbidding p a y m e n t o f tribute to Caesar. But the
discussion b y G . Schneider in this v o l u m e , p p . 403-14, r e m o v e s the force o f this
reference. O n this p r o b l e m , c p . also the contributions o f F. F. Bruce, p p . 249-63,
and o f G . M . Styler, p p . 105-7.
9 7
For Z e a l o t activism, see H e n g e l , Die Zeloten, p p . i27ff. F o r the p a r a b l e , see
J e r e m i a s , Gleichnisse, p p . 151 f ( E T p p . 151Q, and B a m m e l , StEv iii, n .
9 8
C . H . D o d d , The Parables of the Kingdom ( L o n d o n , 1935).
9 9
In favour o f authenticity are W . G . K u m m e l , Verheissung und Erfullung ( Z u r i c h , 1956),
p p . 981T(ET Promise and Fulfilment ( L o n d o n , 1961), p p . 1 0 5 - 7 ) ^ . Becker, Johannes der
Tdufer und Jesus von Nazareth ( N e u k i r c h e n - V l u y n , 1972), p p . 82f; H . W . K u h n ,
EnderwartungundgegenwdrtigesHeil (Gottingen, 1966), p p . 190ft; Perrin, Teaching, p p .
631T; B a m m e l , ' E r w a g u n g e n ' , StEv iii, 13. Against it is H a e n c h e n , Weg, p . 148, but
the considerations in this direction d o not seem probative. T h e p r o b l e m o f the
relation o f present and future eschatology c a n n o t o f course b e discussed here.
1 0 0
H e n g e l , Die Zeloten, p . 230.
144 HELMUT MERKEL

this passage, the tendentiousness o f Brandon's judgement once again

interferes:

Matthew, moved by the dangers which threatened the church in

Alexandria during these difficult years, not only presented Jesus to his
fellow-Christians as the Messiah who rejected armed violence to promote
his cause, but he represents him as commanding his followers to show
101
themselves similarly pacific in their conduct.

In this Brandon o f course neglects the fact that the commandment to love
one's enemy is to be found already in Q (see Luke 6: 27f, 32ff)! In fact, since
parallels to this unconditional requirement are lacking in both Q u m r a n
102
and rabbinic literature, and since the primitive church took up other
themes ( c p . R o m . 1 2 : 1 9 ; John 1 3 : 34f; 1 John 3: 2 3 ; Rev. 6: 1 0 ) , we may well
103
apply the criterion o f underivability: this ' M a g n a Charta oi agape' can
only g o back to Jesus himself.
If conduct toward one's fellow-men is to be so totally determined by love
that not only are vindictive acts and thoughts to be eschewed but even
intercession for one's enemy is required, then there can be no justification
for Zealot acts of violence against a fellow-man. All ideals, however great or
sacred they may be, must be subordinated to love for one's neighbour. With
this precept Jesus placed himself outside all parties and groups o f his time.
O n c e we become aware o f h o w often Jesus burst through the bounds o f
conventional thought and behaviour, we must regard a conflict between
him and the representatives o f the traditional order as unavoidable. In fact,
the proclamation o f Jesus 'cannot be set within the Judaism o f the time
without supposing that it made a fundamental breach in the framework o f
104
Judaism'. This historical situation is suitably .reflected theologically in
R o m . 1 0 : 3 and J o h n 1: 1 8 . Paul and J o h n have preserved here a significant
feature o f the proclamation o f Jesus, even though the outlines o f the earthly
105
Jesus may not otherwise show up clearly in their writings.

101
Zealots, p . 210.
1 0 2
S o J e r e m i a s , Theologie, p . 207 ( E T p . 213); Braun, Jesus, p . 124.
1 0 3
H e n g e l , War Jesus Revolutionary p . 20 ( E T p . 27).
1 0 4
H e n g e l , Nachfolge, p . 79.
1 0 5
T h e article w a s translated b y D r J. F. C o a k l e y . S o m e aspects o f the m o r e recent
discussion are dealt with in m y article 'Jesus i m W i d e r s t r e i t ' in Glaube und
Gesellschaft (Festschrift W . F. K a s h ) , ( B a y r e u t h , 1981), p p . 207-17.
 B. R E I C K E

Judaeo-Christianity and the Jewish

establishment, A.D. 33—66

During the middle third o f the first Christian century, that is, between the
crucifixion o f Jesus, c. A . D . 3 3 , and the outbreak o f the first Jewish war, A . D .
6 6 , the centre o f Christianity acknowledged by all was constituted by the
Jewish Christians in Palestine (Matt. 2 4 : 1 6 with par.; Acts 1 5 : 2; 1 Thess.
2: 1 4 ; R o m . 1 5 : 26f; Acts 2 1 : 1 8 ) . O u r understanding of the political attitude
adopted by the church in the days o f the apostles - including the question
whether the disciples o f Jesus had connections with Jewish zealotism -
must depend on what can be observed about the relations o f the Jewish
Christians in Palestine with the Jewish authorities o f the period. Because
the country was controlled by the Romans, the Jewish establishment
represented by the high priest and the Sanhedrin was supposed to maintain
g o o d relations with the R o m a n establishment represented by the prefect in
Caesarea and the governor in Antioch, and indirectly with the princeps and
senate o f the empire. For the same reason the positive or negative relations
between the Jewish Christians o f the Holy Land and the Jewish rulers and
leaders were o f importance for the political attitude o f the entire church
during the apostolic period, A . D . 3 3 - 6 6 .

The story o f the passion told by the evangelists implies that Jesus was
accused o f two different crimes before the Sanhedrin and the prefect: (a) o f
false teaching and (b) o f rebellion. Since the forensic context was in each
case a different one, there had to be this double charge, (a) Before the
Jewish Sanhedrin, the high priest referred to Jewish legislation and accused
Jesus o f religious false teaching, here called blasphemy (Matt. 26: 6 5 with
1
par.). (b) Before the R o m a n prefect, the high priest referred to R o m a n
interests, and presented Jesus as a political troublemaker (Luke 23:2) w h o
claimed to be the King o f the Jews (Matt. 2 7 : 3 7 with par.). T h u s the
Nazarene was 'reckoned with transgressors' (Luke 22: 3 7 ) , sacrificed by the

•J. C . O ' N e i l l , ' T h e C h a r g e o f B l a s p h e m y at J e s u s ' T r i a l before the S a n h e d r i n ' in E .

B a m m e l ( e d . ) , The Trial of Jesus, Cambridge Studies in Honour of C.F.D. Moule
( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 72-7.

H5
I46 B. REICKE

populace instead o f a revolutionary assassin (Mark 1 5 : 7 ) , and crucified

together with two bandits (Matt. 27: 3 8 with par.).
After the death of Jesus, c. A . D . 3 3 , until the exodus o f the Jewish church
shortly before the outbreak o f the first Jewish war, A . D . 6 6 (Eusebius, H.E.
iii. 5 . 3 ) , the Palestinian Christians were repeatedly molested by the Jewish
establishment or by the m o b . Several prophecies were also quoted in order
to show that Jesus had already foreseen this analogy between himself and
the believers (for instance, Matt. 10: 1 7 - 2 5 ; 2 4 : 9 - 2 2 with par.). But the
historical evidence available implies that his disciples were in fact only
accused o f false teaching or blasphemy (a), and there is no trace o f their
having been accused o f rebellion (b). This is certainly an important
circumstance with regard to the question whether the Palestinian
Christians had connections with the so-called Zealots, those Jewish
nationalists w h o , during the period in question, fought desperately against
Greek influence and R o m a n sovereignty.

II

Disciples o f Jesus were in fact merely accused o f (a) false teaching or

even blasphemy in connection with different persecutions ascribed to the
apostolic period, but never o f (b) rebellion.
In three cases the charge was blasphemy, which had to be punished by
stoning (Lev. 2 4 : 1 6 ) : ( 1 ) at the trial o f Stephen, A . D . 3 6 (Acts 6: 1 4 ; the
blasphemy was his statement that Jesus is superior to Moses and the
T e m p l e ) ; (2) at the arrest o f Paul, A . D . 5 8 (Acts 2 1 : 2 8 ; 2 4 : 6 ; Paul was
alleged to have polluted the T e m p l e ) ; and (3) of James the brother o f Jesus,
A . D . 6 2 (according t o j o s e p h u s , AJxx. 200, he was accused o f transgression
of the Law; according to Hegesippus in Eus. HE ii. 23.4, it was the scribes
who stoned James because his confession of Jesus as the messiah irritated
them).
In connection with two other persecutions o f Christians in Palestine
during the apostolic period, the charge was false teaching (below, 1 and 2 ) ;
in two further cases there is no hint o f any denunciation or incrimination
(below, 3 and 4 ) .
( 1 ) T h e arrest o f Peter and John in the T e m p l e , c. A . D . 3 4 , was said to
have been arranged by the captain o f the T e m p l e together with other
priests, and by the Sadducees (Acts 4: 1 ) . T h e y were embarrassed by the
great success the apostles experienced among the people, w h o had seen
them heal a lame man and heard them preach the gospel of resurrection which
the Sadducees rejected as false teaching (4: 2 ) . For the moment, however,
the Sanhedrin was not able to find them guilty o f any crime (4: 1 4 - 1 6 ) .
(2) Some time afterwards, c. A . D . 3 5 - according to a parallel tradition
 Judaeo-Christianity 147

also used by Luke, and presented by him in similar terms - the high priest
arrested the apostles since he was jealous o f the enormous interest Peter
aroused among the people because o f the signs he did (Acts 5 : 1 7 ) , but also
since he was afraid o f being accused o f having caused the death o f j e s u s
( 5 : 2 8 ) . This time, it was reported, the Pharisaic Rabbi Gamaliel I declared
before the Sanhedrin that if there were any reason for it G o d himself would
destroy the community as he dissolved the infamous movements o f
Theudas and Judas the Galilaean, the pioneer o f zealotism (Jos. AJ xviii.
2 3 ; BJ vii. 2 5 3 ) ; but otherwise he would protect the Christians against every
human attack (Acts 5: 3 6 - 9 ) . Luke wanted to make clear that Gamaliel and
the Sanhedrin left the question open whether the apostolic community led
by Peter was comparable to the rebellious movements led by Theudas and
Judas, or quite different from them. T h e subsequent development o f the
Nazarene movement was supposed to be the criterion, for if Christianity
did involve anarchy, it would certainly be destroyed by G o d like the
insurrections o f Theudas and Judas. Every reader o f Acts knew that the
church was flourishing, and the famous Pharisaic scholar had therefore
given Christianity a double testimony confirmed by historical facts: the
gospel was not comparable to any propaganda o f the Jewish revolutionar­
2
ies, but inspired by G o d .
(3) Judaea became a kingdom again for the years 4 1 - 4 under Agrippa I,
the grandson o f Herod I. It was this snobbish Herod w h o , around A . D . 4 2 ,
gave orders to kill James the son o f Zebedee, and later to arrest Peter (Acts
1 2 : 2 - 4 ) . T h e execution of James was said to have pleased the Jews, and
Luke saw here the reason why the persecution was continued by the arrest
o f Peter ( 1 2 : 3 ) . This explanation is quite in harmony with the pro-Jewish
and pro-Pharisaic policy that Agrippa I began to practise as soon as
Claudius had made him king o f Judaea (Jos. 4 / x i x . 2 9 3 - 3 0 2 , 3 2 7 , 3 3 0 - 4 ) .
During the years 3 7 - 4 0 , when Caligula had favoured Hellenism in the
empire, Christianity had rapidly been spread over the whole o f Palestine
and even to Phoenicia, Cyprus and Syria, reaching Hellenistic areas o f
great importance (Acts 8: 4 to 1 1 : 3 0 ) . As was evident at the persecution o f
Stephen in the year 3 6 (Acts 6: 1, 9 ) , the success o f the Gospel among the
Hellenists irritated orthodox Jews. T h o u g h he favoured Hellenism abroad,
Agrippa I arranged the persecution of James and Peter around the year 4 2
in order to confirm that he was the great protector o f Judaism in Palestine.
It was for the same political reason that he neglected the interests o f the
Hellenistic centres, Caesarea and Samaria, the population o f which
3
rejoiced when he died in the year 4 4 (Jos. AJ xix. 3 5 6 - 9 ) .

2
B . Reicke, Glaube und Leben der Urgemeinde ( Z u r i c h , 1957), p p . 5 5 - 1 1 4 .
3
Seeing that J a m e s , the son o f Z e b e d e e , was reported to h a v e been killed ' b y the
I48 B. REICKE

(4) T h o u g h the famine around A . D . 4 6 and the apostolic council o f the

year 4 9 reduced the Judaistic opposition to Hellenism and thus also to
Christianity (Acts 1 1 : 2 8 - 3 0 ; 1 5 : 1 9 - 2 9 ; Gal. 2:gf), the years 5 0 to 5 2
brought about violent quarrels between legalistic Jews and their
neighbours in R o m e , Alexandria, and Palestine. Indirectly the Christians
had to suffer from this Kulturkampf. By an edict of A . D . 50, Claudius expelled
the Jews from R o m e because of constant rioting among them in connection
with the messiah (Suetonius, Divus Claudius xxv. 4 speaks o f a man called
Chrestus), and for this reason Aquila and Priscilla came to Corinth (Acts
1 8 : 2 ) . Between the Greeks and Jews o f Alexandria there had been violent
struggles in A . D . 3 8 , and they began again c. A . D . 50, when both groups had
to send delegates to R o m e . Claudius, in the year 5 2 , and under the influence
of Agrippa II, decided the issue in favour o f the Jews (Acta Alexandrinorum
i v A , ii. i6f; i v c , ii. 2 1 - 4 , ed. H . Musurillo: The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs
(Oxford, 1 9 5 4 ) ; Acta Alexandrinorum (Lipsiae, 1 9 6 1 ) ) . At the same time, a
real war took place in Palestine. First the Jews were irritated by the soldiers
of the R o m a n procurator Cumanus, then they went to war against the
Samaritans, well knowing that Cumanus protected the population o f the
Hellenistic poleis, Caesarea and Sebaste. Their attacks were especially
carried on by demagogic anarchists under the leadership o f a famous
Zealot, Eleasar Dinaei, but also supported by aristocratic patriots under
the leadership o f the former High Priest Jonathan. Like the Alexandrian
struggle, this Palestinian war led to a trial before the Emperor in A . D . 5 2 ,
and since Agrippa 11 was successful in his defence o f the Jews, Cumanus
and the Samaritans were condemned (Jos. BJ ii. 2 2 3 - 4 6 ; AJ xv. 1 0 5 - 3 6 ) .
The same revival of Judaism was the background o f the Jewish abuse o f
Christians in Judaea, of which Paul complained m a letter written in A . D . 5 2
(1 Thess. 2: 1 4 - 1 6 ) . Paul did not refer to any details and Luke avoided the
story with regard to Agrippa 1 1 , but in different ways Jewish Christians o f
Palestine must be understood to have become the victims o f the reinforced
Jewish patriotism and zealotism, which triumphed in the trials o f A . D . 5 2 .
Thus the historical evidence available shows that the double charge
preferred against Jesus, implying (a) false teaching and (b) rebellion, was
extended to Jewish Christians in Palestine only with regard to (a) religious
heresy, but never with regard to (b) social or political rebellion. Some

s w o r d ' ( A c t s 12:2), S. G . F. B r a n d o n has c o n c l u d e d that A g r i p p a I w a s also

c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the seditious aspect o f Christianity: The Trial of Jesus ( L o n d o n ,
1968), p . 48. But in c o n n e c t i o n with this persecution, c. A . D . 42, the king's c o n c e r n
w a s expressly said to b e to please the J e w s (12:3), and his general a m b i t i o n to
strengthen Pharisaism w a s emphasised b y J o s e p h u s . T h e r e w a s n o reason for any
J e w i s h o p p o s i t i o n to R o m e under the glorious K i n g A g r i p p a , and there is n o reason
to believe that J a m e s and his fellow Christians had ever appeared to be a d a n g e r to
the e m p i r e .
 Judaeo-Christianity 149

persecutions took place without any legal trial, and no accusation is referred
to. Generally the Christians were exposed to Jewish zeal for the law. T h e
trials o f the years 3 4 to 3 6 were led by two high priests belonging to the
family of Annas, and the charge implied preaching the gospel of resurrection
(Acts 4 : if; 5 : 1 7 , 28) or criticism o f Moses and the T e m p l e (6: 1 1 - 1 4 ; 7: 1;
9: 1 ) ; in c. A . D . 4 2 the persecution was organised by Herod's grandson
Agrippa I simply in order to please the Jews ( 1 2 : 1 ) ; in c. A . D . 5 2 the Zealot
movement involved the Christians in the general terror (1 Thess. 2 : 1 4 ) ; in
A . D . 5 8 Paul was nearly lynched by the m o b because o f their zeal for the
T e m p l e (Acts 2 1 : 2 8 , 24: 6 ) , and made the Sadducees furious because of his
belief in the resurrection ( 2 3 : 6 ) ; eventually, the trial o f the year 6 2 was
caused by another high priest o f the Annas family who accused James the
Lord's brother o f transgressing the Jewish law (Jos. AJxx. 200). In all these
contexts the Christians are represented as the victims o f the Jewish
establishment which fostered patriotism and zealotism.

Ill

T h e history o f the church during the years 3 3 - 6 6 is only known from Luke in
Acts and Paul in his letters, and it must be admitted that both authors
might have left out details which they found embarrassing. Luke and Paul
adopted an optimistic attitude to the R o m a n establishment (Acts 2 5 : 1 1 ;
R o m . 1 3 : 4 ) , and in R o m e it was especially important for them to give the
gospel a good reputation in official circles (Acts 28: 3of; Phil. 1: 1 3 ; 4 : 2 2 ) . Is
it not possible that some o f the Jewish Christians shared the antagonism o f
the Jewish Zealots against R o m e , although Luke and Paul did not describe
any movement o f that kind?
Here one has to observe the difference between the first and last half of
the apostolic era, that is, between ( 1 ) the period 3 3 to 5 4 when Tiberius,
Caligula and Claudius governed the empire and Peter was the leader o f the
Jewish believers (Gal. 2: 7 ) , and (2) the period 5 4 to 6 6 when Nero was
emperor, when Jewish zealotism became more and more predominant in
Palestine, and James, the Lord's brother, was the leader o f the Judaean
4
churches (Acts 2 1 : 1 8 ) .
( 1 ) There is not the slightest hint o f any connection between Jewish
insurgents and Christian believers during the years 3 3 to 5 4 . O n the
contrary, the Christians were repeatedly the victims of Jewish patriotism
and zealotism during this period. A n argumentum e silentio is here inevitable,
for the only alternative is the illogical conclusion that members o f the
churches led by Peter were Zealots because the sources d o not mention it.
4
B . R e i c k e , Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 3rd e d n . (Berlin, 1982), p p . igiff, 238fT
2 -
( E T The New Testament Era ( L o n d o n , 1968), p p . 188-224, 3 7 5 0 -
I50 B. REICKE

(2) But indications of a certain Christian zeal for the law are in fact given
by Luke in Acts and Paul in his letters with regard to the years 5 4 to 6 6 . This
was the period when the notorious Hellenism o f Nero caused a reaction o f
Judaism which became more and more violent, and then led to the first
Jewish war, A . D . 6 6 - 7 0 . If the Zealot troubles had already imposed severe
difficulties upon the Christians of Judaea around A . D . 5 2 (1 Thess. 2 : 1 4 ) ,
they grew into a veritable terror after Nero's enthronement in A . D . 5 4 . This
terror compelled Jewish Christians to combine their belief with a zeal for
the law, but it cannot be proved that they ever took part in revolution and
violence.
Josephus was seventeen years old when Nero became emperor in A . D .
5 4 , so his description o f the reaction in Palestine was based on personal
recollections. H e had been an eager student o f law under the guidance o f
Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, but then suddenly left Jerusalem, and
spent the years 5 4 to 5 6 with a baptist community in the desert (Jos. Vita
9 - 1 2 ) . Bearing in mind his remarkable opportunism, one understands that
Josephus seized the opportunity to avoid the political terror which broke
out in the first years of Nero's pronouncedly Hellenistic government. In his
works o n the Jewish war, he gave dramatic reports o f the violent resistance
characteristic o f this period (Jos. BJ ii. 2 5 4 - 6 5 ; AJ xv. 1 6 0 - 7 2 ) . Just after
Nero's enthronement bandits o f a new kind came up in Jerusalem, the
assassins called sicarii, because they carried a curved dagger (sica) under
their clothes. With this Parthian weapon they secretly killed people
supposed to collaborate with the Romans. Throughout the country they set
fire to the houses o f those w h o refused to support the resistance. Josephus
said that everybody expected death any moment as one might in time o f
5
war (BJ ii. 2 5 6 ) .
Under the pressure o f this political terror, Judaean Christians began to
ask themselves whether it would not be advisable to accept the Jewish zeal
for the law, and so be able to avoid the mortal danger. This led to a
development o f Judaism within Christianity during the years 5 4 to 6 1 ;
and the spread o f the zeal for the law can be followed in Paul's opposition
to it.
Although the apostolic council o f A . D . 4 9 had guaranteed equal rights to
Jewish and Greek believers, supporters o f James, the Lord's brother, made
Peter and Barnabas uncertain some years later, and they withdrew from

5
M . Smith, ' Z e a l o t s a n d Sicarii. T h e i r O r i g i n s and R e l a t i o n ' , HThR, 64 (1971),
1—19, wants to find three stages in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f zealotism: (1) several
representatives o f ' z e a l ' in the sense o f resistance to direct R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t ( p .
18); (2) the rise o f the sicarii A . D . 54 ( p p . 13, 18); (3) the organisation o f the Zealots,
A . D . 67 ( p . 19). T h e i m p e t u s given b y the sicarii was in any case i m p o r t a n t for the
further d e v e l o p m e n t o f the resistance m o v e m e n t .
 Judaeo-Christianity 151

intercommunion with the uncircumcised. Paul was obliged to criticise

Peter for this when he met him in Antioch after his second journey, A . D . 5 4
(Gal. 2 : 1 1 — 1 4 ) . H e had earlier been a Jewish Zealot w h o foughirviolently
against the Christians to defend the traditions o f the fathers ( 1 : 1 4 ) , and
knew the destructive effects o f any zeal for the law ( 2 : i 8 f ) . Having left
Antioch for his third journey, Paul was shocked to see the same exclusive
Zealot movement dominating the Christians o f Galatia ( 4 : 1 7 ) . Then he
was confronted with thejudaistic movement at Ephesus in 5 5 (Acts 1 8 : 2 5 ) ,
and finally at Corinth in 5 6 (1 C o r . 1: 1 2 ) . Writing from the capital o f
Greece in 5 8 , Paul warned the Roman Christians against unlawful
behaviour and zealotism ( R o m . 1 3 : 1, 1 3 ) . H e came back to Jerusalem a few
months later, and there found thousands o f Christians w h o had become
Zealots for the law (Acts 2 1 : 20). T o avoid troubles, the friends of James,
the Lord's brother, advised him to demonstrate a certain solidarity with
M o s e s in the T e m p l e ( 2 1 : 2 3 ^ . It did not help, for the m o b accused Paul o f
sacrilege, and only the R o m a n garrison saved him from being stoned
( 2 1 : 2 7 - 3 2 ) . Just as Paul had earlier been a zealous enemy o f the Christians,
so he was n o w exposed to severe Jewish fanaticism. Luke indicated this
analogy in a speech ascribed to Paul (Acts 2 2 : 3 ) . Paul himself referred to it
while he was still in captivity after the Zealot riot in Jerusalem, and in very
sharp language warned the Philippians against the influence of Judaistic
materialism (Phil. 3: 2 , 6, 1 9 ) . In the capital o f the empire the danger o f
zealotism was especially great, as was later confirmed by Clement o f R o m e
when he found zeal to have been the reason for the persecution o f several
Christians as well as for the catastrophe o f Israel (1 Clem. 5: 1 to 6: 4 ) .
It is thus evident from Luke's narrative in Acts and from Paul's
opposition in his letters that a certain zeal for the law was developed by
Jewish Christians during the years 5 4 to 6 1 . But it can only be said o f this
limited period. T h e zeal was caused by a desire to avoid the dangers o f the
Jewish reaction against the pro-Hellenistic emperor Nero. For this very
reason the documents seem to give a reliable picture when they d o not
indicate the slightest Christian participation in the Jewish activities
whether these activities were led by patriots or Zealots. O n the contrary,
Christians w h o did not j o i n the extreme nationalists in Judaea were
probably exposed to pressure or persecution, as emphasised by Josephus
with regard to his countrymen in general (Jos. BJ ii. 2 6 4 ^ AJ xx. 1 9 2 ) . Paul
experienced this in Jerusalem and Caesarea, A . D . 5 8 to 6 0 (Acts 2 1 : 2 8 ;
2 3 : 1 2 ; 2 5 : 3 ) . James, the Lord's brother, although the leading authority o f
those Christians who recommended concentration on Mosaic traditions
(Gal. 2 : 1 2 ; Acts 2 1 : 1 8 , 2 0 ) , was made the victim of Jewish nationalism in
A . D . 6 2 . H e was accused o f transgression o f the law and stoned by the High
Priest Ananus, then leader o f the aristocratic patriots w h o , during the years
I52 B. REICKE

62 to 6 6 , competed in rebellion with the demagogic Zealots (Jos. AJ xx.

185-214).
T h e trial o f James, the Lord's brother, implies that he no longer
represented that zeal for the law characteristic o f his supporters in the years
5 4 and 58 - at least not so definitely that it satisfied the Jewish
establishment. It is probable that James as well as Peter, although both
represented pronounced Jewish-Christian points o f view in A . D . 5 4 (Gal.
2: 1 2 ) , were driven to change their policy around A . D . 6 0 , and desist from
Jewish nationalism. At any rate the Epistles which carry their names reject
inclinations to isolation and zealotism (James 4: 2; 1 Pet. 3: 1 3 ) . It must also
be observed that many Christians left Jerusalem and Palestine during the
years before the war began in 6 6 (Eus. H.E. iii. 5: 3 ) . While there may have
been some contacts between Jewish Zealots and Christians in the period 5 4
to 6 0 , this possibility is reduced to a minimum in the subsequent years.
 G.W.H. LAMPE

A.D. 70 in Christian reflection

T h e capture o f Jerusalem by Titus and the burning o f the T e m p l e seem, so

far as we can j u d g e from the literature o f the succeeding century and a half,
to have made a surprisingly small impact upon the Christian communities.
It was only a comparatively short time after the rejection o f the messiah and
the persecution o f his followers by the leaders o f Judaism when the spiritual
and civil centre o f Judaism was spectacularly destroyed, and the T e m p l e
1
laid in ruins. W e might expect Christian apologists to have exploited to the
fullest extent the extraordinary opportunity offered to them by that
shattering event to vindicate the church's claim to be the true Israel, the
rightful heir to the promises and blessings o f the covenant, and to declare
G o d ' s judgement upon the 'stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and
ears' (Acts 7 : 5 1 ) who had so stubbornly opposed that claim. N o special
prophetic insight would have been required for any Christian to see in that
disaster the decisive revelation o f G o d ' s condemnation o f the enemies o f
Jesus and his reversal o f their verdict. W e might also expect the year 7 0 to
mark a turning-point in the relationship between Jewish Christianity and
Judaism and so too, perhaps, between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Yet in fact the literature o f the Christian movement contains relatively
few allusions to the fall o f Jerusalem. T h e New Testament passages which
may allude to it are somewhat enigmatic. Some are fairly certainly vaticinia
post eventum, but most, and perhaps even all, could just be interpreted
without total implausibility as genuine prophecies o f a catastrophe which
the troubled history of Judaea in the three or four decades preceding the
outbreak o f war would make it easy to foresee. T h e earliest Christian
writing in which the destruction o f the T e m p l e is plainly and directly
referred to in an historical statement, as distinct from a prophetic
prediction or a parabolic saying, is the Epistle o f Barnabas ( 1 6 : 4 ) . It is
therefore most precarious to argue from the silence o f any book o f the New

1
K . W . C l a r k , ' W o r s h i p in the J e r u s a l e m T e m p l e after A . D . 70', NTSt 6 (1959/60),
269ff, argues for the c o n t i n u a n c e o f the cultus o n the T e m p l e m o u n t b e t w e e n the
year 70 a n d the S e c o n d R e v o l t , at least to the extent to w h i c h it is widely believed to
have been maintained d u r i n g the B a b y l o n i a n Exile. T h e r e is certainly n o e v i d e n c e
that the ruins, o r site, o f the T e m p l e were officially closed to w o r s h i p p e r s , like the
t e m p l e at L e o n t o p o l i s . In any case, Clark is right in his insistence that the decisive
catastrophe was n o t the destruction o f the T e m p l e b y T i t u s but H a d r i a n ' s
establishment o f the cult o f Jupiter o n its site. H a d there been a J o s e p h u s to narrate
the events o f 135 w e m i g h t appreciate this fact m o r e easily.

153
 G w H
154 - - - LAMPE

Testament about the fall of Jerusalem that it must have been written before
2
7 0 . It is equally misleading to suggest that no author writing after that date
could speak o f the T e m p l e cultus in the present tense and fail to mention
that in fact it had ceased to exist. T h e author to the Hebrews does this; but
3
so does the author to Diognetus ( 1 - 3 ) . J. Moffatt, speaking o f the need to
place a work o f literature in its contemporary intellectual, social and
political setting in order to understand it properly, points out that 'as the
early Christian literature was not national. . . such synchronisms yield less
for the New Testament than for almost any other group of ancient writings'.
'As a matter o f fact', he continues, 'the catastrophe is practically ignored in
the extant Christian literature o f the first century. Beyond slight traces in
the synoptic, especially the Lucan, version of the eschatological predictions
made b y Jesus, and a possible echo in one o f the sources underlying the
Apocalypse, no vibrations o f the crisis can be felt.'
If the idea that the fall of Jerusalem was an epoch-making event (in the
strict sense o f that term - a decisive turning-point in history) is strikingly
absent from the early Christian literature, it is scarcely more prominent in
contemporary Jewish writings. A . B. Davidson, discussing the theory that
the Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed to Jewish Christians whose faith
had been shaken by the destruction o f the T e m p l e , asserts bluntly that
'such a despair ought to have seized all Hebrews alike, whether Christians
4
or not; but there is no historical evidence o f such a thing'. M . Simon
contends that the evidence shows that the crisis o f 7 0 had little effect on
Diaspora Judaism in general; the Jews o f R o m e , Carthage, and even
Alexandria and Antioch, remained indifferent to an event which changed
5
nothing in their o w n situation. Others have gone further. According to E.
6
Deutsch,

T h e Priesthood, the Sacrifices, the T e m p l e , as they all went d o w n at o n e

sudden b l o w , seemed scarcely to leave a g a p in the religious life o f the
nation. T h e Pharisees had long a g o undermined these things, or rather
transplanted them into the people's homes and heart. Every man in Israel,

2
T h e m o s t that the a d v o c a t e s o f an early dating for s o m e o r all o f the b o o k s o f the
N e w T e s t a m e n t , o f w h o m the most persuasive is J. A . T . R o b i n s o n , Redating the New
Testament ( L o n d o n , 1976), can h o p e to d e m o n s t r a t e is that n o passage in the N e w
T e s t a m e n t absolutely necessitates a later date than the fall o f j e r u s a l e m . T h e y c a n n o t
s h o w that a n y particular b o o k w h i c h fails to m e n t i o n that event, even w h e n to
allude to it m i g h t seem to us to b e particularly relevant and apposite, must h a v e been
written before it h a p p e n e d .
3
Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (3rd e d n . E d i n b u r g h , 1918), p . 3,
partly cited b y R o b i n s o n , Redating, p . 13..
4
Hebrews ( E d i n b u r g h , 1882), p . 21.
5
Verus Israel (Paris, 1948), p . 54.
6
' N o t e s o f a L e c t u r e o n the T a l m u d ' , in Literary Remains of Emmanuel Deutsch ( L o n d o n ,
1874), P- 139-
 A . D . 70 in Christian reflection J
55

they said, is a priest, every man's house a temple, every man's table an
altar, every man's prayer his sacrifice. L o n g before the T e m p l e fell, it had
been virtually superseded by hundreds o f synagogues, schools, and
colleges, where laymen read and e x p o u n d e d the L a w and the Prophets.

This is one-sided rhetoric. Rabbinic Judaism itself was more varied in its
reactions, and besides the Pharisaic tradition idealised by Deutsch there
existed also apocalyptic hopes of a rebuilding o f Jerusalem and the downfall
o f the empire o f the Flavians ( c p . 2 Esdras n : 1 to 1 2 : 3 ) , Josephus's
presentation o f the tragedy as the outcome of, and divine penalty for, folly
and wickedness, the insistence of 2 Baruch ( 7 : 1 ; 80: 1 - 3 ) that it was a signal
instance o f divine judgement on Israel, and o f Book 4 o f the Sibylline
Oracles ( 1 1 5 - 2 7 ) that it was part o f G o d ' s universal judgement, directed
primarily against the devotees o f temples, altars and animal sacrifices
( 2 7 - 3 0 ) and recently manifested in the homeland of the Romans themselves
in the eruption of Vesuvius in the year 7 9 . It seems clear, nevertheless, that
the early Jewish reaction to the event o f 70 scarcely suggests that it was seen
as the totally catastrophic end o f an age. O n the contrary, mainstream
Judaism appears to have accommodated itself remarkably easily to the
cessation (if such it really was) o f the T e m p l e and the cultus.
It is, however, only with Christian attitudes that we are now concerned.
Here the evidence shows that by the time Christians had begun fully to
develop an apology against Judaism which made use o f the themes o f the
supersession o f the T e m p l e and the sacrifices, the vindication o f the
Christian argument from prophecy, and the punishment o f the Jewish
people for the crime o f the crucifixion, the second Jewish war had been
fought, and the memory of the fall of Bether was fresher than that of the sack
of Jerusalem by Titus. T h e event which evidently made an especially strong
impression on Christian apologists was the exclusion o f the Jews from the
heart o f their o w n land. This took place, declared Eusebius, primarily by
the will o f G o d , as the prophets had prophesied, and secondarily by the
prohibitions enacted by the R o m a n government (Chron. A . D . 1 3 5 ) . ' T h e
whole nation', said Aristo of Pella, 'was prohibited entirely from setting foot
upon the country round Jerusalem by the decrees and ordinances of a law o f
Hadrian which forbade them even from afar to gaze on the soil inherited
from their fathers' (Eusebius, H. E. 4 . 6 . 3 ) . ' S o ' , adds Eusebius, 'when the
city was thus emptied o f the nation o f the Jews and its old inhabitants
utterly destroyed, and when it was peopled by an alien race, the R o m a n city
which then arose changed its name, and was called Aelia in honour o f him
who was ruling, Aelius Hadrianus' ( 4 . 6 . 4 ) . Justin was greatly impressed by
this exclusion o f the Jews from their own land on pain o f death. T o him it
fulfilled such prophecies as Isa. 1 : 7 , 2 : 1 5 , 6 4 : 1 0 - 1 2 , and Jer. 5 0 : 3; it meant
156 G. W . H . LAMPE

also that circumcision, the former sign o f the covenant which some Jewish
Christians in Justin's time still maintained, had become a kind o f brand o f
7
Cain, marking out Jews as wandering exiles. T h e events of the year 7 0 thus
tended to be remembered in association with, and to some extent only as a
prelude to, the even more final and crushing judgement of G o d executed in
1 3 5 against the opponents o f the church's claim to be the authentic Israel;
and by the latter date the church's main preoccupation lay no longer with
the establishment o f its position over against Judaism, but elsewhere.
The outcome of the first Jewish war made relatively little difference to the
church's understanding o f itself and its mission, and had no decisive effect
on the situation even of Jewish Christians. It had become clear by that time
that the future o f the Christian mission lay with the Gentile churches, a
conclusion which had much more to d o with the progress of the Pauline and
other missions to the Gentiles than with the fate o f j e r u s a l e m and the
T e m p l e . By the sixties the growing-points o f the church lay far from
Judaea, and the notion entertained by Origen (Horn. ix. 10 in Jos.) and by
Sulpicius Serverus (Chron. 2 . 3 0 . 7 ) that the aim o f the Romans in 7 0 was to
destroy both Judaism and Christianity at one blow is quite anachronistic.
Jewish Christianity, as well as Gentile, had by this time established its own
identity. It is true that the romantic imagination of Hegesippus, or perhaps
the romantically nostalgic traditions o f Palestinian Christianity in the
second century, pictured an extremely close link between the church o f
Jerusalem under James and the T e m p l e and its cultus. Hegesippus
describes James as a priestly figure, constantly offering intercessory prayer
for the Jewish nation (Eus. H.E. 2 . 2 3 . 4 - 7 ) . After the war, of course, no such
relationship was possible; but it is unlikely that it ever existed in the manner
portrayed by Hegesippus, whose idea of James belongs to the exaggerated
tradition, developed in the second and third centuries, according to which
the leadership of James in the church ofjerusalem was imagined to have
involved something like a transference o f the high-priesthood.
During the war and in the ensuing three or four decades, it is true, the
separation o f the Jewish Christians from Judaism became complete.
According to Eusebius (H.E. 3 . 5 . 3 ) and Epiphanius (Haer. 2 9 . 7 , 30.2, Mens.
1 5 . 2 - 5 ) , perhaps using Hegesippus as their c o m m o n source, they left
Jerusalem for Pella before the siege. Some at least returned to Jerusalem
after 7P and maintained a Jewish Christian succession o f bishops there
during the period between the two wars (Eus. H.E. 4 . 5 . 1 - 4 ) , continuing to
observe the Law. There is no evidence, however, that this church was at all
interested in the question o f the restoration o f the T e m p l e . N o Christian
echoed the Jewish prayer, ' M a y it be speedily rebuilt in our days' (Tamid

7
C p . Justin, Dial. 16, 17. 1-4, 22, / Apol. 47.
 A . D . 70 in Christian reflection 157

D
7-3 ( 3 3 ) Ta'anith 4.8 ( 2 6 b ) , Baba Metzi'a 2 8 b ) . T h e messianic and
5

apocalyptic expectations o f the period of 2 Esdras, the Apocalypse o f

Baruch, the war in Trajan's reign, and the revolt o f Bar K o c h b a were not
shared by Christians; it is possible, indeed, that such warnings as Mark
1 3 : 5 - 6 and its parallels may reflect their reaction against them. W h e n the
Second Revolt came these Jewish Christians became the object o f fierce
persecution by the nationalists (Justin, / Apol. 3 1 ) . In the meantime, during
the inter-war period, the Christians came to be excluded from the
synagogue (cp. John 9: 22) and cursed in the words of the twelfth o f the
Eighteen Benedictions (cp. Justin, Dial. 1 6 ) . But this state o f affairs was by no
means new or unprecedented. It represented only an intensification o f a
mutual separation and hostility between Jews and Jewish Christians in
Palestine which had caused the latter to suffer violent persecution as early
as the writing o f 1 Thess. 2: 1 4 , and which is reflected in the traditions
recorded in Acts. T h e war, the flight to Pella, and the fall o f Jerusalem may
have sharpened this separation and hatred and accelerated its develop­
ment, but they neither created it, nor, in all probability, greatly affected its
growth, which the links o f the Jewish Christians with Gentiles made
inevitable.
The main principles o f the Christian position had been established
against Judaism well before the first Jewish war and the destruction o f the
T e m p l e . T h e fall of Jerusalem might indeed be expected to have raised in a
most dramatic manner fundamental questions about the identity o f G o d ' s
elect people, and about the divine vindication of the claims which
Christians made for Jesus. Yet in fact it could d o no more than confirm
what Christians in the churches o f the Gentile world already believed. For
them, as indeed for Jewish Christians as well, the decisive event which
vindicated Jesus as the Christ, the Lord, the Son o f G o d , was not the
destruction o f his enemies but his resurrection from the dead and his
exaltation to G o d ' s right hand. T h e teaching o f Paul had vindicated the
claim of the church to be the authentic Israel. T h e seed of Abraham was the
community o f those w h o , like Abraham, were justified by faith; the
covenant o f faith was therefore both older and newer than the covenant
made at Sinai. Christ had been shown by Paul to be 'the end o f the Law'
( R o m . 10: 4) in more than one sense o f the word 'end'. By implication, at
least, the Pauline gospel meant that the sacrificial cultus had been
superseded; and well before the year 7 0 the foundations had already been
laid for the theological structure that was to be built by the authors o f the
Fourth Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews in relating, in their different
ways, the work of Christ and his priesthood 'after the order of Melchizedek'
to the priesthood and the sacrifices o f the O l d Covenant. From the letter to
the Galatians Christians had learned that they were children o f the
i 8
5 G. W . H . LAMPE

Jerusalem which is 'above', the community which, because it enjoys the

freedom o f the Spirit, stands over against its antithesis, the earthly
Jerusalem which is in servitude to the Law (Gal. 4 : 2 5 - 6 , c p . Phil. 3: 2 0 ) .
The foundations, once again, had been laid for the later development o f the
theme o f the 'heavenly Jerusalem' in Hebrews ( 1 2 : 2 2 ) , the 'new' or 'holy'
Jerusalem which, according to the Revelation of John (3: 1 2 ; 20: 9; 2 1 : 2 ) , is
to descend from heaven and in which the presence o f G o d will not be
focussed or localised in any temple, and for the reinterpretation by the
Fourth Evangelist o f the idea o f a holy place, established by G o d for
worship, in terms o f a community which worships in the Spirit and truth
(John 4 : 2 1 - 3 ) . Paul had already taught that the holy temple o f G o d ,
indwelt by the Spirit, is the congregation of Christian people, the temple o f
the living G o d in which his presence assures the fulfilment o f the covenant
promise, 'I will be their G o d and they shall be my people' (1 C o r .
2
3: 1 6 - 1 7 ; C o r . 6: 1 6 ) ; and Paul had also shown that in a secondary sense
each individual believer is the temple o f the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 C o r .
6: 1 9 ) . In this area o f Christian theology, too, the foundations o f later
developments, such as the teaching o f Eph. 2 : 2 1 and 1 Pet. 2 : 5 , and,
through a combination o f the themes o f the 'temple o f the Spirit' and the
' b o d y o f Christ', o f John 2: 2 1 , had been firmly laid in the years before the
Jewish war.
A strong tradition, indeed, derived the idea o f the destruction o f the
Jerusalem T e m p l e , and its replacement by a spiritual or heavenly temple
'not made with hands', from Jesus himself (Mark 1 4 : 5 8 ; Matt. 2 6 : 6 1 ) .
Although the evangelists assert that it was false witnesses w h o accused
Jesus o f having spoken in this sense, the charge is repeated by mockers at
the Cross (Mark 1 5 : 2 9 ; Matt. 2 7 : 4 0 ) , and Luke, who omits this in his
Gospel, introduces the same theme in his account o f the trial o f Stephen:
false witnesses allege that they have heard Stephen say that this Jesus the
Nazarene will destroy the T e m p l e (Acts 6: 1 4 ) . Long before 7 0 , therefore,
the church as a whole, despite differences between, and within, the Gentile
and Jewish Christian communities on christology and the place of the Law,
had taken up its position on the central issues o f the vindication o f the
messiahship ofjesus, the church's claim to be Israel in the true Abrahamic
succession, the appropriation o f the scriptures as testimonies to Jesus and
the church, the cessation o f the sacrifices and the reinterpretation o f the
significance o f cultus and priesthood, and the replacement o f the earthly
Jerusalem and the material T e m p l e by a heavenly city and a spiritual
sanctuary, In some respect these conclusions were themselves based on
attitudes current in Diaspora Judaism, where Law and synagogue, rather
than T e m p l e and sacrifice, formed the heart and focus o f devotion, and
where, in circles influenced by Alexandria, cultus, priesthood and T e m p l e
 A . D . 70 in Christian reflection 159

had been reinterpreted along the lines o f Philonic 'spritualisation'. Even

those Christians w h o , like Papias, Justin and Irenaeus, interpreted the
Apocalypse and its prophecies o f the millennium literalistically, and
located the reign of Christ and the saints in Jerusalem (e.g. Justin, Dial. 8 1 ) ,
did not imagine a restoration o f the T e m p l e and its system.
Answers had also been worked out early in the history o f the church to
the problem posed by the rejection of Jesus and the gospel by the leaders o f
Judaism and most o f their followers. In the Epistle to the Romans Paul
argued that the hardening and blinding o f the Jews were included within
G o d ' s purpose for the salvation o f the world. It was a temporary divine
dispensation to enable the Gentiles to hear and accept the gospel and so to
stimulate the Jews, in their turn, to claim their rightful place within the true
Israel o f the church. A more pessimistic m o o d informs Paul's violent attack
on the Jews in 1 Thess. 2: 1 4 - 1 6 - so different from the thought of Romans 9
to 11 as to suggest to some commentators the possibility that the passage is
an interpolation. In a fury o f indignation at the way in which his mission
has been obstructed, Paul charges the Jews collectively with the murder o f
the Lord Jesus and the prophets (cp. Acts 2: 2 3 , 7: 5 2 ) , and with persecuting
himself. T h e y are displeasing to G o d and hostile to all men, preventing
Paul from preaching salvation to the Gentiles, and thus 'filling up the full
measure o f their sins always'. N o w , says Paul, G o d ' s wrath has c o m e upon
them 'utterly' or 'for g o o d and all', in anticipation o f the final Judgement.
Assuming that this denunciation is authentic, we can easily appreciate how
little there was left for Christians to say when disaster actually overtook the
T e m p l e and the priesthood. In this m o o d , at any rate, Paul was ready to
believe that the eschatological wrath o f G o d had already come upon
Judaism because, and in the very fact that, it had slain Christ and the
prophets w h o had proclaimed him before the event, and was now
persecuting and hindering the missionaries w h o were preaching him after
the event. According to Romans 9 to 1 1 , Judaism was soon to become
merged with the Gentile church by conversion and thus lose the separate
identity which G o d was allowing it to retain only for the time during which
the Gentiles were being gathered in. Alternatively, according to 1 Thess.
2: 1 6 , Judaism was already subject to irrevocable condemnation. In either
case the destruction o f the T e m p l e would evoke little surprise. It would
seem a natural outworking o f a situation which had long been established
and to which the events o f 7 0 made no essential difference.

In the later books o f the New Testament and in the literature o f the
following century or so we find a development and consolidation o f
attitudes towards Judaism which had already been formed in the time o f
Paul. Thus the conviction that Christians are Israel, possessors o f a new
and better covenant mediated by Jesus, reaches fuller expression in such
l6o G. W . H. LAMPE

passages as Eph. 2: 191T; H e b . 2: 1 6 ; 7 : 2 2 ; 8 : 6 - 1 3 ; 1 Clem. 3 1 . 2 , and in

varying forms it is implicit in the main thrust of the argument of Luke-Acts,
Matthew, and, indeed, most o f the New Testament and early post-
canonical writings. Paul's argument concerning the covenants o f the Law
and the Spirit (Gal. 4 : 2 1 - 3 1 ) is transformed by the author o f Barnabas ( 1 3 ,
1 4 ) , admittedly an extremist, into a virtual denial that the Israel o f the O l d
Testament ever received G o d ' s covenant at all; the Jews never were the
authentic Israel. A t the same time the belief that the blindness o f j u d a i s m is
temporary and providential gives way to the alternative conviction that the
Jews have irrevocably rejected the gospel and have themselves been
rejected by G o d . Luke firmly believes that the gospel was the fulfilment o f
the true tradition o f Israel, as the speeches of Stephen and o f Paul in his own
defence (Acts 7: 2 - 5 3 ; 2 2 : 1 - 2 1 ; 2 3 : 6; 2 4 : 1 0 - 2 1 ; 26: 2 - 2 3 ) plainly declare;
but although, right to the very end o f Luke's narrative, there are some Jews
who understand that this is so and w h o become converted (Acts 28: 2 4 ) , the
eyes o f official Judaism remain closed, its ears are dulled, its mind has
become gross: it has fulfilled the prophecy o f Isa. 6 : 8 - 1 0 , and within the
true Israel which n o w embraces both Jews and Gentiles the future clearly
lies with the Gentile element (Acts 2 8 : 2 6 - 8 ) . Matthew presupposes a
situation in which the church stands over against the renewed and
consolidated Pharisaic Judaism o f the period after 7 0 ; the separation o f
church from synagogue is complete, the church has its o w n organisation
and ordinances (Matt. 1 8 : 15fF; 23: 7 - 1 2 ) , and Pharisaism is a powerful and
bitter enemy. For the Fourth Evangelist 'the Jews' collectively are o f the
devil (John 8 : 4 4 ) . T h e seer o f the Apocalypse even denies them the
honourable name o f Jews; they are Satan's synagogue (Rev. 2 : 9 ) .
Just as these attitudes towards Judaism had their roots in the decades
preceding the Jewish revolt, so, too, the loyal, and sometimes even
enthusiastic, attitude to the R o m a n empire o f Christian writers o f the
period after 7 0 followed earlier precedent. Except for the Revelation o f
John, this attitude is remarkably consistent, and it is probably right to
interpret that book's denunciation o f R o m e and its prophecies o f R o m e ' s
destruction as directed against the demonic aspect o f R o m e ' s sovereignty,
that is, the imperial cult and the consequent persecution of Christians in the
name o f a false king, lord and saviour (in fact, an anti-Christ), rather than
against the empire itself from the standpoint o f Jewish, or Christian-
Jewish, nationalism. There was always an inevitable ambivalence in the
Christian attitude to the empire. T h e duty o f loyal citizenship, on the one
hand, was matched on the other by the duty o f passive resistance and
martyrdom if the state demanded the worship which Christians believed to
be due to G o d alone. Apologists such as Tertullian found no inconsistency
in extolling the virtues o f the Christians as loyal citizens w h o prayed
 A . D . 70 in Christian reflection 161

constantly for the welfare o f the emperor, and at the same time threatening
those who persecuted Christians in the emperor's name with G o d ' s
judgement and hell fire. There need have been no more inconsistency in the
co-existence within the church during the sub-apostolic age o f the
apocalyptist's visions o f the beast with the exhortations o f 1 Peter to honour
the emperor and fear G o d as parallel and related aspects of Christian duty.
Luke's picture o f the imperial authorities as the friends of Jesus and the
church, at least when they were not intimidated by the Jews, and his careful
explanations that it was only through ignorance or misunderstanding that
Christian leaders could be associated with, or confused with, Jewish
revolutionaries like Judas o f Galilee, Theudas, or the 'Egyptian' (Acts
:
5 3 6 , 3 7 ; 2 1 : 3 8 ) , are fully in line with Clement's emphatic assertion o f
devotion to the empire (1 Clem. 6 0 - 6 1 ) and his remarkable choice o f the
R o m a n army as a model for ecclesiastical discipline ( 3 7 ) . This is an attitude
which leads on to the claim o f Melito o f Sardis that it was by divine
dispensation that Christianity and the empire of Augustus originated at the
same time; that the empire can assure its o w n prosperity by protecting
Christianity ; and that it was only the wicked emperors, Nero and
Domitian, w h o persecuted the church and then only because they had been
misled by malignant persons (Eus. H.E. 4 . 2 6 . 7 - 1 1 ) . All this, except
conceivably 1 Peter, belongs to the period after 70; but the sentiments are
not new, for they merely echo and enlarge upon the almost equally forceful
words o f Paul in R o m . 1 3 : 1 - 7 , inculcating the Christian duty of obedience
to the emperor as a minister o f G o d .
T o the period after 7 0 there very probably belong some, at least, of those
'prophetic' passages in the Gospels which may allude to the fate o f
Jerusalem. In the Markan tradition, followed by Matthew and Luke (Mark
1 3 : 2 , Matt. 24: 2; Luke 2 1 : 6 ) , the context o f the apocalyptic discourse o f
Jesus is furnished by his prophecy o f the total destruction of the T e m p l e . It
is possible to regard this as an actual prophecy, and to connect it with the
obscure and ambiguous evidence that Jesus expected the T e m p l e 'made
with hands' to be superseded. In any case, it resembles and echoes the
prophecies o f M i c a h , Jeremiah and Ezekiel that G o d ' s imminent
judgement on Israel would involve the overthrow of the T e m p l e (Mic. 3 : 1 2
cited a t j e r . 26: i 8 ; J e r . 7: 1 4 - 1 5 ; Ezek. 24: 2 1 ) . Yet the d o o m of the T e m p l e
is pictured in terms of such extreme devastation ('Not one stone will be left
upon another, all will be thrown d o w n ' ) as to suggest that a catastrophic
fulfilment o f the prediction may be alluded to (not necessarily, o f course,
with precise literal accuracy: the T e m p l e was burned rather than
demolished), and that it either originated or was sharpened after the event
which it predicts.
The enigmatic prophecy of the 'abomination of desolation' (Mark 1 3 : 1 4 ;
162 G. W . H. LAMPE

Matt. 2 4 : 15) may also refer to the events o f 70. In its Markan form this is a
vague and imprecise application to a coming catastrophe in Judaea o f a
traditional apocalyptic symbol derived from the heathen altar, and
probably also the statue, erected in the T e m p l e by Antiochus Epiphanes
(Dan. 9 : 2 7 ; 1 1 : 3 1 ; 1 2 : n ; 1 M a c e . 1: 5 4 ; c p . 2 M a c e . 6: 2 ) . It has to be
borne in mind that early Christian eschatology tended to be cast in the
mould o f the M a c c a b a e a n crisis and therefore to follow a pattern laid d o w n
in the book o f Daniel. This typological convention makes it extremely
difficult to assign such material as that contained in 2 Thess. 2: 3 - 1 2 or in
the 'synoptic apocalypse' to particular historical situations.
T h e implication o f this passage is that the T e m p l e (Mark speaks o f the
'abomination' standing where it (properly, he) ought not, and Matthew
explains this phrase as meaning 'in the holy place') will suffer some horrible
heathen profanation. A m o n g many interpretations which have been offered
we find: the emperor Gaius's attempt to introduce his statue into the
T e m p l e in 3 9 to 4 0 ; the expected appearance o f antichrist ( c p . 2 Thess.
2: 3 - 4 ) ; the desecration o f the T e m p l e by the internecine strife among the
Jewish factions during the R o m a n siege (but Daniel's 'abomination' must
denote heathen idolatry); the entry o f the R o m a n forces; or, as some late
patristic commentators supposed, the introduction into the Temple
8
precincts o f a statue of Titus. Luke reinterprets this saying. He substitutes
'the desolation' o f Jerusalem for the allusion to the 'abomination o f
desolation', and explains that this will be brought about by besieging
armies (Luke 2 1 : 2 0 ) . It is likely that Mark and Matthew as well as Luke
may be thinking o f an invasion o f the T e m p l e by Roman forces, and that
they are associating this with some specific act o f desecration. Possibly this
was the famous occasion when the troops o f Titus brought their standards
to the T e m p l e , set them opposite its eastern gate, and offered sacrifices to
9
them.
It must, however, again be remembered that the language o f this
passage, even in its Lukan form, is quite imprecise. T h e symbol o f the
'abomination o f desolation' was an apocalyptic commonplace, part o f the
Danielic typology o f Antiochus Epiphanes and his violation o f the T e m p l e .
Even Luke's picture o f a besieged city, though true enough as a description
of what befell Jerusalem in the war with R o m e , is an echo o f many passages
of the O l d Testament. This is equally true of the similar prophecy of a siege

8
See G . R . B e a s l e y - M u r r a y , A Commentary on Mark Thirteen ( L o n d o n , 1957),
PP- 54-72-
9
J o s . BJ 6.316; c p . i Q p H a b . 6.3-5: ' ( T h e K i t t i m ) sacrifice to their standards a n d
w o r s h i p their w e a p o n s o f w a r ' ; T e r t . Apol. 16: ' T h e w h o l e military religion o f the
R o m a n s consists in venerating the standards, swearing b y the standards, setting the
standards before all the g o d s ' .
 A . D . 70 in Christian reflection 163

and destruction o f the city in Jesus's lamentation over Jerusalem (Luke

1 0
1 9 : 4 3 - 4 ) with its echo o f Isa. 29: 3 - 4 . T h e prophecy may be only a general
warning that, as in the days of Jeremiah whose theme was the association o f
false religion with the Temple, the rejection o f prophetic warnings o f
judgement by the leaders o f the nation, and impending divine punishment,
G o d ' s judgement is again approaching and will again be executed by
heathen enemies.
Yet a saying may have a specific application to a particular historical
situation even though it may be expressed in general terms and in
conventional typological forms. W e still have to ask why the evangelists
gave prominence to this passage, and the most probable answer seems to be
that it is really a 'prophecy' after the event, whether in its Lukan form only
or in the Markan/Matthaean as well. If this is so, it indicates the beginning
o f Christian reflection on the significance o f the disaster o f 70. T h e proper
response of Christians in Judaea was to flee from the city without delay; the
use o f the second person, 'pray ( y e ) ' , in Mark 1 3 : 1 8 / M a t t . 24: 20 indicates
that the whole warning is to be understood as being directly addressed to
Jesus's followers. It is, again, a warning which echoes the traditional
M a c c a b a e a n pattern: Christians are to act like the loyal devotees o f the
Law in the time o f Antiochus, when Mattathias and his sons fled to the
mountains, leaving all their possessions in the city (1 M a c e . 2: 2 8 ) . T h e
question is whether this passage may possibly be referred to by Eusebius
when, probably following Hegesippus, he records that the Jerusalem
church received an oracle by revelation, as a result of which they moved out
o f the city to Pella before the outbreak o f the war (H.E. 3 . 5 . 3 ) . T h e
destruction o f Jerusalem was evidently seen, according to this tradition, as
an act of divine vengeance for the violence done to Christ and his apostles,
executed after G o d ' s holy people, the Christians, had been evacuated from
the city like Lot from S o d o m . W e need not now consider the vexed question
whether the c o m m a n d to flee, given in the 'Synoptic apocalypse', may have
been suggested after the event by the actual flight o f the Christians to Pella,
or whether (as seems much less probable) it may have been itself the origin
o f the entire Pella tradition. Nor is it important that the command,
literalistically interpreted, would have been impossible to carry out; flight
would no longer be possible from Jerusalem (though perhaps still feasible
from the rest of'Judaea') once the city had been encircled by armies and the
'abomination' had arrived. What is relevant here is the fact that if it is
indeed post eventum this passage contains the beginnings o f Christian
theological reflection on the fall o f Jerusalem.

1 0
See C . H . D o d d , ' T h e Fall o f J e r u s a l e m and the " A b o m i n a t i o n o f D e s o l a t i o n " ' ,
JRS 37 (1947), 47-54-
164 G. W . H . LAMPE

The event o f 70 is G o d ' s judgement. These are the 'days o f retribution'

(cp. Luke 2 1 : 2 2 ) which fulfil the Deuteronomic prophecy o f G o d ' s wrath
upon apostate Israel (Deut. 32: 3 5 ) , and which, according to Luke's picture
ofjerusalem 'trodden down by the Gentiles until the times o f the Gentiles
are fulfilled', also bring the fulfilment o f the prophecy o f Zech. 1 2 : 3 . In
other passages peculiar to his Gospel Luke develops the theme o f G o d ' s
judgement on Israel, provoked by the rejection o f the appeal and challenge
o f j e s u s : in the warning to the daughters ofjerusalem (Luke 23: 2 7 - 3 1 ) ;
and, more subtly, at the end o f the Passion story: 'The crowd w h o had
assembled for the spectacle, when they saw what had happened, went home
beating their breasts' (23: 4 8 ) . Taken together with Luke's insistence on the
responsibility o f the Jews for Jesus's death after Pilate's threefold verdict o f
acquittal, these words imply that already, at the time of the crucifixion, the
people o f Jerusalem were expecting that divine retribution would be
exacted from them. Later tradition makes this explicit. According to a
11
'Western' manuscript tradition, the crowds cry, ' W o e to us for the things
that have been done today on account o f our sins; for the desolation o f
Jerusalem has drawn near'. This seems to be derived from the tradition in
the Gospel o f Peter (25) which enlarges on the guilt and terror of the Jewish
leaders. After the begging o f the body ofjesus, 'the Jews and the elders and
the priests, knowing what great evil they had done themselves, began to
lament and to say, " W o e for our sins; the judgement and the end o f
Jerusalem has drawn near" ' .
In the parable o f the wicked tenants (Mark 1 2 : 1 - 9 ; Matt. 2 1 : 3 3 - 4 1 ;
Luke 2 0 : 9 - 1 6 ) , the threat o f destruction is possibly, but by no means
certainly, an allusion to the fall ofjerusalem. Matthew ( 2 1 : 43) strengthens
the threat by adding, 'Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God shall be
taken from you and given to a nation producing the fruits o f it'. G o d ' s
special relationship to Israel, with its promises, blessings and obligations
(for this is apparently what is meant in this context by the phrase 'the
kingdom of God', not as usually in Matthew, 'the kingdom of heaven'), is to
be transferred to the Christian church. This need not, however, contain a
veiled allusion to the destruction ofjerusalem; it could equally well refer to
the supersession o f Pharisaic Judaism by Christianity.
The ' Q ' tradition includes a warning that the rejection o f j e s u s , the
climax o f the long history of Israel's persecution of the prophets, must bring
a divine judgement on Jerusalem (Matt. 2 3 : 3 7 - 9 ; Luke 1 3 : 3 4 - 5 ) . It is
quite possible, but again by no means certain, that this passage, which, in
the warning 'your house is left to you (desolate)', echoes Jer. 22: 5 , reflects
the actual destruction o f the T e m p l e and the city. If, however, it is only a
11 gi sys.c.^ T a t i a n ; c p . J. M . C r e e d , The Gospel according to Saint Luke ( L o n d o n , 1930) p .
?

288.
 A . D . 70 in Christian reflection 165

general and imprecise threat ofjudgement against the leaders ofjudaism, it

seems probable that it has been developed and made more specific in the
Lukan lament o f Jesus over Jerusalem (Luke 1 9 : 4 1 - 4 ) , with its explicit
references to the siege and total destruction o f the city. Admittedly, this is a
conventional picture, employing familiar O l d Testament imagery; but this
is not inconsistent with its use by the evangelist or his source as an allusion
to the events o f 70: an allusion need not take the form of a literal description.
T h e inference is that Jerusalem was blind to 'the things belonging to peace'.
It did not recognise the time o f G o d ' s visitation; and it was for this reason,
so Christians reflected, that the city perished.
Luke is not alone among the evangelists in linking the divine
condemnation o f Jerusalem directly with the rejection and crucifixion of the
Christ. Matthew similarly implies this in his story of the washing o f Pilate's
hands and the cry of'all the people' (that is, Israel), 'his blood be on us and
on our children' (Matt. 2 7 : 2 5 ) . In this dramatic scene Matthew makes the
people themselves endorse the warning recorded in the ' Q ' tradition that
'all righteous b l o o d ' (Matt. 2 3 : 3 5 1 ) , or 'the blood of all the prophets' (Luke
1 1 : 501) will be paid for by 'this generation'.
A further important contribution to Christian reflection on the fall o f
Jerusalem is probably to be found in Matthew's peculiar insertion into his
parable o f the marriage feast: 'but the king was infuriated and sent his
troops and destroyed those murderers and burnt down their city' (Matt.
2 2 : 7 ) . A case against the interpretation o f this passage as a post eventum
12
allusion to the Jewish war has been argued, notably by K . H . Rengstorf.
He maintains that the theme o f an insult to a king or his representatives,
provoking a punitive expedition and the destruction of the offenders' city by
fire, is a traditional commonplace. T h e story recalls that o f the book o f
Judith, and the episode of David and the Ammonites (2 Sam. 1 o: 1 to 1 1 : 1 ) ,
and its pattern recurs in the O l d Testament, the Assyrian annals, and
Josephus. It is, in fact, a topos, used as such in rabbinic parables. Rengstorf
claims that it would be strange to see Vespasian's forces as armies sent by
G o d (despite the fact that Josephus finds no difficulty in believing that they
destroyed Jerusalem because G o d had condemned it -BJ 4 . 3 2 3 , 6 . 2 5 0 ) , and
he maintains that Matthew's parable is not historically focussed; it was not
the destruction o f the city itself but the ruin o f the T e m p l e and the cessation
o f the cultus that was the real disaster o f 70. H e does not, however, answer
the difficult question why Matthew should have introduced this awkward
digression into a story o f the rejection o f G o d ' s messengers by those w h o m
he had originally invited, and o f the bringing in of others to take their place

1 2
' D i e Stadt d e r M o r d e r ( M t . 22: 7)', in W . Eltester, Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche
(Festschrift fur J. J e r e m i a s ) , ZNW Beiheft 26 (i960), 106-29.
l66 G. W . H . LAMPE

at his feast - a story which, like its parallel in Luke 1 4 : 1 6 - 2 4 , would run
smoothly and intelligibly but for this obtrusive verse about the king's
revenge. It will not d o to reply that Matthew seems in any case to have
conflated two stories (that of the replacement of the invited guests, and that
of the man without a wedding garment) into a single parable, and that he
may in fact have also combined these two with a third: a tale of the insulting
behaviour o f a king's intended guests and o f the way in which he avenged
his messengers. For the question remains why Matthew should have chosen
to confuse his parable by interrupting its sequence with another story,
inartistically and awkwardly inserted in what is virtually a parenthesis.
The obvious explanation would seem to be that Matthew sees in this
parable, probably to be assigned to the ' Q ' material, an opportunity to
develop the theme o f the parable o f the wicked tenants ( 2 1 : 4iff) and to
drive h o m e its point by an actual allusion to the fall ofjerusalem. He uses a
conventional topos in order to d o this; but the historical event itself o f the
revolt and its suppression could almost be said to follow a conventional
13
recurrent pattern.
Matthew, then, like Luke, sets the rejection o f the Christ within the long
history o f Israel's persecution o f the prophets, o f which it is the final
culmination. It means that G o d has abandoned non-Christian Judaism,
and the destruction ofjerusalem and the T e m p l e is the concrete evidence
that this is so. Because the leaders of Judaism failed to believe in Jesus, the
Romans had c o m e and removed the T e m p l e and the nation - as the Fourth
Evangelist, with his typical irony, makes Caiaphas say they would d o if the
Sanhedrin were to let Jesus g o and all men were to believe in him (John
11:48).
Christian apologists naturally pursued this interpretation o f the fall o f
Jerusalem as G o d ' s punishment o f the Jews for the crucifixion; but, apart
from these rather scanty allusions in the Gospels, it occurs neither so early
nor so often as we might expect. Where it is found it often stands alongside
other apologetic arguments, such as the claim that the destruction o f the
T e m p l e vindicated the argument from prophecy for the messiahship o f
Jesus, that the O l d Testament cultus was intended only as a temporary
dispensation, that the cessation o f the priesthood and sacrifices implies the
supersession o f the Law. Barnabas asserts that one purpose o f the
incarnation was that the full number o f the sins o f those w h o persecuted
and slew the prophets might be summed up ( 5 . 1 1 ) . This implies, like the
parable o f the wicked tenants, that Christ's death set the seal on the long

1 3
See further L . H . G a s t o n , No Stone on Another, NovTestSup xxiii ( L e i d e n , 1970); W .
Trilling, Das WahreIsrael, S t A N T to ( M i i n c h e n , 1964); S. Pedersen, ' Z u m P r o b l e m
der vaticinia ex eventu', ST 19 (1965), 167-88; W . G r u n d m a n n , Das Evangelium nach
Matthaus, T h H K (Berlin, 1968).
 A . D . 7 0 in Christian reflection 167

catalogue o f Israel's ill-treatment o f G o d ' s envoys, but it does not explicitly

say that it brought about the events o f 70. Earlier in this epistle the fate o f
the Jews is held up as a warning to Christians. Even after so many signs and
wonders had been done among them, the people were abandoned by G o d .
Christians, in their turn, must take heed not to be found to be the 'many
called but few chosen' ( 4 . 1 4 ) . Here the desolation of Jerusalem is seen as
punishment or as a sign o f reprobation, but it is not directly connected with
the rejection o f Christ.
Justin, too, argues that the scriptures attest the justice o f G o d ' s
punishment o f the Jews by defeat and exile (Dial, n o ) ; the fact that they
had been banned from Judaea under Hadrian's legislation, and circumci­
sion had b e c o m e a sign which debarred them from entering their o w n land,
was a measure o f their rejection by G o d (/ Apol. 4 7 , Dial. 1 6 ) . Justin is
chiefly concerned to develop the argument from prophecy. T h e fate o f the
Jews was part o f the purpose o f G o d disclosed by the O l d Testament
prophets; it confirms the Christian interpretation o f the messianic
prophecies. Justin does, however, at one point assert a direct connection
between the downfall o f the Jews and the death of Christ: 'It is right and just
that these things have happened to you. For you killed the Righteous O n e
and his prophets before him' (Dial. 1 6 ; c p . Acts 3: 1 4 - 1 5 ; 7 * 5 2 ) . In the
Gospel o f Peter this theme is developed: the destruction of Jerusalem was
retribution for Christ's death. It is just possible that the same thought
appears in the Preaching o f Peter. A n extract from this work, cited by
Clement (Strom. 6 . 1 5 . 1 2 8 ) , says that in the prophets we find the parousia
(that is, the incarnation) o f the messiah, his death, his cross, the
punishments inflicted on him by the Jews, his resurrection and ascension,
JIQO xov 'IeQOo6X,v|ia xxio6fjvai, xa8(bg iyiyQanxo ravxa Jiavxa, a e&ei
auxov jiaBeiv xai fiex' auxov a eaxai. V o n Dobschiitz ( T U xi, p p . 2 4 - 5 )
proposed to read XQiBfjvai for xxioBfjvai, understanding this to refer to the
'judgement' o f Jerusalem in 70, to which he believed [xex' auxov a eaxai to
be an allusion. For a similar use of XQiGfjvai he compared Isa. 66: 1 6 and 1
C l e m . 1 1 . 1 , and for the idea itself he compared the Gospel o f Peter 2 5 ,
l o e v
already mentioned above: f i Y Y ^ HQioig xai xo xeXog 'IeQOVoa>.r|[x.
Others have conjectured )iY)(p6fjvai, atao6fjvai, or xa0aioe6fjvai for
xxioBfjvai. V o n Dobschiitz may be right; on the other hand it is possible to
repunctuate the passage so that it only means that some messianic
prophecies are so old that they antedate the foundation of Jerusalem: JIQO
ajn:o
xov 'IeQoooXuuxx xxioBfjvai xaBcbg E Y £ Y Q - tavxa Jtdvxa, a e5ei
aijxov Jia0eiv . . ., xavxa ovv tmyvovxeq ejuoxevoafxev.

Origen quotes Josephus as saying that the events o f 7 0 came as

retribution for the death o f James the Just ' w h o was a brother of Jesus who
was called Christ, since the Jews killed him w h o was a very righteous man'
168 G. W . H. LAMPE

(C. Cels 1 . 4 7 , c p . Comm. in Matt. 1 0 . 1 7 ) . Eusebius also reproduces these

alleged words of Josephus, probably from Origen since he cites them in
exactly the same form (H.E. 2 . 2 3 . 2 0 ) . It seems likely that Hegesippus took
this view, for his account of the martyrdom of James, excerpted by Eusebius
(H.E. 2 . 2 3 . 4 - 1 8 ) , ends: ' H e has become a true witness both to Jews and
Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. A n d immediately Vespasian attacked
them.' Indeed, it is quite probable that Origen, and Eusebius following
him, confused Hegesippus with Josephus. Alternatively, the passage was a
Christian interpolation in Josephus AJ 20.200. Origen himself, however, is
sure that the idea that the fall ofjerusalem was a punishment for the death
of James is wrong: ' H e ought to have said that the plot against Jesus was the
reason why these catastrophes came upon the people, because they had
killed the Christ w h o had been prophesied.' This theme recurs in Origen's
writings. T h e Jews and their city, he says, were destroyed by the wrath o f
G o d which was consequent on their treatment ofjesus (C. Cels. 4 . 7 3 ) , and
their fall marks G o d ' s purpose o f saving the Gentiles (C. Cels. 6.80 citing
Rom. 11:11-12, 2 5 - 6 ) . Celsus himself was sufficiently familiar with
Christian ideas to know o f their belief that because the Jews had punished
Jesus and given him gall (xoXrjv) to drink, they had drawn d o w n on
themselves G o d ' s fury (xoXov) (C. Cels. 4 . 2 2 ) .
Origen's theory that the events o f 70 were G o d ' s vengeance for Christ's
death had been anticipated by Tertullian, who repeats Justin's contention
that it was as a just punishment that the Jews had been prohibited from
entering Jerusalem and circumcision had become a sign of their contumacy
(Jud. 3 . 6 ) . T h e d o o m prophesied by A m o s (8: 9 - 1 0 ) has been fulfilled in the
captivity and dispersion which overtook the Jews after Christ's passion
(Jud. 1 0 . 1 5 ) ; these things have happened as a punishment for his death
(Marc. 3 . 2 3 ) .
Hippolytus developed this argument more fully. Because o f their
treatment of Christ the Jews are condemned to perpetual slavery (fulfilling
Ps. 6 9 : 25ff) and the loss o f the T e m p l e . It was not on account o f idolatry
(the golden calf), nor murder (of the prophets), nor Israel's fornication that
the T e m p l e was destroyed, but because o f the slaying o f the Son o f the
Benefactor (Euergetes). All this had been foretold by the Psalmist (Dem. adv.
Jud. 6 - 7 ) . Hippolytus (if this treatise is genuine) may have Jewish apologiae
for the destruction o f Jerusalem in mind. O n e o f these explanations was
that, whereas the first T e m p l e had been destroyed because o f idolatry,
fornication and murder, the second Temple's ruin was caused by
groundless hatred, which is as bad as those three cardinal sins (Yoma 9 b ) .
Another was that the fall o f the T e m p l e was a punishment for eight
shortcomings on the part o f Israel: the sabbath was desecrated, the reading
of the shema neglected, the education o f children neglected, the inhabitants
 A . D . 70 in Christian reflection 169

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

can only 'behold the land from far off (Isa. 3 3 : 1 7 1 ) . Nor can the Jews
expect a future messiah, for with the abolition o f the Temple there is now no
horn o f oil with which he could be anointed (Jud. 1 3 . 2 - 3 ) . Cyprian's
Testimonia included proofs from Isa. 1: 7fT that the Jews would lose
Jerusalem in accordance with the words ofjesus at Matt. 2 3 : 3 7 ^ and from
2 Sam. 7: 4 - 5 , 1 2 - 1 4 , 1 6 , with Matt. 24: 2 and Mark 1 4 : 5 8 , that the old
Temple was to cease and be replaced by a new Temple which is Christ
himself (Test. 1.6, 1 . 1 5 ) . Eusebius ascribes the banning of Jerusalem to the
Jews primarily to the command o f G o d , proclaimed beforehand by the
prophets, and only secondarily to the Roman legislation (Chron. A . D . 1 3 5 ) .
It was because the prophecies indicated that the Temple had been
predestined to lie in ruins till the end o f time ( c p . Eus. D.E. 8.2.241) that
Julian's project for its rebuilding aroused so much excitement.
Christian apologists could also derive some telling arguments from the
cessation o f the sacrifices. Tertullian merely noted the fact that Vespasian's
conquest put an end to the cultus (Jud. 8 . 1 7 ) , but Justin had already used it
as part o f his demonstration that the sacrifices had been intended to be
temporary: to typify Christ and to cease at his advent. Thus it is no longer
possible to sacrifice the Passover lamb, a type of Christ, because Jerusalem
is in the hands o f the Jews' enemies (Dial. 4 0 ) . According to the Clementime
Recognitions ( 1 . 6 4 ) , the destruction o f the Temple, the setting up o f the
abomination of desolation, and the preaching o f the gospel to the Gentiles,
have c o m e about because of the failure o f the Jews to recognise that the time
when sacrifices were to be offered had been completed. Barnabas goes
further. T h e sacrifices were annulled by G o d so that in the new law o f
Christ there might be an offering not made by men ( 2 . 6 ) . It was a
heathenish mistake o f the Jews to set their hopes on the T e m p l e building
instead o f on G o d w h o made them to be his true house. T h e y consecrated
God in the Temple, almost like Gentiles; and so, 'because they went to war,
it was destroyed by their enemies'. ' N o w ' , says Barnabas, 'the very servants
of their enemies shall build it up.' He means, of course, not that the material
Temple is to be rebuilt but that the Gentile church is to replace it. He goes
on to explain that the 'delivering up' o f the city, the Temple and the people
of Israel was shown forth in prophecy (he cites Enoch 8 9 . 5 6 , 6 6 ) , and that
the community o f believers is now being built up as G o d ' s real T e m p l e
(16.1).
In his argument against T r y p h o Justin pointed out that since the cultus
had ceased it had become impossible to keep the entire Law (Dial. 4 6 ) .
Some apologists went on to argue that the Law is binding in every part ( c p .
Gal. 5 : 3 ) . Therefore, the impossibility o f observing some o f its precepts
demonstrates that the whole Law has been abrogated. T h e Apostolic
Constitutions ( 6 . 2 5 ) even maintain that because the Jews can no longer
 A . D . 7 0 in Christian reflection 171

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

1 4
[ T h e late Professor L a m p e w a s asked b y the editors to d o a study o f early Christian
reflection o n A . D . 70. It scarcely needs to b e said that the sentiments he reports are
not to b e taken as they stand as a record o f a present-day Christian's v i e w s . - E d . ]
 G. W . H. L A M P E

The trial of Jesus in the Acta Pilati

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

173
174 G. W . H. LAMPE

could therefore make a good propaganda point in the confidence that

his imperial readers could plausibly be asked to verify from official
sources the facts that were familiar to Christians from their own
literature.
T h e idea that Pilate reported to Tiberius is developed by Tertullian. He
maintains that Tiberius recommended to the senate that Christ should be
admitted among the gods o f R o m e , on the strength o f a report from
Palestine which disclosed the truth o f his divinity, and that, although the
senate refused, Tiberius did not alter his opinion; consequently, he
threatened to punish those who brought accusations against Christians
(Apol. 5 ) . Tertullian also asserted, more specifically, that the eclipse at
the crucifixion was recorded in the R o m a n archives, and that the
facts concerning Christ's death and resurrection were reported to
Tiberius by Pilate who was already 'pro sua conscientia Christianus'
(Apol. 2 1 ) .
It is not at all probable that either Justin or Tertullian had in mind the
extant Christian book known as the Acta Pilati or, with the addition o f an
awkwardly attached T a r t I I ' on the Descent into Hades and Christ's
activity there (mainly contained in Latin M S S and absent from the
oriental versions o f the Acta), as the Evangelium Nicodemi. This almost
certainly belongs to a much later date, and it is worth notice that neither the
setting o f Jesus on the judgement seat nor the piercing of his hands and feet
is mentioned in it. It is quite possible, however, that the composition o f the
Acta Pilati may have been suggested by Tertullian's idea that Pilate must
have reported not only Jesus's death but also the resurrection, that he
would have done this from the standpoint of a Christian believer, and that,
as Tertullian implies, the central theme o f his report would have been the
divinity of Jesus. T h e claim that Jesus is the Son of God, vindicated by the
fully attested fact o f his resurrection, is the main point which the Acta Pilati
are designed to establish.
Nor need we necessarily suppose that when Epiphanius mentions 'acts
of Pilate' he is actually referring to this book. He tells us that the
Quartodecimans based their claim to accuracy in the dating o f the passion
on the authority o f 'acts o f Pilate' which mentioned the fact that it took
place on 2 5 March (Haer. 5 0 . 1 ) . T h e Acta Pilati d o in fact begin with an
elaborate date: the fifteenth year of Tiberius, the nineteenth year o f Herod
of Galilee, the 2 5 t h o f March, the consulship o f Rufus and Rubellio, the
fourth year o f the two hundred and second Olympiad, the high-priesthood
of Caiaphas. These dates, however, were traditional. Tertullian gives the
same year and the same consuls, and specifies the 2 5 t h o f March. Similar
dating is given by Clement (Strom. 1 . 2 1 . 1 4 6 ) , Hippolytus (Dan. 4 . 2 3 ) , and
Lactantius (Inst. 4 . 1 0 . 1 8 , Mort. Persec. 2 ) , and after the time of Epiphanius it
 The trial o f j e s u s in the Acta Pilati 175

reappears in Augustine (Civ. Dei 1 8 . 5 4 ) . T h e date may well have been

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

'memoirs' sought to embarrass the Christian movement by presenting

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

1
' D i e Pilatus-Akten', ZNW 3 (1902), 198-205.
 The trial o f j e s u s in the Acta Pilati •77

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

Not that the blame is thrown indiscriminately upon the Jewish people;
among them are many supporters of Jesus and witnesses for the defence,
and the first part of the book ends with a Christian apologist's dream o f the
ideal outcome o f the controversy between church and synagogue: the
recognition o f the truth by the Jewish leaders and the singing o f a psalm o f
praise by all the people.
In these Acts Pilate is more than a sympathetic judge. He is virtually a
Christian. He is 'circumcised in heart' ( 1 2 . 1 ) . T h e author does, indeed,
make him go through the motions o f paganism; he uses the conventional
language o f polytheism, calling Helios to witness that he finds no fault in
Jesus ( 3 . 1 ) and, in answer to the accusation o f the Jews that Jesus casts out
devils by Beelzebub, declaring that 'this is not to cast out devils by an
unclean spirit, but by the god Asclepios' ( 1 . 1 ) . Even so, it is interesting that
the gods named by Pilate, the Sun and the Healer, are the two w h o were
least offensive to post-Constantinian Christians and lent themselves most
readily to assimilation to Christ; there is no question o f Asclepios being
himself regarded as a demon. Pilate is also made to swear a pagan oath, and
to ask the Jewish sympathisers with Jesus to take it also, which they refuse
to d o because they are absolutely forbidden to swear; but it is not the
regular pagan formula, 'by the genius [ivx*]) of Caesar' (cp. M. Polyc. 9.2,
M. Scillit. 3 and 5), but the modified form xaxa xfjc; aa)XT)Qtag xaiaaoog
which came to be generally acceptable to Christians (cp. A Jo. 10, Cod. Theod.
2.9.3). Apart from these artificial touches o f partial verisimilitude Pilate
looks very much like an official o f the Christian empire. He is virtually a
believer, asking in all seriousness, ' H o w can I, a governor, examine a king?'
( 1 . 2 ) , echoing the words of John 10: 3 2 - 3 : 'For a good work d o they desire to
put him to death?' (2.6), speaking as an advocate for the defence rather
than a j u d g e (8), and making a speech to the Jews on the lines o f Stephen's
apology in Acts 7, reminding the Jews of the days of the Exodus, the manna,
quails and water from the rock, and accusing them o f being always a
seditious and rebellious nation which has angered G o d by its idolatry from
the time o f the golden calf onwards (9.2). O f course, in the end, when the
Jews say that Caesar alone is their king, and not Jesus, and recount the
story o f the visit o f the magi, Herod's attempt to slay Jesus, and his
massacre o f the children, Pilate's opposition collapses suddenly and
implausibly, and he condemns Jesus to death because his nation has
convicted him o f being a king. Having represented Pilate as virtually
conspiring with the followers of Jesus to outwit the prosecution, the author
has given himself an impossible task to explain at all convincingly how it
came about that Jesus was after all crucified. H e has to d o what he can with
two lines o f explanation. O n e is the threat, taken from the Fourth Gospel,
'You are not a friend o f Caesar if you let this man go; for he called himself
 The trial o f j e s u s in the Acta Pilati 179

the Son o f G o d and king' ( 9 . 1 ) . T h e other is that Jesus told Pilate that he
was predestined to condemn him. It had been 'given him'; and to Pilate's
question, ' H o w has it been given?', the answer is, 'Moses and the prophets
foretold my death and rising again' ( 4 . 3 ) . In any case, although Pilate has
to c o n d e m n Jesus, the story o f the crucifixion is passed over in a brief
summary o f Luke's narrative and the author hurries on, after first
describing the distress o f Pilate and his wife at what has been done, to the
much longer section o f the book which deals with the resurrection and
ascension.
The Acts begin with the Jewish leaders, for w h o m Annas and Caiaphas
are the chief spokesmen, coming to Pilate and presenting their charges: that
Jesus, the son o f Joseph and Mary, claims to be Son of G o d and king, defiles
the sabbath, and destroys the Law. H e heals on the Sabbath, and exorcises
by sorcery. Pilate, however, ascribes his exorcisms to the power o f
Asclepios, and resists the demand that Jesus be brought to trial by asking
how he, as a governor, can j u d g e a king. Pilate then sends a cursor to bring
Jesus without violence, and on meeting Jesus this messenger removes his
turban and spreads it for Jesus to walk upon, afterwards explaining to
Pilate that he is following the example of those w h o greeted Jesus as 'he that
comes in the name o f the L o r d ' at the entry. Pilate asks the Jews for a
translation o f the Hebrew words which were used on that occasion, and on
hearing their meaning he asks how the messenger can have offended in
repeating in Greek what the crowd had then said in Hebrew. Jesus is
accordingly summoned to the court in royal dignity, and the R o m a n
standards, or rather the images on the standards, miraculously b o w in
reverence as he comes in. This episode, one of the few wholly non-canonical
episodes in the earlier chapters, is drawn out at some length. It serves to
introduce the central theme o f Christ's divinity. Conceivably it may have
been suggested by a reminiscence o f the story o f Pilate introducing R o m a n
standards into Jerusalem (Jos. AJ 18.556"), perhaps combined with Pliny's
account o f Pompey's visit to Posidonius: 'forem percuti de more a lictore
vetuit, et fasces litterarum ianuae summisit is cui se oriens occidensque
summiserat' (NH 7 . 3 0 . 1 1 2 ) . O u r author is not concerned with historical
accuracy here, nor with the fact that, even though the relation of military to
civil authority in the provinces is not always clear, there would have been
no standards, as opposed to the fasces, in Pilate's court. That this is so was
2
made clear by M o m m s e n w h o pointed out, in reply to von Dobschutz's
attempt in the same volume (pp. 8 9 - 1 1 4 ) to claim that the Acts reflect
authentic R o m a n judicial procedure, that on many other points as well,
such as the relation of the bema to the praetorium, the function of the velum, the

2
ZNW 3 (1902), 198-205.
l80 G. W . H. LAM PE

credibility o f a dialogue between witnesses and judge, and many matters

o f procedure, the author shows himself ignorant or confused. T h e story
is a fantasy, but it provides a popular-dramatic prologue to the trial
proper.
T h e incident o f Pilate's wife's dream follows. Here it serves to introduce
the question o f sorcery, for the Jews ascribe the dream to Jesus's magic.
They also bring in the other charges relating to his illegitimate birth, the
destruction o f the Bethlehem children, and the flight to Egypt. T h e first
accusation is repudiated by twelve friendly Jews who, denying that they are
themselves Greek-born proselytes who have turned Christian, affirm that
they are true Jews and that they were present at the espousals of Joseph and
Mary. Pilate then enters into an implausible consultation with these
witnesses, asking why the prosecution want to kill Jesus. T h e reply is
'Jealousy, because he heals on the sabbath', which elicits Pilate's protest
that they should wish to kill Jesus 'for a good work.' H e goes out o f the
praetorium and acquits Jesus, calling Helios to witness. T h e narrative then
follows the Fourth Gospel fairly closely, the Jews pointing out, in answer to
Pilate's 'Take and judge him according to your law', that it is not lawful for
them to put any man to death; but this prohibition is taken to refer to the
Sixth C o m m a n d m e n t , for Pilate replies: 'Has G o d forbidden you to kill and
allowed me?' T h e dialogue concerning Jesus's kingdom and truth proceeds
as in the Johannine story, with some additions, after which Pilate again
acquits Jesus. T h e Jews' response is to introduce at this point the charge o f
claiming to be able to destroy the T e m p l e and build it in three days. T h e
Acts thus bring one o f the charges laid against Jesus at the trial before the
Sanhedrin, according to the synoptists, into this Roman case; they also
suppose that it was Solomon's T e m p l e which took forty-six years to build.
Pilate then declares himself guiltless of the innocent blood and the Jews cry,
'His blood be on us and on our children.' This is an episode which the Acts
are anxious to emphasise strongly, for they repeat it later at the
hand-washing.
Pilate does not pursue the theme o f the Temple. He narrows d o w n the
charges to healing and profaning the Sabbath, and again acquits Jesus; but
now the main charge from the synoptists' Sanhedrin trial is introduced:
blasphemy. Although this is a religious charge its introduction in Pilate's
court is made slightly less implausible by the way in which the Jewish
leaders lead up to it: ' I f a man blasphemes against Caesar, is he worthy o f
death?'; ' I f a man be worthy o f death if he blasphemes against Caesar, this
man has blasphemed against G o d . ' Pilate again tries to hand the case over
to the Jews, but they insist that Jesus must be crucified, because he called
himself the Son o f G o d and king.
T h e Acts supply an obvious deficiency in the New Testament narratives
 T h e trial o f j e s u s in the Acta Pilati 181

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

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

Christ as brigand in ancient

anti-Christian polemic

T h e ancient world described Christ in language also readily associated with

criticism of government. Christian apologists used words such as 'prophet',
'teacher' or 'wonder-worker' to present Christ as a divinely-authenticated
1
philosophical guide. Domitian's expulsion of philosophers and astrologers
from R o m e is simply one instance o f a general recognition that such
teachers might be significant politically. Their followers' terms o f praise
had well-worn pejorative counterparts suggesting deception and subver­
sion. T h e very words which offered the apologists c o m m o n ground with
paganism could therefore facilitate their opponents' depreciation o f
2
Christ's teaching. Justin's teacher and doer o f mighty works, Tertullian's
illuminator and guide of humanity, is Lucian's crucified sophist and Celsus's
3
charlatan and leader of sedition
This polemic claims attention here in so far as it links Jesus with Jewish
nationalism or, in its own terms, with the sedition considered characteristic
4
o f Jewry. Robert Eisler took early antichristiana o f this kind to confirm his
5
own derivation of Christianity from a messianic independence movement.
6
This chapter is devoted to one such pagan criticism singled out by Eisler.

1
For a p o l o g e t i c based o n Christ's predictions see Justin, i Apol. i. 1 2 , Dial, xxxv, li
(ed. J. C . T . O t t o (Jena, 1843) i> ^ 2 : ii, 1 1 8 , 1 6 4 ) , with the title prophet at O r i g e n ,
Contra Celsum ii. 13f ( c p . In Jo. xiii. 54, o n 4 : 4 4 ) G C S , O r i g e n e s 1, p p . 1 4 3 ^ 4, p . 285,
and Eusebius, D.E. ix. 1 1 , PG xxii, 689; for teacher Justin lApol. i. I2f, xxxii, p p . 162,
164, 204, O t t o , Justin ii. 5, and Apollonius x x x v i - x l i in H . Musurillo, The Acts of the
Christian Martyrs ( O x f o r d , 1972), p p . 42, 100, A r n o b i u s , Adversus Nationes i, 63, ii. 11
( C S E L 4, p p . 44, 5 5 Q , Lactantius, Div. Inst. iv. 24f ( C S E L 1 9 , p p . 3 7 1 - 7 ) ; with
wonder-worker (in a defence o f the cursing o f the fig-tree), C h r y s o s t o m , Horn, in Matth.
67: 1, o n 2 1 : 18 (PG 5 8 . 6 3 3 ) . For a p o l o g e t i c o n the miracles, G . W . H . L a m p e and
M . F. W i l e s in C . F. D . M o u l e ( e d . ) , Miracles ( L o n d o n , 1 9 6 5 ) , p p . 2 0 5 - 3 4 .
2
For p o l e m i c against philosophers, magicians and prophets see R . M a c M u l l e n ,
Enemies of the Roman Order ( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , 1967), p p . 4 6 - 1 6 2 .
3
J u s t i n , n. 1 a b o v e and / Apol. x x x , p . 200 O t t o ; Tertullian, Apol. xxi. 7 ( C C L
1, p . 1 2 3 ) ; L u c i a n , Per. xiii ( L o e b Classical Library v , p . 1 4 ) ; O r i g e n , C. Cels. i. 7 1 ,
etc., viii. 14, ( R . Bader, Der A A H 0 H Z AOrOZ desKelsos (Stuttgart-Berlin, 1940),
pp. 62, 197).
4
' N o n cessat gens ilia habens seditiones, et h o m i c i d i a , et latrocinia', O r i g e n , Comm.
in Matth. 1 2 1 , o n 27: i 6 f ( G C S 38, p . 2 5 6 ) ; c p . J.Juster, LesJuifs dans TEmpire Romain
9
(Paris, 1 9 1 4 ) , i, 1 4 7 , n. i and 220, n. 8: ii, 182, n. 2.
S
R . Eisler, I H Z O Y Z B A Z I A E Y Z O Y B A Z I A E Y Z A Z ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1 9 2 9 - 3 0 ) , i,
x i i i - x x x v ( E T The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist ( L o n d o n , 1 9 3 1 ) , p p . 3 - 2 1 ) .
6
E i s l e r , I H Z O Y Z i, xxvf, E T iof; further references in section I I I b e l o w .

183
184 W I L L I A M HORBURY

Cited in Lactantius, DI v. 3, 4 , it attaches to Christ's ministry the

heavily-loaded term of brigandage. Someremarks on the historical context of
this charge (I) may serve to introduce an examination o f the text ( I I ) ,
followed by an estimate o f its significance ( I I I ) .

Assertions about Christ such as this occur in polemic which is anti-Christian,

concerned primarily not with history but with the contemporary church.
T h e Christian secta, like others, might be expected to imitate its founder;
'they worship their crucified sophist and conform their lives to his precepts'
(Lucian, Per. x m ; see p. 1 8 3 , n. 3 ) . T w o facts of Christ's life freely admitted
by Christians proved especially useful to their opponents: his crucifixion
and his gathering o f disciples. Sources ranging from a rabbinic text o f the
tannaitic period to Celsus, an oracle ascribed to Apollo and the
7
anti-Christian Acts of Pilate view the cross as a just punishment. T h e
consequent labelling o f the crucified as a criminal - xaxov JIOICOV,
(3io6avf|g, xaxouQY°S> noxius - was easily transferable to his followers;
8
'they worship what they deserve' (Minucius Felix, Oct. ix. 4 ) . Again, on the
call o f the disciples, Tertullian and Christians in general stress that 'a vast
multitude' turned to Christ, while rabbinic sources see him as, inter alia, the
leader-astray o f whole communities, and for Celsus he is the initiator o f
9
stasis. T h e contemporary force o f these historical claims appears when we
find the church likewise designated factio, and the judicial estimate o f St
Cyprian's episcopal work related as ' Y o u have gathered to yourself many
10
other vicious men in a conspiracy'. Such early non-Christian interpreta­
tions o f Christ's ministry were offered in a period when persecution was
11
c o m m o n p l a c e . It is a paradigm o f the close relationship which could

7
Sarin. 43a; O r i g e n , C. Cels. ii. 5, p . 63 Bader, Kelsos; Porphyry in A u g u s t i n e , Civ. Dei
xix. 23 ( e d . B . D o m b a r t a n d A . K a l b ( L e i p z i g , 1929), ii, 393); Rufinus's version o f
Eusebius, H.E. ix. 6 ( G C S 9.1, p p . 813, 815).
8
F o r the epithets see J o h n 18: 30, Martyrium Cononis iv. 6 ( p . 188 M u s u r i l l o , Martyrs),
Acta SS. Tarachi, Probi et Andronici in T . Ruinart, Acta primorum martyrum sincera et
selecta (2nd e d n . A m s t e r d a m , 1713), p . 442, and M i n u c i u s Felix, Octavius xxix. 2 ( e d .
J. P. W a l t z i n g ( L e i p z i g , 1912), p . 50); for the passage cited in the text see W a l t z i n g ,
Octavius, p . 12.
9
Tertullian, Apol. xxi. 18; ( C C L 1, p . 126); for a 'multitude' o f disciples see already
L u k e 6: 17 (contrast M a t t h e w 4:25, M a r k 3:7). T h e multitude fed with loaves
and fishes are disciples at O r i g e n , C. Cels. ii. 46, iii. 10 ( G C S p p . 168, 210).
F o r J e s u s as leader-astray o f c o m m u n i t i e s see Sanh. 43a; the offence is d e s c r i b e d
in M . Sanh. vii. 10, D e u t . 13: 13-18, E V V . 12-17. Celsus is cited at n. 3, p . 183
above.
1 0
Tertullian, Apol. xxxix. 1 ( C C L 1, p . 150); M i n u c i u s Felix, Octavius viii. 3, p . 10
W a l t z i n g ; Acta . . . Cypriani iv. 1, p . 172 M u s u r i l l o , Martyrs.
11
T h e c h i e f e v i d e n c e for this v i e w is s u m m a r i s e d in K . A l a n d , ' T h e Relation b e t w e e n
 Christ as brigand 185

obtain between assertions about Christ and attacks on the church that the
fabricated Acts of Pilate were circulated to support the persecution under
12
Maximin Daia.
T h e claim that Christ practised brigandage, a further hostile interpreta­
tion o f the gathering of disciples, should therefore be considered in relation
to anti-Christian charges. It specifies Christ's offence unusually. T h e
general term 'evil-doer' was commonly particularised with words like those
already noted applicable to dubious teaching and wonder-working (see
1 3
p. 1 8 4 , n. 8 ) . Here Christ is identified as a violent criminal. That remains
damaging to the church, however brigandage is understood; but, as Eisler
14
did not fail to note and as recent study has amply d o c u m e n t e d , the charge
o f brigandage may o f course in ancient usage amount to that o f sedition.
The innuendo o f sedition readily adhered, as noted above, to
anti-philosophical and anti-Christian charges o f deception and magic. It
already figures alongside deception and magic in the Gospels as an express
allegation ( p p . 4 0 3 - 1 4 in this volume).
Brigandage, however, although it may overlap with sedition in usage,
remains distinct. Stasis in this sense and seditio commonly retain some
reference to faction, lesteia and latrocinium to robber-like activity. Thus in
polemic stasis may be used o f the church's emergence from Jewry (Celsus,
see n. 3 , p. 1 8 3 ) , seen as the revolt and secession o f a new party, while
latrocinium typically denotes brigand-like political violence (so in Cicero o f
15
the Catilinarian c o n s p i r a c y ) , misgovernment (St Leo the Great had many
16
precedents in pagan political satire when he applied it to a church s y n o d ) ,
or misappropriation (as in critiques o f territorial gains in R o m a n or Jewish
17
origins). It accords with this usage when jurists treat pretenders as
brigands (n. 1 4 , above). Josephus touches this range o f meaning, but

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

(120-2).
1 2
Eusebius, H.E. i. 9, i. 1 1 , ix. 5 ( G C S 9.1, p p . 72, 80, 810).
1 3
W . Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (repr.
D a r m s t a d t , 1967), p p . 484^
1 4
R . M a c M u l l e n , ' T h e R o m a n C o n c e p t o f R o b b e r - P r e t e n d e r ' , RIDA 3rd series, 10
(1963), 221-6; M . H e n g e l in O . Betz, K . H a a c k e r a n d M . H e n g e l ( e d s . ) ,
Josephus-Studien ( G o t t i n g e n , 1974), p p . 176f, n. 7.
1 5
C i c e r o , Pro Murena 39 (84) ' h o c Catilinae nefarium l a t r o c i n i u m ' , cited a m o n g other
passages b y I. O p e l t , Die lateinischen Schimpfworter und verwandte sprachliche
Erscheinungen ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1965), p . 132.
1 6
L e o , Ep. x c v . 2 (ACO 2. 4, p . 51); parallels in M a c M u l l e n , RIDA 3rd series 10
(n. 14 a b o v e ) a n d O p e l t , Schimpfworter, p p . 132^ i68f. R e c e n t l y ' M P likens
leadership to thugs', part headline in The Times o f 13 M a r c h 1976, p . 1.
1 7
F o r R o m e parallels to A u g u s t i n e , De Civ. D. iv. 4 (i, p . 150 D o m b a r t - K a l b ) are
c o l l e c t e d b y M a c M u l l e n , Enemies, p . 350, n. 30; for J e w r y see Ber. R . 1. 2 ( e d . A . A .
H a l e v y ( T e l - A v i v , 1956), p . 2) discussed with parallels in W . B a c h e r , ' T h e
S u p p o s e d Inscription u p o n " J o s h u a the R o b b e r " \JQR 3 (1891), 354-7.
186 W I L L I A M HORBURY

remains close to the literal sense o f the word, when he calls rebel-bands
18
lestai.
With this distinction in mind it can be understood that up to the time o f
our citation brigandage is not prominent in anti-Christian charges o f
19
sedition. T h e necessary points o f comparison were not well marked.
Unlike Josephus's rebels or the factions o f the late R o m a n republic,
Christians were not notorious for resort to arms, being indeed well-known
20
for the numbers o f women and children in their churches. Unlike
emperors, imperially-summoned synods at a later date, or pretenders to
power, the third-century church did not exercise what was recognisably
established government or tyranny. Unlike R o m e or Jewry, it had no
territorial claims. It looked to hostile observers like a people scattered
everywhere, comparable with the Jews in atheistic and anti-social
21 22
exclusiveness, or like a network o f secret societies, or like a quarrelsome
23
religio-philosophical party. Words like genus, stasis,/actio, conspiratio suited
these points o f view better than latrocinium.
A n instance in which Christians were accused as brigands shows the
unusual circumstances in which the charge might become plausible. A
b o d y o f Syrian Christians, according to Hippolytus, followed their bishop
into the desert in expectation o f Christ's coming and were in danger o f
being massacred by the governor as brigands and arousing general
24
persecution. It can be inferred that enthusiastic groups, especially where
25
Christianity had penetrated the countryside, might despite discourage­
26
ment from within the c h u r c h sometimes lay themselves open to the charge
o f brigandage by looking like robber-bands. T h e failure o f brigandage to

1 8
F o r the i m p o r t a n c e o f the literal sense in J o s e p h u s see M . Smith, ' Z e a l o t s a n d
Sicarii, T h e i r O r i g i n s a n d Relations', HThR 64 (1971), 1-19 (14); S J . D . C o h e n ,
Josephus in Galilee und Rome ( L e i d e n , 1979), p p . 2 1 1 - 1 4 .
1 9
Its a b s e n c e from Celsus (see p p . i89f b e l o w ) and M i n u c i u s Felix is especially
striking. F o r p o l e m i c o n Christians as p u b l i c enemies see A . H a r n a c k , Der Vorwurf
des Atheismus in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten ( T U 28.4, Leipzig, 1905), p p . 8-15 a n d Die
Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (4th edn. L e i p z i g ,
1924) i, 281-9: E T The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries ( L o n d o n ,
1908) i, 266-78.
2 0
L u c i a n , Per. xii, L o e b Classical L i b r a r y v , p . 12; M i n u c i u s Felix, Octavius viii. 4, p .
11 W a l t z i n g . ; O r i g e n , C. Cels. iii. 55f ( G C S p p . 2501).
2 1
H a r n a c k , Mission i, 28if ( E T i, 266-8).
2 2
Celsus in O r i g e n , C. Cels. i. 1, viii. 17, p p . 39, 198 Bader; M i n u c i u s Felix, Octavius ix.
if, p p . 1 i f W a l t z i n g .
2 3
Celsus, n. 3, p . 183 a b o v e .
2 4
H i p p o l y t u s , In Dan. iv. 18 ( G C S 1, p p . 230-2).
2 5
T h e extent o f rural Christianity at the end o f the third century is estimated b y
H a r n a c k , Mission ii, 948f ( E T ii, 327).
2 6
H i p p o l y t u s , In Dan. iv. 18; Eusebius, H.E. v. 16, 18 (episcopal attempts to restrain
M o n t a n i s m ) , VII. 24 ( D i o n y s i u s o f A l e x a n d r i a rebuts chiliasm in A r s i n o e ) ( G C S
9.1, pp. 459-68, 472-8, 684-90).
 Christ as brigand 187

bulk large in anti-Christian polemic nevertheless indicates that such cases

will have been exceptional.
Brigandage is however mentioned when Christians complain, and their
opponents stress, that Christ and members o f his church have been put to
27
death in a way appropriate to robbers (see, with other examples, Origen,
C. Cels. ii. 4 4 , p. 1 9 0 , n. 5 1 below). T h e tone o f the complaints (p. 1 8 6 , n. 2 6 )
confirms that the point at issue is the moral disgrace implied in such a death
and emphasised in the polemic on the cross discussed above. T h e innuendo
o f sedition may be present, but is unexpressed.
T o assert Christ's brigandage would certainly have contributed to the
general impression that Christians were seditious. J. A . Fabricius c o m ­
pared our passage with Suetonius on the R o m a n Jewish riots impulsore
28
Chresto, understood as a reference to Christians. However Suetonius is to
be interpreted, the comparison identifies the damaging aspersion o f threat
to public order cast by this polemic. O u r passage might even recall,
although the likelihood has not seemed great, an instance o f Christians
being charged with brigandage. Yet in view o f its failure to correspond to
any frequently-attested form o f the anti-Christian charge o f sedition, its
value to the polemist seems likely to have lain principally in its moral
denigration (p. 1 8 4 , n. 8 ) . W e may then compare the eagerly-pressed claim
o f the anti-Montanist writer Apollonius that Alexander the Montanist
martyr had once been convicted not for his faith but as a brigand (lestes) P
30
It is relevant here that the universally-encountered brigand held a sure
place in popular imagination. Robbers are the villains o f the Midrash and
31
the New Testament A p o c r y p h a as well as o f pagan romance. Their
32
resemblances to established government are a standing j o k e and their
33
rivalry with it may win sympathy from those w h o feel oppressed, but they
remain the archetypal evil-doers. W h e n Clement o f Alexandria tells o f a
Christian youth w h o defects to become a brigand-chief, his bishop is made

2 7
Eusebius, H.E. vi. 41 ( m a r t y r d o m o f N e m e s i o n ) ( G C S 9.1, p . 608); Lactantius, DIv.
20, 6 ( S C 204, p . 242).
28
J . A . Fabricius, Salutaris Lux Evangelii ( H a m b u r g , 1731), p . 15811.
2 9
Eusebius, H.E. v. 18 ( G C S 9.1, p p . 474-6).
3 0
T o the rich material in M a c M u l l e n , Enemies, p p . 255-68 a d d the a d o p t i o n oUestes as
a l o a n - w o r d in H e b r e w , A r a m a i c and Syriac: S. P. Brock, ' G r e e k W o r d s in the
Syriac G o s p e l s ' , Le Museon 80 (1967), 389-426 (406).
3 1
S. K r a u s s , Griechen und Romer ( M o n u m e n t a T a l m u d i c a V . i, repr. D a r m s t a d t , 1972),
p p . 161-3, n o s . 383-90; R . S o d e r , Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte
Literatur der Antike (Stuttgart, 1932), p p . i68f.
3 2
Eisler, I H Z O Y Z , i, x x v ( E T 10) and n. 17 a b o v e ; c p . Stith T h o m p s o n , Motif-Index of
Folk-Literature (revised e d n . C o p e n h a g e n , 1955-8), v, 418 U 1 1 . 2 : ' H e w h o steals
m u c h called king; he w h o steals little called r o b b e r . '
3 3
O n Palestine before the First R e v o l t see J o s e p h u s , BJ\\. 253 with A . Schlatter, Die
Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus (Gutersloh, 1932), p . 171.
l88 WILLIAM HORBURY

to say that the young man is 'wicked, abandoned, and more than all, a
34
robber'. For the wicked man and shedder o f blood par excellence o f Ezek.
1 8 : 10, where the Greek versions render parts with words for evil-doer in
general ( L X X has loimos, applied to St Paul at Acts 24: 5 ) , St Jerome keeps
35
the specific latro. In Cena Cypriani, when the biblical characters attend a
36
fancy-dress party, it is Cain w h o comes attired as a brigand.

II

A n anti-Christian work by a writer w h o later helped to implement the

Diocletianic persecution affirmed, according to Lactantius, 'that Christ,
driven out by the Jews, gathered a band o f nine hundred men and
committed acts o f brigandage': 'Christum . . . a Iudaeis fugatum collecta
37
nongentorum hominum manu latrocinia fecisse.'
T h e writer, not named by Lactantius here, is probably to be identified
with Sossianus Hierocles, governor o f Bithynia in 3 0 3 and prefect o f Egypt
3 8
in 3 0 7 . H e led the persecution in both provinces. His work addressed to
the Christians appears like that o f Celsus to have attacked the N e w
Testament both by criticism and - as our passage indicates - by
counter-assertion. Eusebius wrote a reply in which he claimed that, apart
from its comparison o f Christ with Apollonius o f Tyana, the book was
39
entirely derivative. Internal evidence at any rate suggests that the passage
cited by Lactantius here did not originate with Hierocles.
It consists o f three articulated statements: Christ was expelled by the
40
Jews, he gathered his band, he committed acts o f brigandage. T o be
'driven out by the Jews' implies withdrawal by Jesus some time before the

3 4
C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a , Quis Dives Salvetur, xlii. 9 cited in E u s e b i u s , H.E. iii. 23
( G C S 17, p . 189).
3 5
J e r o m e , In Ezechielem vi, o n 18: 10 ( C C L 75, p . 242).
3 6
A . H a r n a c k , Drei wenig beachtete cyprianische Schriften und die 'Acta PaulV ( T U 19.3b,
L e i p z i g , 1899), p p . 5 (dating the w o r k c. 300-600), 12 (text). F o r C a i n as b r i g a n d
c p . J o s e p h u s , AJ i. 61, 66.
3 7
Lactantius, DI v. 3, 4; P. M o n a t , Lactance: Institutions Divines, Livre V, 2 v o l s . , S C
204-5 (Paris, 1973) i, i4of: ii, 44, 50.
3 8
A . H . M . J o n e s , J. R . M a r t i n d a l e a n d J. M o r r i s , The Prosopography of the Later Roman
Empire ( C a m b r i d g e , 1971), p . 432, s u m m a r i s e e v i d e n c e for the identification further
discussed b y M o n a t , Lactance, ii, 44 and T . D . Barnes, ' P o r p h y r y Against the
Christians: D a t e and the A t t r i b u t i o n o f F r a g m e n t s ' , JThSt n.s. 24 (1973), 424-42
(437f, 441). J. Geffcken, Zweigriechische Apologeten ( L e i p z i g a n d Berlin, 1907), p . 291
n., not d i s c u s s e d b y the foregoing, d o u b t s the identification b e c a u s e Eusebius (see
following n o t e ) says that Hierocles admits Christ's miracles a n d calls h i m a m a n o f
G o d ; but p o l e m i c is not always consistent, a n d admission o f the miracles is
regularly allied as in C e l s u s with g r a v e moral charges.
3 9
E u s e b i u s , C. Hieroclem \ (PG X X H . 797).
4 0
Eisler, I H Z O Y Z , i, x x v : E T 10 o b s c u r e s the o r d e r o f events b y a mistranslation.
 Christ as brigand 189

end o f the ministry as a result of opposition from the nation as a whole. Such
collective opposition at an early stage is envisaged at John 5 : 1 6 , 1 8 ( c p . the
opposition from more limited circles at Mark 2 : 6 and parallels).
Withdrawal, at a later stage in the Johannine tradition as we have it, but
4 1
before the end o f the ministry, is described at John 1 1 : 5 4 . Retrojection o f
collective opposition is as natural to the narrator as it is useful to the
polemist. Hostile accounts from that o f the J e w o f Celsus onwards link it
42
with the withdrawal. T h e closest parallel to our statement is in Toledoth
Jeshu where Jesus flees from Israel, represented by the Wise, near the
43
beginning o f his ministry, and gathers a band o f evil disciples. This first
statement in Lactantius is then one instance o f a development o f traditions
which received a different treatment in the Gospels as we now have them.
T h e gathering o f nine hundred stands in contrast with the minimising o f
the disciples' numbers in Celsus (i. 6 2 , 6 5 ; ii. 4 6 ; iii. 1 0 ; p p . 5 8 , 7 6 , 8 6
Bader). It may perhaps have arisen from the early emphasis on large
numbers (p. 1 8 4 , n. 9 ) . This emphasis reappears in Christian sources up
to Hierocles's time, Origen replying to Celsus that there were not merely
44
ten disciples, nor only a hundred, nor only a thousand and Eusebius
45
envisaging many apostles in addition to the twelve and the seventy. In
Jewish tradition large numbers are assumed in one o f the charges against
Jesus formulated in the tannaitic period (n. 9 , p . 1 8 4 ) . Samuel Krauss
compared with our passage the number 3 1 0 or 320, or general references to
46
large numbers, found in descriptions o f the disciples in Toledoth Jeshu.
Here again the statement in Lactantius is a not unparalleled instance o f
development o f tradition attested in the New Testament.
Acts o f brigandage, the theme o f the third statement, are not clearly
4 7
asserted of Christ in earlier polemic as now preserved (cp. p . 186, n. 1 9 ) . It
has however been claimed, in line with Eusebius's judgement of the work in
48
general, that Hierocles simply took over the charge from Celsus. The

4 1
E. B a m m e l , ' E x ilia i t a q u e d i e c o n s i l i u m f e c e r u n t . . . ' , in E. B a m m e l ( e d . ) , The Trial
of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 11-40 (35, 38).
4 2
B a m m e l , in Trial, p p . 30-2.
4 3
P. 191 b e l o w a n d the texts printed in S. K r a u s s , Das Leben Jesu nach judischen Quellen
(Berlin, 1902). p p . 4of, 68f.
^ O r i g e n , C. Cels. ii. 46; c p . iii. 10 ( G C S p p . 168, 210).
4 5
Eusebius, H.E. i, 12 ( G C S 9.1, p . 82).
4 7
^ K r a u s s , Leben Jesu, p . 173. Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 468.
4 8
G . L o e s c h e , ' H a b e n die spateren neuplatonischen Polemiker gegen das Christen-
t h u m d a s W e r k des Celsus b e n u t z t ? ' , Z W T 2 7 (1883), 257-302 (284) finds the g e r m
o f the idea in C. Cels. ii. 12, viii. 14; Geffcken, Apologeten, 291 also pointed to ii. 12;
Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 468 saw it as impossible to identify the source, but referred in a
footnote to C. Cels i. 30, ii. 12 a n d 44, iii. 59. A m o n g the passages cited b y these
scholars, i. 30 ( G C S i, p . 81) is O r i g e n ' s o w n statement that Christ's persuasiveness
was not that o f a tyrant, a r o b b e r , o r a rich m a n ; the others, all from Celsus o r his
source, are s u m m a r i s e d in the three following notes.
190 WILLIAM HORBURY

Alethes Logos in fact appears to preserve Celsus's own view o f Christian

49 50
origins, together with the independent view o f his Jewish source - both
close to our passage in different ways - as well as incidental remarks
51
from both Celsus and the J e w likening Christ or Christians to robbers.
None o f the passages concerned, however, can be said to offer an exact
parallel.
T h a t most closely related to our citations is likely to be i. 6 2 , where the
J e w o f Celsus claims that the disciples were ten or eleven infamous men w h o
got their living by disgraceful and importunate beggary. It belongs to the
same class o f narrative polemic and, like the two statements o f Hierocles
52
already considered, finds a parallel in inner-Jewish tradition. Yet it seems
improbable that Hierocles has himself adapted the text in Celsus. That
would have meant not only changing beggary to robbery, but also
contradicting the argument on numbers to which Celsus clung ( p . 1 8 9
a b o v e ) . It is more likely that Hierocles reproduces an existing variant o f the
J e w o f Celsus's story.
This third statement, based on an existing narrative as it thus appears to
be, nevertheless lacks the degree o f contact with New Testament traditions
noted in the two preceding clauses. It makes both Christ and the disciples
men o f habitual robber-like violence. T h e New Testament shows the
disciples as (to begin with) multitudinous (p. 1 8 4 , n. 9 above, and
M o n a t , Lactance ii, 5 0 ) , ready to use arms for defence at Christ's arrest
(Luke 2 2 : 3 5 - 8 , 4 9 ; J o h n 1 8 : 1 0 ) , expecting an earthly kingdom and
opposed at least in Peter's case to Christ's will to endure (Mark 8: 3 2 , p p .
53
3 9 3 - 4 in this v o l u m e ) . For Christ himself, however, we can only compare
his suffering a robber's death, as is underlined by the Barabbas story
( M o n a t , ii, 5 0 ) and the crucifixion between two robbers or malefactors 'in
the same condemnation', Luke 2 3 : 4 0 (Eisler and Bauer, p . 188, n. 4 0 and
p. 1 8 9 , n. 4 7 ) . T h e narrative o f the two swords, Luke 22: 2 5 - 3 8 (pp. 3 3 5 - 5 1
in this volume), linked with our statement by Eisler, ii, 270: E T p. 3 7 0 , needs

4 9
T h e faction-ridden c h u r c h (iii. 10, 12; viii. 49, p p . 86, 205 B a d e r ) b e g a n from
Christ's stasis against J e w r y (iii. 1, 5; viii. 14, p p . 85, 197 Bader, c p . p . 184 a b o v e ) ;
the few early Christians (iii. 10, p r e s u m a b l y i n c l u d i n g the disciples, see next note)
must then b y inference b e regarded as seditious, but this is not m a d e explicit.
5 0
T h e disciples n u m b e r e d ten o r eleven (i. 62,65; ii. 46, p p . 58, 76 B a d e r ) and lived b y
b e g g i n g (i. 62).
5 1
Christians b e i n g self-confessed sinners are the sort o f p e o p l e a r o b b e r w o u l d call,
Celsus in iii. 59, p . 97 Bader, perhaps d e p e n d e n t o n ii. 12, 44, p p . 65^ 76 B a d e r ,
w h e r e the J e w claims that Jesus d i d not keep his followers' loyalty even as well as a
lestarchos m i g h t have, and that a n y o n e as shameless as the Christians c o u l d assert
that a p u n i s h e d r o b b e r a n d murderer w a s a g o d , because he foretold his sufferings
to his syllestai. For the m o r a l b u r d e n o f this p o l e m i c see p . 187 a b o v e .
5 2
J . J . H u l d r i c u s , Historia Jeschuae Nazareni ( L e i d e n , 1705), p p . 5 1 - 3 .
5 3
C . H . D o d d , Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel ( C a m b r i d g e , 1963), p p . 77-80.
 Christ as brigand 191

drastic exegesis (two swords for each disciple, Eisler, ii, 2 6 8 : E T p . 3 6 9 )

before it gains close resemblance. Christians continue to admit the
disciples' sinfulness (Barn. 8: 9) and the shame o f the cross, and polemists
fasten as seen already on these points (p. 1 8 4 , n. 8 ) . In the fifth-century
55
Altercatio Simonis et Theophili™ as E. Bammel notes, the Jewish debater is
depicted as drawing an implicit comparison between Christ and Absalom
the parricide. Yet apart from our citation surviving polemic does not attach
the charge o f brigandage to Christ or the disciples in the ante-Nicene
period.
For passages o f more marked similarity we must turn, as Eisler and M .
56
Lods both observed, to later Jewish material. Huldrich's text o f Toledoth
Jeshu ( p . 1 9 0 , n. 5 2 ) makes the ministry begin when Jesus kills his father.
Israel refuses to associate with him, 'vain and wanton men', 'violent
men' (parisim), and finally a brigand chief (r'osh beryonim=archilestes)
57
j o i n him, and he flees with 'his men' to the desert. In other text-forms, as
Eisler noted, Jesus's numerous followers (n. 4 6 above) use force against the
Jews, attempts to rescue him during the ministry developing into a war
58
after his death. T h e standard designation o f the disciples in these texts is
parisim, which in biblical Hebrew, as in Jer. 7: 11 ( L X X OJir|Xaiov Xfloxdrv,
cited at Mark 1 1 : 1 7 and parallels), may denote robber, but also comes to
mean ( c p . the Greek versions o f Ezek. 1 8 : 1 0 , p. 1 8 8 above) any violent
transgressor. T h e same word is applied to 'Jesus and his companions' who
encourage Gaius Caesar to impose emperor-worship on the Jews in a story
related to Toledoth Jeshu found in two texts ofjosippon (see pp. 1 9 7 - 2 0 9 in
59
this v o l u m e ) . Dan. 1 1 : 1 4 , where the word is used for ' T h e men o f
violence', is regularly applied to Christians by Jewish writers from Saadia
60
(tenth century) o n w a r d s . Thus used it was no doubt often taken, as by
61
Jefet b . Ali (tenth century), o f breach o f religious law; but its wider

5 4
B. B l u m e n k r a n z , Les auteurs Chretiens latins du moyen age sur lesjuifs et lejudaisme (Paris,
1963), p p . 27-31, n o . 13.
5 5
E. B a m m e l , 'Christus Parricida', VigChr 26 (1972), 259-62.
5 6
Eisler, I H Z O Y Z ii, 253, n. 3 ( E T p p . 363 n. 2, 370 n. 1); M . L o d s , ' E t u d e sur les
sources j u i v e s d e la p o l e m i q u e d e Celse contre les Chretiens', RHPhR 21 (1941),
i - 3 3 (*8f).
5 7
H u l d r i c u s , Historia, p p . 35f.
5 8
Eisler, I H Z O Y 2 ii, 516-18, citing K r a u s s , Leben Jesu, p p . 42, 45, 47, 76f, 82, i2of;
further texts in W . H o r b u r y , ' A Critical E x a m i n a t i o n o f the T o l e d o t h J e s h u ' (Diss.,
C a m b r i d g e , 1970), p p . 188, 192, 195, 242-4, 246f, 291, 295.
5 9
Eisler, I H Z O Y Z i, 498; I. Levi, 'Jesus, C a l i g u l a et C l a u d e d a n s une interpolation
du Y o s i p h o n ' , REJ 91 (193O, i 3 5 " 5 4 ( i 3 9 ) -
6 0
T h e list in J u d a h R o s e n t h a l , Studies and Texts in Jewish History, Literature and Religion
(2 vols., J e r u s a l e m , 1967) i, 204 includes a m o n g others M a i m o n i d e s , Rashi, I b n
Ezra and A b r a v e n e l .
6 1
D . S. M a r g o l i o u t h , A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by Jephet ibn Ali the Karaite
( O x f o r d , 1889), p p . 6if.
192 W I L L I A M HORBURY

62
application is illustrated by Josippon's use o f it for Josephus's lestai.
Latrocinia in the sense o f highway robberies are not specified o f Christ in
these sources; but the disciples use violence during the ministry, although,
at this stage of the narrative, as opposed to that dealing with events after the
crucifixion, the theme is subordinate to the ruling emphases on miracle and
false teaching. These thematically-related passages may be held to
strengthen the likelihood that the source o f Hierocles's third statement is
Jewish.
T h e three statements may now be considered as a unity. T h e y look like a
fragment o f a longer story. A comparable fragment-like series, relating
events from the conception to the first self-predication o f j e s u s , occurs
among the passages ascribed by Celsus to the Jew (ii. 28, p . 5 3 Bader) and is
63
fully paralleled in inner-Jewish sources. Similarly the statements in
Hierocles are only paralleled with the same interconnection in inner-Jewish
64
sources. Recalling other patristic evidence for Jewish accounts o f Christ
we may propose an ultimately Jewish source for this citation. T h e narrative
could then have reached Hierocles directly from a Jew or through a pagan,
and it could have arisen at any time up to shortly before the date of his book.
Its potential in the hands o f a polemist was obviously considerable. T h e
Jews, to whose writings Christians constantly appealed, could be shown to
have lost no time in rejecting Christ's claims. T h e numerous disciples
vaunted by the Christians were engaged in nothing else than brigandage.
As already noted, the charge o f sedition was thus reinforced; and, most
importantly, both Christ and his followers were branded with the mark o f
the most cordially detested class o f violent evil-doers (section I a b o v e ) .
In the context o f the present enquiry the historical value o f the story
especially concerns us. T h e first two items in the narrative may be
considered as hostile interpretations o f traditions which also entered the
Gospels (notably J o h n 1 1 : 5 4 , Luke 6: 1 7 , see p . 1 8 9 above). Brigandage,
the third item, whether taken as robbery or insurrection, by contrast
necessarily implies habitual acts of violence on the part ofjesus. It thereby
conflicts with the range o f New Testament traditions on his character. T h e
Pauline epistles already presuppose a portrait o f the earthly Christ with
which this implication would be wholly inconsistent. Appeals to the
self-abnegation and gentleness of Christ such as those o f R o m . 1 5 : 3, 1 C o r .
10: 3 3 to 1 1 : 1, 2 C o r . 10: 1, even if they allude to the condescension o f the
nativity as well as to the ministry, would have been stultified, as C . K .

6 2
G . D . C o h e n , 77?* Book of Tradition by Abraham Ibn Daud ( L o n d o n , 1969), p . x x x i x .
6 3
L o d s , RHPhR 21 (1941), 3if.
6 4
E.g. H . L . Strack,y«t/j, die Hdretiker und die Christen nach den dltesten judischen Angaben
( L e i p z i g , 1910), p p . 8*-i 1*, 14*; B . B l u m e n k r a n z , DieJudenpredigt Augustins (repr.
Paris, 1973), p p . 87f.
 Christ as brigand 193

Barrett points out, had it been known that the life o f Jesus differed in
65
character from what the Gospels now depict.
This discord with the range o f New Testament evidence, then, makes it
probable that we have here later invention, perhaps in a development, out
o f contact with Christian tradition, of the tale of beggary cited by the Jew of
Celsus (i. 6 2 ) . T h e crime o f the crucified has been made to fit his
66
punishment.

Ill
67
For Eisler Hierocles stood pre-eminent among ancient non-Christian
witnesses to Christ, Josephus o f course excepted. Eisler linked our passage
with the charge o f magic in Celsus and Lucian, and with Celsus's phrase
leader of sedition (p. 1 8 3 , n. 3 and p . 190, n. 4 9 ) , as typifying the pagan
estimate of Jesus. He valued our passage especially, however, because he
took it as a clear exposition o f the R o m a n view of Jesus as a rebel, and the
best commentary on Pilate's titulus.
Eisler took latrocinia here in the legal sense o f high treason. He pointed
out that for the jurists (p. 1 8 5 , n. 1 4 ) a pretender is latronum dux, his
adherents latrones. Elsewhere in his book he gathered modern instances
o f the same nomenclature, including contemporary newspaper reports o f
68
the Nicaraguan independence movement. H e thrice suggested in passing
that the passage illuminated other aspects o f the ministry. Thus he thinks,
as noted already (p. 1 8 3 above), that armed disciples would have been
called sicarii by Josephus, just as Hierocles terms them robbers. Indeed,
Christ's several hundred followers begging their way must have been called
latrones, their importunity being comparable with that o f mediaeval 'sturdy
69
beggars'. Lastly, he sees general agreement between our citation and the
report in Slavonic Josephus that a hundred and fifty helpers and a
70
multitude o f the people joined Jesus on the Mount o f Olives. In this
instance Eisler's mistranslation (p. 188, n. 4 0 ) , that Jesus 'was defeatedby the
Jews when he had been committing robberies', may by wrongly referring our
passage to the arrest have caused him to see a greater resemblance between

6 5
C . K . Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians ( L o n d o n , 1973),
p . 246, o n 10: 1. F o r Paul's c o n c e r n with the character o f the earthly Jesus see G . N .
Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, S N T S M o n o g r a p h s 27
( C a m b r i d g e , 1974), p p . 99-110. C p G . M . Styler, a b o v e p . 105.
6 6
P. 187 and p . 190, n. 51, and B a m m e l in Trial, p . 165.
6 7
Eisler, I H Z O Y Z , i, xxvi: his w o r d s o n the i m p o r t a n c e o f this passage are omitted in
E T p . 11.
6 8
I b i d , i, 194, n. 3 (this section omitted in E T ) .
69
E i s l e r , I H Z O Y Z , ii, 253^ n. 3 ( E T p . 363 (lacking the m e d i a e v a l a n a l o g y ) ) .
7 0
I b i d , ii, 440, n. 51, omitted in E T p . 457.
194 WILLIAM HORBURY

the two texts than really obtains. His rendering does not, however,
seriously affect the argument for his main contention, that the passage
rightly expounds Jesus's offence under R o m a n law. While Jews saw Christ
as a leader-astray, for pagans, Eisler claimed (over-estimating the
distinctiveness o f their polemic), he was a magician, an instigator o f
rebellion, and a leader o f robber bands. This pagan interpretation,
especially as exemplified in our passage, closely approximated in Eisler's
view to a true estimate o f Jesus's ministry.
Eisler's keen eye for whatever might support his theory rightly discerned
that this passage deserves attention. It is his merit to have shown that, so far
71
from being a wholly isolated absurdity, it has links with the c o m m o n
anti-Christian charge o f sedition and with the sketch of the disciples as men
o f violence in Toledoth Jeshu. O u r present study o f the passage in the same
context o f pagan and Jewish polemic has suggested that it is older than
Hierocles, forming in all probability a fragment o f an originally Jewish
narrative o f Christ's life taken up, like the stories o f the J e w o f Celsus, by a
pagan polemist. Y e t is has also seemed probable, in contrast with Eisler's
view, that as polemic the passage aims more directly at moral denigration
than the charge o f sedition, and that as historical assertion it rests in its
most important detail, latrociniafecisse, on hostile invention. Its significance
for the historian lies rather in its interconnected but fragmentary character,
suggesting the existence o f a fuller story and confirming that narrative
polemic on Jesus, comparable with that current in later Jewish-Christian
debate, must be reckoned with in any account o f contacts between Jews,
pagans and Christians in the ante-Nicene period.
T h e N e w Testament evidence on the questions raised by our passage is
examined elsewhere in this volume. Within the limits o f the present study
we may note one final consideration arising from the material under review.
Early anti-Christian polemic as preserved to us in respect o f the life ofjesus
concentrates to a marked degree on teaching and wonder-working. So
already where the N e w Testament records corroborative evidence for the
charge 'king o f the Jews' it refers to what an opponent would have called
charlatanry or deception rather than brigandage, y o T ] T £ i a or an&zr] rather
72
than X r ] O t e i a . Luke 2 3 : 2 , 5 , 1 4 speak of teaching such as might raise

7 1
S o for e x a m p l e P. d e Labriolle, La Reaction paienne (Paris, 1942), p . 310.
7 2
F o r the distinction see J o s e p h u s , BJ ii. 254-64, w h e r e the sicarii, 'another kind o f
Xnoxai' (254), differ from ' a n o t h e r b o d y o f villains, with purer hands but m o r e
i m p i o u s intentions' (258) w h o pretend to inspiration but are JiXdvoi. . . av6Q0)Jioi
w t n t n
x a i ajiaxearveg (259); 261-3 deal * e Egyptian false p r o p h e t {yor\<;, 261); a n d
finally YOrrres a n d XTJOTQLXOL b a n d together (264). ( T h i s passage is misleadingly
said to e q u a t e the t w o , in E. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in the Time ofJesus
Christ, as revised b y G . V e r m e s and F. M i l l a r (2 vols, to date, E d i n b u r g h 1973—9) i,
462, n. 29; but they are justly distinguished with reference to BJ vi. 286, ibid, ii, 6o5f
 Christ as brigand 195

73
sedition, in John 1 1 : ^{miracles are specified; in John 1 9 : 7 the accusers
bidden to support their charge, point to teaching in breach o f the Torah.
These are simply negative views o f the activities identified in Luke 2 4 : 19 as
prophetic deed and word. Despite the innuendo o f subversion in polemic on
these points (p. 1 8 3 , n. 2) and the recurrent charge o f sedition (p. 1 8 4 and
nn. 9 and 1 0 ) , polemical accounts o f Christs's life continue to depict
him as a false prophet rather than a bandit. W . Bauer's collection o f
material shows that, even allowing for possible loss, our passage is
74
exceptional.
There are instances, as we have seen, where polemical narratives o f
Christ seem to depend ultimately on traditions incorporated into the New
Testament rather than the New Testament writings themselves. It is the
more striking that pagan and Jew, no less than Christian, appear to have
proceeded from data on the life of Christ in which practices definable as the
sorcery and deceit o f a false prophet predominated over activity which
could be straightforwardly identified as insurrection.

( b y C . T . R . H a y w a r d ) . ) T h e m e n o f violence are likewise linked but contrasted

with teachers a n d w o n d e r - w o r k e r s at the parallel AJ. x x . 167 (the distinction is
o v e r l o o k e d b y Eisler, I H Z O Y Z i, 5i2f ( E T ( a b b r e v i a t e d ) p . 110)): i d u£v ofrv T(bv
h[\ox(bv egya defiled the city, 01 6e yor\Te<; x o t cuiaxewveg p e r s u a d e d the p e o p l e .
O n y6r\$ as the pejorative equivalent o f nQoyr\zr\<; (n. 3 a b o v e ) see E. Fascher,
flPO&HTHZ (Giessen, 1927), p p . 207f; for yoT]xeia as primarily referring to
self-proclamation, anaxr\ to its effect E. B a m m e l in B e t z - H a a c k e r - H e n g e l ( e d s . ) ,
Josepkus-Studien, p . 13 a n d n. 34.
7 3
T h a t this l a n g u a g e w a s p r o b a b l y taken b y the evangelist to signify a political
c h a r g e , but m a y in fact preserve a trace o f an accusation u n d e r J e w i s h law, is
suggested b y D o d d , Historical Tradition, p . 117 n. 1, p . 217 n. 2.
7 4
Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 468.
 E. BAMMEL

Jesus as a political agent in a version of

the Josippon

T h e restoration o f Augustus meant a return to the ancestral religion in its

1
different forms. Non-compliance with this, impietaslaoepEia, tended to be
2
equated with odium humani generis, to be viewed as xoivf) vooog. Whereas
this was an accusation the Jews just managed to ward off, the charge
haunted the Christians all the more. Without the privileged position o f a
religio licita, without an established claim of being an ancestral religion and
o f presenting time-honoured truths, they were almost defenceless against
the pressure o f the Zeitgeist and open to politico-juridical suspicion.
T h e situation was made even more difficult by the fact that there existed
an inclination on the side o f the Jews to direct the rising anti-Semitism in
3
the R o m a n administration against those who had split off from the main
b o d y o f Judaism. Paul already encountered this tendency in Corinth (Acts
1 8 : 1 2 ) . Josephus positions his description ofjesus ominously close to that
o f certain detestable Jewish charlatans and describes his followers as men
4
w h o proceeded from bad to worse. Still, it took some time for the pagan
observers to make themselves familiar with Christianity.
Suetonius knows from hearsay that the Jews o f R o m e , instigated by a
certain Chrestus (impulsore Chresto), were causing continual disturbances
(assidue tumultuantes) and had to be expelled from the metropolis in the time
5
o f Claudius. There is nothing in this report that indicates Christian
ambitions directed against the government, if indeed it is true that
Christians had played an active role in the clashes referred to by the Roman
historian. Still, the incident shows that strife within an ethnic group could

1
For the sentiment o f the time c p . J. Leipoldt, Der soziale Gedanke in der altchristlichen
Kirche ( L e i p z i g , 1952), p p . 9ff, 203. T h i s b e c a m e constitutive for the following
centuries. S y m i m c h u s , the s p o k e s m a n for the mos majorum in fourth-century R o m e ,
gives expression to the same thing w h e n he says: ' w e pray for p e a c e to the ancestral
g o d s ; for they all . . . m e a n the s a m e ' (Relatio iii. 10; O . Seeck = M o n u m e n t a
G e r m a n i a e Historica. A u c t o r e s Antiquissimi 6 (Berlin, 1883).
2
T h e term is used in C l a u d i u s ' s letter to the Alexandrians and interpreted b y S.
L o s c h , Epistula Claudiana ( R o t t e n b u r g , 1930).
3
C p . W . H . C . Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church ( O x f o r d , 1965), p p .
i54f, i58f and especially i64f. T h i s point is over-emphasised b y P. Styger, Juden und
Christen im alten Rom (Berlin, 1934).
4
C p . Josephus-Studien. Festschrift 0. Michel (Gottingen, 1974), p p . 15fT.
5
C l a u d i u s 25.

197
198 E. BAMMEL

be taken as sufficient reason for enacting administrative measures

summarily.
While the Christians themselves are not referred to directly by Suetonius,
6
it is different with his contemporary Tacitus. He agrees fully with those
7
who found the Christians propelled by odium generis humani while
indicating some reserve vis-a-vis the accusation raised against them o f
having set fire to the city o f R o m e . That means that although he disclaims
8 9
any actual political crimes, he recognises an evil disposition in the
10
mentality o f the Christians and he views them as potentially dangerous.
11
T h e reaction o f the administration should be guided by the utilitas publica
rather than by any other considerations. It must, however, be added that
the Christians are viewed as being as contemptible as every form o f Eastern
12
and especially Jewish cult, and that their objectionableness is even
deduced from the Judaean origin and outlandish character o f their
movement.
Celsus sees exactly the same impulse in Judaism. T h e Jews decamped
from Egypt like slaves running away from their master. Instigated by the
13
YOTjieia o f M o s e s they broke with the religion which they had there, yet
everything o f any value in Jewish religion is derived from the Egyptians.
T h e principle underlying this criticism is clearly regard for the traditional
religion as venerable in its various manifestations and worthy o f protection

6
Ann. x v . 44. T h e short reference had been taken to b e the only surviving part o f a
large section in the Annates in w h i c h T a c i t u s describes Christ as a revolutionary, and
w h i c h was mutilated b y a Christian scribe for that reason ( M . J o e l , Blicke in die
Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des zweiten christlichen Jahrhunderts (Breslau, 1883) ii, 96Q.
F o r criticism c p . C . F. A r n o l d , Die neronische Christenverfolgung ( L e i p z i g , 1888), p p .
28fT. G . A . M u l l e r , Pontius Pilatus (Stuttgart, 1888), p p . 28ff.
7
F o r an interpretation o f the phrase, c p . H . Fuchs, ' T a c i t u s iiber die Christen',
VigChr 4 (1950), 84ff; H . H o m m e l , ' T a c i t u s iiber die Christen', Theologia Viatorum 3
(1951), igff; J . B . Bauer, ' T a c i t u s und die ersten Christen', Gymnasium 64 (1957),
56if.
8
T h e matter w o u l d b e different, if R . v . d . A i m ' s interpretation ' w e g e n g a n z neuer
V o r k o m m n i s s e Strafe verdienten (novissima e x e m p l a m e r i t o s ) ' c o u l d b e substanti­
ated {Die Urtheile heidnischer und judischer Schriftsteller der ersten vier Jahrhunderte iiber
Jesus und die ersten Christen, Leipzig, 1864, p . 14). T h i s is, h o w e v e r , hardly the
case.
9
T a c i t u s characterises the religion as a ' m a l u m ' , taking up thereby an established
t e r m i n o l o g y ( v o o o g , v6oK]\xa, X o i u o g , pestis), w h i c h had been used o n c e and again
against J u d a i s m already; c p . L o s c h , Epistula, p p . 14, 23^.
1 0
C p . R . F r e u d e n b e r g e r , Das Verhalten der romischen Behdrden gegen die Christen im 2.
Jahrhundert ( M i i n c h e n , 1967), p p . i8ofT.
11
F r e u d e n b e r g e r , Verhalten, p p . 184!!. It is in keeping with this that Pliny desists
from taking the initiative against the Christians and that he only p r o c e e d s to action
if Christians have been d e n o u n c e d b y other citizens, while taking into consideration
the general situation in his p r o v i n c e .
1 2
T a c i t u s , Hist. v. 5.1: adversus omnes alios, hostile odium.
1 3
O r i g e n , C. Cels. v. 41.
 Jesus as a political agent 199

14
by state and society. T h e Jews deserted this ancestral religion, they are
15
veo)T£QOi and, even worse, they attempt to make others abandon their
own religion and adopt Judaism.
Seen in this way, Christianity is a potential danger to an intensified
16
degree. Derived from Judaism by a similar revolutionary process, it
turned itself against it; it is the product o f an infinita revolutio. And indeed,
the principle that governed Jewish as well as Christian history is still
]1
effective. Jesus is called oxdoECog aQXY\yETK\c; - perhaps in a playful
1 8
allusion to Acts 1 5 : 3 1 - but his disciples are worse than he was. A n d the
fact that the Christians split among themselves is the supreme example o f
19
their character and serves as a demonstration for the 'Gesetz, nach dem
sie angetreten.'
Admittedly the Christians say that their G o d is the G o d o f Moses. If one
looks closer, however, it is by no means apparent whose law is taken as
valid, that o f Moses or that ofjesus. Celsus points to the difference between
20
the precepts o f the t w o . T h e discussion is not an academic one, if one
recalls that Judaism was a religio licita, whereas Christianity was not, if it
could not identify itself as Judaism. Therefore the reproach o f d0e6lT)5, o f
sacrilegium, which, because o f its constitutional position, one could raise
against Judaism only in a modified way, falls on Christianity with
undiminished weight. T h e man who venerates no ancestral gods has no
21
gods, he is godless, he regards nothing as holy. Therefore Christianity
lacks all respectability.

14
T h u s the teaching w h i c h Celsus sets against Christianity is not his o w n invention
but rather the s u m o f what was universally recognised, the w i s d o m o f all p e o p l e . H e
calls it xoivog vouog (i. 1) and ctQ/atog ^dyog (i. 14) or, emphatically taking u p a
term w h i c h is often used b y Plato, dXr]6f|g Xoyog.
15
C. Cels. iii. 5.
1 6
For the details o f Celsus's view o n the revolutionary character o f both J u d a i s m and
Christianity c p . A . Wifstrand, Die wahre Lehre des Kelsos ( L u n d , 1942), p p . 13!!.
17
viii. 14; c p . iii. 7, 13, 14. In ii. 44 he speaks o f the possibility that s o m e o n e w h o is a
A.r|aTrjg o r dvdQOcpovog m a y c l a i m with similar i m p u d e n c e that he is a g o d . T h i s
makes it likely that oxdoecog dQXT|Y£TT)g is not used in its literal meaning. T h e
e q u a t i o n Jesus = X,T|OTT]g was taken u p and given a different slant b y a polemicist
w h o s e w o r k is attacked b y Lactantius (Mort. Pers. v . 2.121). H e is very often but not
universally ( c p . the reservations m a d e by J. Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten
( L e i p z i g , 1907), p . 291) identified with Hierocles.
1 8
T h e m e a n i n g , h o w e v e r , is different. In A c t s the intention is to emphasise the
position o f j e s u s , whereas Celsus, while stating that the ordoig o f the Christians
had its starting point in Jesus, directs his displeasure a n d horror wholly against
those w h o had followed h i m .
19
C. Cels. ii. 12. A similar term is used in the A c t s o f the A l e x a n d r i a n anti-Semitic
martyrs: A p p i a n calls the e m p e r o r Xfloxaoxog (Acta Appiani iv. 8; W . A . M u s u r i l l o ,
The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs ( O x f o r d , 1954), p . 67).
2 0
vii. 18. Is Acts 24: 14 where the claim is m a d e that the Christians serve the
J i d t Q C p o g 0e6g to b e taken as an answer against like accusations?
2 1
E p h . 2: 12 is, perhaps, the first Christian answer to this r e p r o a c h . C p . A . v.
200 E. BAMMEL

And indeed, Jesus appeared on the scene yesterday or the day before
22
yesterday. This only confirms that there is no ancient tradition in
Christianity. T h e dominical saying that one cannot serve two masters is a
23
qpa)vf| OT&oecDc; and this impression is given weight by individual features
such as the rejection o f the oath. T h e claim that Jesus and the Christians
came from the lowest levels o f society and direct themselves to these levels
belongs to this context. T h e welcome given to sinners shows that the
Christians have no law and no discipline and justifies the inference that
2 4
they themselves are x a x o i j Q Y O i . His disciples are heaped with all
imaginable scorn - they are characterised as members o f despicable
professions, as stupid and without any integrity - but revolutionary
behaviour in the strict sense o f the word is not ascribed to them. Their
behaviour towards their master was worse than what is c o m m o n in a
Y a s
society o f robbers, who would not have deserted their Xr|OTdQX l?)
25
Jesus's disciples d i d . Their activity resulted in a number o f factions. It is
rather the disposition o f the Christians than any specific action that makes
26
their religion a source o f danger to society.
Z x a o i & ^ e i v ngbq T O x o i v o v is the key phrase of Celsus's characterisation
27
of the Christians. H e thereby combines two different points raised against
them: (a) their turning away from the XoiJioL av0QCOJioi 2 8
and (b) their
29
inclination to res novae. If they had had their roots in one o f the
time-honoured and accepted religions, they would not have been attracted
to a secluded form of life. If they had felt their responsibility for the c o m m o n

H a r n a c k , Der Vorwurf des Atheismus in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten, T U 28 (1905);

Tertullian Ad Nat. 1.10 (divortium ab institutis majorum); Lactantius, Mort. Pers. 34
(relinquere sectam parentum).
2 2
ii. 4; vi. 10.
2 3
iv. 23. T h e term o x d o i g plays already a role in the p h i l o s o p h y o f Plato ( c p . G . M . A .
a n
G r u b e , Plato's Thought ( L o n d o n , 1935), p p . 129-49) d o f Platonism ( c p . J. D i l l o n ,
The Middle Platonists ( L o n d o n , 1977), p p . 368f). T h e m e a n i n g is h o w e v e r different.
24
iii. 44ff.
2 5
C. Cels. ii. 12; ii. 59.
2 6
C p . W . Nestle, ' D i e H a u p t e i n w a n d e des antiken Denkens gegen das Christentum',
ARW 37 (1941/2), 70, gof, 97; ' Z u r altchristlichen A p o l o g e t i k i m N . T . ' , ZRGG
4(1952), I20f.
2 7
v . 25. Sedition is, o f c o u r s e , a t h e m e that was very m u c h in the m i n d o f the
A l e x a n d r i a n s . J o s e p h u s defends his o w n nation (that means those residing in
E g y p t ) against the accusation o f seditio (C. Apion ii. 68). A g r i p p a II praises the
E g y p t i a n J e w s for not having let themselves b e enticed b y the djiooxdoewg
X E V T Q O V o f Alexandria (BJ ii. 385). H e thereby accuses the Greeks o f Alexandria o f
inclination to o r d o i g .
2 8
viii. 8; c p . L i b a n i u s , Oratio 30. T h i s put the Christian apologists in a difficult
position. S o m e o f t h e m - A r i s t i d e s , D i o g n e t u s , Bardesanes (Patrologia Syriaca, e d . F.
N a u , ii (Paris, 1907), 607; 550-3) - still boasted the newness o f the Christian
religion, whereas others - Justin, T h e o p h i l u s , T a t i a n - shied a w a y from this a n d
e m p h a s i s e d the antiquity o f Christianity.
2 9
T h e Christians are called vecoxegoi b y L i b a n i u s , Oratio 30.
 Jesus as a political agent 201

welfare, they would not be tempted to look ahead to a complete change o f

things. T h e phrase is thus rather the Platonic philosopher's general
conclusion and an admonitory exclamation than a reference to events
initiated or performed by the Christian community.
Even the charge that the Christians are opposed to all civil authority - a
30
c o m m o n p l a c e in the polemical literature - points to inertia, reluctance or
31 32
refusal to carry out public duties, rather than to specific actions directed
against the government or its representatives. Celsus's position over
against Christianity is reasoned and based on a scheme which is more fully
developed than that o f Tacitus.
T h e polemicist magnifies tendencies, he warns against potential dangers.
W h a t he fastens on are dispositions rather than actions. It is moral
stigmatisation that is intended by Celsus's calumnious picture o f Christian
principles. It is an appeal to reconsider their position rather than a direct
accusation that is in his mind. This does not rule out the possibility that the
argument could have practical consequences in a time o f high tension.
Indeed, this was the reason why Origen felt it necessary to refute him in the
time o f the persecutor Decius.
Jewish tradition presents a variant o f this scheme. T h e connection
between Judaism and Christianity is crystallised in the person ofjesus. H e
33
is described as a prophet w h o became a pseudo-prophet, or as a teacher
34
w h o taught strange teachings. These characterisations, however, c o m e to
be replaced by another: he was the pupil o f a rabbi. Since he was only this
he was unable to teach any teaching: anyone w h o teaches a teaching in the
35
presence o f his master is worthy o f death. A n d it was more than doubtful
whether he was in a position to utter prophetic pronouncements. Any
deviation from the traditional teaching was nothing but disobedience
towards those w h o taught him. It is for this reason that the narratives about
his behaviour vis-a-vis his teachers stress rather the impudence, the lack o f

3 0
C. Cels. viii. 55, 65, 67; Ps. L u c i a n , Philopatris 25.26; c p . b e l o w p p . 37if.
3 1
F o r an interpretation o f inertia, an accusation m e n t i o n e d b y Suetonius in his
a c c o u n t o n T . Flav. C l e m e n s (Dom. 15.1), c p . W . P o h l m a n n , ' D i e heidnische,
j i i d i s c h e u n d christliche O p p o s i t i o n gegen D o m i t i a n ' (Diss. Erlangen, 1967), 380°.
3 2
T h e o x d o i g o f the Christians consists in his v i e w in their refusal to take part in the
munera a n d the (bcpeXeia they gain therby for themselves (iii. 14). Tertullian, o n
the o t h e r h a n d , emphasises that the Christians d o not take part in the revolutionary
activities o f the d a y : ' n u m q u a m A l b i a n i , n e c Nigrini vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt
Christiani' (Ad Scap. 2).
3 3
T h e identification with Bileam serves this p u r p o s e .
3 4
A l t h o u g h not entitled to d o s o .
3 5
T h e teaching o f a teaching in the presence o f a master, as it is s u p p o s e d to have
h a p p e n e d in the case o f j e s u s (Strassburg version, c h . 2; S. K r a u s s , Das Leben Jesu
nach judischen Quellen (Berlin, 1902), p . 39; V i e n n a version, c h . 4; K r a u s s , p . 68) is eo
ipso n o t o n l y an act o f irreverence but o f insurrection against the tradition w h i c h was
ordained by G o d .
202 E. BAMMEL

respect on the side o f Jesus than the teaching o f abominable statements. It

seemed inadvisable to reproduce Jesus's teachings and it was more
serviceable to point to the underlying defects ofJesus's character and - this
is the supreme Jewish argument - to a background and surroundings which
explain everything in him.
T h e only allusion to his teaching is the claim that he intended to abrogate
36
the L a w , and the conclusion is spelled out that he rebelled against the
3 7 38
great G o d , against the great G o d o f heaven. T h e Jewish polemicists
occasionally give expression to this by using an opprobrious name for Jesus
3 9
like tfttH . T h e most far-reaching o f these terms is p = son o f
revolution, which is interpreted in the context by reference to his
promulgating a new Torah; that means that it is used as a way o f
pin-pointing Jesus's departure from the document o f the covenant. T h e
other term which is capable o f political interpretation is p i D . It is,
however, significant that the term is normally used when the strife between
40
Jews and Christians is pictured. This fight is a standing feature in the
accounts o f the events after the crucifixion and in some versions is said to
41
have taken place already during the lifetime of Jesus. While O ^ I B is
the normal term in these descriptions, a term used to denote the breach
between Judaism and the new movement, it is not frequently employed in
relation to the fellowship o f Jesus. VttttK is the standard expression in the
42
Huldreich version o f the T o l e d o t h , while O ^ n s is used only once when
the disciples are listed. Most surprisingly, however, it is not Jesus who is the

3 6
T h e A r a m a i c text p u b l i s h e d b y G i n z b e r g o n l y implies that 'Jesus the w i c k e d ' had
intended to m a k e vain the T o r a h and the L a w and the C o m m a n d m e n t s ( S c h e c h t e r
M e m o r i a l v o l u m e ii, 328 M s l b l . i o ) , while it enlarges o n the reaction w h i c h
all Israel rose to e n g a g e in. T h e H u l d r e i c h text (J.J. Huldreich,
nsian VW> /vn^in I D D Historia Jeschuae Nazareni ( L e i d e n , 1705), p . 43) states
bluntly that Jesus commanded ( ) that the L a w be abolished
( minn m buib)-
3 7
G i n z b e r g text 2a, line 24.
3 8
G i n z b e r g text 2b, line 6.
3 9
J . D . Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim ( N e w Y o r k , 1915), p p . 215a, line 28f.
4 0
T h e H u l d r e i c h version a d o p t s o n the w h o l e the s a m e style ( p p . 59, 96f, 125!), while
in a few p l a c e s (100, 122) D'sns refers to relatives o f Jesus.
4 1
W a g e n s e i l (Tela ignea, Altorf, 1681), p . 16; V i e n n a text ( K r a u s s , p . 76); Y e m e n i t e
text ( K r a u s s , p . 120). O b v i o u s l y motifs o f the post-Easter stories had been inserted
into the J e s u s story o n a s e c o n d a r y level. T h e claim o f Hierocles - see p . 199 - is
neither a narriscker Einfall ( G . L o s c h e , ' H a b e n die spateren neuplatonischen
P o l e m i k e r g e g e n das C h r i s t e n t h u m das W e r k des Celsus benutzt?', ZWT 27
(1883), 284; c p . Geffcken, Apologeten p . 291: 'das Historchen v o n Christus d e m
R a u b e r ' ) n o r his ureigene Erfindung ( H . Kellner, Hellenismus und Christenthum ( K o l n ,
1866), p . 222) but d e d u c e d from stories o f this kind. T h e s e T o l e d o t h passages were
referred to recently b y H . J . Schonfield (Jesus, L o n d o n , 1939; 2nd edn. 1948, p . 254),
taken as historical e v i d e n c e that points to a revolutionary activity o f the disciples o f
J e s u s carried o u t with the intention to set free the already i m p r i s o n e d Jesus.
4 2
T h e J o s i p p o n interpolation uses the phrase VIP").
 Jesus as a political agent 203

'head o f the insurgents' (•'•snOT « m ) but John the Baptist. Another 43

text, the addition to Josippon, gives the impression that the 0*»2n& had
c o m e into existence almost independently from Jesus; it uses the formula
'the O ^ I D and Jesus' and lists the latter only once as a f together
with two other D ^ I Q w h o are executed at the same time. It emerges that
D^viD i the majority o f cases depicts the turning away from Judaism by
n

establishing new laws etc. It is equally capable of indicating a violent clash

which happened in consequence o f this. T h e term, as it is mainly used,
carries a meaning not very different from D'Hft'HPB.
T h e reluctance to apply the term to Jesus is all the more significant as the
Wagenseil version starts by characterising Jesus's putative father as a
warrior (nBrf?B 11331) and as someone w h o engaged in robberies and
44
licentiousness.
T h e case ofjesus is treated as a domestic affair in the Jewish references.
T h e offence he gave and the verdict passed on him are described in Jewish
terminology, and equally the authority that had to deal with him is taken to
be the normal Jewish court. This is almost an ubiquitous feature in Jewish
sources. But there are also subsidiary factors worth mentioning. Ulla
45
explains the long time gap between the verdict and the execution o f j e s u s ,
a time which made it possible to call for mitigating circumstances by
reference to Jesus's connections with the government (rYDVfc) implying
that these connections made it desirable for the court to proceed with the
utmost care and to allow for as many interventions as possible. T h e general
picture is the same: it was entirely a Jewish matter, but the case is justified
vis-a-vis the non-Jewish world. T h e remark may be taken as the defence
against assertions to the contrary, claims which are likely to have circulated
already at the beginning o f the Constantinian era.
O n the other hand, in one branch o f the Jewish lives o f j e s u s , mainly in
the Aramaic tradition, a direct involvement o f the Romans is claimed. A
confrontation between the rabbis on the one side and Jesus and John on the
other takes place before Caesar. As the result is not in Jesus's favour the
Jews are permitted to take Jesus and John and to proceed with them
according to their law. That means, the checking of the evidence takes place
before the judgement is passed. T h e emperor, as a neutral witness, is
viewed as involved in the fact-finding process, but the judgement and
46
execution are still in the hands o f the J e w s . Tiberius (and Pilate) are
peripheral persons.

4 3 4 4
H u l d r e i c h , p . 36. 0»m ( W a g e n s e i l p . 3).
4 5
Sanh. 43a. C p . p . 360 n. 52.
4 6
T h e texts were edited b y L . G i n z b e r g , Ginze Schechter i ( N e w Y o r k , 1928), 324fTand
c o r r e c t e d b y W . H o r b u r y , Festschrift C.F.D. Moule (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1971), p p .
1 i6ff. T h e report o f A g o b a r d , b a s e d o n a type o f T o l e d o t h not dissimilar to this,
204 E. BAMMEL

T h e matter is different in a story which is found in two manuscripts o f the

47 48
Josippon, although it is not o f a piece with that chronicle. A n encounter
between Jesus and Caesar dominates the central section o f the story. It is,
however, not the accused or already condemned Jesus w h o is met by the
emperor and given a chance to redeem himself, but a Jesus who is a
commanding figure and eager to establish an influence on his counterpart.
4 9
Pretending to be a messenger o f G o d he hails Caesar - his name is Gaius -
as G o d o n earth ( ] H * D " T V ^ K ) and advises him to erect altars to himself as
to a g o d . T h e story goes on with the account o f the likeness o f the emperor
being sent to Jerusalem and the resistance o f the Jews against giving it a
place in the holy city. Herod sends an embassy to R o m e - the names o f the
rabbis w h o act as emissaries are given - but without any success. Gaius
decides to destroy the country o f the Jews and he is supported by 'the
50
impudent ones ( D ^ I B ) and Jesus and many o f our nation'. T h e Jews
hold a fast and implore G o d ' s intervention. Gaius is killed as a result o f this
- cut to pieces which are eaten by the dogs - and Claudius, who had
intervened on behalf o f the Jews already during his predecessor's rule,

speaks actually o f T i b e r i u s ' s verdict (Tiberiijudicio in carcerem retrursum), but it is not

clear whether this includes the c o n d e m n a t i o n to death because o f magical activity
w h i c h is m e n t i o n e d subsequently. It m a y b e that the s u m m a r y o f A g o b a r d is not
c o r r e c t in every respect ( c p . S. K r a u s s , Das Leben Jesu nach judischen Quellen (Berlin,
1902), p . 6).
4 7
A critical edition o f the passage was presented b y I. Levi, 'Jesus, C a l i g u l a et
C l a u d e ' , REJ 91 (1931), iff. A n e w edition was undertaken b y A . A . N e u m a n , ' A
N o t e o n J o h n the Baptist and Jesus in J o s i p p o n ' , HUCA 23 2 (1950-1), i37ff; the
interpretation the author offers is w i d e o f the mark. T h e text was studied b y R .
Eisler, Jesous Basileus ( H e i d e l b e r g 1930/1), passim (Eisler's thesis is s u m m a r i s e d b y
S. G . F. B r a n d o n , The Fall of Jerusalem (2nd edn. L o n d o n , 1957), p p . 12if), a n d b y
W . H o r b u r y , ' A Critical E x a m i n a t i o n o f the T o l e d o t h J e s h u ' ( u n p u b l i s h e d thesis,
C a m b r i d g e , 1971), i34ff. T h e story is not as u n i q u e as was assumed b y Eisler. T h e
H u l d r e i c h version o f the T o l e d o t h contains the narrative a b o u t the attempt o f the
inhabitants o f A i , i.e. the Christians, to put u p a statue o f j e s u s a n d M i r j a m in a w a y
w h i c h offended the J e w s and especially the son o f king H e r o d , a n d tells h o w the king
o b j e c t e d to it and issued a warning to the Christians, that these Christians
a p p r o a c h e d the e m p e r o r and asked for his support and that they had to s u b m i t to
the J e w s and b u r n the statue b e c a u s e they had been d e n i e d the help they had c r a v e d
( Z u r i c h , 1705, p . 122). T h e similarity is o b v i o u s . Different, h o w e v e r , are t w o points.
T h e event is s u p p o s e d to h a v e taken place in the period o f the early c o m m u n i t y . T h e
effigy is that o f j e s u s and his mother, w h i c h means the initial c o n n e c t i o n with the
R o m a n sphere is lacking. Both destruction and replacement are features o f a
s e c o n d a r y d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e story is a kind o f a p p e n d i x to the H u l d r e i c h text. It
m u s t have r e m a i n e d in circulation and arrived eventually in a distorted a n d
d e v e l o p e d form in the milieu where the H u l d r e i c h version h a p p e n e d to b e
compiled.
4 8
T h e J o s i p p o n a c c o u n t displays o n the w h o l e an anti-Herodian tendency ( c p . Eisler,
Basileus i, 48of), while it is different here: H e r o d is pictured as a stern defender o f
Judaism.
4 9 5 0
">7ibit E d . Levi, p . 140, 1.1 if.
 Jesus as a political agent 205

rehabilitates the members o f the Jewish embassy who had been sent away
in disgrace by Gaius. H e gave the Perizim into their hands, took three o f
them w h o had fled, killed them and gave their corpses to the dogs in order to
exclude the possibility that their wandering followers should steal them at
51
night.
T h e backbone o f the story is the incident at the time o f Caligula known
from Philo and Josephus. It is narrated in a way which includes Jesus and
makes him the dominant figure behind the external pattern o f historical
events. Consequently it is upon his own and his companions' downfall that
the interest is focussed.
Caligula's Casarenwahnsinn is explained (and in some ways excused) by
the claim that he acted at the instigation ofjesus. It is said o f the latter that
he had advised Gaius against Herod and that he was responsible for the
emperor's decision to destroy the holy land. Jesus appears as a political
activist whose whole ambition is geared to actions detrimental to the Jewish
nation. His sly machinations to this end are dominant, while his intention
52
to alter the interpretation o f the l a w is only an incidental feature without
53
any consequences in the story.
T h e picture that emerges o f his activity is the following: utmost
submissiveness to the emperor, ruler-worship in its most outrageous form is
not Caligula's own invention but almost forced upon him from outside, by
Jesus. Equally the abhorrent suggestion to erect altars for him, for example
in Jerusalem. It is probably the view o f the narrator that Jesus made his
(false) claim and put the idea into the head of Caligula in order to provoke
the Jews who had no choice but to resist. Caligula's decision 'to destroy the
holy land' is a reaction o f stupidity possibly again instigated by Jesus. T h e
emperor's death by an act o f G o d brings Jesus's machinations to a quick
end. H e is, it seems, executed in the capital. T h e activity takes place in
R o m e but it is geared to Palestine, where those live w h o m he persecutes
with his hatred.
This account is framed by another in which the 'impudent ones' play the
main role. T h e y are made to appear before the court o f the judges o f the
Jews. T h e y appeal to the R o m a n overlords - the account speaks o f E d o m
while the main section refers directly to R o m e - and claim that they are
tried because they had revolted against 'their law' and adopted Caesar's

5 1
T h e execution is understood as having taken place in R o m e . T h u s , the m o t i f k n o w n
from the Mart. Petri ( ' R o m a m v e n i o iterum crucifigi'; Lipsius-Bonnet, Acta Apost.
Apocr. i. iff) appears here in a very different f o r m .
5 2
Plural formulation in the text.
5 3
H e acts together with a w h o l e b a n d o f followers in the capital as well as in Palestine.
T h i s is the basic difference from the Petersburg text published b y A . H a r k a v y
(Hebraische Bibliographic x v (Berlin, 1875), P-
206 E. BAMMEL

law. T h e y did so successfully. T h e Romans gave them protection when they

swore by the life o f Caesar. At the end we are informed that Joshua and his
companions - the members o f the Jewish embassy - had returned to
Jerusalem and brought the rest o f the Perizim before the Sanhedrin. Judas
Iskariot enquires on the orders o f the king which verdict is appropriate for
those w h o had advised the emperor against him. He actually hangs them on
the tree. In consequence o f this others are stoned. But the action is carried
out only with partial success. It is not possible to wipe out the Perizim
because they act in secrecy. T h e rest continue to exist and even convert
many to follow them in secret.
Beginning and end are not entirely o f a piece: the protecting Romans
have disappeared, while the motif that the Christians hold on by means o f
acting secretly is introduced. T h e basic story o f the ups and downs o f the
Christian community is, however, the same. T h e link with the middle
section consists mainly in the introductory remark according to which
Jesus and his companions' went to see the emperor. In the story Jesus
appears almost single-handed. N o reference is made to the Jewish threat
and the R o m a n protection. This suffices to show that the framework and
central portion are entities which did not belong together originally.
T h e framework is constructed out o f elements each of which is paralleled
54
in the Hebrew T o l e d o t h . T h e central part o f the story is interlarded with
features mainly reminiscent o f the Aramaic part o f the Toledoth. T h e
names o f the Jewish messengers, Jesus's claim o f divine sonship, the
intention attributed to him to alter the interpretation o f the law, the fast o f
the Jews for three days, the motif o f the hindrance o f childbirth, the fear o f
the improper use o f the corpses of the executed ones - all this is paralleled in
the Toledoth, although the individual elements are sometimes given a slant
55
different from the one they have in these texts. O n the other hand,
Caligula's name appears surprisingly at the end o f the Aramaic Toledoth
56
text published by G i n z b e r g and this very name seems to figure slightly
57
disguised in the Hebrew text o f Strassburg, which stands somewhat apart
from the rest of the Hebrew part and displays Aramaic features. This shows

5 4
It is this b r a n c h w h i c h takes an interest in the Christian c o m m u n i t y and its relation
to J u d a i s m .
5 5
E.g. Jesus is a messenger o f G o d in o r d e r to p r o c l a i m Gaius g o d o n earth.
5 6
Page 2b, line 3: ]i»an oia'Vpi "icp Oianatt a c c o r d i n g to W . H o r b u r y , ' T h e Trial
o f Jesus in J e w i s h T r a d i t i o n ' in The Trial of Jesus, Festschrift C . F. D . M o u l e ,
L o n d o n , 1970, p . 120. C a l i g u l a a p p e a r s here, together with Pilate, as an official o f
T i b e r i u s . In this w a y t w o traditions are c o m b i n e d .
5 7
T h e Strassburg M S m e n t i o n s , besides »o VDON NTim , a s e c o n d person w h o
b e c a m e instrumental in the tracing and c a t c h i n g o f j e s u s : NO^ ( K r a u s s , Leben
Jesu, p . 44). T h e term signifies a c o m p o s i t e p e r s o n : elements o f J u d a s , w h o very
often is given the b y n a m e HW'l , seem to b e m i x e d with ova (the n a m e s are often
rendered with A r a m a i c endings in this text; c p . K r a u s s , p . 49).
 Jesus as a political agent 207

that a cross-fertilisation must have taken place, a fact which makes it

impossible to dismiss the two texts as fanciful products o f an ingenious
58
mind o f a time as late as the renaissance period. T h e varying provenance,
extent and degree o f the influence give an indication o f different strata.
If one concentrates on the central piece the temptation has arisen to think
59
o f a replacement o f Apion by J e s u s carried out by a scribe with whimsical
inclinations. Certainly the influence, direct or indirect, o f the accounts by
Philo and Josephus o f the Jewish embassies sent to R o m e is noticeable,
although - this must be emphasised - the main point that someone else had
instigated Gaius to send his statue to Jerusalem is absent from both Philo
and Josephus. But there is more to be said. Already Irenaeus expresses the
opinion that Jesus was crucified when he was in his forties and he dates this
event expressis verbis as having taken place under Claudius; he refers for this
60
to the view taken by the elders o f A s i a . T w o fragments, one from Milan
and another from Padua, even give A . D . 4 6 as the date o f the crucifixion.
A b o v e all Pilate's letter to Claudius points in the same direction. Is there a
connection? In all the sources apart from Victorinus o f Pettau which favour
the view that Jesus died at an advanced age, that view is linked with the
6 1
synchronism o f Luke 3: 2 ; that means, it occurs in an already mutilated
form. It is likely originally to have existed independently and to have been
more widespread. T h e references we possess point to the East as the region
62
o f origin, from which it spread to the West. It cannot be ruled out that,
somewhere on this route, this view o f the dates ofjesus was picked up by a
63
Jewish controversialist.
Claudius was famed as an upholder o f good old R o m a n tradition, and
likewise he was recommended by Josephus as one keen to give due honour
to the Jews. T o link such a person with the execution ofjesus was certainly
a construction which was inviting for a Jew. It was equally inviting to view
Jesus's activity as having taken place in collaboration with Caligula who

5 8
T h u s N e u m a n , HUCA 23 2 (1950/1), i48f.
5 9
T h u s Levi p . 150.
6 0
Haer. 2.22.For a treatment o f the question c p . E . v o n D o b s c h i i t z , Das Kerygma
Petri ( L e i p z i g , 1894), p p . 136f; W . Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der
neutestamentlichen Apokryphen ( T u b i n g e n , 1909), p p . 292ff; A . Strobel, Ursprung und
Geschichte des jruhchristlichen Osterkalenders (Berlin, 1977), p p . 281 ff.
6 1
Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 295.
6 2
For Irenaeus c p . n. 60. V i c t o r i n u s d e p e n d s o n A l e x a n d e r o f J e r u s a l e m .
Justin, w h o m a y have shared the v i e w {Dial. 88; c p . Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 293), was
himself a native o f Palestine.
6 3
T h e v i e w taken in t h e j o s i p p o n passage c o r r e s p o n d s especially to that o f the 'very
o l d ' ( B a u e r 293) interpolation in the Daniel c o m m e n t a r y o f H i p p o l y t u s (iv. 23.3),
a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h Jesus died in the first year o f C l a u d i u s . T h e Christian claim o f
an aetas perfecta - an idea w h i c h influenced Justin and Irenaeus - m a y have been
partly b r o u g h t a b o u t b y the J e w i s h accusation that p e o p l e like Bileam (an alias for
Jesus) will not see the half o f their days.
208 E. BAMMEL

belongs to the category of evil princes, as even eulogistic historiography was

very ready to admit. Jesus's association with him meant justification o f the
condemnation pronounced by his successor. Still, the association is
described in such a way that the main guilt is on the side o f j e s u s rather
than the emperor.
T h e Christians are called O^IB and this appellation is applied once
to Jesus as well, and to the two w h o are executed together with him. Still,
their rebellious mind is presupposed rather than made explicit. Their
rejection o f the T o r a h did not lead to anarchism but, on the contrary, to an
eager embracing o f the law o f Caesar. N o attempt is made to picture Jesus
and his followers as a conspiracy after the model of Catiline. T h e desertion
o f the ancestral law led o f necessity to utmost submissiveness vis-a-vis the
emperor. Still he was seen through by Claudius whose function it was to
represent the true R o m a n tradition. By this means the story reconciles two
motifs: Jesus on the side o f the government and Jesus acting against the
government. T h e one is his pretence, the other expresses the real state o f
affairs. H e did indeed, as the Aramaic Toledoth put it, act 'against G o d and
64
king'.
T h e story is in fact the Jewish reply to the Christian claim that it was only
the bad Caesars w h o turned against Christianity, and that they only did so
65
because they had been exposed to the influence o f wicked advisers.
T h e dramatis personae utilised in the story are different from those in the
talmudic accounts; they direct the reader's mind to the world outside
Judaism. So d o certain details. O n e is led to suspect that it may have played
a role in the Jewish-Christian controversy. T h e features are not without
parallels. T h e Aramaic Toledoth, which are extant in an abbreviated form
redacted for h o m e consumption, derive from a probably Greek Vorlage,
which has striking similarities with the anti-Christian Acts o f Pilate which
66
circulated in the time o f Maxentius. These Acts were likely to have been
influenced by the Jewish accounts. T h e Christian Acts o f Pilate reflect the
67
judicial machinery o f the time around A . D . 3 0 0 . T h e y are to be seen as an
answer to the Acts o f the time o f Maxentius and they d o indeed refute
68
details o f the Jewish accounts. T h e Acta Silvestri and similar accounts
direct themselves to the same task. T h e parallels show that the Jewish
picture o f the life ofjesus had been an issue in the ancient world for quite a
time.
6 4
G i n z b e r g , fo. i b line 26. T h e s a m e phrase is used in the S l a v o n i c J o s e p h u s ( c p .
Eisler Basileus ii, 454).
6 5
M e l i t o a c c o r d i n g to Eusebius, H.E. 4.26.7-11.
6 6
E u s e b i u s , H.E. 1.11.9.
6 7
E . v. D o b s c h i i t z , ' D e r Prozess J e s u n a c h d e n A c t a Pilati', ZNW 3 (1902), 89flf.
C p . a b o v e , p p . 173fT.
6 8
C p . W . L e v i s o n , Aus rheinischer und frankischer Fruhzeit (Diisseldorf, 1948).
 Jesus as a political agent 209

T h e assumption that the central section o f the narrative, in its original

form at least, found its shape in this period and atmosphere gives it a Sitz im
Leben which is more plausible than any other hypothesis. Certain individual
features may lend a measure o f support to this suggestion: Fourth-century
R o m a n historiography was well aware that Caligula belonged to the
69
number of evil princes. T h e contorniates, the medallions issued in order to
70
spread propaganda for the R o m a n tradition and against Christianity, give
special attention to scenes connected with the circus and were possibly
71
distributed amongst the audience at the beginning o f a s h o w . A narrative
that enlarges on Caligula's end in the circus must have been greeted with
interest in this world. T h e c o m m a n d o f the emperor to worship his statue,
while otherwise protecting the Jewish religion ('your feasts and your
72
Sabbaths - keep t h e m ' ) , presupposes a state o f affairs in which the Jews
enjoyed guaranteed religious freedom. Such a guarantee was given in the
form o f an exemption from emperor worship in the otherwise notorious
73
decree o f Diocletian. T h e consequences o f this licence are noticeable in the
politics and legislation o f the following generations.
Taken this way the little story is not without interest. It shows how
Judaism liked to explain Christian origins to the non-Jewish world, when it
was completely at liberty to d o so. Branded as Jesus is, he is portrayed as
74
the evil genius o f an emperor, as, so to speak, a negative Josephus. His and
his followers' revolt against the T o r a h is presupposed but no attempt is
made to shift this to a political level and to denounce the Christians as
revolutionaries in the strict sense o f the word.

6 9
T h e portrait o f C a l i g u l a in the e p i t o m e to Origo Gentis Romanae is entirely negative
(Epit. 3.4; 5 a n d 7): c p . J. S c h l u m b e r g e r , Die Epitome de Caesaribus ( M i i n c h e n , 1974).
T h e s a m e is true o f the sketch in the Historia A u g u s t a ; c p . J. Straub, Heidnische
Geschichtsapologetik in der christlichen Spdtantike ( B o n n , 1963), p . 131, n. 7.
7 0
A . A l f o l d i , Die Kontorniat-Medaillons i (Berlin, 1976). C p . J . W y t z e s , Der letzte Kampf
des Heidentums in Rom ( L e i d e n , 1976).
7 1
C p . J . M . C . T o y n b e e , JRS (1945), n s f f (review o f A . Alfoldi, Die Kontorniaten
( B u d a p e s t , 1943))-
7 2
T h e p r o v i s i o n is a stock feature in those T o l e d o t h w h i c h deal with the early c h u r c h
as well. It is there that the a d v i c e to give freedom to the J e w s to exercise their o w n
w o r s h i p is put into the m o u t h o f Peter, indicating a different situation, in w h i c h the
v o i c e o f the c h u r c h rather than that o f the political authorities b e c a m e to b e o f
crucial i m p o r t a n c e .
7 3
F o r the e x e m p t i o n o f the J e w s c p . J. Juster, LesJuifsen Empire Romain i (Paris, 1914),
247 n. 1.
7 4
D . D a u b e , Josephus ( M i i n c h e n , 1978).
 E. BAMMEL

The Feeding of the Multitude

T h e Feeding o f the Multitude is represented in no less than five different

places within the tradition o f the canonical Gospels, as well as in a variety o f
1
forms in that o f apocryphal sources. This is a surprising state o f affairs in
Gospel tradition and, especially as two versions are to be found in one and
the same Gospel, it hints at a bifurcation o f the traditions concerning the
Feeding already at a pre-literary stage.
It is this fact that makes it a priori unlikely that a simple solution can be
advanced, or that a reduction o f the reports to one or two versions would be
2
possible in this case. Mark 8 cannot simply be styled as a doublet o f Mark
3
6 , nor can Matthew 1 4 and Luke 9 just be considered as reformulations o f
Mark 6, let alone John 6 be viewed as an offshoot o f the Markan account.
T h e differences are too marked to allow acquiescence in the kind of solution
which has proved advisable in many other cases.
T h e Markan account is part of a pre-Markan composition, as the parallel
in chapter 8 shows. T h e Feeding is followed there by the journey over the
lake (verses 1 3 - 2 1 ) , the Pharisaic demand for a sign from heaven (verses
1 if) and, finally, a healing story (verses 2 2 - 6 ) . All these elements are
present in chapters 6 and 7 as well. Lake stories are reproduced in 6: 4 5 - 5 2
4
( 5 6 ) , the Pharisees appear in 7: iff, a healing is narrated in 7: 3 1 - 7 . The
scheme is the same, with the single exception that the items in 8: 1 1 - 2 1 are
interchanged. T h e scheme is preserved in its integrity in the second
composition, whereas different material came to be included in the first
5
o n e . T h e existence o f the parallel formations shows that the Feeding story

1
A collection o f this material is to b e found in E. Stauffer, 'Antike Jesustradition und
J e s u s p o l e m i k i m mittelalterlichen O r i e n t ' , ZNW 46 (1955), iff.
2
A different v i e w is taken b y I. Buse, T h e G o s p e l a c c o u n t s o f the F e e d i n g o f the
Multitudes', ExpT4. (1962/63), i67ff.
3
N o r is it possible to take the tradition a b o u t t w o feedings as original b e c a u s e it is
a n a l o g o u s to the Elijah story (thus W . Erbt, Das Markusevangelium ( L e i p z i g , 1911),
p . 32).
4
T h e similarity b e t w e e n the t w o healing stories - and this is especially true for the
first part - is striking.
5
It is likely that 7: i f f j u s t indicates the h e a d i n g o f the p r e - M a r k a n c o m p o s i t i o n
whereas the actual p o i n t o f c o n t r o v e r s y w a s c h a n g e d w h e n the formation c a m e to b e
i n c l u d e d in the G o s p e l . F o r the latest investigation o f the M a r k a n version c p . R . M .
F o w l e r , Loaves and Fishes ( C h i c a g o , 1978).

21 I
212 E. BAMMEL

cannot be viewed in isolation but receives its interpretation in part from its
6
context.
T h e Markan account is introduced by a section which speaks (a) o f a
gathering or return o f the &JIOOTOX.OI to Jesus; (b) o f his suggestion that
they should withdraw and rest for a time away from the crowds; and (c) the
claim that the crowds counteracted this by assembling in the place o f the
multiplication o f the loaves. This is too much for the purposes o f an
introduction. Furthermore it does not hold together. T h e reason given for
the withdrawal into solitude (in verse 31 b) is all the more strange in that the
disciples are supposed to have c o m e back from a period o f public activity.
Verse 3 3 defeats the purpose o f verse 3 1 and is a most artificial bridge
between the introduction and the feeding story. This means that what we
find here is not just a filler, designed to link two pericopes, but rather a
conglomeration o f different material which was combined not entirely
successfully. A redactional level is indicated by the term djtoaToA.05 which
7
is foreign to the b o d y o f the gospel and the use o f which is intended to
establish a link with 6: 7, where however the term 5co5exa is used.
Something similar is the case with verse 3 1 b p (ovbk qpayetv e u x a i Q O i r v ) . It
is an attempt to establish a bridge to the following pericope and thereby
8
points to a similarly late level. T h e matter is different in 3 1 a P (deuxe . . .
9
T O J I O V ) . It is a piece of advice given to others, which is interpreted in verse
32 as referring to a joint undertaking. It is this remark which seems to be the
10
membrum archaeum o f the tradition.
W h o were the original recipients o f the advice? It seems that the
redactional addition o f imooxdkoi has distorted the original context. T h e
advice appears to be given to men w h o d o not normally stay with Jesus. T h e

6
T h i s w a s n o t e d in a general w a y b y M . G o g u e l , La vie de Jesus (Paris, 1932; G T
Z u r i c h , 1934, p . 230; E T L o n d o n , 1933, p . 359).
7
E v e n in 3: 14 the term seems to b e s e c o n d a r y . It is not u n i m p o r t a n t to see that
M a t t h e w uses a less stylised formulation at this p o i n t than L u k e , for w h o m the
identification o f (xaS^xai and djiooroXoi is characteristic ( c p . 6:13; 17:5; 22:14).
T h e redactional touches seem to h a v e been a d d e d to the M a r k a n g o s p e l in m o r e
than o n e stage. It is not at all i m p o s s i b l e that 6: 30 w a s formulated with k n o w l e d g e
o f Luke.
8
A l m o s t the s a m e formulation is g i v e n in 3: 20, in a passage w h i c h s h o w s the marks o f
redactional activity as well. W . Erbt, o n the other hand, maintains that the w h o l e o f
verse 31 is redactional (Markusevangelium, p . 29).
9
T h e m e a n i n g o f 6et3xe b e c a m e w e a k e n e d in Hellenistic Greek. Is it the r e m a i n d e r o f
a fuller formulation (6evxe dyete)?
1 0
T h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n that the vision o f Ezek. 34 p l a y e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e role in the
s h a p i n g o f the Feeding scene and the fact that d v a J i a t 3 e o 6 a i is already used in that
c h a p t e r (verse 14) gives s u p p o r t to the v i e w that dvcuiaveoOai b e l o n g s to the
original stock in verse 31 as well. O f course not in the present form (6X,iyov!),
b u t p e r h a p s in a w o r d i n g a n a l o g o u s to that o f M a t t . 11:29 ( e t J Q T J o e x e
dvdjiavoiv).
 T h e Feeding o f the Multitude 213

counsel has to be given to them expressis verbis: their following is not the
normal way o f life of those w h o are accustomed to accompany their master.
It is therefore likely to be advice given to a group o f men who are not
identical with the Twelve.
sin
A narrower identification o f this body is given in the reading o f sy ,
11
according to which the disciples (sicl) had c o m e and told Jesus what 'he'
had done and taught. This is in all probability John the Baptist, and
thereby the disciples are defined as his followers. T h e reading is, however,
so close to Matt. 1 4 : 12 that it is difficult to consider it as genuine within the
12
Markan context. T h e state o f the Markan passage is such that it must be
assumed that the original opening, which gave details about the arrival and
the intentions of the men addressed by Jesus, was detached. Jesus's answer
is likely to have contained a redirection o f some kind o f those w h o are
13
spoken to. T h e original account is likely to have continued with a remark
14
that Jesus himself follows in the same direction subsequently. The
supposed original wording was worked over in order to obliterate any
15
notion o f flight.
O n e of the characteristic features o f the Markan report on the Feeding is
16
3 4 a : EorikayxvioQ*] xxX. It is a surprising statement in the light o f verses
3 0 b , 3 1 b , and even 3 3 ; but it is very likely if taken together with the
reconstructed beginning o f the scene; the puzzled few on the one side, the
helpless crowds on the other. T h e citation from Ezek. 3 4 , which is not likely
17
to have been added at a later stage, underlines this motif.
This is especially true for the Matthaean and Lukan parallels to the
Markan account. T h e y contain a number of agreements over against Mark:

11
T h e heritage o f the reading is still noticeable in D ; and A . M e r x (Die vier
kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem altesten bekannten Texte (Berlin, 1897), p p . 242f;
Matthaeus (Berlin, 1902), p . 233) c o m e s out in favour o f the genuineness o f the
reading.
1 2
T h i s d o e s not rule o u t the possibility that it was inserted in the k n o w l e d g e o f oral
tradition, as indeed Syriac Christianity knew m o r e o f the Baptist than w a s taken u p
b y the authors o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t ( c p . NTSt 18 (1971/72), 119ft).
1 3
S u c h a p r o c e d u r e in stages is typical o f Z (John 7: 3ff; 11:3ft).
1 4
A s is the case in c h a p t e r 6:45ff.
1 5
T h e r e d a c t o r rather g a v e the impression o f a success story: verses 30, 31b, taken
together with 7b, 13 lead o n e to e x p e c t a c r o w d w h i c h is eager and d e v o t e d to Jesus.
O f seminal i m p o r t a n c e is an o b s e r v a t i o n o f W e l l h a u s e n : the original s e q u e n c e ('der
ursprungliche P r a g m a t i s m u s ' ) , a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h H e r o d h a d caused the flight o f
J e s u s across the lake, had b e e n destroyed b y M a r k (Einleitung in die drei ersten
Evangelien (2nd e d n . (Berlin, 1911), p . 48). T h e o p p o s i t e v i e w is taken b y E. M e y e r ,
Ursprung undAnfdnge des Christentums i (Stuttgart, 1921), 137. C p . M a r k 9: 33, where
the reference to C a p e r n a u m is at variance with 9: 30 and results in the obliteration
o f the impression o f a flight o f j e s u s .
1 6
E. H i r s c h , Fruhgeschichte des Evangeliums i (2nd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1951), 76, h o w e v e r ,
considers it as addition o f M a r k I I .
1 7
E. S c h w a r t z , Aporien im vierten Evangelium iv, N G G G (1908), 498.
214 E. BAMMEL

18 1 9
Matt. 1 4 : 1 3 d v e x c b Q T i a e v / L u k e 9 : 1 0 i>Jiex(0Qr|O£v, oi o x ^ o i instead o f
Markan JTOXX.01 (Matt. 1 4 : 1 3 , 1 5 , 1 9 ; Luke 9: n , 1 2 , 1 6 ) . A reference to the
20
boat voyage ( M a r k 6: 3 2 ) is lacking in both Gospels. O n the other hand
they both emphasise Jesus's healing activity, while they omit the contents
2 1
of M a r k 6: 3 4 b . T h e reference to the five loaves and two fishes (Matt.
1 4 : 1 7 b , Luke 9: 1 3 ) comes from the disciples o f their own accord and is
introduced by OVK exo^ev/etoiv r\\iiv. Both Gospels speak of T O
JieQiaoeOov (-oav) at the end o f the account and both reports too place
(boei in front o f the calculation o f those present at the occasion (Matt.
1 4 : 2 1 , Luke 9: 1 4 ) . T h e agreements over against Mark are such that the
22
influence of a second source apart from Mark must be taken for granted. It
is very likely that certain features which occur only in one o f the two
23
accounts derive also from this same source. This result is all the more
important as the influx o f a second source is already noticeable in the first
24
half of Matthew's account of the beheading o f the Baptist, a narration the
25
end o f which too is completely at variance with M a r k and which -
different again from Mark - runs directly into the beginning o f the story o f
the Feeding o f the Multitude.
It is reasonable to take these features as deriving from one entity, which

18
T h e evangelist himself a d d e d a g e o g r a p h i c a l location w h i c h is s o m e w h a t at
v a r i a n c e with the v e r b .
1 9
M a t t h e w presents the plural formulations, while L u k e gives the singular twice,
p r o b a b l y for stylistic reasons. C p . J. S c h m i d , Matthaus und Lukas (Freiburg, 1930),
p . 117 - *OxA.O£ is a Q w o r d , as appears from L u k e 3: 7; 7:24; 9:1 if, 16.
2 0 sc
In M a t t h e w 14:13 a c c o r d i n g to the reading o f T s y , w h i c h is to b e preferred here.
2 1
Is this a p o s t - M a r k a n addition?
2 2
Similarly H . H e l m b o l d , Vorsynoptische Evangelien (Stuttgart, 1953), p p . 33ff.
23
drto&eldfievog (Luke 9:11), PaoiAeia as the object o f teaching ( n ) , the
s u b s e q u e n t description o f the location as e o n u o g tdjiog (12; is verse 10b n o t any
longer in its original state?), the a b s e n c e o f the 200 denarii, the c h a n g e from 6x^.05
totaxdg (13), the addition o f avxovg to e ^ d y i i o e v (16), the n u m b e r o f those present
in verse 14 already - these details have to b e taken into consideration.
2 4
It is a passage w h e r e the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between M a r k a n d M a t t h e w is less
m a r k e d than in m o s t p e r i c o p e s (see G . Styler in C . F. D . M o u l e , The Birth of the New
Testament ( L o n d o n , 1962), p . 229; W . B u s s m a n n , Synoptische Studien i ( H a l l e , 1925),
81 f). T h i s is especially the case in verses 3 to 5 and verse 12, whereas the intervening
verses s h o w a M a r k a n influence (especially verse 9 A.UJiT)0Eig; c p . M a r k 6:26). It is
reasonable to s u p p o s e that the M a t t h a e a n a c c o u n t is a c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f a special
s o u r c e with the M a r k a n description. T h e M a r k a n report itself poses a p r o b l e m . Its
style d o e s not agree with that o f the first half o f the G o s p e l (see L . W o h l e b ,
' B e o b a c h t u n g e n z u m Erzahlungsstil des M a r k u s e v a n g e l i u m s ' , (1928), 192;
c p . M . Z e r w i c k , Untersuchungen zum Markusstil ( R o m e , 1937), p . 22). T h e p e r i c o p e
b e l o n g s to the redactional level o f the G o s p e l .
2 5
W e l l h a u s e n ' s criticism o f M a t t . 14: 12, that he a c c o m m o d a t e d M a r k to his o w n
design and turned the s e q u e n c e o f p e r i c o p e s into c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r (Das
Evangelium Matthaei (Berlin, 1904), p . 75; similarly Fr. Spitta, Die synoptische
Grundschrift ( L e i p z i g , 1912), p . 217), w o u l d have to be subscribed to, were it not that
M a t t h e w already p r o d u c e s different information in 14:3ff.
 The Feeding o f the Multitude 215

was - with difficulty - pressed into the Markan framework. W h a t is

characteristic o f this sequence is the direct link between the two stories: the
disciples o f J o h n recount the execution o f their master to Jesus and it is in
consequence of this that Jesus avexcbgrjaev. T h e report can only mean that
by taking this action the disciples recognise Jesus as the successor o f John,
that they adopt him as their own master. Jesus's reaction is characterised as
well: d v a x c o Q T j o i g is a term that describes the refuge one takes from fiscal or
26
some other form o f oppression. It thereby establishes a bridge between
H e r o d ' s punitive measure against John and the course o f action taken by
Jesus, a decision which may be seen as comprehensible on the assumption
that the action taken by Herod is not necessarily limited to John but may be
extended to other persons as well. It is in keeping with this that Antipas's
action against the Baptist is described as being undertaken after
deliberation (Matt. 1 4 : 5 ) and not as the unfortunate result o f a weak
moment. It is the kind o f action that is likely to lead to consequential
measures. T h e fact that the crowds are not excluded from knowledge o f
Jesus's abode fits in with this scheme: it is important that Jesus is secure
from Antipas, whereas the masses are not, as is the case in Mark, taken as
something to keep aloof from.
27
T h e Johannine account agrees more closely with the synoptic parallel
28
than any other pericope o f the G o s p e l . Apart from introducing a few
29 30
subsidiary motifs which result in a disproportionate presentation, it
contains three distinct features over against the synoptic reports: (a) the
OQ05; (b) the mention o f the impending Passover; (c) the sentiments of the
people and Jesus's o w n reaction thereto, which is spelled out in verses I4f.
The motif o f the mountain is o f central importance in Ezek. 3 4 (verses 6,
I3f, 2 6 ) and inserted here - although at variance with verses i 6 f f - in order
to establish a link with that locus classicus of Jewish eschatology. It is in the

2 6
C p . E . B i c k e r m a n n , 'Utilitas C r u r i s ' , RHR 112 (1935), 2\\{.
2 7
J o h n 21: iffis to b e seen as b a s e d o n the story o f the Feeding; it is a s i d e - p r o d u c t o f
the tradition (J. W e l l h a u s e n , Das Evangelium Johannis (Berlin, 1908), p . 97). C p .
h o w e v e r R . T . Fortna, The Gospel of Signs ( C a m b r i d g e , 1970), p p . 87fT.
2 8
T h e d i a l o g u e with the disciples (verses 5bff) brings o u t s o m e t h i n g that is typically
J o h a n n i n e : the sovereignty o f j e s u s in every situation ( c p . 11:42). T h e m e a n s b y
w h i c h this is highlighted, the test o f the disciples, is a m o t i f that m a y h a v e been
d e v e l o p e d o u t o f the idea alluded to in M a r k 6:37. T h e Jiaid&Qiov that possesses
the five loaves a n d t w o fishes is i n t r o d u c e d b e c a u s e o f the sacrificial overtones: o n l y
a child c a n serve such bread as is fit to b e used for bread o f life. T h e t w o h u n d r e d
denarii, k n o w n from M a r k , are said to b e inadequate, a feature that is inserted in
o r d e r to heighten the miracle. T h e gathering together o f the multitude takes place at
the c o m m a n d o f j e s u s and already symbolises the gathering in o f the nations.
2 9
The names o f t w o disciples, the Jtai&dfJiov and the eucharistic phrases
etJXaQioxrjoag a n d tva xxX.
3 0
' D e r reale H i n t e r g r u n d d e r G e s c h i c h t e ging v e r l o r e n ' ( S . M e n d n e r , ' Z u m P r o b l e m
" J o h a n n e s und d i e S y n o p t i k e r " ' , NTSt 4 (1957/58), 287).
2l6 E. BAMMEL

same chapter that the Davidic aQxoav is announced: xai eoxai afixdrv
JTOl|J,r|V (231). This salvation came to be expected at Passover in Late
31
Judaism. Verse 4 is to be viewed in this context. Far from being a tiresome
32
chronological notice introduced by the redactor, it is an essential
indication, the function o f which is to heighten the tension. It serves the
same purpose as the mention o f the miracles wrought by Jesus that we find
in Q , but the Johannine detail is an even more telling pivot, its meaning is
33
an even more precise indication of what is expected to happen. T h e most
important feature is verses I 4 f . T h e remark is so extraordinary that it is
considered by most scholars out o f keeping with the preceding story.
Different explanations are given. T h e verses are seen either as a redactional
34 3 5
addition or as a text that had originally followed verse 2 a or -
interestingly - as the only remaining fragment of a different story which had
36
been replaced by the multiplication of the loaves. T h e answer is, however,
not as easy as that. Verse 1 5 a (Tnoofig oiiv yvoug yak.) bears unmistakably
37
the marks o f Johannine theology; by its interpretation it gives a new
direction to the context and thereby suggests that the rest o f the verse
belongs to an earlier level. Verse 1 5 c avexd)QT)oev or rather yevyzi™ JidXiv
is at variance with the beginning o f the chapter, where nothing had been
said about a movement o f this kind by Jesus. O n the other hand it contains
an admission that is hardly reconcilable with the bold claim the redactor
made in verse 6, and thereby evinces an earlier layer of the tradition. So it is
an indication o f an introductory notice not entirely consistent with the one
which n o w opens the chapter. T h e evidence shows that verses I 4 f belong in
part at least to a pre-redactional level o f the pericope.
This view could be reconciled with the theory according to which the
39
Feeding story is an addition on the redactional level. Is it, however, a
foregone conclusion that verses 1 4 f are unrelated to the story? Verse 1 4
starts with a reference to one particular a r ] u x i o v which is at variance with
the plurality o f signs mentioned at the beginning. T h e pointing out o f a

3 1
C p . A . S t r o b e l , Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzbgerungsproblem ( L e i d e n , 1961).
3 2
W e l l h a u s e n , Johannes, p . 28; W . W i l k e n s , Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten
Evangeliums ( Z u r i c h , 1958), p . 29.
3 3
It m a y b e for this reason that the headings are o m i t t e d ( o r rather shifted to the
b a c k g r o u n d ) . A n o t h e r reason is possible as well: the p r o p h e t (verse 14) is e x p e c t e d
to perform o n e qualifying miracle.
3 4
R . B u l t m a n n , Das Evangelium des Johannes ( G o t t i n g e n , 1941), p p . I57f ( E T p . 213!).
3 5
M e n d n e r , NTSt 4 (1957/58), 296.
3 6
S c h w a r t z , N G G G iv (1908), 501.
37
C p . 2: 25; 6:6; 11:42; 13: 11.
38
K * lat sy - 'AvexcbQTjoev m a y be
c
d u e to s y n o p t i c influence. T h e a c c e p t a n c e o f the
reading m a y been facilitated b y the parallel, chapter 11:54.
3 9
T h e theory o f J. Draseke that J o h n 6: 1-29 is a later interpolation ( ' D a s J o h a n n e s
evangelium bei Celsus', NKZg (1898), 139ft) did not meet with applause in his time.
 T h e Feeding o f the Multitude 217

difference between a miraculous border region o f the activity o f j e s u s and

40
the cmfxeiov that calls for action - it is typical for the Z s o u r c e - demands
the description o f a special sign in the preceding verses. Does the Feeding
story meet this demand? It is most certainly not an ordinary miracle in the
eyes o f the person w h o wrote down the account of John 6. It is a miracle that
is wrought in the presence o f the multitude and the divine origin o f which
41
was thereby guaranteed as had been the case in the time o f M o s e s . The
efficacy o f the miracle is vouchsafed by the existence o f the 'remainder'. It
can indeed be called a miracle in the highest sense, much more so than the
cures mentioned in verse 2 . It is hardly possible to think o f another story
42
that might have fulfilled this demand more effectively.
T h e appreciation o f the crowds is defined as an evaluation o f Jesus's
personal status and as a declaration o f the role they wished him to play for
them. T h e former - whether 6 e p x ^ E V O g xxX. belongs to the source or n o t -
is an allusion to Deut. 1 8 : 1 5 ; the latter is based on the interpretation o f
4 3
N u m . 2 7 : 1 7 , which is found in Ezek. 3 4 . It agrees with the emphasis on
the mountain and the Passover period and points to an understanding o f
the scene by the people in the light o f the desert imagery, which resulted in
44
the attempt to nominate Jesus as messianic king. This triangle of motifs is
all the more important as it is not underlined by the redactor: he is much
more interested in the subsidiary motifs o f the narrative.
W e encounter a picture o f the Feeding according to which the event was
such that the imagery o f Israel in the desert impressed itself on those
present, and did so to such a degree that people felt bound to see in Jesus the
antitype o f those events.
The description o f Jesus's reaction to this endeavour has been
characterised as due to revisionary activities, as an attempt to bring out the
45
concept o f the pacific Christ 'at this p l a c e ' . Oetiyet is, however, hardly
congruent with the portrait o f Christ which is presented by the evangelist:
when referring to Jesus's withdrawals he uses terms like e^fjXSev with or
without ex xfjg XEiQOC, avx(bv (8:59; 1 0 : 3 9 ) , indicating thereby the
46
sovereignty o f Jesus.

40 4 1
Miracles, e d . b y C . F . D . M o u l e ( L o n d o n , 1965), p p . i95ff. Miracles, p . 192.
4 2
M e n d n e r ' s statement: ' o n e c a n n o t see h o w such an action a l o n e c o u l d have resulted
in the p r o c l a m a t i o n as king' (NTSt 4 (1957-8), 296) is m o r e rash than c o n s i d e r e d .
4 3
Motifs deriving from this tradition can b e found in a n u m b e r o f places in the
s y n o p t i c G o s p e l s apart from the feeding stories, e.g. in M a t t . 8:34; 10:6; 18: 12;
M a r k 14: 27.
4 4
x a i &va6eixvx)vai, the reading o f K * ( q ) , r e c o m m e n d s itself. It is m o r e Semitic in
character than the reading starting with i'va and it agrees with the role the
multitude is e x p e c t e d to play in the eschatological events.
4 5
S. G . F. B r a n d o n , Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p . 353.
4 6
It m i g h t b e possible to argue that this m o t i f belongs to a pre-Johannine Urform o f the
story.
2l8 E. BAMMEL

47
T h e story o f the Feeding has a firm place in the apocryphal and even
48
in the J e w i s h tradition. T h e occasion for the reference to it is normally a
49
summary o f the life o f j e s u s . It is certainly seen as one o f the distinctive
features, although less frequently mentioned than the walking on the water.
Both features are, however, introduced as elaborations o f the scheme o f
Matthew 1 1 . It may be due to this that in the Syriac Acts ofJohn we have a
combination where the healings o f Matthew 14/Luke 9 are interpreted as
performed vis-a-vis sick, lepers, lame and blind, and this is followed
50
immediately by the orders given by Jesus for the Feeding. T h e miracle is
0 51
mentioned in O r . Sib. 1.356ft as the climax ofjesus's messianic deeds, and
52
the form in which it is enacted is not based on the Gospel reports. It is the
cardinal event, belief in which is decisive for salvation and condemnation in
53
the great scene o f Sur. 5 o f the K o r a n . T h e Feeding is described as the
banquet table sent down from heaven, as a miracle that proves that Allah is
the best guardian and confounds those unwilling to believe. This again is a
54
form which is not directly dependent on the Gospel reports.
A very particular view is taken in the encomium in praise o f the Baptist,
55
which is attributed to John Chrysostom. This text, which is probably o f
56
Judaeo-Christian origin, describes the Feeding as a love-feast, arranged
57
by Jesus, for his 'friend and kinsman' J o h n .

4 7
T h e representation o f the scene in Christian art, especially in the paintings o f the
c a t a c o m b s , w h e r e it figures p r o m i n e n t l y ( c p . A . G r a b a r , Christian Iconography
( P r i n c e t o n , 1968), pi. 6; J. Stevenson, The Catacombs ( L o n d o n , 1978), p . 93)
d e m a n d s an investigation o f its o w n .
4 8
E.g. the standard form o f the T o l e d o t h (J. C . W a g e n s e i l , Tela Ignea Satanae (Altorf,
1683), d i v . 11 v. 57). T h e H u l d r e i c h version o f the T o l e d o t h contains a scene with
J e s u s and t w o o f his disciples in the desert (Sepher Toledoth Jeschua ha-Notzri (1705), p .
54). It is b a s e d , directly o r indirectly, o n the J o h a n n i n e report, w h e r e t w o disciples,
Philip and A n d r e w , are singled out. O r i g e n , Contra Celsum i. 68, a passage cited from
the p a m p h l e t o f the ' I o v & o u o g , is the oldest piece o f evidence for a J e w i s h tradition
o n the Feeding.
4 9
E.g. Act. Thorn. 47; Acta Pauli 79 ( H e n n e c k e E T ii. 382). Differently in Epist. A p o s t . 5,
w h e r e a s u m m a r y o f the miracles (especially the walking on the water) is followed
b y a m o r e detailed a c c o u n t on the Feeding and its explanation as a s y m b o l o f the
five elements o f Christian belief.
5 0
C p . R . H . C o n n o l l y , ' T h e O r i g i n a l L a n g u a g e o f the Syriac A c t s o f J o h n ' , JThSt 8
(1907), 572.
5 1
T h e r e f o r e it follows after the walking o n the water. Similarly v i . 15f. C p . M .
M o n t e i r o , As David and the Sybils Say ( E d i n b u r g h , 1905), p . 56.
5 2
T w o points where it is different: o n l y o n e fish is served (the s a m e in v m . 275) and
the r e m a i n d e r is d e s c r i b e d as destined etc; JiagSevov dyvrrv.
5 3 t n e
5 . 1 1 2 - 1 5 - For interpretation c p . E. Stauffer, 'Antike Jesustradition', ZNW 4b
(1955), 2off.
5 4
I s l a m i c tradition has it that 1,300 persons were healed o n the o c c a s i o n ( E . M .
W h e r r y , A comprehensive Commentary on the Quran ( L o n d o n , 1896), ad Sure 5.112-14).
5 5
E d . W . D . T i l l , Mitteilungen d. Dt. Arch. Inst. Abteilung Kairo 16, 2 (1958), 322!!
*>Cp. NTSt 18 (1971-2), i27f.
5 7
Till, Mitteilungen, p . 323.
 The Feeding o f the Multitude 219

II

While clearly pointing to the same event and coinciding in quite a number
of details, the four branches o f the tradition diverge in other respects. So it
appears; but there are several details where a closer connection seems to
exist.
Mark mentions that the multitude sat d o w n ev x^WQCp XOQTO). T h e
remark agrees with the Passover reference in John 6:4 and militates against
58
the theory that the first part o f the verse is not a constitutive part o f the
Johannine account.
J o h n points to the ooog as the place of Jesus's activity. T h e word does not
occur in the direct synoptic parallels. If its meaning is = open, hilly
59 60
area, it is the same as expressed by the Markan EQrifioc; TOJiog. "Oqoc;
itself is, however, prominent in Matt. 1 5 : 29, where it seems to be the kernel
and starting point o f the First Evangelist's elaboration on the narration o f
the Feeding o f the Four Thousand. N o indication o f a direct dependence
either way is noticeable.
Matthew and Luke mention the miracles wrought by Jesus, a reference
which seems to derive from Q . This feature is outstanding within Q . While
narrating the one inaugural miracle o f j e s u s (Luke 7: 1 fF) and referring to
the multitude o f 6wd(i£ig performed by him (Luke 10: 1 3 , 2 3 ; 7: 2 1 , if the
verse derives from Q ) , Q refrains from outlining Jesus's healing activity.
The exception must have been conditioned by the form o f the tradition as it
became known to the compiler o f Q . Matthew has the feature in his own
explanation in 1 5 : 3 0 . J o h n is not without it, but it is presented in the
account o f what immediately preceded the event - very similarly to Matt.
61
1 5 : 2 9 ^ This is probably a more developed, a standardised form o f the
same feature. Mark, however, has the puzzling remark on the sheep
without a shepherd (6: 3 4 ) . Surely, it was the opinion o f the evangelist that
Jesus did not leave the multitude in this state - eojiXayxvioBT) must have
been taken by him as a sufficient indication o f what in his view Jesus was
about to d o . Q/John on the one side and Mark on the other side seem to
reproduce parts o f what had originally been a whole.

58 w. W i l k e n s , Entstehungsgeschichte, p p . 2 5 ! ! T h e festival references o f the Fourth

G o s p e l normally o c c u r in c o n n e c t i o n with J e r u s a l e m . T h i s is not the case here. It is,
h o w e v e r , likely that the second part (r\ EOQTT) xd)V ' I o v d a i o j v ) c a m e in through the
redactor.
5 9
E. K l o s t e r m a n n , Das Matthausevangelium ( T u b i n g e n , 1 9 2 7 ) , p . 135; A . M e r x , Markus
und Lukas (Berlin, 1905), p . 62.
w ,
T h e parallels M a t t . 18: 12 and L u k e 1 5 : 4 s h o w clearly that OQog, which is used in
the former, and £Qr)u,og, w h i c h is used in the latter, have the same
meaning.
fci V e r y suggestive is B. H . Strceter's explanation (The Four Gospels ( L o n d o n , 1924),
pp. 4131).
220 E. BAMMEL

T h e OQog-motif is reminiscent not only o f the Sinai tradition but also o f

6 2
i Kings 2 2 : 1 7 and above all o f Ezek.34 where the word occurs no less
than five times. 'Sheep without shepherd' figure in both these passages.
While the first (1 Kings 2 2 : 1 7 ) is a prophecy o f doom, the second (Ezek.
34: 5, 8, 1 2 ) is a prophecy o f divine favour. It is in keeping with this that
miracles are alluded to in Ezek. 34. AijAog will be absent (verse 2 9 ) - the
central event o f the New Testament story could be taken as foreshadowed
by this. Besides, G o d is seen as the one who will sustain the
owT£TQi|4ievov (verse 16) and the exXeiJtov (verse 16; c p . 2 1 ) and will be
on the side o f the d o 0 E v r | g (verse 2 0 ) . T h e miracles could be seen as a
dramatic enacting o f this promise. This is a sufficient indication o f the
influence of the concept o f Ezek. 34 on the presentation o f the Feeding story
in different branches o f its tradition. W h a t appeared to be different at first
sight turns out to be interrelated if viewed in the light o f Ezek. 34. This
underlying unity is even more important than the convergence o f individual
features in the reports. T h e 'Ezekiel 34 tradition' must have developed in
different ways - probably inadvertently. It was taken as self-evident
that elements o f the tradition mentioned here and there were not isolated
fragments but parts o f a continuous whole, the knowledge o f which could be
taken for granted. These points o f allusion came to be handed d o w n in
tradition as individual items at a time when their context was not any
longer known.
W h a t is absent from Ezek. 34 is the reference to Passover. This element,
which is already closely linked with the Sinai tradition, had become an
integral part o f late Jewish eschatology: 'the second will be like the first' and
63
therefore take place at the same time. It was the Sinai tradition that was
enriched by claims o f miraculous events: a full restoration o f health is
supposed to have happened while Israel was standing round the mount o f
64
Sinai - later tradition extended these miraculous features to the whole
65
desert p e r i o d . T h e desert tradition, which had exercised its influence
already on Ezek. 34, in a later form enriched the response to this chapter
which is found in the narrative o f the Feeding.
T h o s e features which reflect theological ornamentation are less likely to
represent original tradition. This may be the case for the remarks on the
66
healing activity o f j e s u s , while 6 9 0 5 should be taken as a stylisation o f

6 2
C p . W . A . M e e k s , The Prophet-King ( L e i d e n , 1967), p . 97.
6 3
A . Strobel, Z M 4 9 (1958), p p . 1 6 4 ^ 1 8 3 ^
6 4
L e v . r. ad 15: 2 ( S i m o n b . J o c h a i ) ; M e k . E x . 20: 18 ( E l i e z e r b . H y r k a n o s ) ; Pes. 106b
(Jehuda b . S i m o n ; c p . W . Bacher, Die Agada d. pal. Amor'der I I I (Strassburg, 1899),
p p . 207Q; N u m b . r. c h . 7 (Joshua b . L e v i ) ; S h a b b . 88b (Joshua b . Levi; o n l y an
allusion o n the motif).
6 5
L e v . r. ad 15:2 (18.3) (Eliezer the G a l i l a e a n ) .
6 6
A l t h o u g h the fact that Q , apart from the standard inaugural miracle e x p e c t e d from
 T h e Feeding o f the Multitude 221

TO
eQTj^iog TOJiog. It is different with x^WQO^ xoQ S- T h e mention takes place
without theological elaboration and is therefore likely to be a Restuberliefe-
rung which happened to survive and which supports the Passover remark in
J o h n 6 : 4 . T h e puzzling notice on the seating order x a x a e x a x o v xxX. in the
same verse o f Mark receives momentum in this context. T h e figure fifty is
constitutive, all the more so as it is the only one mentioned in Luke (or
6 7
Q ? ) . While the relation 1—»10—M O O - » 1000 seems to be normal, and
68
indeed the R o m a n army is based on this progression, it is different in
Jewish tradition. This is clear from the regulations set out in Exod. 1 8 : 2 5 ,
Deut. 1 : 1 5 and 1 Sam. 8: 12 ( c p . Isa 3 : 3 ) . It is true for the order o f the
69
Q u m r a n community as w e l l and the idealised picture o f the past as it is
70
found in PsPhilo. It occurs again in Chag. 1 4 a and, interestingly, in 1
Clem. 3 7 : 3 . Fifty is the constitutive figure which recurs together with
71
various multiples and, as an appendix, the smaller figure ten. That means,
this detail emphasises the 'true' Jewish character o f the event and
72
underlines the exodus motif in its presentation.
On the other side, the eucharistic overtones were brought out by the
73
early church in its interpretation. This happened both in the synoptic and
74
in the J o h a n n i n e tradition. It is all the more important to notice that the
above-mentioned features, although capable o f a eucharistic interpreta­
tion, were not used in this way. A kernel o f the tradition is discernible, in
which an event is described as having taken place in the desert, in

the m a n o f G o d ( L u k e 7: iff), refers to Jesus's &uv&[A£ic; only in general terms ( L u k e

7: 22 - if the remark derives from Q ; 10: 13), while it refrains from sketching Jesus's
w o r k i n g o f miracles, should m a k e o n e cautious in assuming this.
6 7
I f L u k e d i d not m a k e u p JievTTJxovia o u t o f antiquarian interest.
6 8
Even the a r m y o f insurrectionaries led b y J o s e p h u s was formed in this w a y , as
QWfiaixcoxeQog OTQaxia (BJ 2 §578). T h e o r d e r o f the T a r t a r a r m y is the s a m e ( H .
D o r r i e , Drei Texte zur Geschichte der Ungarn und Mongolen, N A G (1956), p . 176).
6 9
1 Q S 4: 2; 6: 1 1 . C p . E n o c h 69: 3 (leader o f 100, 50 and 10).
70
27:3-5. 15-
71 sin
T h e reading o f s y is |*B?»Tn = 150. T h e figure o c c u r s in Slavon.
J o s e p h u s in the a c c o u n t o f the disciples o f j e s u s (ii. 9.3). Fifty is the standard
figure in the Iranian e d u c a t i o n a l societies ( G . W i d e n g r e n , Feudalismus im alten Iran
( K o l n , 1969), p p . 85, 92); 150 o c c u r s as well ( W i d e n g r e n , Feudalismus, p p . 89, 99).
7 2
F o r the latest attempts to give a m e a n i n g to the description see the theories o f H . W .
M o n t e f i o r e ( ' R e v o l t in the Desert?', NTSt 8 (1961/62), p . 137) and D . Derrett
( ' L e e k - b e d e s a n d m e t h o d o l o g y ' , BZn.s.19 (1975), i o i f i ) . M e r x ' s o p i n i o n (Markus
und Lukas, p . 60) that the phrase points to 50 c o m p a n i e s o f 100 a n d indicates the
overall figure does not take into a c c o u n t M a r k 6:44 w h i c h w o u l d b e unnecessary if
he were right.
7 3
G . H . B o o b y e r , ' T h e Eucharistic Interpretation o f the L o a v e s in St. M a r k ' s
Gospe\\JThSt n.s.3 (1952), i6iff; B . v. Iersel, ' D i e w u n d e r b a r e Speisung u n d das
A b e n d m a h l in der synoptischen T r a d i t i o n ' , NovTest 7 (1964/65), 1670°; G . Schille,
' Z u r Frage urchristlicher K u l t a t i o l o g i e ' , Jahrbuch fir Liturgik und Hymnologie 10
(1965). 35*f
7 4
C H . D o d d , Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel ( C a m b r i d g e , 1963), p p . i88ff.
222 E. BAMMEL

springtime, an occasion for which the crowds gathered together and on

which they felt fed miraculously.
Such an event was o f necessity understood messianically. T h e gathering
of crowds in the desert as a starting point for messianic ventures is
75
well-known from contemporary history. That is what is described in J o h n
6: i 6 f . There is nothing in this remark that appears unlikely from a general
point o f view. This outcome is, however, mentioned only in this Gospel. It is
76
an integral part of the report, while, on the other hand, the motif expressed
in these verses is not in the forefront o f the evangelist's presentation.
T h e reaction o f the people is, on the whole, in this Gospel not a feature
that sets events in motion. It is either a reaction o f belief or o f unbelief
without, however, causing Jesus to let himself be influenced by this in
words or actions. T h e occasions where other people act at the forefront o f
77
the stage are very rare, and these indications appear to belong to one
78
particular source. T h e messianic-political perspective is almost c o m ­
pletely absent from the Gospel. It only occurs in the form o f an allusion in
chapter 1 0 and in a more general way in 18: 33ff. T h e terminology is not
79
typically Johannine either.
80
T h e substance o f the verses is not redactional but rather pre-Johannine.
It has no direct parallel in the synoptic accounts, although the sequel,
Jesus's withdrawal over the lake, is expressed equally clearly in both Mark
6 : 4 5 and 8: i o ( c p . Matt. 1 6 : 5 ) , while the traces o f the Q report disappear
at this point. There are, however, several traces which point to something
more specific. T h e enigmatic statement in Mark 8: 1 5 belongs to a pericope
81
which is in part an appendix to and development o f the Feeding story.
While the surrounding verses deal with the possibility o f a continuation o f
82
the miraculous Feeding, this verse directs itself against an understanding
of the event which must have been alluring for the disciples. If it is not to the

7 5
C p . p . 230.
7 6
T h e attempt to link it solely with verses 1 to 3 and to take the narrative o f the
F e e d i n g as a later ingredient is a desperate o n e .
7 7
C p . C . H . D o d d , ' T h e P r o p h e c y o f C a i a p h a s ' , Neotestamentica et Patristica, Festschrift
7 8
C u l l m a n n ( L e i d e n , 1962), p p . 1340°. C p . p . 232.
7 9
BaoiXeiJg is used in a different w a y in 1:49. r i v c o o x e i v is used with a personal
v e
o b j e c t (it is Jesus apart from 2:24) apart from here. E Q X ° 0 a i n o r m a l l y has a
heightened m e a n i n g a n d is not used elsewhere in an everyday c o n t e x t .
' A v a x c o Q e i v and a v a d e i x v v v a i are hapax legomena in the Fourth G o s p e l . T h e o n l y
0
J o h a n n i n e phrase is found at the e n d o f verse 14: 6 e g / O M ^ ? xxX., c o n s p i c u o u s l y
similar to 4:42 (and 1: 29). T h e terminological relationship to 10: 12 is surprisingly
e ai
close ( E Q X ° t i > d Q J t d t e i v , ysvyeiv). It seems that the passage, w h i c h is
s e c o n d a r y in the context ( c p . W e l l h a u s e n , Johannes, p . 49), is based o n 6: i4f.
8 0
T h u s B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p p . 157f. ( E T O x f o r d 1971, p . 213).
8 1
J. W e l l h a u s e n , Das Evangelium Marci 2nd edn. (Berlin, 1909), p . 61.
8 2
Similar to J o h n 6: 26: there it is d e s c r i b e d as a reaction o f the p e o p l e , here o f the
disciples.
 The Feeding o f the Multitude 223

expectation o f further acts o f a similar kind that the verse refers, it must be
to a reaction which is presented from a negative point o f view in the
83
fragment o f a parallel tradition in 8: 1 1 : while the Pharisees are not (yet)
convinced by the miracle and demand the sign from heaven as convincing
proof, the disciples are. What is in c o m m o n between the reference to the
Pharisees and the one to the disciples is the question o f messiahship that
had arisen in consequence o f the multiplication o f the loaves. Additional
evidence had been demanded by one side, whereas the other must have
hailed the event enthusiastically. T h e answer returned by Jesus describes
the whole attitude as t,V[ir\, as something that is normally viewed as
84
negative by Jewish eyes, as a speculation that is typical for the Pharisees
85
and H e r o d . That means, Jesus turns against messianism according to this
86
tradition as w e l l . J o h n 6: I 4 f concentrates this understanding ofjesus on
the crowds, whereas Mark 8: I4ff thinks o f the disciples. It is in keeping
with and in consequence o f this that Mark brings to the fore the problem o f
messiahship in what is virtually the next pericope, in 8: 2 7 - 3 3 . T h e passage,
in its present form, is his own creation; but the significant sequence o f
themes must be viewed as rooted in tradition.
Besides, the pericope hints at a detail which is lacking in the other
strands. T h e Pharisees e ^ f i ^ 0 O V . This is not a redactional feature 'noch viel
87
ungeschickter' than so many others, but the remainder o f a tradition
according to which the Pharisees went out in order to inspect the situation.
It is a feature parallel to the one mentioned in 3: 2 2 , 7: 1 and John 1 : 1 9 , 2 4 .
which is given a redirection by Mark by the insertion o f JteiQ&^OVTeg, a
88
label typical for his treatment o f the Pharisees.
This tradition is independent of the Johannine report, but converges with
it on a different plane: the question o f questions, the one as to the messianic
status o f Jesus, is supposed to have been raised in consequence o f the
Feeding; not only by the crowds but by the disciples and by critical
observers as well.
W h a t follows the Feeding in Mark is as enigmatic as the introduction.
89
Jesus brings the scene to an end by forcing ( T f i v a y x a o e v ) the disciples to

8 3
C p . the introductions in verses 10 and 13. T h e disciples are still o n the w a y (only
M a t t h e w alters this).
8 4
B. T . D . Smith, The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels ( C a m b r i d g e , 1937), p . 122.
8 5
T h e messianic interests o f the Pharisees are well-known. Inclinations to messianic
claims in the house o f H e r o d are equally d e m o n s t r a b l e ( c p . R . Eisler, Tr|O(y0g
(taoileijg 1 (Heidelberg, 1930),348, nn. 3-7).
8 6
D o e s L u k e 9:11 (eXdXei Tixk.) reflect something similar? Is the link with the
healings an unfortunate L u k a n arrangement? T h e phrase itself (eXdXei JIEQI) is
rather p r e - L u k a n than L u k a n .
8 7 8 8
W e l l h a u s e n , Evangelium Marci, p . 60. C p . 10:2; 12: 15.
8 9
T h e G e o r g i a n Martyrdom of Eustathius of Mzketha ( D . M . L a n g , Lives and Legends of the
 E
224 - BAMMEL

embark in a boat and by despatching (djiOTa^d(ievog) the crowds. T h e

verb used for the dismissal of the crowds would have been more appropriate
for the commissioning o f the disciples, whereas dvayxd^eiv is a term most
unusual for Jesus's dealings with the Twelve. Besides, two reasons are
given for the sending away o f the disciples, one o f which is identical with
what is said in Mark 8 : 9 . T h e difficulties are such that the verses are
90
considered as a mixture of tradition and redaction. It is hardly possible to
take 6: 4 6 b (djtfjXBev xxX,.) as the starting-point which called for the
91
additions. O n the contrary, the motif of the prayer on a hill is well-known;
the short remark is possibly patchwork, whereas the two unusual verbs are
to be seen as the poles o f the old tradition. T h e present context in which
92 93
they function is as pale as it is unsatisfactory. T h e 'forcing' is only
justified if it was preceded by something else that either culminated in the
forcing or was answered by this action. As djioxa^d(jievog auxoig probably
referred to the disciples in the substratum o f the verses, it is likely that
dvayxd^Eiv described the action that was answered by Jesus by the
dispatching o f the disciples. So it must have been an action o f the masses, by
which they (plural) forced the disciples to fall in with their intentions.
Something must have preceded verse 4 5 and something else was omitted in
verse 4 5 itself.

Ill

T h e problem the interpreter is faced with at the end o f the story appears,
although with different emphasis, at the beginning as well: while the
Johannine report seemed to say more at the end it remains silent at the
beginning.
T h e matter is, however, different, if the view is accepted that chapter 6
9 4
follows chapter 4 and if allowance is made for the possibility that even

Georgian Saints ( L o n d o n , 1956), p . 107) obliterates the difference: Jesus a n d his

disciples walk together o n the lake. H a r n a c k held that the report is based o n s o m e
form o f the Diatessaron.
9 0
R . B u l t m a n n , Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition 3rd e d n . (Gottingen, 1955), p . 231
( E T ( O x f o r d , 1972), p . 216); c p . W . B u s s m a n n , SynoptischeStudien iii (Halle, 1931),
p . 83.
9 1
T h i s seems to be the line taken b y E . L o h m e y e r , Das Evangelium des Markus
( G o t t i n g e n , 1937), p p . 13if.
92 ai
r i ( ) 0 & Y £ i v is a variation o f JiQOEQX£°0 (verse 31), djioXtieiv coincides with
c h a p t e r 8:9.
9 3
P. W e n d l i n g , Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliums ( T u b i n g e n , 1908), p . 83 lists a
n u m b e r o f remarks o f interpreters a n d persuades himself to assert: 'rrv&Yxaoev ist
. . . aus d e r Psyche . . . des R e d a k t o r s zu verstehen'.
9 4
J . W e l l h a u s e n , Erzveiterungen und Anderungen im Vierten Evangelium (Berlin, 1907),
p p . 150°. C p . J. J e r e m i a s , DLZ 64 (1943), c o l . 416 (review o f B u l t m a n n ,
Johannesevangelium).
 T h e Feeding o f the Multitude 225

verses 5 to 4 2 o f chapter 4 were moved from a place later in the Gospel by

95
the redactor. T h e passages 4: iff, 431T are full o f historical detail. They
describe Jesus's removal because o f the Pharisees and point to his contact
with a paoiXixog. It is implied that this happened after the arrest o f the
96
Baptist. T h e statement in its general outline is similar to that of Mark and
Q : a striking change o f the whereabouts ofjesus caused by influences from
outside. T h e persons mentioned in the different sources are very similar:
the Pharisees and the PaoiXixog in the passage o f the Fourth Gospel,
97
Herod and, as it seems, the Pharisees in the synoptic accounts. T h e
designation o f the actual force that was instrumental in making Jesus move
is different in the two strands o f tradition. T h e stray notice o f Luke 1 3 : 31
98
points to a laudable attitude on the side of xiveg OaQioaioi. It had been
found puzzling that the officer with Roman rank o f the Q account appears
as a PaoiXlxog in John. T h e riddle finds its natural explanation if the
source John made use o f intended to point to a contrast between the
PaoiXixog w h o put his hope in Jesus and the paoiXeiig himself who had
done the opposite. T h e closeness o f the story, which already in Q had been
given a most crucial although different significance, to the notice o f the
Baptist's 'decrease' makes this likely, quite apart from the fact that
the inclination to draw attention to positive exceptions to the rule in the
segments o f society that surrounded Jesus is noticeable quite often in the
Gospel literature. That means, the actual text of John contains a faint echo
o f an earlier, more precise statement according to which the Feeding scene
happened in consequence o f the death o f the Baptist.

IV

T h e later the Gospel traditions are, the more they lose interest in the
Baptist or concentrate their interest in special points o f a theological or
hagiographic nature. T h e most valuable sources are found in Q and Z . " It
emerges from these that the contact between Jesus and John continued
100
beyond the one day o f the baptism o f the former in the presence o f the
latter. Indeed, Jesus himself carried on with the rite administered by the

9 5
W e l l h a u s e n , Evangelium Johannis, p . 20.
9 6
T h i s is b r o u g h t o u t b y part o f the Western text o f c h . 3: 36. T h e A r a b i c T a t i a n and
the C o d e x Fuldensis, o n the other hand, p l a c e the remark o n the Baptist in the
w o r d i n g o f L u k e 3: 20 after J o h n 4: 3.
9 7
C p . p . 228.
9 8
T h e description o f the Pharisees as emissaries o f H e r o d ( W . G r u n d m a n n ,
Lukasevangelium (Berlin, 1969), p . 288) is based o n a one-sided interpretation o f
verse 32.
" C p . NTSt 18 (1971/72), i22ff.
1 0 0
S o the reading o f D o f L u k e 3: 7.
226 E. BAMMEL

101
Baptist: he set up an order o f close followers, similar to that o f those w h o
surrounded J o h n and partly consisting of his former disciples, he gave them
rules, in part coinciding with and in part differing from the rules of J o h n ,
and above all he proclaimed a message that could be summarised in the
same words as are found in tradition as characterising John's preaching
(cp. Matt. 3 : 2 with 4: 1 7 ) . T h e Baptist himself must have exercised a
102
lasting influence on this neophyte of h i s . After John's execution it came to
pass that people viewed Jesus in the light o f the figure o f the Baptist, and
103
even considered him as the reincarnation of J o h n ; indeed Jesus himself
more than once compared his own mission with that o f the Baptist. I f the
community o f the Baptist wanted to continue, it had to look for a new
representative. It must have been the obvious course for part o f John's
followers at least to turn to Jesus, since he had established himself already
104
and had succeeded in exercising an influence that rivalled that o f the
105
Baptist. T h e indication given by Q is in tune with this: it only supports
what would otherwise have been deduced from circumstantial evidence.
Josephus, in his sketch o f the Baptist, gives a reason for H e r o d Antipas's
action against J o h n that differs at first sight from the one stigmatised in the
New Testament. According to his report the excitement o f the masses and
106
Herod's fear that something o f a revolutionary character might arise
from this were responsible. Both reasons coincide if John's criticism o f the
leading representative o f the Jewish nation was meant to be an initial stage
in the cleansing o f the house o f Israel, an action that had to precede the final
107
events. T h e excitement o f the masses must have been eschatological j o y
108
in anticipation, such as is alluded to in the New Testament as w e l l . It is
evident from this that Antipas, once he had taken action, became entangled
109
in the movements stirred up and influenced by the Baptist - Mark
6: 1 4 - 1 6 gives pictorial expression to this. Close surveillance ofjesus and o f
his circle must have been imperative; even more so, as Jesus had taken
Galilee as the centre o f his ministry, while John, after having left Peraea
(chased out by Antipas?), had stayed in Samaria and had entered Antipas's

1 0 1 l 0 2
J o h n 4: if. C p . L u k e 7: i8£T.
1 0 3
M a r k 6: 16; c p . C . H . Kraeling, ' W a s Jesus a c c u s e d o f N e c r o m a n c y ? ' , JBL 59
(1940), i46ff; E. Stauffer, Jesus. Gestalt und Geschichte (Bern, 1957), p . 150.
1 0 4
C p . M e r x , Johannes, p . 6 5 .
1 0 5
J o h n 4: if.
, 0 6
4 / I 8 § I I 8 : v e c b t e f j o v . . . yevtoQai. C p . Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 8.7.13:
v e c b i E Q a J t Q & x x e i v - the accusation against A n t i p a s .
1 0 7
C p . / / 7 M 5 1 (1958), i o i f f .
1 0 8
J o h n 5: 35; c p . the ingenious transposition o f JIQ05 tt)Q(XV suggested b y E. S c h w a r t z
(Aporien iv, 522).
1 0 9
T h e information w e have o f Baptistic c o m m u n i t i e s c o m e s solely from the d i a s p o r a .
T h i s s h o w s that the Baptistic m o v e m e n t , in so far as its m e m b e r s d i d not j o i n the
Christian c h u r c h , had been s t a m p e d o u t successfully in Palestine.
 T h e Feeding o f the Multitude 227

territory only in a last provocative bid. A n d indeed, it was from this time
110
that Jesus, to all appearances, avoided the country o f H e r o d . Bethsaida
1 1 1
(Mark 6 : 4 5 ; 8: 2 2 ) , the region o f Tyre ( 7 : 2 4 ) , the Decapolis (7:31),
Caesarea Philippi (8: 2 7 ) , the region on the other side o f the Jordan ( 1 0 : 1)
are mentioned as his abode, while only a speedy journey through Galilee is
related (9: 306*). This change is indicative and points to Jesus having felt
112
himself to be in a state of danger after the beheading of his baptiser. Mark
6: 3 o f f notes this change, while Matt. 1 4 : 1 3 produces the reason as well
since axouoag in the phrase axovoag . . . avex(i)Qr]OEV . . . eig £Qr][iov
113
TOJIOV not only gives the date but also the motive: he flees from the
114
impending persecution of his sovereign. W h a t was meant to be an escape,

1 1 0
It was J. G . H e r d e r w h o was the first and for a l o n g time the o n l y scholar to have had
a feeling for the crucial nature o f the execution o f the Baptist in Jesus's p u b l i c life.
H e states in his Vom Erlbser der Menschen. Nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien ( R i g a , 1976):
'Fortan w a r fur J e s u m in Galilaa keine b l e i b e n d e Sicherheit mehr; H e r o d e s stellte
ihm n a c h d e m L e b e n ' (Werke, ed. B . Suphan, xix (Berlin, 1880), 179). C p . J.
W e l l h a u s e n , Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1911), p . 40.
V a l u a b l e remarks are found in M . M a u r e n b r e c h e r ' s Jesus von Nazareth (Berlin,
1909), p p . 23of. M o s t important are M e r x ' s observations o n M a r k 6:55:
ctJte&Qau.OV (sy) indicates a text different from the present o n e . T h e original text
had referred to the disciples' flight, not to the healing scene (Markus, p p . 641). F.
Spitta g o e s further and takes it that the c o m m a n d to silence followed closely the
question o f H e r o d a b o u t the character o f Jesus in the s y n o p t i c Grundschrift; he draws
the c o n c l u s i o n that the c o m m a n d was essentially a measure o f precaution vis-a-vis
the inquiring action o f A n t i p a s (Grundschrift, p p . 214ft). Spitta is right in positing a
historical situation for Jesus's reaction. T h e direct link with the H e r o d passage is,
h o w e v e r , a questionable hypothesis, while the Feeding p r o v i d e s a setting w h i c h
explains Jesus's answer and allows for a m e a n i n g w h i c h exceeds b y far the
e p h e m e r a l o n e suggested b y the link with the H e r o d i a n scene.
1 1 1
Is the Gennesaret scene (6:53) a variant o f 5:21, 25ft?
1 1 2
A different s c h e m e is p r o p o s e d b y M a u r e n b r e c h e r : Jesus d i d not start his activity
before the e x e c u t i o n o f the Baptist. W h a t did he d o in c o n s e q u e n c e o f the event? 'er
stiirzte sich in die N a h e des Fiirsten, der d e n Gottesgesandten hatte e r m o r d e n
lassen': there was the p l a c e w h e r e he had to p r o c l a i m the arrival o f the k i n g d o m
(Jesus, p . 220).
1 , 3
A . P l u m m e r , Matthew ( L o n d o n , 1909), p . 46.
1 1 4
Contra A . Schweitzer, Leben-Jesu-Forschung, p p . 574f ( c p . E T p p . 3501). T h e reason
given in the earlier part o f M a r k (e.g. 1:441) for Jesus's staying outside the inhabited
area d o e s not a p p l y here. It is the merit o f Spitta and still m o r e o f M . G o g u e l to have
realised the i m p o r t a n c e o f A n t i p a s for the d e v e l o p m e n t o f Jesus's activity. T h e
latter suggests that L u k e 9:9 originally contained a statement a b o u t A n t i p a s ' s
intention to kill J e s u s (La vie de Jesus, G T p . 226; E T p . 354) and that it even
g a v e the reason; he assumes that it was the c o m m i s s i o n i n g o f the T w e l v e that
alarmed A n t i p a s a n d that, o w i n g to the warning given b y s o m e Pharisees, J e s u s was
able to escape the net spread for h i m ( p . 228; E T p . 357). T h e masses are aware o f
this a n d rush to the desert, b e c a u s e they k n o w that Jesus will not be able to return to
their a b o d e ( p p . 233, 235; E T p p . 365, 367). T h e hostility o f Antipas will have
increased Jesus's popularity and kindled the expectation o f his c o m i n g forth like a
new M a c c a b e e in battle with an A n t i o c h u s ( p . 236; E T p . 367). T h e d e m a n d e d sign
- it had been asked for not b y the Pharisees but b y the followers o f j e s u s - w a s meant
as the signal for the messianic uprising, while Jesus's o w n c o m m a n d o f secrecy is
228 E. BAMMEL

a matter o f life and death, turned out to be at this stage at least a triumph
beyond all imagining: the fugitive is followed by an innumerable multitude.
115
T h e multiplicity o f sources reflects the singularity o f the event.
T h e crowds had been roused into a state o f agitation by the activity o f
John. T h e circumstances o f his death must have increased the impetus he
had given to them - as indeed evidence shows that the nature o f the figure
116
he presented remained as a subject o f discussion for a long time. The
precursor's violent end could be viewed on the apocalyptic plane as the
necessary step before the ushering in o f the final events. It is clear that
people looked for guidance in this situation and that it was possible for a
determined person to establish himself and to further his cause.
O n the other hand, the complexities o f the interactions o f the Jewish
parties made a 'coming and going' necessary. T h e spreading o f news, the
channelling o f information, the exploiting o f the situation for particular
purposes were part o f the game. T h e Pharisees were in a crucial position:
117
while they had connections with the Herodian h o u s e , they were able to
exercise influence on the masses as well, and above all they had had contact
with both John and Jesus. T h e stray notice o f Luke 1 3 : 3 1 according to
which TiVE£ 4>aQioaioi warned Jesus against the intentions o f Herod
Antipas - a detail which is unlikely to have been invented - fits this
118
situation, whereas the claim tha.t the Pharisees and the H e r o d i a n s took
1 1 9
council in order to destroy Jesus (Mark 3: 6 ) is likely to reflect the result o f
120
the realignment that developed after the execution of J o h n .
This was the situation in which the gathering took place. W e have to
differentiate between the movements o f a group o f people w h o are
redirected by Jesus into the desert, Jesus's o w n withdrawal, and the

c o n d i t i o n e d b y the persecution o f A n t i p a s ( p p . 2470°; E T p p . 381ft). G o g u e l is

basically correct in his estimate o f A n t i p a s ' s position with respect to J e s u s . H e
greatly overestimates, h o w e v e r , the significance o f this feature b y m a k i n g it the
e x p l a n a t i o n for the attitude o f the masses and b y r e d u c i n g the F e e d i n g to s o m e t h i n g
o f minor importance.
1 , 5
G . Schille is even o f the o p i n i o n that the reference to 500 brethren in 1 C o r . 15 is
based o n this event (Das Judenchristentum im Markusevangelium (Berlin, 1970), p . 48).
, 1 6
J o s . AJ 18 §116; M a r k u:3off.
1 , 7
T h e y had already s u c c e e d e d in establishing r e a s o n a b l e relations with H e r o d the
G r e a t a n d w e r e to b e o n very g o o d terms with A g r i p p a . It is a priori likely that they
also had w o r k i n g arrangements with A n t i p a s .
1 1 8
T h e o p i n i o n that ' H e r o d i a n s ' is a c o v e r n a m e for Zealots ( Y . Y a d i n , The Temple
Scroll i (Jerusalem, 1978), A p p e n d i x I I , p p . n i f f hardly r e c o m m e n d s itself.
1 , 9
T h e verse is the climax o f a set o f controversy stories w h i c h is i n d e p e n d e n t o f the
s e q u e n c e o f events sketched o u t in the G o s p e l . A different historical o c c a s i o n is
a s s u m e d b y Stauffer, Jesus, p . 71 ( E T p p . 75Q.
i2o W h i l e the i m p o r t a n c e o f the Baptist for the m o v e m e n t s o f j e s u s is passed o v e r b y
m o s t researchers, it w a s R . Reitzenstein w h o w e n t so far as to maintain that Jesus
w a s c o n d e m n e d in J e r u s a l e m as a disciple o f J o h n (Das mandaische Buch des Herrn der
Grosse und die Evangelienuberlieferung ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1919), p p . 68f; c p . p p . 7of.
 T h e Feeding o f the Multitude 229

surprise event o f a mass gathering out o f the towns (of Galilee). It is this
coming together o f different groups and the interaction o f tendencies which
did not wholly coincide that is the significant feature o f the day.
T h o s e w h o had been redirected by Jesus d o not come into the open at the
event. They had probably mingled with the crowds and become their
mouthpiece in the way that is described in John 6: T h e masses
themselves are viewed by Jesus as men in the state o f a flock without a
shepherd. T h e remark is often taken as a reflection of the state of despair the
masses were in. This does not, however, mean that they themselves were
filled only by such thoughts. T h e fact that large crowds coming from
different places all went in one direction suggests the existence o f hopes,
expectations and even demands which, although vacillating, may have
been expressed pointedly. Even if elements of despair were not absent from
their minds, the main direction is different: it is the call for a shepherd,
based on the apocalyptic idea that the death o f the Baptist must have its
meaning in the process o f ushering in the world to come. T h e speeding up o f
the events that seemed to be indicated by John's martyr death meant that
the person w h o was to follow him could have an even greater task than the
one with which he had been entrusted - if not the final eschatological
commission. T o all appearances the experiences o f the day lent support to
this view and raised expectations to the highest degree. T h e distribution o f
121
food and the blessing administered by Jesus showed him performing a
priestly function like the one every Jewish father o f a family performs at
122
Passover and which is, in one way or the other, a prefiguration o f the
eschatological meal. This became the starting-point for the bold
123
suggestion: ctX.T]8d)g 6 JiQOcprrr/ng.
It is in keeping with Jewish tradition that the truth about a man of G o d is
brought out not by himself but by others. Samuel knew that G o d had
124
selected Saul. T h e presence o f the multitude was already important on
the occasion o f the promulgation o f the Torah and rose in prominence in
late Jewish tradition. T h e progression prophet-king is equally based on the
Saul story: he proves to be o f royal stature by being able to prophesy with
the prophets. Similarly the first claims about Jesus are made by persons

1 2 1
T h e r e is n o blessing o n the grass. T h i s militates against the theory o f J. H . A . Hart
( ' A Plea for the R e c o g n i t i o n o f the Fourth G o s p e l as an historical A u t h o r i t y ' , The
Expositor (1906), 377; (1907), 48ff), w h o , taking 2 M a c e . 5: 27 as a parallel, thinks
that XOQT05 was actually used as food.
1 2 2
Philo, De Deed. §159 ( . . . leococnjvTjv xov vouxn? xctQioauivou xw eGvei Jiavxl
xaxd uiav riuioav e^aioexov avd exog eig ai'xouQYiav 6void>v).
1 2 3
Is the actual text a conflation o f t w o readings? D o e s the text o f D (ouxog eoxiv 6
JiQOcprjxTig) represent o n e o f them?
1 2 4
Motifs o n 1 S a m . 8ff are noticeable especially in t h e j o h a n n i n e presentation: the
Jiai&dfJiov ( c p . 1 S a m . 9: 71), w h o happens to possess what is n e e d e d .
23O E. BAMMEL

from his environment. John designates him as the lamb that carries the sin
o f the world and Nathaniel hails him as the king o f Israel - a designation
which is supplanted by a different one from Jesus himself. True, the
influence o f 1 Sam. gf is noticeable in the story; but the motifs are applied in
such a way that they cannot be taken just as a literary scheme.
125
W h a t this amounts to is a threefold office: priest, prophet and king, and
thereby the consummation of offices. It is this ideal o f perfection, indicated
by the accumulation o f offices, that plays an important role in late
126 127
Judaism. Moses is already seen in this function, the high priests o f the
128
Hasmonaean period invest themselves with this dignity. T h e concept
129
took root in Christian tradition as w e l l . It clearly lies behind the
narrative, but it is not brought out demonstratively and therefore not likely
to be a theological embellishment. While the appreciations given to Jesus
130
are normally confined to one title, it is here that much more is
maintained. This is said on the basis o f an act he himself had performed.
Such an appreciation should - one would think - have met with the
approval o f Jesus. What happens is, however, the opposite. Jesus
withdraws.
T h e narrator phrases it in such a way that Jesus's prophetic quality is
brought out once again: he knew beforehand what they were preparing to
d o . That means, the point at issue was in his view the kingly role attributed
to him. It cannot have been different on the historical plane, as a prophetic
131
quality was never disclaimed by Jesus.
T h e messianic king is to 'redeem' Israel. This function o f the messiah is
dominant in all branches o f Jewish eschatology. It was this form o f
expectation that flared up in these very years and led to scenes not
dissimilar to the events surrounding the Feeding. Theudas persuaded a
132
large multitude to follow him to the Jordan with their possessions.
Several 'deceivers' who appeared in the time o f Felix lured people to
133
migrate to the desert. Jonathan was to lead the Jews o f Cyrene into the
134
wilderness. The migration to the desert was in these cases the
starting-point for further actions. It is an open question, whether J o h n

1 2 5
J o h n 6: 11 (evxciQiCfTY\oaq) indicates the priestly element.
1 2 6
C p . ThLZ 79 (1954), c o l . 35iff. F o r the three offices in the tradition o n the T e a c h e r
o f Righteousness see P. Schulz, Der Autoritdtsanspruch des Lehrers d. Gerechtigkeit in
Qumran ( M e i s e n h e i m , 1974), esp. p p . 2i4f.
1 2 7
Philo, Vit. Mosis 2. 6; his prophetical status is s u b s u m e d u n d e r that o f the
vono9exr|g.
2
• « J o s . AJ 13 §299; BJ 1 §68.
1 2 9
C p . I. A . D o r n e r , Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi i, 2nd e d n .
(Stuttgart, 1845), 26iff.
1 3 0
T h e exceptions are A c t s 2: 36; 3: 14; 5: 31; H e b . 3: 1.
1 3 1
C p . R . M e y e r , Der Prophet aus Galilda (Leipzig, 1940), passim.
3 2 1 3 3
' J o s . AJ 20 § f . 9 7 A J 20 §167. ' " J o s . BJ 7 §438.
 T h e Feeding o f the Multitude 231

himself had announced the coming o f the Lord or o f a messenger, but it is

clear that his activism was the point he had in c o m m o n with the messianic
pretenders. It was only too natural for the crowds who had been greatly
influenced by the Baptist to view Jesus in this light and, possibly, to test
135
him, since he was reluctant to reveal himself to those w h o surrounded
him, while, on the other hand, it is equally possible that the proof a person
has given o f his prophetic status raises the expectation o f a forthcoming
136
political r o l e . Luke 2 4 : 1 9 , 21 is typical of this view; it is, so to speak, an
expanded form o f what is concentrated in the hopes said to have been
expressed on a single day in John 6: I4f.
It is equally clear that the problem o f messiahship must have posed itself
to the self-consciousness ofjesus. Knowing about his commission he must
have wondered which o f the forms indicated in his bible G o d required him
to take upon himself. T h e hints to be found in the oldest tradition about
Jesus give the impression that this pondering was not the contemplation o f
one hour alone, but a question that accompanied his whole ministry and,
perhaps, found its answer and expression only in the period when he
approached passion and death.
T h e opinion other people had of him cannot have been without relevance
for Jesus. Not so much what the sages thought, but the view taken by simple
individuals and also that o f the crowds in general mattered to him. This was
137
in keeping with the Jewish tradition. T h e messianic proposition put
forward to him by the crowd, by a multitude that could be viewed as
representing the nation, presented him with an inviting prospect. Besides,
J o h n had already attributed to him a role which lent itself to messianic
138 139
interpretation. Jesus's reaction may be understood as a refusal or as the
expression o f his decision to remain in the waiting position o f a Messias
m
incognitos. T h e suggestion made by the crowds was already the second
invitation - an even more demanding one and not u n c o m m o n in this
141
milieu.
142 143
Jesus, however, decides not to take up this c h a l l e n g e . ' Whatever may

1 3 5
C p . E. StaufTer, ' A g n o s t o s C h r i s t o s ' in The Background of the New Testament and its
Eschatology (Dodd-Festschrift) ( C a m b r i d g e , 1956), p p . 287^
1 3 6
F o r e x a m p l e s in Late J u d a i s m c p . A J 20 §97f 169!!.
1 3 7
C p . Miracles, ed. b y M o u l e , p . 192.
1 3 8
L u k e 7: 19; M a t t . 1 1 : 3 . T h i s interpretation is actually supplied in M a t t . 1 1 : 2 .
I 3 9
C p . ThWNTvi, 907, note 212 ( E T p . 908). A different line w a s taken b y E. R e n a n ,
w h o put forward the interesting idea that Jesus met the Baptist after having
p r e a c h e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y before and that J o h n exercised an unfortunate influence o n
Jesus (Vie de Jesus (9th e d n . Paris, 1864), p . 76; G T Berlin, 1889, p . 92).
, 4 0
C p . J o h n 2:23ff.
1 4 1
F o r the m o t i f c p . M a t t . 21:32; L u k e 7: 33ff.
1 4 2
T h e a n a l o g y to the Saul story breaks d o w n here (a different view is taken b y D .
D a u b e , N.T and RabbinicJudaism ( L o n d o n , 1956), p . 19). W h i l e Saul oi>x etJQioxexo
232 E. BAMMEL

144
have been the case at the beginning o f his ministry, the outcome here
145
shows Jesus and the people miles apart. His retreat from messianology
and the introduction o f the concept o f transfiguration and suffering - both
together - are the characteristic ideas o f the following period.
J o h n adds to the scene the significant notice: 'from that time many o f his
146
disciples . . . walked no more with him' (6: 6 6 ) . T h e same is presupposed
in Mark 8: 3 4 . In both cases the close circle o f the disciples is referred to.
T h e crowds have disappeared from the scene already, but the ventilation o f
what had happened continues. T h e division among the disciples underlines
two facts: that the course Jesus had taken was not something that could
have been expected and, secondly, that the decision he had made was seen
147
as irrevocable. Is it to be assumed that some o f those disciples who had
been closely attached to the Baptist went away?
T h e Gospel tradition is united in the suggestion of a turning-point during
148
the ministry o f j e s u s - even the Jewish accounts of the life ofjesus contain
149
an echo o f this. It seems that this happened on the day of the Feeding and

(1 S a m . 10: 21), before he is traced and m a d e king, Jesus's flight from kingship is
final and decisive and the t e r m i n o l o g y is different. T h e early c h u r c h felt uneasy
a b o u t the flight as the alleviating reading s h o w s . It w o u l d have been possible to
c o v e r u p the matter b y repeating the language o f 1 S a m . 10: 2if. T h i s was not d o n e .
R e i m a r u s eliminates the i m p o r t a n c e o f J o h n 6: 14 b y pointing to the Entry and
stating: ' I n d e r abgelegenen Wiiste . . . w a r es nicht die Zeit . . . sondern dieser
solenne A c t u s sich fur einen K o n i g ausrufen zu lassen, w a r d e r H a u p t s t a d t
J e r u s a l e m v o r b e h a l t e n ' (Schutzschrift ii, 159).
1 4 3
T h e end o f the story is so strange that W a g n e r , o b v i o u s l y in all i n n o c e n c e , d e c i d e s to
alter it: having m e r c y o n the multitude that detains h i m , Jesus delays his d e p a r t u r e
a n d teaches the c r o w d s a b o u t the k i n g d o m etc. T h e story is m a d e the m a i n teaching
o c c a s i o n in his ministry {Jesus (Leipzig, 1887), p p . 7f; is the sketch o n p p . 5f to b e
taken as an alternative?).
1 4 4
D o w e have to allow for an activity m o r e in line with the p o p u l a r e s c h a t o l o g y ?
Differences in the attitude o f j e s u s vis-a-vis the messianic question have b e e n
ventilated here and there. G o g u e l is right in positing a d e v e l o p m e n t {Jesus, note 623;
E T p . 366 n. 2), not h o w e v e r in his estimate that Jesus m o v e d towards an awareness
o f his future messianic role ( G T p p . 234°, 248; E T p p . 366, 383).
1 4 5
T h e o p i n i o n that verse 14 s h o w s the p o w e r o f attraction Jesus had o v e r the Z e a l o t s
( O . C u l l m a n n , Jesus und die Revolutiondren (2nd edn. T u b i n g e n , 1970) p . 22; E T N e w
Y o r k , 1970, p . 8) is already o n e - s i d e d . T h e c o n c l u s i o n that it s h o w s partial
a g r e e m e n t with the Z e a l o t s ( G . Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation ( N e w Y o r k , 1973),
p . 227) is certainly a m o r e than forced interpretation. H . G . W o o d in his penetrating
n o t e 'Interpreting this T i m e ' , NTSt 2 (1955/56), 265) sees in M a r k 6:45 an
indication for Jesus's d e c i s i o n to break off the p u b l i c ministry. T h i s is not, h o w e v e r ,
the p r i m a r y p o i n t . T h e fading a w a y o f mass s u p p o r t is c o n d i t i o n e d b y the negation
o f messianism.
1 4 6
V e r s e s 60 and 66 are parallel formulations. T h e latter represents early tradition ( c p .
F. Spitta, Das Johannes-Evangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu ( G o t t i n g e n , 1910, p p .
i6off), whereas the former c a m e in b y w a y o f a n a l o g y .
1 4 7
T h i s is c o m p l e t e l y disregarded b y R e i m a r u s ( c p . note 142).
1 4 8
F . C . Burkitt, J*™* Christ ( L o n d o n , 1932), p . 66.
1 4 9 0
C p . NTSt 13 (1966/67), 325ft . Certain m o d e r n J e w i s h writers recognise a difference
 T h e Feeding o f the Multitude 233

150
in connection with it. Mark, who differentiates so emphatically between
those outside and those inside, was almost forced to move an event o f this
calibre o f significance to a pericope dealing exclusively with the disciples.
His scheme, which has become so important since the emergence of critical
scholarship, obliterates reason and place for the change, although it retains
151
indications of the older tradition. It is not Caesarea Philippi that points to
the location o f the turning, it is not so much the Leidensgeheimnis itself that is
the new departure; the Feeding o f the Multitude must be viewed as the
occasion where the break with the popular messianism and, indeed, the
152
baptistic eschatology took p l a c e . What is called the Leidensgeheimnis is
only the other side of what was enacted by Jesus when his way parted from
those w h o m he had fed.

T h e theme o f the feeding o f a multitude occurs in another passage o f the

Gospels as well, in the temptation story. It has been taken as surprising that
a tradition according to which Jesus did refuse to perform such a miracle
was handed d o w n side by side with an account o f an actual multiplication
153
o f l o a v e s . It is, however, not so easy to drive a wedge between the two
traditions. In Mark 8: I 4 f f Jesus does not submit to performing a repetition
o f the miracle, while in John 6: I 4 f he avoids letting himself be lured into
certain consequences. T h e matter is even more intriguing, if it is true that Q
itself contained not only the temptation story but an account of the Feeding
as well.

b e t w e e n the attitude o f j e s u s and that o f the c r o w d s and try to interpret this b y

assuming a d i v e r g e n c e o f intention and action that c a m e into the o p e n during the
passion week. T h e feeling expressed in these sentiments is right. T h e o c c a s i o n ,
h o w e v e r , at w h i c h the rift appears to have c o m e to the surface is a different o n e : it is
the F e e d i n g .
1 5 0
W . R . Farmer, w h o s e c o n c e r n it w a s to set Jesus against the b a c k g r o u n d o f b o t h
J e w i s h nationalism and a p o c a l y p t i c i s m , argued that the fact that Jesus allowed
himself to b e arrested indicated his final break with Z e a l o t i s m (Maccabees, Zealots,
andJosephus ( N e w Y o r k , 1956), p . 198). T h i s w a s , h o w e v e r , rather the c o n s e q u e n c e
o f the break w h i c h h a p p e n e d after the Feeding. Farmer argues that J e s u s never
d e t a c h e d himself from J e w i s h nationalism ( p . 191). T h e e v i d e n c e to b e found in
Jesus's attitude in the trial ( c p . p . 421), however, leads o n e to qualify this statement.
Illuminating remarks a b o u t the suggestiveness o f the ' Z e a l o t o p t i o n ' for Jesus are
found in J. H . Y o d e r , The Politics of Jesus ( G r a n d R a p i d s , 1972) and in A . N o l a n ,
Jesus before Christianity ( L o n d o n , 1976), p p . 9iff.
151
C p . p. 238f.
1 5 2
D i d M a r k ( o r s o m e o n e before h i m ) m o v e the X Q i o r o g response from the m e a l to the
Caesarea Philippi scene?
1 5 3
R . M e y e r , Prophet, p . i56f. F o r the spectrum o f interpretations o f the passage see P.
Keller, Die Versuchung Jesu nach dem Bericht der Synoptiker (Miinster, 1918) and E.
Fascher, Jesus und der Satan ( H a l l e , 1949).
234 E- BAMMEL

Early Christian tradition understands the temptation as Jesus's

154
successful effort 'to overcome the Adversary by means o f d e c e p t i o n ' ;
he gives ambiguous answers, so as to prevent the Devil from getting
155
a clear idea o f his identity. T h e story is thus lowered to the level o f
156
a farce, in which one side attempts to trap the other. It is clear that
this cannot be the original meaning. T h e matter was very much more
serious.
W h a t is at stake is implied by the protasis et m o g ei xov 6 e o v ( 4 : 3 ) ,
repeated in Matt. 4 : 6. C o u c h e d in the Son o f G o d terminology which is
157
conditioned by the juxtaposition with the baptism story the phrase poses
the messianic question. T h e messiah in his capacity as prophet like Moses
158
is expected to perform the latter's miraculous works. As an old
159 160
tradition which is embodied in Pes. R. 3 6 puts it: a miracle that
161
qualifies the messiah will take place at the moment when he announces
162
the glad tidings. It is with the third suggestion that the possession o f the

1 5 4
W . Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen ( T u b i n g e n ,
1909), p . 147.
1 5 5
T h e J e w i s h interpretation o f the temptation as a victory w o n b y Satan c a n b e
u n d e r s t o o d from this b a c k g r o u n d .
1 5 6
T h e r e is n o need to think o f a Hellenistic ingredient.
1 5 7
B u l t m a n n , Tradition, p p . 272f ( E T p p . 254!), w h o , following Schlatter, directs
h i m s e l f against a messianic interpretation, is unaware o f the fact that the p r o b l e m o f
a m a g i c a l miracle is o f i m p o r t a n c e o n l y in the context o f the question o f
messiahship. It is not the temptation o f e n g a g i n g in the activity o f a m a g u s w h o
usurped d i v i n e p o w e r (thus S. Eitrem, Die Versuchung Christi ( O s l o , 1924), p . 18)
that is d e s c r i b e d here, but the tempting suggestion m a d e b y the D e v i l pretending to
b e an agent o f G o d .
1 5 8
T h e theme o f the prefiguration o f j e s u s giving u p his life that G e r h a r d s s o n ( c p . n.
164, p . 235) p p . 61, 83 d i s c o v e r s in the a c c o u n t o n the s e c o n d temptation is less
obvious.
1 5 9
C p . M . F r i e d m a n n , Pesiqtha rabbathi ( W i e n , 1880), p p . iff.
1 6 0
T h e miracle itself ( c p . o n this O . M i c h e l , ' T h e light o f the M e s s i a h ' , Donum
Gentilicium, Festschrift D . D a u b e ( O x f o r d , 1978), p . 49) is different from the o n e
suggested in M a t t . 4:6; but this is o f s e c o n d a r y i m p o r t a n c e .
1 6 1
C p . Miracles, e d . b y M o u l e , p p . i88f; c p . 4 Esd. 14: 50. T h e p r o b l e m o f the qualifying
m i r a c l e d o e s i n d e e d play a role in the Jesus tradition. Q r e p r o d u c e s o n e miracle
after Jesus's s p e e c h o n the plain ( L u k e 7: iff); it is performed in p u b l i c , under the
surveillance o f the representatives o f the s y n a g o g u e ; it is r e c o u n t e d as the o n e
qualifying m i r a c l e . M a r k emphasises that Jesus's first miracle w a s performed in a
s y n a g o g u e (1: 23) and that o n e o f the following healings was to b e c h e c k e d b y the
priestly authorities. P a p . Egerton 2 1.4off presupposes that such a miracle was
a c c e p t e d as e v i d e n c e b y the persons c o n c e r n e d and that it led to subsequent
questions. T h e J e w o f Celsus, o n the other hand, claims that Jesus, w h e n challenged
to perform a miracle in the T e m p l e (so as to e x c l u d e the e m p l o y m e n t o f m a g i c ) w a s
u n a b l e to c o m p l y with the request (c. Cels. i. 62). Justin states that Jesus's qualifying
action consisted in his entry into Jerusalem (Dial. 88); c p . A . v o n H a r n a c k j a ^ w t a m
undJudenchristentum in Justins Dialog mit Trypho (Leipzig, 1913); p . 77.
1 6 2
T h e M a t t h a e a n s e q u e n c e seems to b e original; c p . A . v o n H a r n a c k , Spruche und
Redenjesu ( L e i p z i g , 1907), p . 34; E T p . 44).
 T h e Feeding o f the Multitude 235

163 164
lands shown to h i m , in other words full power over the earth, is offered
165
to Jesus. While the first two suggested actions are only o f a preliminary
nature - they are meant to be indications o f the character o f the person
presented to the nation - it is in the third one that the final goal o f the
messianic venture is expressed. O n e may wonder whether Matt. 4: 9b (eav
jceawv JiQoax'UVTJcmc; (lot) reflects a theological development o f the
narrative by which is interpreted in advance what is expressed in Jesus's
1 6 6
answer in verse 1 0 . Jewish tradition has it that, after the destruction of the
167
peoples, the messiah will be placed by G o d on a high mountain, that he
168
will step on the peak o f M o u n t Z i o n , in order to proclaim glad tidings to
Israel. T h e presupposition ei vibe, nxk. is not any longer necessary, because
169
the proposition made to Jesus takes his messiahship for granted. It is in
170
this context that an u n a m b i g u o u s answer ofjesus is reproduced: xmayz,
171
oaxavd. T h e one who was up to this moment a devil in disguise - in the
172
guise o f a Zealot rabbi - is exposed thereby. T h e bestowing o f worldly
power gives evidence for the diabolic character o f the one who claims to
possess this power. Even if ' M a c h t an sich' - to cite Burckhardt's famous
phrase - is not considered as evil, the opinion is certainly held that power
173
with messianic overtones is o f a diabolic nature. That means, the rebuff
which is addressed to Peter in Mark 8: 3 3 and, in a less direct form, to the
174 1 7 5
Baptist in Matt. 3: 1 5 is put into the mouth o f a superhuman figure in

1 6 3
C p . D . D a u b e , Studies in Biblical Law ( C a m b r i d g e , 1947), p p . 24ff.
1 6 4
It is not so m u c h the temptation o f wealth ( B . G e r h a r d s s o n , The Testing of God's Son
( L u n d , 1966), p p . 646*) that is m e a n t in the story.
1 6 5
S i m k h o v i t c h surprisingly interprets the &YYeta)i ( L u k e 4:10) as referring to the
battle against R o m e , whereas the PaoiXeiai signify in his o p i n i o n the
H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n civilisation as an alluring possibility.
1 6 6
H . P. K i n g d o n , o n the other h a n d , sees in verse 9b the main p o i n t and interprets it
as a s y m b o l for the H e r o d i a n p o l i c y o f feathering o n e ' s nest with the b r a n c h e s o f
R o m a n imperialism ( ' H a d the Crucifixion a Political Significance?', The Hibbert
Journal 35 (1936-7), 561).
167
4 Esd. i3:6f.
1 6 8
Pirqe M a s h i a h ; c p . S - B iii. 10; 4 Esd. 14.35^
169 T is obliterated in the L u k a n version, where the tempter appears as an agent o f
m s

G o d , w h o gives (a share of) his c o m m i s s i o n to other persons.

1 7 0
T h e t w o p r e c e d i n g answers c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d within the framework o f J e w i s h
controversy, as answers w h i c h d o not d e n y the messianic supposition.
1 7 1
T h e term didpoXog had a p p e a r e d so far only in the narrative part o f the p e r i c o p e . It
m a y b e assumed that an earlier form o f the temptation story h a d only c o n t a i n e d the
term 6 Jteigd^wv.
1 7 2
In M a r k it is Peter w h o acts as s e d u c e r ( S a t a n ) . H e is addressed b y the same VJiaye;
the a d d i t i o n o f 6JUOU) \iov d o e s not alter the m e a n i n g , it 'fiigt d e m vnaye . . . nichts
h i n z u ' ( W e l l h a u s e n , Evangelium Marci, p . 66; c p . E. K l o s t e r m a n n , Das Markusevange-
lium ( T u b i n g e n , 1926) ad l o c ) .
1 7 3
T h i s is not seen b y N o e l (see p . 57). A d e e p e r understanding o f the p e r i c o p e is
given b y S. Liberty, The Political Relations of Christ's Ministry ( O x f o r d , 1916), p p . 43ff.
1 7 4
T h e r e is a parallelism between M a t t . 3: 15 (TOTE &<pir|OTV carcov) and 4: 11 (TOTE
236 E. BAMMEL

the temptation story. T h e reluctance to let Jesus express this fellowship

with men (Matt. 3: 1 5 ) , the refusal to let him go the way o f suffering (Mark
8: 3 3 ) and, above all, the alluring suggestion o f a messianic career are seen
as the crucial points where a confrontation with inimical forces takes place.
176 177 178
T h e traditions about the o c c a s i o n , the length, the o p p o n e n t s and
179
the character o f Jesus's temptation vary; indeed, different Jewish ideas
about both the testing and tempting o f the man o f G o d were already
available. Q , the earliest account o f the ministry o f j e s u s , presents a

&cpiT)oiv airtov 6 didPoXog). T h i s supports the v i e w that 3:14, 15 derive from Q

a n d that there is a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the seducing questions o f Satan and the
t e m p t i n g suggestion o f J o h n . It m a y b e that just Jt&oa oixaiocruvT) is a p r o d u c t o f
the evangelist, while the b e g i n n i n g and the end o f the sentence are p r e - M a t t h a e a n .
T h e standard translation o f the line is d e p e n d e n t o n dqpeg at the beginning o f the
sentence w h i c h is, h o w e v e r , m o r e a Fullsel than a constitutive element. T h e
p r o p o s e d interpretation is c o m p a t i b l e with a rite o f baptism in w h i c h the 'baptiser'
is merely the witness (thus in J e w i s h b a p t i s m ) o r in this case the o n e w h o admits to
b a p t i s m ( c p . L u k e 3: 7 v. 1.).
1 7 5
M a r k ' s presentation is quite different. Jesus w a g e s a running battle with the
d e m o n s . H e encounters them in the majority o f his healings. M o r e o v e r , in M a r k
8:33, Satan addresses h i m again in the person o f Peter. T h e answer that Jesus gives
brings us o n to the level o f Q : the S o n o f G o d w h o thinks xd xoi3 9eoxJ a n d is
therefore transfigured before he goes to Jerusalem! In Q the o p i n i o n o f others that
J e s u s acts in the n a m e o f B e e l z e b u b is all that remains o f this.
1 7 6
T h e J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n tradition has it that Jesus in his baptism had already b e e n
purified b y fire ( c p . TV 93 (1966), p p . 53ft).
1 7 7
L u k e views the temptation as o c c u p y i n g the w h o l e p e r i o d o f forty d a y s , whereas
M a t t h e w puts it at the end o f this p e r i o d , w h e n Jesus was hungry. M a r k emphasises
that Jesus w a s with the w i l d beasts. T h i s means not a fight against them, such as
h a d been p e r f o r m e d b y so m a n y giants right u p to Siegfried the dragon-slayer, but
rather c o m m u n i t y with the animals, i.e. the restoration o f Paradise. After sending
o u t his S o n it pleased G o d to p l a c e h i m in the setting and c o n d i t i o n s o f the first m a n .
T h i s h a p p e n s in the wilderness w h e r e he is alone, in surroundings u n t o u c h e d b y
h u m a n culture o r d e c a d e n c e o r sin. T h e desert is the p l a c e o f salvation. W h e n Jesus
leaves this setting, he is i m m e d i a t e l y in a situation o f conflict with Pharisees etc.
T h e e m p h a s i s w h i c h is thus b r o u g h t to light allows o n e to c o n c l u d e that verse 13a is
n o t original, but rather an insertion intended to bring the story into close
c o n n e c t i o n with M a t t h e w a n d L u k e . T h e r e f o r e the story as told b y M a r k has a quite
different significance: it relates h o w G o d confirms the baptismal p r o c l a m a t i o n in a
further a c t i o n , whereas in Q this p r o c l a m a t i o n is tested. T h e c o n t i n u i n g
significance o f the scene c o r r e s p o n d s to the testing, while in M a r k the testing p r o p e r
begins with 1:23 and ends with the transfiguration.
1 7 8
C p . p . 235 nn. 171 a n d 172.
1 7 9
In Q the temptation is the necessary correlative to the Baptism. T h e r e f o r e it is the
test o f J e s u s ' s c l a i m to be S o n o f G o d . It w o u l d after all have b e e n possible for Jesus
to have used the status b e s t o w e d o n h i m for private purposes, to have regarded .this
status as an aQJiayjiog. It is in keeping with this fundamental i m p o r t a n c e o f the
temptation that Jesus is attacked b y Satan h i m s e l f - after all an angelic figure! - w h o
is forced to a d m i t defeat b y retreating. Satan k n o w s exactly w h o Jesus is a n d his
o n l y c h a n c e is to s e d u c e h i m to s o m e t h i n g that is in line with J e w i s h expectation. In
M a r k Jesus is harassed b y the d e m o n s , w h o gradually recognise h i m while they are
never able to lure h i m . E a c h o f these designs indicates a m o r e d e v e l o p e d , a m o r e
' m y t h i c a l ' c h r i s t o l o g y than what w e find in J o h n 6.
 T h e Feeding o f the Multitude 237

heightened picture. It is a telescoped sketch o f events - a form not

unfamiliar to the student of Jewish literature - rather than just a poetical
180
figment. This enabled the author to bring out most forcefully what was
the true temptation in the life ofjesus: the messianic claim. Q agrees in this
with what seemed to be the kernel of the Feeding scene. It is in keeping with
the thoroughly stylised character o f the pericope that Satan withdraws
181
(dcpirjOTv) at the end of the scene, while the accounts of the Feeding agree
in indicating that Jesus withdraws. T h e two remarks are complementary
and underline the crucial nature o f what happened. Thus, Q does in fact
lend support to the view that the events surrounding the Feeding mark the
182
decisive turn in the ministry o f j e s u s .

VI

T h e messianic question must have posed itself to Jesus. Almost all o f the
charismatic figures o f this century harboured inclinations in this
183
direction, very often with a Zealot bias. Jesus himself was a scion o f the
house o f David, o f that house with which messianic expectations were
closely linked. A s soon as he had entered the arena, the consideration
whether the authority which he radiated had anything to d o with his
descent and whether he was put under an obligation by it must have
impressed itself on the audience and on Jesus likewise. It is indicated in
many details o f the Gospel reports that the question was presented to Jesus
184
in its different facets. His closer following was no exception to this. It is
especially the Lukan work that indicates the closeness o f the disciples to an
expectation which included the MxQCoaig o f Israel - up to the cross and
185
even b e y o n d - and takes pains to dissociate Jesus from such suggestions.

1 8 0
T h u s E. M e y e r , Ursprung und Anfdnge des Christentums i (Stuttgart, 1921), 94. I f he
w e r e right, it w o u l d reflect the experience o f the c o m m u n i t y behind Q .
1 8 1
L u k e qualifies this with &XQI x a i Q o i ) . In 22: 3 he reappears a n d takes possession o f
J u d a s , w h o thereupon seeks an evxaiQict (verse 6) to take steps against Jesus; and
indeed in 22:53 the a>oa . . . TOV o x o x o u g has arrived. T h i s is the first n e w
intervention o f Satan a c c o r d i n g to the s c h e m e o f this G o s p e l , i.e. the ministry itself
is u n t o u c h e d b y his skirmishes. It is the a c c e p t a b l e year par excellence.
1 8 2
T h e p r o p o s e d interpretation is in its m a i n point in a g r e e m e n t with the brilliant
exposition given b y O . Pfleiderer, ' D i e evangelische Erzahlung v o n der V e r s u c h u n g
J e s u in d e r W u s t e ' , ZWT 13 (1870), 20iff.
1 8 3
C p . H . G r e s s m a n n , Der Messias ( G o t t i n g e n , 1929); J. K l a u s n e r , The Messianic Idea
in Israel ( N e w Y o r k , 1955). O n i a s is the exception.
1 8 4
Peter's confession reflects the terminology o f messianism. It is, h o w e v e r , in this
context the stock phrase a puzzled disciple clings to rather than the attempt to push
Jesus forward. T r a c e s o f entreaties a m o n g the disciples m a y possibly b e found in
L u k e 9: 54.
1 8 5
T h e t h e m e o f the A/UTQoaoig is given p r o m i n e n c e at the beginning (1:68; 2: 38) and
at the e n d (24: 21) o f the G o s p e l . T h e correction is only slightly indicated in the first
238 e. bammel

T h e almost complete lack o f XQtorog-statements in the other Gospels and

of their refusal to take them as the consummation of witness to Jesus where
they occur underlines this. Whereas in the Feeding stories the meal is the
occasion at which the break between Jesus and the popular eschatology
takes place, it is in Luke 2 4 that the meal gives illumination to the disciples
assembled in Emmaus.
186
Jesus withdraws. Still, the event must have made its impression on
187
those w h o took part. T h e masses follow J e s u s - different branches o f the
188
tradition converge in assuming this. Indeed, the Feeding could be taken
as the beginning o f the revival o f the wondrous events o f the desert time, as
part o f a sequence o f actions which would culminate in 'salvation'. T h e
entry to Jerusalem show that such hopes were latent even at this stage and
could be kindled at any time.
It is against this background o f the flaring up o f old expectations that
Jesus's statements have to be viewed. Not only had the enthusiasm o f the
multitude been dashed, not only was the crafty machination o f the few
brought to naught, but equally the perseverance o f those w h o had taken a
189
close interest in J e s u s was to be disappointed. It is in consequence o f this
190
that Peter's confession is given a cool, if not directly hostile, reception,

p l a c e , while it is m a d e the central point o f the last teaching o f j e s u s : neither is the

liberation the task o f j e s u s nor Israel his object, but the suffering and the entering
into his g l o r y . T h e suffering might have been taken as a prelude to the liberation -
a n d i n d e e d it is taken s o b y the malefactor w h o is pictured sympathetically - b u t
this is e x c l u d e d as well: there will b e not a f]\iiga xfjg eXevoewg (23:42 in D ) , Jesus
is not to return ev xfj fiaoikeiq. oov, in a state o f royalty, but to b e m o v e d to the
JiaQd6eioog, a p l a c e w h i c h d o e s not figure in the t e r m i n o l o g y o f messianism. T h e
confrontation with messianic aspiration is also emphasised in the main b o d y o f the
Gospel.
1 8 6
It m a y b e that the D addition E^EYEQSeig (translated brilliantly b y H i r s c h ,
Fruhgeschichte i, 77: 'er raffle sich auf) to ryv&yx.a.O€V is original. It points to m o v e m e n t
a n d tension o n the side o f j e s u s . T h e m e n t i o n o f the prayer in the following verse is
in keeping with this. G o g u e l d r a w s attention to the fact that the prayer w h i c h
follows J e s u s ' s withdrawal is o n e o f three recounted in M a r k a n d he assumes {Jesus,
G T 24of; E T 373!) that it is equal in i m p o r t a n c e to the prayers at the b e g i n n i n g and
at the end o f his ministry.
1 8 7
M a r k 6: 54f is a puzzle. It is not o n l y the case that a Sammelbericht w h i c h starts with
55b is linked with s o m e t h i n g else ( c p . W e l l h a u s e n , Evangelium Marci, ad l o c ) .
V e r s e s 54, 55a are not o f a piece. M a t t h e w w h o shortens the w h o l e p e r i c o p e ,
presents a l o n g e r text at this place, possibly an attempt at reconstructing o n e w h i c h
had been lost b y mutilation. T h e readings d j t E 6 Q a u o v (referring to the disciples)
a n d Jt£Qie6()a|XOV (referring to the masses) seem to represent the beginning and end
o f the line lost b y mutilation.
188 M a r k 6:55 JteQie6rjau.ov = they rushed round the lake: J o h n 6:24ff.
1 8 9
W e have to think especially o f the Baptistic m o v e m e n t . D o e s the C h r y s o s t o m text
(see note 55, p . 218), while leading in the right direction, single o u t o n l y o n e side o f
what happened?
1 9 0
E. W e n d l i n g maintains that verse 33a, b followed verse 29 in U r m a r k u s
(Entstehung), p . 116; slightly deviating from his Ur-Marcus ( T u b i n g e n , 1905), p . 29.
 T h e Feeding o f the Multitude 239

and that it is replaced by the proclamation o f the Son o f man's suffering - a

point which is so crucial that even the 6y(ko^ is informed about it. T h e
evangelist emphasises that - contrary to his normal procedure o f speaking
191
in symbols (parables) - it happened plainly; that means that Jesus
192
dissociated himself from messianism unmistakably and p u b l i c l y .
Messianic aspirations were dangerous at this time - the fate o f so many
pretenders gives ample evidence o f this. O n e would expect Jesus to be safer
after having disclaimed such ambitions. T h e denial o f messianism was,
however, equally dangerous. T h e messianic idea was deeply rooted in
Jewish history and the expectation had reached boiling point in
193
contemporary J u d a i s m . Whatever differences existed about the time and
the person, no one was prepared to come out openly against messianism in
194 195
principle. T h e turning a w a y o f someone w h o had been reared in the
atmosphere o f messianic expectation kindled by the Baptist's proclama­
tion, and w h o perhaps at one time had wondered whether such a future
might be his o w n vocation - this renunciation could be taken as a
backsliding; it was bound to provoke those w h o were disappointed to hold
Jesus's descent and former statements against him and to assemble such
ammunition as could be found.
196
No wonder that critical observers felt obliged to gather direct

M a r k 8: 36 w a s the e n d and c l i m a x o f the story a n d followed verse 33 i m m e d i a t e l y

( p . 114).
1 9 1
M a r k 8:31.
1 9 2
E . M e y e r (Ursprung p . 117) assumes that Peter's confession w a s followed in the
original text b y his urging Jesus to play the role o f the messiah in line with the
standard J e w i s h e s c h a t o l o g y , a n d that it was this challenge that forced Jesus to
r e p r i m a n d h i m . It is possible that s o m e t h i n g o f this kind h a p p e n e d ( c p . , h o w e v e r ,
note 184, p . 237) a l t h o u g h traces o f such an event are not any longer noticeable.
1 9 3
A c c o r d i n g to R . Leszynsky (Die Sadduzaer (Berlin, 1912), p p . 99, 103) even in the
S a d d u c a i c party.
1 9 4
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n position is a telling e x a m p l e ; c p . W . W e b e r , Josephus und Vespasian
(Berlin, 1921), p p . 2500°.
1 9 5
H e b b e l , w h o w r o t e sketches for a d r a m a 'Christus* in the year o f his death (1863),
m a d e the difference b e t w e e n the Baptist and Jesus the basis o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f
the play. J o h n is the deceiver, Jesus the d e c e i v e d . I n n o c e n t l y he b e c o m e s a tool in
the h a n d s o f the Baptist, w h o makes use for his o w n p u r p o s e s o f Jesus's p o w e r to
w o r k w o n d e r s and the messianic a p p e a r a n c e w h i c h he has given without himself
being a w a r e o f it. W h e n J o h n c o m e s to his end he confides to Jesus his m a c h i n a t i o n s
and urges h i m to p r o c e e d likewise: pious fraud after the e x a m p l e o f M o s e s ( ' « i s t das
grosste Opfer, was du zu bringen hast, dass du dich zum frommen Betrug entschliessest, wie
Moses'). It is this event w h i c h o p e n s Jesus's eyes. G r a d u a l l y he is able to leave
b e h i n d the Baptistic influence, to free himself even from the thought o f an earthly
k i n g d o m a n d to p r o c l a i m a heavenly o n e ( F . H e b b e l , Sdmtliche Werke, Erste
A b t e i l u n g v (Berlin, 1904), 3i6fl). It is not clear from the fragments what aims the
poet had visualised for the Baptist.
1 9 6
T h e v i e w taken b y M . G o g u e l (Jesus, note 630; E T p . 372 n. 1) that the sign h a d been
d e m a n d e d b y followers in the original tradition c a n hardly b e maintained; even less
24O E. BAMMEL

197
information. T h e mention o f a questioning by the Pharisees, o f attempts
to expose his position with complete clarity, had its place in these
circumstances. Its outcome must have been unsatisfactory from the
Pharisaic point o f view. O n e might have thought that the Pharisees, w h o
198
had stayed aloof from political intrigues in recent generations, who
seemed to have made it a principle to keep away from the realm of political
199
action, and w h o waited for a messiah sent by G o d , would have been
pleased with a m o v e which would have recommended Jesus to them, had it
not been the case that he denied messianism altogether. This fact, however,
made it imperative for them to fall in with what the ruling powers in
200
Jerusalem had already indicated by their preliminary action. Apart from
t n e
lives Y turned against Jesus.
Jesus's withdrawal was by no means a move which would dispel the
201
suspicion felt against him by the Herodian administration: w h o could be
sure that his retreat was a final one, that he was not preparing for another
period o f action? T h e fact that Jesus had to remain outside the territory o f
Antipas shows that vigilance continued. T h e situation which was to
become decisive in the Trial emerges on the scene.
A series o f actions taken by friends and sympathisers was aimed at
202 203
removing Jesus either physically or mentally from a course o f
204 205
confrontation. A period which is marked by division, fear and yet
206
determination among his disciples was to follow. Jesus himself must have
wondered what course to take. Eventually he made his decision, which,
almost two hundred years ago, received its most apt characterisation from
Herder: 'Meuchelmorderisch wollte Jesus nicht umkommen; er ging frei
nach Jerusalem vors Angesicht der Obrigkeit und seiner Hauptfeinde.
207
W e n n es das Leben gait, so wollte er dort sterben.'

the o p i n i o n that the sign w a s m e a n t to b e the signal for a messianic uprising ( G T p .

240; E T p . 372).
'97 M a r k 7 : 1 5 8 : 1 1 - 1 3 ; 9:14.
198
J . W e l l h a u s e n , Die Pharisaer und die Sadducder (Greifswald, 1874), p . 101.
1 9 9
A . Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus (Giitersloh, 1932),
p . 212; he seems h o w e v e r , to put t o o m u c h trust in claims m a d e b y J o s e p h u s for
a p o l o g e t i c reasons.
200 M a r k 3:22 is to b e interpreted as a statement w h i c h has j u d i c i a l relevance: a s o l e m n
w a r n i n g is issued, w h i c h w a s to b e followed b y even sterner action.
2 0 1
It is o n e - s i d e d to characterise Jesus's m o v e m e n t s as c o n d i t i o n e d b y his 'innere, ihn
fast verzehrende U n r u h e , z u m Ziele zu gelangen' ( K . W e i d e l , Jesu Persbnlichkeit, 3rd
e d n . H a l l e , 1921, p . 96).
2 0 2 2 0 3
L u k e 13:31 M a r k 8:32.
2 0 4
M a r k 8: 15: J o h n 6:66. G o g u e l ' s d e s c r i p t i o n that M a r k - o v e r against the facts -
wants to d e p i c t the situation o f a g r a d u a l awareness o f the character o f j e s u s b y his
disciples (Jesus, G T p . 237; E T p p . 369Q c a n n o t b e maintained.
2 0 5 2 0 6
M a r k 10:32. J o h n 1 1 : 16.
2 0 7
Erloser, cited from Werke, e d . b y S u p h a n , xix, 179.
 H . St J . HART

The coin of 'Render unto Caesar . .

(A note on some aspects of Mark
1 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 ; Matt. 22:15-22; Luke
1
20: 20—26)

T h e provocative question e^ecmv xfjvoov KcuoaQi 5 o w a i (Mark 1 2 : 14: D

and some other authorities read for xfjvoov, epexegetically, emxecpaXcuov
- we have to d o with a poll-tax, not with indirect taxation) introduces what,
maybe, was the first instance o f the use o f a coin, imaginatively, as a 'visual
aid', in teaching. It added vividness, and a sense of drama, to the tale. Jesus
calls for the appropriate coin qpEQexe \ioi 5rivaQiov iva L'&a) (Mark 1 2 : 1 5 ;
Matt. 2 2 : 1 9 varies this - EJti5ei§axe jioi T O vo\iio\ia xov xf|voou.) It is
immediately forthcoming. N o one doubts that it is indeed 'the money o f the
tribute'. T h e 6r]v&Qiov is the kind o f coin in which the tribute is calculated
2
and in which, by implication, it is to be paid. W e may note in passing that
perhaps Jesus did not have such a coin about him. This is not stated. But it
was perhaps so, for whatever reason. It would have been artistically
desirable for the denouement that the coin should have been provided by
the Pharisees and Herodians w h o have posed the original question and no
d o u b t they are the 'they' of 0 1 5 e fjveyxav (Mark 1 2 : 1 6 ; Matt. 22: 1 9 0 1 5 e
JiQOcniveYxav auto) 5r]vdQiov). But there is no reason to suppose as some
have supposed that Jesus had no such coin about him because such a coin
was itself an idolatrous object at which in the spirit o f the strictest o f the
3
those strict sectarians mentioned by Hippolytus, or o f the famous Nahum

1
T h i s note is intended to s u p p l e m e n t the treatment o f the incident as a w h o l e b y
Professor F. F. B r u c e in this v o l u m e under the title ' R e n d e r to C a e s a r ' (see p p .
249-63). S o m e o f the e v i d e n c e assembled for this note has a c c o r d i n g l y been
suppressed, to a v o i d o v e r l a p , b u t it has not been found c o n v e n i e n t to avoid all
overlaps.
2
T h i s is c o m p a t i b l e with the provisions o f the P a l m y r a inscription (IGRR, I I I , 1056,
OGIS 629) o f w h i c h use is m a d e b y Professor B r u c e ( p . 258). C p . the c o m m e n t , o n
the G o s p e l story, o f L e o K a d m a n the distinguished numismatist o f Israel: ' T h e s e
questions a n d answers were o n l y possible w h e n Jesus c o u l d a s s u m e that the silver
pieces found in the purse o f the m a n in the street were R o m a n o r R o m a n imperial
coins, with the i m a g e a n d legend o f the e m p e r o r ' , Congresso Internazionale di
Numismatica ( R o m e , 1961), ii, Atti ii ( R o m e , 1965), 70.
3
H i p p o l y t u s , Refutatio omnium haeresium i x . 26, e d . P. W e n d l a n d ( L e i p z i g , 1916).
T h e y w o u l d not even carry coins, equating t h e m with i m a g e s .

241
242 H. ST J. HART

4
or M e n a h e m the son o f Shimai, Jesus might have been reluctant even to
look. O n the contrary he declared himself quite ready to look at it — (peQETE
|!Oi 6r|vdQiov i'va i5a) - calling for it for this very purpose. T h e coin was
produced - for all to see. N o question was made by any involved in this
encounter o f the idolatrous or blasphemous character or implication o f the
5
type and legend to be seen on the coin. T h e point of the story was not there.
T h e question which followed was a straightforward question: x£vogr| eixcbv
6
avxr\ xai r\ EJUYQacprj; the answer, certainly dramatic, perhaps reluctant,
is equally straightforward - in one word Kaioagog. All our three witnesses
are in agreement. T h e coin which was called for, and was forthcoming, was
in the correct tribute currency. It was a 5r]vaQiov, a denarius. T h e point o f
calling for the coin, and o f the subsequent question, was that the issuing
7
authority was Caesar's. It was Caesar's m o n e y . Both portrait and legend,
eixcbv and emyQacprj, testified precisely to this.
Perhaps the preliminaries were somewhat mystifying. But they
8
introduced the ruling ofjesus (Mark 1 2 : 1 7 ) on the original question, with
telling effect. It caused great surprise (Mark 1 2 : 2 2 , Luke 20: 2 6 b ) . It was
unanswerable (Luke 20: 2 6 a ) .
But the concern o f this note is not with the climax o f the whole encounter
but with the coin. Can we suggest with any confidence to what series o f
R o m a n imperial denarii the denarius which was shown to Jesus, and
exhibited for all to scrutinise, belonged? There is a standard 'identification'
9
which is probably quite right. It should however be remembered that no
such 'identification', however probable, can ever be proved to be right, nor
will it add anything to our understanding of the Gospel narrative. W h a t the

4
O n N a h u m a n d the r a b b i n i c evidences for h i m , see, conveniently, the discussion b y
H e r b e r t L o e w e in his b o o k Render unto Caesar ( C a m b r i d g e , 1940), p p . 88ff. N a h u m
earned the h i g h title o f ' a m a n o f the h o l y o f holies' ' b e c a u s e all his life long he never
g a z e d u p o n a c o i n ' , ' b e c a u s e o n c o i n s there were h u m a n devices a n d d e v i c e s o f
living creatures'.
5
C p . 'the i m a g e s o f princes printed o r s t a m p e d in their coins, w h i c h w h e n Christ
d i d see in a R o m a n c o i n , w e read not that he r e p r e h e n d e d it'. H o m i l y Against
Idolatry (the t w o b o o k s o f H o m i l i e s a p p o i n t e d to b e read in c h u r c h e s , O x f o r d ,
1859)-
6
F o r a similar question, in a very different c o n t e x t , A r r i a n , Disc. Epict. iv. v . 17. xivog
exei xov xaoaxxfjga xovxo xo xexodooaoov; for eixwv as in the Gospels here c p .
Herodianus (historicus) 1.9.7 vouxouxxxa £ x 6 u x a a v exxexxmwuiva xt|v
exeivou eixova.
7
' C a e s a r ' s m o n e y ' o r ' c o i n ' was p r o b a b l y a p o p u l a r phrase, a l m o s t equivalent to
'legal tender', c p . xo xov x a i o a o o g vou-iouu in A r r i a n , Disc. Epict. iii.
8
A very interesting conjecture a b o u t the form o f Jesus's responsum is m a d e in
J. D u n c a n M . Derrett, Law in the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1970), p . 335.
9
T h e standard identification (see next p a r a g r a p h ) is very w i d e l y a c c e p t e d . It is not
usual to trace it b a c k b e y o n d the first edition (1864) o f F. W . M a d d e n , History of
Jewish Coinage and of Money in the Old and New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1864, reprinted
N e w Y o r k , 1967), p . 247, although the 'identification' is o l d e r than M a d d e n .
 T h e coin o f 'Render unto Caesar' 243

coin had to contribute as a 'visual aid' is all recorded there. O u r question

10
springs only from natural curiosity.
11
If as is probable the denarius was a denarius o f Tiberius himself, the
reigning Caesar whose tribute and tribute money is under discussion, there
is remarkably little choice and a highly probable 'identification'. T h e
12
imperial mints o f Tiberius are listed in the great catalogue o f Mattingly.
All his denarii are attributed to the mint o f Lugdunum in Gaul. There are
only two series: (a) a series dated to A . D . 1 5 / 1 6 ( T R P O T X V I I ) which was
13 14
not continued, and (b) the series o f the standard 'identification'. It bears
no dates, but the titles o f the emperor are continued on the reverse with
P O N T I F M A X I M , and as Tiberius became Pontifex maximus on 1 0
1 5
M a r c h A . D . 1 5 we have a terminus a quo for the series which was issued in
16
quite extraordinary numbers at intervals throughout the rest o f his reign.
T h e legends (obverse T I C A E S A R D I V I A V G F A V G V S T V S and
reverse P O N T I F M A X I M ) remain constant, the types (obverse head o f
1 7
Tiberius laureate, and reverse seated lady, perhaps Livia as P A X ) also
remain constant, save for minor, though doubtless significant, variations in
the presentation o f the seated lady who persists as the reverse type.
Annotated examples may be studied in Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire,
18
plates 22 and 2 3 . T h e series belongs with a long series o f aurei also o f
Tiberius from the same mint, and both were issued in continuation as it
were o f a series ofaurei and denarii issued late in the reign o f Augustus which
19
shared the same fundamental reverse type. This 'type is o f special
significance', writes D r Michael Grant, 'because, when the princeps
[Augustus] died soon afterwards, his successor Tiberius - changing only

1 0
C p . Derrett, Law p . 329, and the beginning o f note 2, ibid. p . 338.
11
T h e provisions m a d e b y G e r m a n i c u s in the Palmyra inscription ( c p . F. F. B r u c e ,
b e l o w p . 258) m a k e it p r o b a b l e that there was a notable increase in the avail­
ability o f R o m a n imperial coins in Syria in the early years o f T i b e r i u s ' s reign.
1 2
H a r o l d M a t t i n g l y , Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, i ( L o n d o n , 1923),
I20ff.
1 3
M a t t i n g l y , Coins i, p . 121, n u m b e r s 7 - 1 1 .
1 4
M a t t i n g l y , Coins, i, p p . i25ff, n u m b e r s 34-8, 42-5, 48-60. M . G r a n t in R . A . G .
C a r s o n and C . H . V . Sutherland, Essays in Roman Coinage presented to Harold
Mattingly ( O x f o r d , 1956), p . 112, suggests they were minted 'at m o r e than the single
mint o f L u g d u n u m ' .
1 5
E v i d e n c e , conveniently, V . E h r e n b e r g and A . H . M . J o n e s , Documents illustrating the
reigns of Augustus and Tiberius ( O x f o r d , 1949), p . 47.
1 6
T h e extraordinary n u m b e r s o f this series found in m o d e r n times had already
attracted the attention o f J o s e p h Eckhel, see his Doctrina Numorum Veterum, V o l . vi
( V i e n n a , 1796), p . 188.
1 7
For this identification o f the lady, M a t t i n g l y , Coins, i, 124, and p p . cxvii, and cxxxi;
M . G r a n t , Roman Anniversary Issues ( C a m b r i d g e , 1950), p . 39; C . H . V . Sutherland,
Coinage in Roman Imperial Currency ( L o n d o n , 1951), p . 84, note 8.
1 8
M a t t i n g l y , Coins, i, p p . i24(f, n u m b e r s 30-3, 39-41, 46, 47.
1 9
M a t t i n g l y , Coins, i, p . 91, n u m b e r 544 (aureus) and n u m b e r s 545f (denarii).
244 H. ST J. HART

the obverse - continued to use the same reverse type, and scarcely any
other, throughout the twenty-three years o f his reign'. It is interesting to
read in continuation 'this type was issued in many millions o f examples
(including, perhaps, the "Tribute Penny" o f the N e w Testament) over a
period o f nearly a quarter o f a century. This is a duration more char­
acteristic o f our modern coinage than o f the incessantly changing coin-
2 0
types o f the R o m a n Empire. . . . ' In another place D r Grant classifies
21
this denarius among coins intended for empire-wide circulation. The
proposal to see here T O vo\iio\ia xov xf|vaou, and 5iivaQiov o f our
22
narrative, was first made long a g o , and has been generally accepted by
New Testament scholars, and is very probable indeed. M o r e than that -
23
note D r Grant's wise word 'perhaps' in the above quotation - can hardly
be said. A n y denarius o f Augustus, or a denarius o f Tiberius in the dated series
to which reference has been made above, might also be a candidate for the
distinction o f this 'identification'. T h e conditions are plain. T h e coin must
2
be one which it is natural to call a denarius. * It must bear the eixcbv and
ejUYQacprj o f Caesar. Augustus and Tiberius are the only two Caesars w h o
can be considered, for obvious chronological reasons. T h e great numbers in
which the denarius o f the standard identification were issued tell powerfully
in its favour. It is statistically the most probable suggestion.
25
Is it consistent with the monetary situation in Roman 'Palestine' in the
period o f the ministry o f Jesus? T h e answer is yes. But the question
demands some scrutiny because hitherto early imperial denarii (i.e. those o f

2 0
M . G r a n t , Roman Imperial Money ( L o n d o n , 1954), p p . I33f.
2 1
In C a r s o n a n d Sutherland, Essays, p . 112.
2 2
C p . note 9, p . 242.
2 3
H e is, u n d e r s t a n d a b l y , a little less cautious elsewhere. See his Roman History from
Coins ( C a m b r i d g e , 1958), p p . 83f, w h e r e he mentions very n u m e r o u s finds o f this
denarius o f T i b e r i u s in southern I n d i a , and says ' T h i s is the so-called " T r i b u t e
P e n n y " o f the Bible. It is identified with the " p e n n y " that w a s b r o u g h t to J e s u s . . . .
N o o t h e r denarius o f T i b e r i u s circulated nearly so extensively.'
2 4
T h i s tells against the suggestion to bring into consideration the coins o f Philip the
T e t r a r c h , e.g. in E . K l o s t e r m a n n , Das Markus-evangelium ( T u b i n g e n , 1950), o n
M a r k 12: 16. Philip issued n o silver coins.
2 5
F o r this m u c h - s t u d i e d subject reference m a y b e m a d e to the following: E. Schiirer,
Geschichte des Judischen Volkes im ZeitalterJesu Christi (Hildersheim, 1964, r e p r o d u c i n g
L e i p z i g edition o f 1907, ii, 7iff); L . C . W e s t , Gold and silver standards in the Roman
Empire, N u m i s m a t i c N o t e s and M o n o g r a p h s , N u m b e r 94 ( N e w Y o r k , 1941), p p .
47O F. M . H e i c h e l h e i m , An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, iv, (Baltimore, 1938),
2i2f; A . N . S h e r w i n - W h i t e , Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament
( O x f o r d , 1963), p . 124. N o n e o f these relate the literary to the n u m i s m a t i c e v i d e n c e .
S u c h studies are o n l y b e g i n n i n g . F o r that see the p a p e r o f D r C . H . V . Sutherland at
the International N u m i s m a t i c C o n v e n t i o n at Jerusalem, 1963 to w h i c h reference is
m a d e b e l o w , a n d the sadly i n c o m p l e t e p a p e r entitled ' T h e m o n e t a r y d e v e l o p m e n t
o f Palestine in the light o f coin h o a r d s ' b y the late L e o K a d m a n w h o d i e d at the
b e g i n n i n g o f that c o n v e n t i o n , printed in the Proceedings, p p . 31 iff. C p . information
d e r i v e d from D r Y a ' a k o v M e s h o r e r cited b e l o w .
 T h e coin o f 'Render unto Caesar' 245

Augustus and o f Tiberius) have been rather few in authentic finds in

Palestine. J. Spencer Kennard, Jr, made much o f this in Render to God, A
study of the Tribute passage, and was able to quote only four specimens o f the
denarius o f the standard 'identification' which were known to have been
found in Palestine. H e does not seem to doubt that a denarius was indeed
shown to Jesus, or that it was likely to have been a specimen of the standard
26
'identification'. But he denies that it was the money of the tribute. H e sees
the denarius as a rare novelty in the context o f the Gospels. He argues that
the tribute would have been paid in other silver currency, not minted far
away at Lugdunum in Gaul. T h e cogency of arguments so based is however
very questionable, since there has been no systematic recording of the detail
and locality o f finds until quite recent decades. Kennard's book was
published in 1 9 5 0 and the right comment even then would probably have
been 'wait and see'. In an important paper entitled ' T h e pattern o f
monetary development in Phoenicia and Palestine during the early Empire'
read at the International Numismatic Convention in Jerusalem in
December 1 9 6 3 , D r C . H . V . Sutherland notes: 'It is for the period d o w n to
A . D . 7 0 that literary evidence is most generous in giving a complementary
27
impression o f monetary economy in the area, and especially in Palestine.'
H e refers to the evidence afforded by the New Testament and pronounces
the picture 'a normal G r e c o - R o m a n one o f the time'. He says later: 'There
is little, until now, in the nature o f hoard-evidence to amplify the sketch
afforded by mint-analysis and literary evidence for the early Julio-Claudian
28
period, though this will assuredly come in due course.' T h e right comment
on our question in 1 9 6 3 was still therefore 'wait and see'. Then there is the
Isfiya Hoard o f about 4 , 5 0 0 ancient silver coins discovered in i 9 6 0 near
Isfiya on M t Carmel. This was all too briefly described by Leo K a d m a n
w h o found in it 3,400 Tyrian shekels, about 1,000 half-shekels, and ' 1 6 0
29
Roman denarii of Augustus'. Here is hoard evidence beginning to corroborate
the picture afforded by the literary evidence o f the N e w Testament and
Josephus, certainly adding to the scanty evidence o f earlier authenticated
finds, that the R o m a n denarius played its part in the monetary system o f
Palestine in the time o f the Gospels. K a d m a n did not publish a detailed list
o f the 1 6 0 denarii o f Augustus, and there was here no news o f more denarii o f

2 6
' T h e denarius represented the c o i n a g e o f the W e s t ; it was not the coin o f tribute',
K e n n a r d , Render to God, p . 51.
2 1
Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem ig6j ( T e l A v i v -
J e r u s a l e m , 1967), p . 91.
2 8
I b i d . p . 93.
2 9
In passing, as it w e r e , in his very interesting p a p e r ' T e m p l e dues and c u r r e n c y in
ancient Palestine in the light o f recently-discovered c o i n - h o a r d s ' , p p . 6gfT of Atti, ii,
( R o m e , 1965). A n o t h e r version o f this p a p e r is in Israel Numismatic Bulletin 1
(Jerusalem, 1962), 9—11.
3

i
6
 T h e coin o f 'Render unto Caesar'

i and 2 are denarii o f Augustus, 3 and 4 are denarii o f Tiberius. A n y o f such coins, but
most probably such a coin as 4, may therefore have been TO vo\iio\ia xov xrjvoou.
5 is a billion tetradrachm o f Alexandria. It is perhaps the best candidate, other than a
denarius, for the 'identification'. It was roughly equivalent in value to a denarius; but
there is the p r o b l e m o f the monetary isolation o f Egypt (see further H . St J. Hart,
' T h e C r o w n o f T h o r n s in J o h n 19, 2-$\JThSt n.s. 3 (1952), 66f. 6 is a 'shekel', 7 a
'i-shekef, both o f the mint o f T y r e . A c c o r d i n g to Mishnah, Bekhoroth^^y'm. 7, it
was in Tyrian currency that the Jewish 'shekel-dues' were paid. T h e T e m p l e tax is
discussed in this v o l u m e by W . H o r b u r y (see p p . 2 6 5 - 8 6 ) .
N o s . 2 - 4 by courtesy o f the British M u s e u m .

N o s . 1 and 5-7 by courtesy o f the Fitzwilliam M u s e u m , C a m b r i d g e .

Detail
1. Augustus. L u g d u n u m . Denarius. Undated but 'c. 2 B . C - A . D . I I ' . C p .
Mattingly, Coins, i, no. 538. Obverse: Head, laureate. C A E S A R
A V G V S T V S D I V I F P A T E R P A T R I A E . Reverse: Gaius and Lucius:
between them two shields and two spears. In field, lituus and simpulum;
below these X . C L C A E S A R E S A V G V S T I F C O S D E S I G P R I N C
IVVENT.
2. Augustus. L u g d u n u m . Denarius. Undated, c. A.D. I 1-13. Mattingly, Coins,
i, n o . 546. O b v e r s e : Head, laureate. C A E S A R A V G V S T V S D I V I F
P A T E R P A T R I A E . Reverse: Seated female figure. P O N T I F M A X I M .

3. Tiberius. L u g d u n u m . Denarius, A.D. 15-16. Mattingly, Coins, i, no. 8.

O b v e r s e : H e a d , laureate. T I C A E S A R D I V I A V G F A V G V S T V S .
Reverse: T h e emperor in quadriga. I M P V I I T R P O T X V I I .

4. Tiberius. L u g d u n u m . Denarius. Undated. Mattingly, Coins, i, no. 60.

Obverse: H e a d , laureate. T I C A E S A R D I V I A V G F A V G V S T V S .
Reverse: Seated female figure. P O N T I F M A X I M .

5. Augustus. Alexandria. Billon tetradrachm. C p . J. G . Milne, Catalogue of

the Alexandrian Coins in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1933), nos. 38ff.
Obverse: Head o f Tiberius, laureate. TiPeoioc; KaioctQ CePaarog. Date,
L Z ( = 6 = A.D. 2 0 ) . Reverse: Head o f Augustus, radiate. ©eogCePaoroc,.

6. T y r e . Shekel. Sylloge'Nummorum Graecorum, iv ( L o n d o n , 1971), n o . 6089.

O b v e r s e : H e a d o f Herakles/Melkart. Reverse: Eagle on p r o w . T U Q O D
Ieoac, Kai AouXou. Date, Z M ( = 8 0 - 7 9 B . C ) .

7. T y r e . Half-shekel. Sylloge, iv, n o . 6093. T y p e s and legend as on 6. Date =

10/9 B.C.
248 H. ST J. HART

30
Tiberius. So, mindful of Dr Sutherland's prophecy, cited above, I wrote to
my very learned friend Dr Ya'akov Meshorer, o f the Israel M u s e u m in
Jerusalem. From his reply, dated 1 April 1 9 7 1 , 1 am grateful to quote, with
his kind permission, as follows:

You rightly assumed these Tiberius denars are quite rare in this part of the
world, though I occasionally spot one in the market. Excavations and
published material is not much more encouraging. The only good example
of a find including such coins is the famous hoard of Mount Carmel,
discovered in i960. It was never properly published although most of it
was registered by Mr L. Rachmany of the Israel Antiquities department.
The hoard was discussed briefly in a paper published by Kadman in the
Israel Numismatic Journal, 1 (1962), pp. 9-11. This hoard includes 3,400
Tyrian shekels, and 1,000 half-shekels dated from 40 B.C. to 53 A.D., and
also 160 Roman denars. Although Kadman wrote that all the denars are of
Augustus, I can say for sure that at least 30 of them are of the Tiberius type
you are interested in. Some of these coins are in the possession of the Israel
Antiquities Department, some are apparently in the collections of the
'Coins and Medals Co.', Jerusalem, and the rest were sold on the open
market.

and later in the letter: 'Father A . Spijkerman o f the Franciscan Biblical

School in Jerusalem, four years ago bought such a denarius in Jericho,
which had been found there.'
In the light o f this evidence we may conclude, with Kennard and many
others, that the standard 'identification' is in all probability right. W e may
go further, against Kennard in 1 9 5 0 , and with many others before and
since, and accept the implication - it is quite unexceptionable - o f the
Gospel narrative - that the Roman imperial denarius, o f whatever
contemporary variety, was indeed T O v6\iio\ia xov x f | V O O V (Matt. 2 2 : 1 9 ) .
It remains highly probable that the coin shown to Jesus was one o f the huge
second series of denarii of Tiberius according to the standard 'identification'.
T o determine between this and his earlier series, or some earlier denarius o f
Caesar Augustus himself, also bearing the etxcov and EJUYQOKprj of Caesar,
31
is not n o w in our power, nor is it probable that it ever will b e .

3 0
In the R o m e version K a d m a n h a d already n o t e d o n e denarius o f T i b e r i u s a m o n g the
160 denarii.
3 1
See also the plate and its a n n o t a t i o n s .
 F. F . BRUCE

Render to Caesar

In the context of Jesus's ministry in the outer court of the T e m p l e during his
last week in Jerusalem Mark (followed by the two other synoptic
evangelists) records this incident:

T h e y send to him s o m e of the Pharisees and the Herodians to catch him in

a statement. T h e y c o m e and say to him, ' T e a c h e r , w e k n o w that y o u are
1
true and court n o o n e ' s favour: y o u d o not regard anyone's status, but
teach the w a y o f G o d truly. Is it permissible to give tribute to Caesar or
not? Shall we give it, o r shall w e not give it?' K n o w i n g that they were
acting a part he said to them: ' W h y d o y o u try (to catch) m e (like this)?
Bring m e a denarius; let m e see it.' T h e y brought him o n e ; and he says to
them, ' W h o s e i m a g e is this? W h o s e n a m e is inscribed (on the c o i n ) ? '
'Caesar's', said they. So Jesus said 'Give Caesar's property back to
Caesar; give G o d what belongs to G o d . ' T h e y were lost in amazement at
2
him.

W h i l e the point o f the incident is preserved in all three synoptic records, it is

generalised in later stages o f the tradition. T h u s , in Papyrus Egerton 2 , it
appears in the form:

3
T h e y c a m e to him and tested him with a question: ' M a s t e r Jesus, we
k n o w that you have c o m e from G o d , for the things w h i c h y o u d o bear
witness b e y o n d all the prophets. Tell us therefore: Is it permissible to
render to kings the things that belong to their rule? Shall w e render these
things to them o r not?'Jesus, knowing their mind, was angry and said to
them: ' W h y d o y o u call me " M a s t e r " with y o u r mouth without listening to
4
what I say? Well did Isaiah prophesy o f you when he said, " T h i s people
k n o w m e with their lips, but their heart is far from m e . In vain d o they
5
w o r s h i p m e , [teaching] c o m m a n d m e n t s [ o f m e n ] . " '

1
Literally: 'you d o not care for ( m e d d l e with) any one, for you d o not look at the face
o f men' ( c p . 1 Sam. 16: 7, 'man looks on the face [ M T ' e y e s ' ] , but Y a h w e h looks on
the heart'). In general pXejieiv JIQOOCOJIOV is, like Oau^id^eiv JiQoaamov (Jude 16),
s y n o n y m o u s with X.au.|3dveiv JIQ6OCDJIOV, ' t o b e partial', ' t o s h o w favouritism'.
2
M a r k 12: 13-17; c p . M a t t . 22: 15-22; Luke 20: 20-6.
3
G k 6t6doxaXe. W i t h the sentence introduced b y this w o r d c p . J o h n 3: 2.
4
I s a . 29: 13 (cp. its quotation in M a r k 7:61).
5
Fragment 2 recto, Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian
Papyri, e d . H . I. Bell a n d T . C . Skeat ( L o n d o n , 1935), p p . 10-13.

249
25O F. F. BRUCE

M o r e succinctly, in the Gospel o f T h o m a s , Logion 100 runs thus:

They showed Jesus a piece of gold and said to him, 'Caesar's people are
asking taxes from us.' Said he to them: 'Give Caesar what is Caesar's, give
6 7
God what is God's, and give me what is mine.'

These last two passages are o f interest for the development o f the tradition
under divergent influences; they throw no light on the significance o f the
pericope in its earliest form, but reflect a situation in which the original
urgency o f the question has been forgotten.
T h e pericope in Mark can be categorised as an apophthegm or paradigm
in the conventional terminology o f form-criticism. It was related for the
sake o f the punch-line - the epigrammatic saying ofjesus which forms its
climax. T h e saying cannot have circulated on its own: it is intelligible only
8
as part o f the pericope.
T h e editorial hand is seen only in the introduction to the pericope: the
mention o f Pharisees and Herodians together is striking. A n alliance
between the Pharisees and Herodians, with the aim of destroying Jesus, has
been mentioned earlier, in Mark 3 : 6 , in a Galilaean setting, at the end o f a
series o f five controversial incidents. T h e suggestion that, in the material as
Mark received it, the controversies o f 1 2 : 136°followed continuously on the
9
five o f 2: 1 to 3: 6 is not convincing: those of 2: 1 to 3: 6 have a different form
from those o f 1 2 : 136°, and the incident with which we are concerned
presupposes a Judaean setting. It was in Judaea, not Galilee, that the
tribute question was one o f practical moment, with the risk o f an impolitic
answer being construed as seditious. T h e presence of Herodians here is not
surprising if Herod Antipas was temporarily resident in Jerusalem ( c p .
Luke 2 3 : 7 ) .
T h e Pharisees may have taken up a variety o f attitudes towards the
R o m a n administration of Judaea, ranging from Sadduq, the Pharisee w h o
10
joined with Judas o f Gamala in leading the revolt o f A . D . 6 , to Yohanan
ben Zakkai, w h o counselled submission to R o m e at the time o f the greater

6
' G o d ' is not found elsewhere in the G o s p e l o f T h o m a s ; here the G o d o f the O l d
T e s t a m e n t , the d e m i u r g e , is p r o b a b l y intended, so that w e have an a s c e n d i n g o r d e r
o f dignity: C a e s a r , G o d , Jesus. H e w h o m Jesus reveals is 'the Father', not ' G o d ' ; to
e m b r a c e the saving k n o w l e d g e imparted b y Jesus as revealer o f the Father is to give
Jesus his d u e .
7
The Gospel according to Thomas ( C o p t i c text with English translation), e d . A .
G u i l l a u m o n t , H . - C h . P u e c h , G . Q u i s p e l , W . Till and Y a s s a h ' A b d al M a s i h
( L e i d e n a n d L o n d o n , 1959), p . 51.
8
C p . R . B u l t m a n n , Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (5th e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1961),
p . 25 ( E T The History of the Synoptic Tradition ( O x f o r d , 1963), p . 26): ' T h e r e is n o
reason, in m y v i e w , ' he a d d s , 'for s u p p o s i n g that this is a c o m m u n i t y p r o d u c t . '
9
C p . B . S . Easton, Christ in the Gospels ( N e w Y o r k , 1930), p p . 35f.
l0
J o s e p h u s , A J xviii. 4.
 Render to Caesar 251

revolt sixty years later and acknowledged Vespasian in advance as

11
world-ruler and Temple-destroyer. T h e majority of them probably looked
on the R o m a n dominion as a necessary evil, like Hanina the deputy high
priest (prefect o f the priests) w h o is credited with the admonition: T r a y for
e
the peace o f the empire (mal kut), since if it were not for fear o f it men would
12
devour each other alive'.
A s for the Herodians, they were not a religious group but a party that
promoted the interests o f the Herod dynasty and probably hoped for the
re-integration o f Herod's kingdom under one o f his descendants. Although
this would mean the end o f government by imperial procurators, they must
have been p r o - R o m a n in their policy: only as allies or vassals o f R o m e could
13
the Herods exercise any authority in Palestine.
It was as representatives o f two groups, then, that were not in principle
hostile to the occupying power, that the deputation from the Pharisees and
Herodians approached Jesus. T h e implication o f the narrative is that, if he
had denied the propriety o f paying tribute to Caesar, they would have
denounced him to the provincial government. This is Luke's explicit
account o f their motive: they hoped, he says, that Jesus's answer would
enable them 'to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction o f the
14
governor'. But their plan was thwarted. O n the other hand, men w h o
shared the Zealot outlook would have welcomed him as a sympathiser and
ally had he returned a negative answer and would certainly not have
denounced him to the authorities. T h e best that they could hope for, if they
were already opposed to him, would be that an affirmative answer to the
question 'Shall we give?' would lose him the sympathy o f all w h o chafed
under the Gentile yoke. But a question like this from men o f Zealot outlook
would more probably have been designed simply to find out where Jesus
stood on this (to them) all-important issue. As it is, the question came from
men whose motives, as Jesus read them, were more than suspect.

II

Judaea first became tributary to R o m e when Pompey occupied it in 6 3 B.C.:

15
'he laid the region and Jerusalem under tribute', says Josephus. For a time

" T B GUtin, 56b; c p . T B Yoma, 39b.

n a
Pirqe 'Abot 3: 2. T h e d e s i g n a t i o n o f H a n i n a as Pgan hakkdh nim i m p l i e s that he
flourished before the fall o f the T e m p l e : ' p r o b a b l y the last to h o l d this office' ( H . L .
Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, E T ( N e w Y o r k , 1959), p . 109).
1 3
C p . W . O t t o , in / W S u p p l . ii, cols. 20off (s.v. ' H e r o d i a n o i ' ) ; H . H . R o w l e y , ' T h e
H e r o d i a n s in the G o s p e l s ' , JThSt 41 (1940), i4ff. T h e H e r o d i a n s d i s a p p e a r
c o m p l e t e l y from L u k e ' s narrative: in L u k e 20: igfTit is spies from the scribes and
c h i e f priests w h o ask the question a b o u t the tribute m o n e y .
1 4 1 5
L u k e 20: 20. BJ i. 154; c p . A J x i v . 74.
252 F. F. BRUCE

16
it seems to have formed part o f one taxation unit along with Syria, and
may well have suffered the disadvantages o f tax-farming by publicani, as so
many other provinces did under the republic. Julius Caesar granted the
Judaeans certain concessions in respect o f tribute, showing special
consideration for the circumstances o f the sabbatical year, in which the
17
fields were allowed to lie fallow. Caesar's concessions were confirmed by
18
the R o m a n Senate after his assassination.
With the Parthian conquest and brief restoration o f the Hasmonaean
dynasty in Judaea ( 4 0 - 3 7 B.C.), tribute was withheld from R o m e ; and when
Herod made effective the kingship over the Jews which the Senate had
conferred on him, and reigned as ally o f the R o m a n people (rex socius) from
3 7 to 4 B.C., Judaea was no longer tributary to R o m e . Herod naturally knew
that handsome gifts to the R o m a n rulers would not be unappreciated, and
he kept this practice up to the end o f his life, for in his will he bequeathed
1,000 talents o f silver (10,000,000 Attic drachmae) to Augustus and half as
19
much to the Empress Livia and other members o f the imperial family. He
had other sources o f revenue to defray his costly establishment and building
enterprises than what his kingdom could supply, but it appears that the
annual revenue which he drew from his kingdom was around 1,000
20
talents.
N o d o u b t his subjects felt his taxation burdensome enough, although
there were other features o f his reign more burdensome than this. O n one
21
occasion at least (c. 20 B.C.) he remitted one-third o f their taxes; five years
earlier he had realised his o w n gold and silver plate to buy grain from Egypt
22
for them during a famine. Nevertheless, the first request they made o f
Archelaus after Herod's death was for a reduction in their annual
23
taxation.
W h e n his kingdom was divided between three o f his sons by Augustus
after his death, Judaea (with Samaria) was allotted to Archelaus.
Augustus, we are told, remitted one-fourth o f the Samaritans' tribute
(presumably their tribute to Archelaus, not to R o m e ) because they had not

1 6 1 7
C p . C i c e r o , Prov. Cons. 10. J o s e p h u s , A J xiv. 202, 205f.
1 8
J o s e p h u s , A J xiv. 2igff.
1 9
J o s e p h u s , A J xvii, 146, 190. O n the talent in J o s e p h u s c p . F. H u l t s c h , ' D a s
h e b r a i s c h e T a l e n t bei J o s e p h o s ' , Klio 2 (1902), 7off.
2 0
T h i s is c o m p u t e d b y a d d i n g together the revenues o f the territories into w h i c h his
k i n g d o m w a s d i v i d e d after his death - especially A r c h e l a u s ' s ethnarchy, 400 (BJ ii.
97) o r 600 talents (AJ xvii. 320); A n t i p a s ' s tetrarchy, 200 talents, and Philip's
tetrarchy, 100 talents (A J xvii. 319). F r o m a k i n g d o m practically equal in extent to
H e r o d ' s , A g r i p p a I later d r e w a revenue o f 1,200 talents ( 4 J x i x . 352). See W . O t t o
in / W S u p p l . ii, cols. 876°(s.v. ' H e r o d e s ' ) ; A . Schalit, Kbnig Herodes (Berlin, 1969),
p p . 262ff.
2 1 2 2
J o s e p h u s , A J x v . 365. J o s e p h u s , AJ x v . 305-9.
2 3
J o s e p h u s , A J xvii. 204.
 Render to Caesar 253

engaged in revolts such as had disturbed the peace o f Galilee and Judaea
24
after Herod's death.
According to Josephus, the annual revenue derived by Archelaus from
25
his ethnarchy was 400 talents (so in the Jewish War) or 600 talents (so in
26
the Antiquities) T h e figure given in the Antiquities may be a correction o f
that given in the earlier work, or conceivably the two figures come from two
different sources, and represent two variant ways o f calculating a talent. In
either case, his subjects felt that the burden o f providing this revenue was
too heavy. W h e n they greeted his appearance at his father's* funeral with an
appeal to have their annual payments reduced, he listened patiently
enough, so anxious was he to command popular good will, and promised to
consider their plea on his return from R o m e , for which he was about to
leave in order to secure the succession. But while he was in R o m e a
delegation ofJudaeans arrived to seek an audience of Augustus and begged
27
that their land might be relieved o f Herodian rule altogether. Their hopes
that the accession o f Archelaus might bring an alleviation o f the high level
o f taxation and other exactions demanded by Herod did not run very high:
Archelaus had already, in a matter of weeks, shown himself to be a true son
o f his oppressive father. What they desired, therefore, was to have their
land attached to the province of Syria and to be ruled by the imperial legate
posted there - their idea no doubt was that, subject to his overriding
authority, they might enjoy more internal home rule than they had done
under Herod.
Archelaus nevertheless was confirmed in his position as ethnarch o f
Judaea (including Samaria), but his subjects' forebodings were amply
realised, and in less than ten years Augustus deposed him, because his rule
2 8
was so intolerably oppressive, and banished him to Gaul ( A . D . 6 ) . N o w
those Judaeans who had asked for direct Roman rule were at last granted
their request. Judaea received the status o f a R o m a n province o f the third
rank, to be governed by a prefect appointed by Augustus from the
equestrian order. Such a province was liable to pay tribute to the R o m a n
state, and so a census was held under the supervision o f the legate o f Syria,
P. Sulpicius Quirinius, to assess the annual amount which the new
29
province could reasonably be expected to raise. Under the principate the
tribute consisted mainly o f a tax on landed property (tributum agri or tributum
soli), calculated on the estimated annual yield in crops and cattle, together
0
with a tax on personal property o f other kinds (tributum capitis)? W e d o not

2 4 2 5
J o s e p h u s , A J xvii. 3 1 9 . BJ ii. 9 7 .
2 6
A J xvii. 320.
27
BJ ii. 8off;i4 J xvii. 300!!. T h e r e m a y b e an allusion to this delegation in L u k e J 9: 14.
2 8 2 9
BJ ii. 1 1 1 ; A J xvii. 342ff. A J xvii. 3 5 5 , xviii. iff.
3 0
C p . Digest L , x v . 4. 2; 8. 7. J o s e p h u s p r o b a b l y transfers the situation o f his d a y into
 F F
254 - - BRUCE

know the amount o f tribute fixed by Quirinius's assessment; there is no

reason to suppose that it was excessive by R o m a n standards, and it may
have done little more than defray the expense o f maintaining the military
31
and civil administration o f the province. Eleven years later, indeed, we
find the provincials o f both Syria and Judaea petitioning for a reduction o f
32
tribute because the scale o f payment was so burdensome.
There were, o f course, many kinds of indirect taxation (customs dues and -
so forth) superimposed on the direct taxation in the form o f tribute. But for
the Jews o f Judaea the burden o f financial outlay was exceptionally heavy.
In addition to the R o m a n tribute and other secular dues, they were obliged
by religious law to pay for the maintenance of the Jerusalem T e m p l e and its
large staff o f priests, Levites and other T e m p l e servants. T h e tithe which
they had to pay regularly for this purpose (over and above the annual
half-shekel poll-tax) was originally designed as an inclusive ten per cent
33
income tax to be paid by subjects o f a theocracy. T h e Deuteronomic
'second tithe' was originally an alternative to this but had now to be paid in
34
addition to it, every third year. But when the imperial tribute was
superimposed on the theocratic dues, the burden was well nigh intolerable:
only an approximate estimate is possible in the absence o f anything like
precise data, but the total taxation could have approached something like
35
forty per cent o f the provincial i n c o m e .

Ill

Yet it was not because o f the sheer weight o f taxation that the question o f
tribute to Caesar was such a burning one in Jesus's day. T h e Herodian
tribute had already been payable over and above the religious dues, and it
may have been as high as the R o m a n tribute which replaced it. But at the
time o f Quirinius's census in A . D . 6 a new doctrine began to be taught in
Judaea, so distinctive that those w h o held it could be classed as a separate
36
school o f religious thought.
According to this new doctrine, the payment o f tribute to the Romans

an earlier p e r i o d w h e n he represents D a v i d as exacting these t w o forms o f tribute

from E d o m {AJ vii. 109).
3 1
A c c o r d i n g to BJ ii. 405, arrears o f tribute a m o u n t i n g to 40 talents were p a i d , at the
instance o f A g r i p p a I I , in the s u m m e r o f A . D . 66; but it is not clear w h a t period this
amount covered.
3 2
T a c i t u s , Ann. ii. 42. 6.
3 3
N u m . 18: 2iff.
3 4
D e u t . 14:220°; c p . M i s h n a h Ma'as'er Sheni.
3 5
C p . F. C . G r a n t , The Economic Background of the Gospels ( O x f o r d , 1926), p . 105.
36
J o s e p h u s calls it an innovation a n d revolution (f| xd)V JiaiQicov xaivioig xai
HexapoXV), AJ xviii. 9). C p . M . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten ( L e i d e n , 1961), p p . i32ff et
passim.
 Render to Caesar 255

was incompatible with Israel's theocratic ideals. This must have been
because the Romans were pagans: no religious objection seems to have been
voiced against the payment o f taxes to Jewish rulers, mortal men though
37
they might b e - not even to the Herods, w h o were undeniably Jews by
religious law. T h e author o f this new doctrine was Judas o f Gamala in
38
Gaulanitis (otherwise Judas the Galilaean), designated by Josephus as
39
the founder o f the 'fourth philosophy' among the J e w s (the first three
being the Pharisaic, Sadducean and Essene orders). Josephus represents
the Jewish religious parties as 'philosophies', by analogy with the
philosophical schools among the Greeks, and for the same reason he refers
40
to Judas as a 'sophist'. But Judas was indeed a religious teacher and the
founder o f a new school o f thought in so far as his insistence on the
sinfulness o f paying tribute to a Gentile ruler appears to have had no
precedent in Israel. O n the contrary, when Israel and Judah in earlier days
became tributary to foreign rulers, the general attitude o f their religious
leaders, and especially the prophets, was that this was Yahweh's judgement
on his people for their unfaithfulness, and must be endured until he lifted it;
until then, the withholding o f tribute from the foreign ruler was an act o f
rebellion against Yahweh. This was pre-eminently true o f Zedekiah's
withholding tribute from Nebuchadrezzar, although Zedekiah com­
pounded his offence by committing perjury too, since he had sworn in
Yahweh's name to be Nebuchadrezzar's loyal vassal. For his double offence
41
he was denounced by the prophet Ezekiel. Jeremiah, for his part, had
warned Zedekiah from the beginning of his reign that Nebuchadrezzar was
Yahweh's servant, to w h o m Yahweh had given his imperial sovereignty,
42
and that Judah's security lay in submitting to the Babylonian y o k e . Even
after Zedekiah's rebellion, when in desperation during the siege o f
Jerusalem he sent for Jeremiah to ask his advice, the prophet assured him
that he might yet salvage something from the wreck if even at this late date
43
he would capitulate voluntarily.
After the Babylonian exile, when Judaea became a minor province o f the
Persian Empire, no one seems to have suggested that there was anything
44
wrong in paying tribute to the Great K i n g . Nehemiah, as governor (pehah)
o f Judaea under Artaxerxes I, refused to draw the governor's allowance

3 7
W h e n J o s e p h u s represents J u d a s as castigating the J e w s for tolerating 'mortal
masters' after G o d (BJ ii. 118), this is a piece o f rhetoric.
3 8
H e is called the Galilaean in BJ ii. 118,433, and A J xviii. 23, x x . 102 ( c p . A c t s 5:37);
in AJ xviii. 4 he is d e s c r i b e d as 'a Gaulanite from the city o f G a m a l a ' .
3 9
A J xviii. 9, 23. ™BJ ii. 118.
4 1 42
Ezek. 2i:25ff. J e r . 27:40".
43
J e r . 38: i7ff.
4 4
I f H a g g a i and Z e c h a r i a h think o f the fall o f Persian p o w e r , it will b e a c c o m p l i s h e d
by the act o f G o d ( H a g . 2: 2off; Z e c h . 4: 7).
256 F. F. BRUCE

45
because o f the impoverished economy o f the province. His predecessors
(and, we may be sure, his successors) were not so considerate, but no one
questioned their right to the allowance, whether they were Jews or
46
Gentiles. His near-contemporary Malachi makes a passing allusion to the
practice o f giving nothing but the best to the (Persian) governor (pehah),
47
with the implication that it was perfectly natural and proper.
T h e Persian system was taken over by Alexander and his successors, and
48
was accepted from 3 3 1 B.C. until 'the yoke o f the Gentiles was removed
49
from Israel' in the days o f Simon the Hasmonaean ( 1 4 2 B.C.). T h e decades
of Jewish independence under the Hasmonaeans made the imposition o f
the R o m a n yoke in 6 3 B.C. the more irksome; yet there were pious people in
Israel, like the Qumran community and the authors o f the 'psalms o f
Solomon', w h o showed themselves true sons of the prophets by recognising
in the R o m a n conquest (with the ensuing exaction o f tribute) a divine
50
judgement on the Hasmonaeans. N o voice, so far as we know, was raised
at that early stage o f the occupation to protest against the impiety o f Israel's
being required to pay tribute to R o m e . Whether or not the resistance leader
Hezekiah, executed by Herod in his capacity as military prefect o f Galilee
51
in 4 7 B.C., was the father of Judas of Gamala (and there is no evidence that
52
he w a s ) , he is not credited with this attitude.
T h e first occasion when it was propounded, so far as our evidence goes,
was at the time o f the Quirinius census when Judas o f Gamala, together
53
with Sadduq the Pharisee, raised the standard o f revolt. O f this Sadduq
we hear no more, but he may be linked with the Galilaean 'Sadducee' -
meaning perhaps 'follower o f (this) Sadduq' - who, according to the
Mishnah, found fault with the Pharisees for including the name o f the
(Gentile) ruler (for dating purposes) on their divorce certificates along with
54
the name o f Moses (as author o f the law o f d i v o r c e ) .

4 5
N e h . 5: i4fT.
4 6
I n addition to Z e r u b b a b e l a n d N e h e m i a h , the n a m e s o f two other J e w i s h g o v e r n o r s
o f J u d a e a u n d e r the Persians are r e c o r d e d o n jar-handles found in i960 at R a m a t
R a h e l , a c c o r i n g to Y . A h a r o n i , ' E x c a v a t i o n s at R a m a t R a h e l ' , The Biblical
Archaeologist 24 (1961), 98ff, esp. i n f .
4 7
M a i . 1:8.
4 8
C p . J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f m e m b e r s o f the T o b i a d family w h o secured the c o n t r a c t
for tax collecting in Coelesyria under the Ptolemies a n d Seleucids (4J xii. i6off).
4 9
1 M a c e . 13: 41.
5 0
C p . i Q p H a b ix. 2ff; Ps. S o l . 1 7 : 5 ^
5 1
J o s e p h u s , BJ i. 204; A J x i v . 159 (he calls H e z e k i a h an diQxih(\cnY)<;).
5 2
J u d a s , w h o raided the royal arsenal in S e p p h o r i s after H e r o d ' s death in 4 B . C . , w a s a
son o f the aQxdflorris H e z e k i a h (BJ ii. 56; A J xvii. 27 i f ) , but J o s e p h u s d o e s not
identify h i m with the leader o f the revolt o f nine years later.
5 3
A J xviii. 4.
5 4
M i s h n a h , Yadayim 4:8. T h e ' S a d d u c e e ' is otherwise called 'a Galilaean heretic'.
T h e Pharisees point for a p r e c e d e n t to E x o d . 5: 2, w h e r e the n a m e o f a p a g a n ruler
 Render to Caesar 257

The revolt was put down, but the 'fourth philosophy' was not
extinguished: to it, indeed, Josephus traces the insurgent policy which
5 5
involved the Jewish state in the disaster o f A . D . 7 0 . Although he does not
explicitly call Judas o f Gamala the founder o f the Zealot party, it is difficult
to avoid the conclusion that this is precisely what he was, and that the new
doctrine that it was impious to pay tribute to Caesar was the distinguishing
feature o f the Zealot outlook.
N e w the doctrine might be; it could not fail to be popular. M a n y
Judaeans would in any case resent the payment o f tribute to R o m e on
patriotic and economic grounds, and they would not readily reject the idea
that it was contrary to the law o f their G o d . Even if they went on paying it
reluctantly, they could not but admire their fellow-countrymen w h o had
the courage o f their Zealot convictions and endured savage reprisals for
refusing to acknowledge Caesar's sovereignty or his right to tax them. If we
accept Mark's dating o f the question about the tribute money during Holy
Week, then around that very time there had been an outbreak of insurgency
56
involving bloodshed, in which Barabbas played a prominent part.
Popular sympathies were engaged on the subject, and it was on no purely
academic point o f legal interpretation that Jesus was invited to give a
ruling.'

IV

T h e disproportionately lengthy preamble to the question was scarcely

framed with the simple purpose o f flattering Jesus: his questioners probably
knew that he was not susceptible to such an approach. It indicates in
general that they knew that they would get an impartial answer from him,
because he did not adapt his answer to his hearers' preferences. It made no
difference, they implied, w h o asked the question: the answer would be a
straight one, truly expounding 'the way o f G o d ' . Such a topical question,
posed in a public place, would immediately attract an eager crowd o f
listeners, and the unsolicited testimonial given to Jesus in the preamble was
probably intended as much for their ears as for his, with the idea o f putting
him publicly on the spot.
'Is it permissible', they asked (meaning 'permissible' in terms o f the law
o f Israel's G o d ) , 'to give tribute to Caesar or not?' T h e word rendered
57
'tribute' is xfjvaog, a loanword from Latin census ('assessment', ' t a x ' ) ; it
occurs as a loanword in rabbinical literature also, and could perhaps have

( P h a r a o h ) not m e r e l y a c c o m p a n i e s but p r e c e d e s the n a m e o f Y a h w e h h i m ­

self.
5 5 5 6
A J xviii. 6ff. M a r k 15: 7.
5 7
S o also M a t t . 22: 17; L u k e substitutes cpooog (20:22).
258 F. F. BRUCE

been used by Jesus's questioners if they spoke to him in Aramaic, or even in

Hebrew.
58
Jesus's reply, 'Bring me a denarius; let me see it', suggests that the
R o m a n tribute was to be paid in R o m a n money. That this was indeed so is
5 9
indicated on a Greek inscription from Palmyra (dated A . D . 1 3 6 / 7 ) which
lays d o w n that various dues are to be paid in denarii (eig 6r]vdQiov) and
cites as evidence a rescript o f Germanicus Caesar (who exercised a maius
imperium in the eastern provinces from A . D . 1 7 to 1 9 ) to Statilius (perhaps
financial procurator o f Syria), directing that all state taxes (xihf]) are to be
60
collected in asses (eig doo&Qiov), i.e. in R o m a n coinage (the as being then
one-sixteenth o f a denarius in value).
The verb translated 'render' is &JTO6I6(D[U, the natural verb to use in
such a context. It is used of Jesus's handing back the scroll in the Nazareth.
synagogue to its lawful custodian (Luke 4: 2 0 ) . It is specially used of paying
various kinds of dues - of returning a deposit to its owner (Lev. 6: 4 , L X X ) ,
of refunding an advance, as in the parable o f the good Samaritan (Luke
I 0 :
35)) o f restoring goods wrongfully taken, as in the Zacchaeus incident
(Luke 1 9 : 8 ) , o f repaying debts to a creditor, as in the parables o f the
unforgiving servant (Matt. 1 8 : 3 4 ) and the two debtors (Luke 7 : 4 2 ) , o f
paying a fine or damages, as in Matt. 5: 2 6 par. Luke 1 2 : 5 9 , or (as here) o f
paying taxes ( c p . R o m . 1 3 : 7 ) . In these instances it is implied that the
person to w h o m payment or repayment is made is the rightful owner or
recipient of whatever is paid or repaid; the action amounts to giving back to
someone property to which he is entitled. Caesar, it is implied, is entitled to
demand tribute; to pay him tribute is to give back to him what is in any case
his. A n d the tribute money has just been acknowledged to be his. Mark
61
does not explicitly say 'Therefore render to Caesar . . .', as d o M a t t h e w and
62
Luke, but the 'therefore' is as clearly implied in Mark's asyndeton as it is
expressed by Matthew and Luke.
It could be said, o f course, that the Judaeans' use o f Caesar's coins did
not necessarily imply their recognition o f Caesar's sovereignty or his right
to demand taxes from them. As Professor Derrett points out, Jews in Judaea
and elsewhere used Tyrian coinage at this time to pay their T e m p l e dues,
but this would not be taken to mean that they acknowledged Tyrian
sovereignty (how could they, since T y r e itself was subject to Rome?) or that

58
So Luke 20: 24; Matthew has TO vo\iio\ia xov x f | v o o v , 'the coin for the tribute', but
adds: 'And they brought him a denarius' (22: 19).
59
W. Dittenberger, OGIS 629, lines 153-6.
60
We might understand eig a o o & Q i o v in the sense of Lat. adassem ('to the last as'), but
the analogy of eig &r)vdoiov two lines above is probably determinant. In any case,
Roman coinage is indicated.
6 1
&JTO&OT£ OVV (Matt. 22:21).
6 2
x o i v u v ctJio&oxe (Luke 20: 25).
 Render to Caesar 259

the Tyrians ought to have their tetradrachms and"didrachms given back to

them as though they belonged to Tyre because they had been minted
63
there. But the Tyrian coins bore no human ruler's name or image, and in
any case the use o f Tyrian coins for the payment o f the T e m p l e tax was not a
64
political issue. W e must recognise the ad hoc and ad hominem character o f
Jesus's reply: the denarius, he argued, belonged to the man whose name and
likeness were so plainly stamped on it - let him have it back!
His reply may well have carried an implication beyond this. So offensive,
65
because o f the breach o f the Second C o m m a n d m e n t involved, was a
human image on a coin in the sight o f some strictly orthodox Jews that the
exceptional holiness o f a third-century rabbi, Nahum ben Simai, is
illustrated by the fact that never in his life did he allow his eyes to look at the
66
portrait on a c o i n . Hippolytus, to the same effect, says o f some Essenes
whose practice of self-discipline went beyond the normal rules o f their order
that they would not even touch such a coin, since they held it unlawful not
67
only to make, but even to carry or look at images o f any kind. There may,
then, be the further ad hominem implication in Jesus's answer that such a
coin as was produced for his inspection was fit only for Gentiles to handle,
so that the best thing a pious Jew could d o with it was to turn it over to them
at once.
W e must g o farther and enquire what Jesus meant by adding 'render to
G o d what belongs to G o d ' . O n e interesting suggestion made in recent years
is that o f Professor Brandon (from w h o m I differ with reluctance),
according to w h o m these words were the real gravamen o f his reply, since
they effectively nullified the superficial meaning o f the words immediately
68
preceding them. A m o n g the things that belonged to G o d was the land o f
69
Israel, and therefore no part o f its produce should be handed over to a
pagan ruler. H a d Jesus meant this, his meaning was expressed so
cryptically that it might well have been missed. True, the Zealots would
have agreed that the things belonging to G o d comprised both the land o f

6 3
J. D . M . Derrett, Law in the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1970), p . 321. Derrett's chapter,
' R e n d e r to C a e s a r . . .', p p . 3 1 3 ^ provides a specially full and v a l u a b l e
bibliography.
6 4
T h e acceptability o f the T y r i a n tetradrachm for p a y i n g the T e m p l e tax w a s d u e not
to its being imageless - it b o r e o n o n e side the likeness o f M e l k a r t (!) in the
traditional form o f Herakles, and an eagle the other side - b u t to its consistently
high level o f silver purity. C p . A . B e n - D a v i d , Jerusalem und Tyros ( T u b i n g e n , 1969),
p p . 6ff.
6 5
C p . also L e v . 19:4, ' d o not turn ( y o u r face) to idols'.
6 6
T J 'Abodah Zarah 3: 1; c p . T B Pesahim, 104a, w h e r e he is called M e n a h e m .
6 7
H i p p o l y t u s , Refutatio omnuim Haeresium ix. 26.
6 8
S. G . F. B r a n d o n , J ^ H t f and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p p . 345ff; c p . his The Trial
ofJesus of Nazareth ( L o n d o n , 1968), p p . 66ff.
6 9
C p . L e v . 25:23, 'the land is m i n e ' .
260 F. F. BRUCE

Israel and the sovereignty over it which was acknowledged by the paying o f
tribute. But the words would not have been understood thus unless the.
hearers knew independently that this was the speaker's view. Certainly
such a subtle way o f giving a Zealot response would have provided no
opportunity o f denouncing Jesus to the R o m a n administration. It would
probably be just as inopportunely subtle to say in criticism o f this
interpretation that even if the things belonging to G o d included the land o f
Israel, this would exclude the payment o f the tributum agri (soli) but not o f
the tributum capitis. It is much more to the point to observe that the
particularity o f Jesus's question about the denarius, bearing the imperial
inscription, leads straight to the conclusion that it is self-evidently Caesar's:
whatever else belongs to G o d , a coin which by its very form and appearance
contravenes his law cannot be regarded as his.
M o r e important still: Jesus's attitude in such a matter is much more
likely to have followed the tradition o f the prophets than the much more
recent precedent o f the 'fourth philosophy'. It was not for nothing that,
according to Matthew, some o f Jesus's contemporaries said he was
70
Jeremiah. Jesus's counsel o f non-resistance to R o m e was on all fours with
Jeremiah's counsel o f submission to Babylon, and equally liable to be
denounced as treasonable. Yet in the last days o f the Judaean monarchy the
country had no more devoted patriot than Jeremiah, and in A . D . 30 no one
more earnestly than Jesus prayed for the peace o f Jerusalem and
endeavoured to make the city see that its welfare lay in quietness and not in
71
armed rebellion. T h e kingdom o f G o d which he proclaimed would indeed
supersede the current world-empire, but the triumph o f the kingdom o f
72
G o d would be inherited by the 'little flock', not by the men o f violence.
According to Professor Derrett, Jesus meant that by giving Caesar what
was Caesar's they would be giving G o d what was G o d ' s - in other words,
' O b e y the commands o f the king [emperor] and obey (thereby) the
commandments o f G o d ' , or ' O b e y the commands o f Caesar provided that
73
the commandments o f G o d are not broken in your doing s o ' . This ruling
he regards as based on Eccles. 8: 2 , ' K e e p the king's c o m m a n d ' , to which
74
Jesus appealed in default o f anything so explicit in the T o r a h . T h e words

7 0 7 1
M a t t . 16: 14. C p . Luke 1 9 : 4 1 ^
7 2 73
L u k e 12:32; 16:16 ( c p . M a t t , n : 12). D e r r e t t , Law, p p . 335^
7 4
I b i d . , p p . 323^ c p . I. A b r a h a m s , ' G i v e unto C a e s a r ' , in Studies in Pharisaism and the
Gospels, series 1 ( C a m b r i d g e , 1917), p p . 62flf, and H . L o e w e , Render unto Caesar:
Religion and Political Loyalty in Palestine ( C a m b r i d g e , 1940), p p . 21, 115f, b o t h o f
w h o m m e n t i o n the reference to E c c l e s . 8:2 in Tanhuma (Noah, §10, exposition o f
G e n . 8: 16), where the p a y i n g o f taxes is explicitly stated to b e o n e w a y o f keeping
the king's c o m m a n d . L o e w e also m e n t i o n e d Prov. 24: 21, w h e r e fearing Y a h w e h
a n d the king is c o u p l e d with the injunction not to m e d d l e with those w h o are given
to c h a n g e ( M T ; L X X is different); any c o n n e c t i o n with o u r present p e r i c o p e , m o r e
 Render to Caesar 261

o f Eccles. 8: 2 are literally rendered 'Watch the king's mouth', which

Professor Derrett relates to Jesus looking at the emperor's face on the coin -
and also, allusively, to the unusual expression in Mark 1 2 : 1 4 , 'you d o not
look at (into) the face of men'. This account of the matter is interesting, but
of doubtful cogency.
Even less convincing is the view that 'what belongs to G o d ' here is the
T e m p l e tax, as though Jesus meant, ' Y o u must pay your tribute to Caesar,
7 5
and you must also pay your annual half-shekel to G o d . ' There is a
pericope in the First Gospel which deals with the payment o f the T e m p l e
76
tax, but the introduction o f this subject would be less appropriate here.
Jesus placed a very low value on money or, as he commonly called it,
'mammon'; in saying that Caesar was welcome to the money which
belonged to him in any case, he was (by his own standards) paying no
77
excessive honour to Caesar. In this context no great honour would have
been ascribed to G o d by a ruling that G o d should have the money which
was due to him, or to the maintenance o f his Temple. 'What belongs to
G o d ' is much more likely to mean the dedication o f one's whole life: the
seeking o f his kingdom and righteousness. Obedience to G o d ' s will is not
compromised by letting Caesar have the money which bears his name.
If among the bystanders there were Zealots or Zealot sympathisers,
78
'Jesus' answer must have seemed a deplorable c o m p r o m i s e ' ; nothing less
than a categorical denial that Caesar had any right to tribute from the
people o f G o d would have been acceptable to them. By their standards
giving to Israel's G o d what belonged to him demanded the withholding
from Caesar o f the produce o f his land or the property o f his people.
As for Jesus's questioners, they derived little advantage from their
attempt to impale him on the horns o f a dilemma. He had in so many words
acquiesced in the payment o f tribute to R o m e , and given them no occasion
to report him to the governor. Perhaps they hoped that he would forfeit the

particularly with ov u i X e i 001 Jieoi, o i ) 6 e v o g ( M a r k 12: 14), is a very remote

possibility.
7 5
C p . Grant, Economic Background, p p . 100, 102, w h e r e such a v i e w is envisaged -
although D r G r a n t ' s o w n interpretation is that 'the lawfulness o f earthly tribute
b e c o m e s a petty question o f politics, best settled b y a c q u i e s c e n c e , since that frees
the m i n d s a n d energies o f m e n for their true task as sons o f G o d and m e m b e r s o f His
K i n g d o m ' ( p . 135).
7 6
M a t t . 17:24-7. C p . W . H o r b u r y , b e l o w , p p . 265-86.
7 7
C p . E. Salin, J e s u s u n d d i e W e c h s l e r ' ( a p p e n d i x to A . B e n - D a v i d , Jerusalem und
Tyros), p . 53: ' Y o u b e l o n g to G o d ; therefore give yourselves to the G o d to w h o m y o u
b e l o n g . M o n e y is m a m m o n , and the R o m a n e m p e r o r is the representative o f
m a m m o n o n earth. A w a y then with m o n e y , a w a y with m a m m o n ; throw the m o n e y
to Caesar, w h o s e likeness it bears.' See also R . Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the
Baptist ( L o n d o n , 1931), p p . 33off.
7 8
O . C u l l m a n n , Jesus und die Revolutiondren seiner Zeit ( T u b i n g e n , 1970), p . 64 ( E T Jesus
and the Revolutionaries ( N e w Y o r k , 1970), p . 45.
262 F. F. BRUCE

good will o f those around who cherished sentiments of national

independence, but by bringing the explosive political issue d o w n to such a
matter-of-fact level he defused it (for the time being, at any rate). W h e n it
was considered in this light - the handing back to a Gentile ruler o f coins
which bore his name and image, coins which for that very reason no truly
pious J e w ought to possess - it could not continue to be treated as a matter
o f the highest religious principle. Letting Caesar have his o w n coins could
in no way limit the true liberty of any Israelite, or of the community of Israel
as a whole. ' W h a t belongs to G o d ' is much more important than what
belongs to Caesar; see to it that G o d is not deprived o f his due, whether by
giving it to Caesar or to any other person or cause. Jesus not only avoided
the dilemma but turned it to emphasise the central theme o f his ministry. If,
however, untimely hopes o f a declaration o f independence had been raised
by his entry into Jerusalem a day or two before, the answer about the
tribute money must have discouraged them. Jesus did not c o m m a n d the
same popular enthusiasm in Jerusalem by the end o f Holy Week as he did at
its outset, and his words on this occasion may help to explain that.

What, n o w , are we to make o f the charge brought against Jesus before

Pilate, according to Luke's narrative, o f 'forbidding . . . to give tribute to
79
Caesar'? That Luke did not believe there was any substance in this charge
is plain from the fact that he has previously incorporated the incident o f the
tribute-money and reproduced the Markan form of Jesus's reply practically
word for word. Luke is the only evangelist to formulate explicitly the charge
brought against Jesus by his accusers, but all the others imply that it
included a claim on Jesus's part to be king o f the Jews. Luke spells it out in
detail: ' W e found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give
tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.' Possibly
Luke, having some knowledge of judicial practice, puts into words what
Mark implies, without any other source to draw upon; possibly he had
access to an independent account o f the trial in which the charge was
formulated in these threefold terms. Either way, his representation is
80
consistent with R o m a n cognitio procedure, and is 'technically correct'. But
when Jesus's accusers informed Pilate that he claimed to be a king, they
intended Pilate to understand 'king' in the ordinary political sense o f
resistance-leader, which inevitably involved a repudiation o f Caesar's

7 9
L u k e 23: 2. C p . H . P. K i n g d o n , Messiahship and the Crucifixion, StEv iii = T U 88
(Berlin, 1964), p p . 77ff; a n d G . S c h n e i d e r , b e l o w , p p . 403-14.
8 0
A . N . S h e r w i n - W h i t e , Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament ( O x f o r d ,
6 2 2
I 9 3 ) > PP- 5> 3 -
 Render to Caesar 263

authority and a refusal to countenance the payment o f tribute to him.

Luke's words, 'forbidding . . . to give tribute to Caesar', add nothing to
what can be inferred from the other gospels, and cannot be used as an
argument suggesting that, despite the plain implication o f Mark's tribute-
money incident, Jesus did nevertheless deprecate the paying o f tribute to
Caesar.
Like many other Gospel pericopae, that about the tribute money has more
than one life-setting. Its life-setting during the ministry - more particularly
during the later Jerusalem ministry - of the historical Jesus is plain enough.
But it was not remembered and recorded simply as an interesting incident
in the life o f j e s u s : it was recorded as a precedent for the guidance o f his
followers. Thus when Paul directs his Christian readers to render rulers
their dues - 'taxes to w h o m taxes are due, revenue to w h o m revenue is
81
d u e ' - he may not be quoting, or even recalling, Jesus's words but he
certainly reproduces their intention, albeit in a less inflammable
atmosphere. A time was soon to come, however, when Caesar demanded
from the followers o f j e s u s things which they believed were due to G o d
alone, and they discerned the logic o f their Master's teaching clearly
enough to say ' N o ' to Caesar.

8 1
R o m . 13: 7; c p . 1 Pet. 2: 136°. S e e C . D . M o r r i s o n , The Powers that Be ( L o n d o n , i960).
 W.HORBURY

The Temple tax

T h e early church could learn the Lord's teaching on taxation from Matt.
1 7 : 2 4 - 7 , Mark 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 and parallels, and a passage o f the Unknown
1
Gospel (Pap. Egerton 2 , Fragment 2 , recto). Matt. 1 7 : 2 4 - 7 , viewed with
the narratives o f the tribute-money, was often also referred to R o m a n
2
taxation, although the half-shekel was sometimes recognised as a Jewish
3
levy. T h e story continues to figure in discussion of Jesus's attitude to tax

1
It is unnecessary to follow H o r n s c h u h in conjecturing that Epistula Apostolorum 5
p r e s u p p o s e s an i n d e p e n d e n t variant o f the story in M a t t . 17 ( M . H o r n s c h u h , Studien
zur Epistula Apostolorum (Patristische Texte und Studien, B d . 5, Berlin, 1965), p . 11).
2
H a r o l d Smith, Ante-Nicene Exegesis of the Gospels iii ( L o n d o n , 1927), 2 1 1 - 1 3 ( q u o t i n g
St C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a , Paed. 11. i 14. 1, O r i g e n o n Ezekiel, Horn, xii 2, o n St
M a t t h e w , Tom. xiii 10, o n R o m a n s , Lib. i x , 30). In an u n p u b l i s h e d typescript ' A n d
to G o d the things that are G o d ' s , ' kindly m a d e available b y Prof. M . Black, T . W .
M a n s o n also cites St Irenaeus, Haer. v. 24. T h e levy is u n d e r s t o o d as R o m a n tribute
b y St J e r o m e ad l o c . ( C C L 77, p p . 154-6), St A m b r o s e , In Hexaemeron v . vi ( C S E L
32, p . 151) a n d In Luc. iv. 73-5, o n L u k e 5:4 ( C C L 14, p p . 1331), and St A u g u s t i n e ,
Enarr. In Psalmos cxviii. 31, cxxxvii. 16, o n Pss. 1 1 9 : 1 6 1 , 138:8 ( C C L 40, p p .
1770, 19881). T h i s interpretation b e c a m e standard in the west, as s h o w n b y the
portrayal in M a s a c c i o ' s Tributo (1426). T h e passage was therefore q u o t e d to
establish clerical tax-immunity o n the o n e hand ('liberi sunt filii', verse 26), and the
liability to taxation o f c h u r c h m e n and all subjects, o n the other ( ' d a eis p r o m e et te',
verse 27). See, for the former point, p . 286, n. 103, b e l o w , and Beryl Smalley, 'John
B a c o n t h o r p e ' s Postill o n St. M a t t h e w ' , Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 4 (1958),
91-145 (126-32); for a mediating position w h e n d o m i n i o n is p a g a n , A q u i n a s ,
Summa Theologiae 11 a 11 ae x. 10; and for the latter point, H e r b e r t v o n E i n e m ,
Masaccios 'Zinsgroschen* ( C o l o g n e and O p l a d e n , 1967), p p . 14-17, to w h o s e
m e d i a e v a l references ( A m a r c i u s , Y o r k A n o n y m o u s , A q u i n a s , A n t o n i n u s o f
F l o r e n c e ) m a y b e a d d e d Marsilius o f Padua, Defensor Pads 11. iv. 9-11 ( e d . C . W .
Previte-Orton ( C a m b r i d g e , 1928), p p . 134-9), the s e r m o n ' O f Servants and L o r d s '
in F. D . M a t t h e w , ed., The English Works of WyclifHitherto Unprinted ( L o n d o n , 1880),
p . 230, a n d the H o m i l i e s ' o f O b e d i e n c e ' (1547), Part I I , a n d 'against Wilful
R e b e l l i o n ' (1571), Parts I I and V , in [John Griffiths, e d . ] The Two Books of Homilies
( O x f o r d , 1859), p p . 115, 568, 585.
3
M e l i t 6 , Pen Pdscha 86 ( e d . S . G . Hall, O x f o r d 1979, p p . 48Q; Hilary o f Poitiers,
Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaei, X V I I . 10 (PL 9. 1017Q; A p o l l i n a r i u s ad l o c , in J.
Reuss, Matthaus-Kommentdre aus dergriechischen Kirche, T U 61 (Berlin, 1957), p p . 27f;
Cyril o f A l e x a n d r i a ad l o c . in R e u s s , Matthaus-Kommentdre, p . 222 and on J o h n 4: 22
in P. E. Pusey, Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis
Evangelium i ( O x f o r d , 1872), p p . 281-3 (ii. v ) . C h r y s o s t o m , Horn, in Matth. L V I I I ,
identifies the d i d r a c h m a as the r e d e m p t i o n o f the first-born ( N u m . 3:46O, but sees
(ibid. L X X ) its p a y m e n t b y Jesus as a relevant precedent in the question o f the
tribute-money (PG 58 566f, 655). For later followers o f b o t h C h r y s o s t o m and
J e r o m e see the clear analysis o f M a l d o n a t u s , Commentarii in Quatuor Evangelistas, ad
l o c , ed. J. M a r t i n (2nd e d n . M a i n z , 1853), i, 2371).

265
266 W I L L I A M HORBURY

4
and government. It is examined here with this question in mind. W e
consider the distinctive features o f the passage, the light thrown by
criticism on its evidential value, and its setting in Jewish history and the life
o f Jesus. O n this basis an attempt is made to understand its primary
meaning and historical significance.

Matthew 1 7 : 2 4 - 7 , a paragraph peculiar to this Gospel, stands out from the

other taxation-narratives in both content and form. It begins with a
question from tax-collectors rather than disputants, on the T e m p l e
half-shekel rather than the tribute-money. St Peter, w h o replies, is then met
and taught by the Lord indoors, and c o m m a n d e d to pay for himself and his
master with a stater to be found in a fish's mouth. T h e dominical teaching -
payment is not obligatory, but advisable in practice to avoid offence -
5
resembles apostolic injunctions on secular tax, and is more explicit than
6
the reply on the tribute-money.
Formally, the section combines characteristics of a disputation
1
(Streitgesprach) with those o f a miracle-story; yet the Lord does not meet the
questioners, and the miracle itself is not recounted. T h e language has
8
Matthaean characteristics, and is striking within this Gospel as
9
'reasonably stylish' Greek. Semitic equivalents have however been
10
suggested for some words and phrases. Verse 2 5 has been seen to resemble

4
H . Loewe,'Renderunto Caesar' ( C a m b r i d g e , 1940), p p . 66-71; S. G . F. B r a n d o n , y « « j
and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p p . 49, 332n. O n these see p . 284 b e l o w .
5
R o m . 13:5, 1 Pet. 2: 13-15, c o m p a r e d with the M a t t h a e a n passage in C . F . D .
M o u l e , The Birth of the New Testament (3rd e d n . L o n d o n , 1981), p . 192.
6
F o r the suggestion that i d xov 8eot) m e a n s the T e m p l e tax, see J. D . M i c h a e l i s ,
Commentaries on the Law of Moses ( E T b y A l e x a n d e r Smith, L o n d o n , 1814), iii. i8f
( B o o k iv. i, A r t . 173); E. StaufTer, (Christ and the Caesars ( E T L o n d o n , 1955),
f
p p . i33 -
7
Especially typical o f this form is the antithetical question in verse 25: see M .
A l b e r t z , Die synoptischen Streitgesprdche (Berlin, 1921), p . 68. F o r an interlocutor's
c o n t r i b u t i o n to the a r g u m e n t here a n d in t w o S y n o p t i c dialogues, see C . H . D o d d ,
Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel ( C a m b r i d g e , 1963), p . 318.
8
G . D . Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew ( O x f o r d , 1946),
p . 41.
9
M o u l e , Birth, p p . 278: idem, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (2nd e d .
C a m b r i d g e , 1963), p p . I72f.
I0
x 6 v d v a p d v x a (intransitive for passive) a n d another e x a m p l e o f a personal
p r o n o u n used reflexively (as in d v x l e\iov xai aov, c p . F. Blass, A . D e b r u n n e r a n d
R . W . Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
( C a m b r i d g e and C h i c a g o , 1961), §283(2)) are cited as A r a m a i s m s b y J.
W e l l h a u s e n , Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1911), p p . i8f, 26;
also auxiliary Xa|3u)V b y M . Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd
e d n . O x f o r d , 1967), p . 125. Post-biblical H e b r e w equivalents for JiooecpOaoev, xi
001 6OXEI, ot Paodeig xfjg, xekr\, xfjvoov, £A.ev9eQOi and oxaxfjoot are given b y A .
 The T e m p l e tax 267

11
Pap. Egerton 2 in speaking o f rulers and taxes only in general; but this
resemblance is not more than formal.
On the age o f the passage three views are held: that in its entirety it
12
corresponds to an incident in the life o f j e s u s ; that, on the contrary, it has
13
no basis in the life ofjesus, but was formed by the early church; and that it
is composite, a dominical saying or dialogue having been glossed in the
14
church. It is here taken as probable that both teaching and payment
should be assigned to Jesus's ministry, since the two cohere with one
another (1.(5) below) and are comprehensible within the settings o f
contemporary Judaism and the life ofjesus. First, however, it is necessary
to review the chief arguments for dating. T h e y are arranged below under
seven headings, according to the points on which they depend.

(1) Style

That the passage contains 'features [especially participial constructions]

which are linguistically the opposite o f Semitic' has been, thought to turn
the balance o f probability against the evangelist's having taken it from a
15
source. A similar conclusion has been drawn from its Matthaean
16
impress. If, then, this section o f the Gospel depends on oral transmission,
whereas other traditions o f the ministry were available to the evangelist in

Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthdus (Stuttgart, 1929), p p . 538-43, for x o v d v a p d v x a

J I Q W T O V b y H . Strack a n d P. Billerbeck, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus erlautert aus
Talmud und Midrasch ( M i i n c h e n , 1922), p . 773. T h a t £X.ev6eQOi c o r r e s p o n d s to
Dm&s ' n o t liable to tax', as in Shek. i 6-7, is suggested b y A . W u n s c h e , Neue
Beitrdge zur Erlauterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch ( G o t t i n g e n , 1878), p .
207. 'ZxaT/rJQ is o n e o f the earliest G r e e k w o r d s to penetrate the Semitic l a n g u a g e s '
(first d a t e d e x a m p l e 402 B . C . ) : S. P. B r o c k , ' G r e e k W o r d s in the Syriac G o s p e l s ' , Le
Museon 80 (1967), 389-426 (418).
l ,
C . H . D o d d , New Testament Studies ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1953), p p . 38f.
1 2
L o e w e , 'Render Unto Caesar', p p . 66-71: J. D . M . Derrett, 'Peter's Penny: Fresh Light
o n M a t t h e w xvii 24-7', NovTest 6 (1963), 1-15, revised and enlarged as idem Law in
the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 247-65.
1 3
Fully elaborated hypotheses in R . Eisler, Orpheus - The Fisher ( L o n d o n , 1921), p p .
91-106 (99, n. 2); E . H i r s c h , Fruhgeschichte des Evangeliums ii ( T u b i n g e n , 1941), 326T;
D . Flusser, ' M a t t h e w X V I I , 24-7 and the D e a d Sea Sect', Tarbiz 31 (1961-2),
150-6. O n these see p p . 272f, 276 b e l o w ) .
1 4
A . L o i s y , Les Evangiles Synoptiques ii (Ceffonds, 1908), p p . 63-6; C . G . M o n t e f i o r e ,
The Synoptic Gospels (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1927), ii, 243-5: Kilpatrick, Origins, p p . 4 i f ;
H . W . M o n t e f i o r e , 'Jesus a n d the T e m p l e T a x , ' NTS 10 (1964-5), 60-71; H . v a n d e r
L o o s , The Miracles of Jesus NovTestSup 8 ( L e i d e n , 1965), p p . 680-7; Banks, 'Jesus
and C u s t o m ' , ExpT 84 (1973), 265-9 (266).
1 5
M o u l e , Birth, p p . 217f.
1 6
G . Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit ( F R L A N T 82, G o t t i n g e n , 1962), p p . 20of;
M . D . G o u l d e r , Midrash and Lection in Matthew ( L o n d o n , 1974), p p . 396f (arguing
from c o n t e n t as well as style).
268 WILLIAM HORBURY

writing, it might be suggested - although to the writer's knowledge this has

not been argued explicitly - that the oral source is the less likely to have
preserved pre-Easter tradition. T h e possible fidelity o f Semitic oral
transmission might be adduced against such a suggestion; but in any case,
earlier steps in the argument would be open to question. O n the most
striking example o f un-Semitic subordination, verse 2 5 xai eX06vxa xtX, it
may at least be asked if the elegant participle is not a secondary stylistic
correction o f the crude and Semitic 6te eiofjX6ev found in the K o i n e text
(evidence in E. Nestle, K . and B. Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece ( 2 6 t h ed.
Stuttgart, 1 9 7 9 ) , p . 4 8 ) . Similarly, for verse 26 eiJiovxog 5e there is a 'strong
v.l.' (Blass-Debrunner-Funk, § 4 2 3 ) Xiyti auxcp (Nestle-Aland, loc. cit.).
T h e number o f words and phrases which can easily be rendered into a
Semitic language must also be taken into account. Lastly, out o f
17
Kilpatrick's seven examples o f Matthaean diction in the passage, two only
(jTQOofjXSov, xi 0 0 1 5 o x e i ) satisfy W . L. K n o x ' s criteria of significance: one
18
(dvoi^ag) is a borderline case. Their presence betrays the evangelist's
hand, but by no means excludes the possibility o f his having had a written
19
source.

(2) Position in the Gospel

T h e paragraph is linked with its context by the theme of precedence among

the disciples. In 1 6 : 1 3 - 2 0 Peter receives the power o f the keys; in 1 7 : 1 - 8
Peter, James and J o h n are singled out to witness the transfiguration; in
1 7 : 1 4 - 2 0 none o f the disciples can heal the demoniac boy; in 1 7 : 2 4 - 7 Peter
alone shares the Lord's stater; immediately afterwards in 1 8 : 1 the disciples
ask w h o is greatest in the kingdom o f heaven; and in 18: i 8 f all the disciples
2 0
receive the power entrusted to Peter in 1 6 : 1 9 .
There are indications in the Gospel that the evangelist stood at a certain

1 7
K i l p a t r i c k , Origins, p . 41.
1 8
I n a critique o f K i l p a t r i c k ' s collection o f M a t t h a e a n expressions from M a t t .
a n 2
1:18-25 d > W . L . K n o x suggests that, for an expression to b e r e g a r d e d as
, typically M a t t h a e a n , it s h o u l d b e used in M a t t h e w a b o u t twice as often as in M a r k
o r L u k e , a n d that w h e r e a w o r d o c c u r s less than ten times there should b e a clear
majority o f five in M a t t h e w , except p e r h a p s w h e r e a w o r d is p e c u l i a r to h i m a n d the
o t h e r evangelists use a different w o r d . See W . L . K n o x , The Sources of the Synoptic
Gospels ( e d . H . C h a d w i c k ) ii ( C a m b r i d g e , 1957), 123-5.
1 9
F o r the c o n c l u s i o n ( r e a c h e d apparently w i t h o u t consideration o f textual variants)
that, despite M a t t h a e a n characterstics, the w o r d i n g o f the p a r a g r a p h c a n n o t b e
ascribed to the evangelist in its entirety see A . F u c h s , Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu
Matthaus und Lukas ( A n B i b l . 49, R o m e , 1971), p . 132. C p . in general the c o n c l u s i o n
in K n o x , Sources, ii, 125, a n d his rebuttal o f a stylistic objection to the search for
sources (in this case in M a r k ) ibid, i ( C a m b r i d g e , 1953), 1.
2 0
O r i g e n , In Matth. xiii. 14, o n 18: 1 ( G C S 40, p p . 213-16); A . M . Farrer, St Matthew
and St Mark (2nd e d n . W e s t m i n s t e r , 1966), p . n 8 n .
 T h e T e m p l e tax 269

21
remove from the milieu o f his traditional material. H e is, however,
unlikely to have placed the passage solely from thematic considerations, for
it is internally limited to Galilee. As K n o x points out, it has to occur where
22
Peter can conveniently be sent to catch a fish. Moreover - although any
influence o f this point upon the story might perhaps have been felt more
strongly at an earlier stage than that o f the evangelist himself - it seems
likely that the T e m p l e tax was collected in communities before being
23
forwarded by them in bulk to Jerusalem. Collectors would thus be met at a
man's place o f residence. According to tradition utilised in Matt. 4: 1 3 (cp.
9: 1 with the Markan parallel), but attested also in Mark and, probably
independently, in the third and fourth Gospels, during the Galilaean
24
ministry Jesus resided at C a p e r n a u m .
T h e story would thus tend to locate itself by the sea o f Galilee and at
Capernaum where both Jesus and Peter lived for a time. I f a form o f Mark
with a reference to Capernaum like that in our Mark 9: 3 3 already lay
before the evangelist, it could in view o f such possibilities have affected the
placing o f the passage at least as strongly as thematic considerations.
Equally, the degree o f prominence which the story enjoys in its position
immediately before an important discourse may be fortuitous.
Care is therefore needed in arguing from the position o f the passage to its
date. If, for instance, the evangelist's wish to emphasise teaching relevant
to a contemporary problem could be said to have gained this prominence
for the passage, an origin for the story near to the time o f the Gospel's
composition might be made to some extent more probable; but the other
considerations involved make it hazardous to infer that the placing o f the
passage results from such a wish. Again, it has been noted that the
evangelist does not juxtapose the stories o f the T e m p l e tax and the tribute
money, whereas some ante-Nicene Fathers (see n. 2 on p . 2 6 5 ) gave these
scenes the same reference. This interpretation, as T . W . Manson points
out, could most easily arise after 7 0 , when the T e m p l e tax became the
25
R o m a n fiscus iudaicus. M a y the fact that such an interpretation has not

2 1
C . F. D . M o u l e , 'St M a t t h e w ' s G o s p e l : S o m e Neglected Features', in F. L . C r o s s
( e d . ) , Studia Evangelica ii ( = T U 87, Berlin, 1964), 9 1 - 9 .
2 2
K n o x , Sources ii, 101.
2 3
Shek. ii. 1 ' I f the p e o p l e o f a t o w n sent their Shekels [to the T e m p l e ] and they were
stolen o r lost . . . ' ; c p . M a i m o n i d e s , Mishneh Torah 111. vii. 2, par. 4 ( e d n .
A m s t e r d a m , 1702-3, V o l . I, f. 285b foot ( E T in S. G a n d z a n d H . K l e i n , The Code of
Maimonides, Book Three: The Book of Seasons ( N e w H a v e n , 1961), p . 414)). T h e
i m p o r t a n c e o f this point for the location o f the story is e m p h a s i s e d b y Schlatter,
Matthdus, p p . 538, 542f.
2 4
D o d d , Historical Tradition, p p . 235f.
2 5
M a n s o n , loc. cit. in n. 2, p . 265. T h e fact that O r i g e n , w h o k n o w s that the J e w s still
p a y the d i d r a c h m a to R o m e (Ep. ad Africanum 14 (PG n . 81)), takes the G o s p e l
passage to deal with R o m a n taxation, m a y b e a r o u t this o b s e r v a t i o n .
270 WILLIAM HORBURY

affected the evangelist's placing o f the story indicate that he is working

2 6
before 7 0 ?
T w o considerations seem to speak against this possibility. T h e tribute
debate is placed by all synoptists in Jerusalem, whereas the T e m p l e tax
incident, as noted already, is internally limited to Galilee. Literary reasons
would therefore forbid juxtaposition. Secondly, the exegesis o f Melito and
his followers (see n. 3, p . 2 6 5 ) shows that the interpretation in question,
although widespread (see n. 2, p . 2 6 5 ) , was not universal either early or
later in the patristic period. That the evangelist should have been
unaffected by it is conceivable either before or after the Jewish W a r .

(3) Literary analysis

Bultmann, w h o classifies the story as a 'legend', notes that verses 2 5 f have a

27
primitive ring. C . G. Montefiore therefore allows for the possibility that
this old logion - perhaps, as Bultmann suggests, originally bearing a
different meaning - was used in the composition o f a story which arose only
28
after Jesus's death, even though it may be true that Jesus paid the tax.
29
M o r e definite suggestions are made by G. D . Kilpatrick. H e sees the old
core, verses 25f, as combined secondarily with a Petrine dialogue; thirdly,
to meet the post-70 situation, verse 2 7 was introduced; lastly, the evangelist
attached the story to its present setting by using Mark 9: 3 3 . H . W .
Montefiore likewise treats verse 2 7 as an accretion, but sees the earliest
form o f the story as a question to Jesus about the tax, with a reply as in
verses 25f, and in conclusion a c o m m a n d to pay. This earliest form
30
represents an incident in the life o f j e s u s .
It is worth noting that the morphological distinction between the logion
and its context need not imply a post-Easter origin for the latter. If the story
preserves a genuine reminiscence, the saying will have been preserved by
the hearer, he will have recounted it, and other tradents will have described
both saying and scene. After transmission the characteristic distinction
between a saying and its setting would be observable, irrespective o f the
setting's historical value. Secondly, as H . W . Montefiore points out, the
c o m m a n d in verse 2 7 fits the situation before 7 0 , and the period before
Jesus's death, as well as (or better than) the post-war period. It will be
suggested below that the allusion to miracle is not necessarily secondary.

2 6
T h e q u e s t i o n is raised with caution in M o u l e , Birth, p . 174 n. 1.
2 7
R . B u l t m a n n , Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (6th e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1964), p p . 34f
( E T The History of the Synoptic Tradition ( O x f o r d , 1963), p p . 341).
2 8
C . G . M o n t e f i o r e , Synoptic Gospels ii, 243-5.
29
K i l p a t r i c k , Origins p p . 4if.
3 0
H . W . M o n t e f i o r e , NTS 10 (1964/65) 64-8.
 T h e T e m p l e tax 271

These analyses d o not therefore permit any conclusion on the age o f the
story.

(4) The Temple tax

31
With occasional exceptions, exegetes agree that the interest governing the
32
transmission (some add, the o r i g i n ) o f the story was the question o f
Christian Jews' liability to the T e m p l e tax or its successor, the focus iudaicus.
T h e relevance o f the passage to relations with R o m e in general is also
33
stressed. These observations would be consistent with an origin o f the
story at any time up to the composition o f the Gospel itself.
3 4
Wellhausen, however, argued that the story could not be later than 7 0 .
Verses 2 5 f draw an implied analogy between the 'kings of the earth' and the
divine king o f Israel. T h e y must thus refer to a tax being levied in G o d ' s
3 5
name (the T e m p l e tax was paid 'to G o d ' ) on his own people - w h o , by
analogy with earthly practice, should be exempt. T h e saying cannot
therefore (Wellhausen concluded) apply to the focus iudaicus.
This view has been challenged as introducing 'an unsuitable scientific
36
precision into a midrashic p e r i c o p e ' . It is true that some early interpreters
(see n. 2 , p. 2 6 5 ) applied the verses to taxation o f any kind. Still - to
anticipate the exegesis o f the saying - such an application makes them
comparatively clumsy. Instead o f the parallel between earthly and
heavenly kings being implied from the first, the analogy n o w only becomes
clear as such when the word 'sons' is reached. That word will still keep the
undesirable associations o f its literal meaning 'sons o f a Gentile K i n g ' , and
its metaphorical application to Israel will be harsh and sudden. It seems
better to retain Wellhausen's explanation, whereby the verses are
consistently metaphorical from the beginning, and plainly recall the

3 1
L o e w e , 'Render unto Caesar', takes seriously the possibility - since espoused b y A . N .
S h e r w i n - W h i t e , Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament ( O x f o r d , 1963), p .
126 - that a R o m a n tax is in question. J o h n Lightfoot, In Evangelium Sancti Matthaei
Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae ( C a m b r i d g e , 1658), p . 211, ad l o c , hesitates to d e c i d e
b e t w e e n tribute and T e m p l e tax: the tendency o f later study emerges from
c o m p a r i s o n o f verse 24 A V 'tribute (moneyY with R V 'half-shekel'.
3 2
Eisler, H i r s c h , Flusser (see n. 13, p . 267).
3 3
Eisler, Orpheus, esp. p p . 95-100; W . D . Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount
( C a m b r i d g e , 1964), p p . 389-91; R . W a l k e r , Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium
( F R L A N T 91, G o t t i n g e n , 1967), p p . 101-3, 134.
3 4
J . W e l l h a u s e n , Das Evangelium Matthaei (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1914), p p . 85f.
35
J o s e p h u s , 4 / X V I I I . ix. 1 (312), T W 6ecp ( c p . BJ v\. 335); M e k i l t a , Yithro, Bahodesh,
i, o n E x o d . 19: 1 ( c p . p . 280 b e l o w ) , ww*? .
3 6
D a v i e s , Sermon, p . 391, criticising E. K l o s t e r m a n n , w h o r e p r o d u c e s W e l l h a u s e n ' s
v i e w . B . W . B a c o n , Studies in Matthew ( L o n d o n , n . d . ) , p p . 228f, to w h i c h Davies
refers, d o e s not meet W e l l h a u s e n ' s point. Kilpatrick, Origins, does not discuss
Wellhausen's argument.
272 WILLIAM HORBURY

37
c o m m o n midrashic comparison o f G o d with a ' K i n g o f flesh and b l o o d ' .
It is argued, again, that verses 2 5 f can only refer to the focus iudaicus, and
were probably composed in R o m e under Domitian, since the Jewish
half-shekel was neither paid to 'the kings o f the earth' nor due from
'strangers' rather than sons, whereas the Caesars were 'kings o f the earth'
and their taxes were due from conquered 'strangers' rather than legally
immune R o m a n citizens. T h e 'sons' on this interpretation are Christian
R o m a n citizens, w h o are acknowledged in this composition to be free
according to law but are urged for the sake of peace with the government to
pay like their Christian Jewish brethren and indeed on behalf o f the
38
paupers and the clergy (Matt. 1 0 : 8 - 1 0 ) among them. This attractive
theory also seems less than convincing because, like the Ambrosian exegesis
on which it builds (n. 2 , p . 2 6 5 ) , it fails to recognise the metaphorical
character o f the saying.
Three other datings o f the passage proceed from the treatment of the tax.
It has been urged that the problem o f liability would arise only for
Christians w h o no longer felt themselves to be within the Jewish
community. It would have been unlikely to impinge on a church such as
that o f the early chapters o f Acts, and is still less conceivable in the life o f
39
Jesus. This point is seen as confirming suspicions o f late origin. Yet
considerations apparently neglected here are the fact that the tax was
disputed in pre-Christian Judaism (see section II b e l o w ) , and the likeli­
40
hood that this comparatively light exaction, which was not reduced for
41
the p o o r , would raise practical problems o f payment only or especially
in ' p o o r ' communities such as those o f Jesus's disciples and the early
42 43
Jerusalem church. Lohmeyer's conclusion, that the passage represents a
late compromise reached after an initial struggle with Judaism, seems to
depend rather on an overall view o f primitive church history than on
anything in the story itself. Lastly, Flusser, w h o starts from the position

3 7
F o r the c o m p a r i s o n with r a b b i n i c p a r a b l e see D o d d , Historical Tradition, p . 38m.
(with a different v i e w o f the ' m o r a l ' ) ; Flusser, Tarbiz 31 (1961/62), i 5 i f .
3 8
Eisler, Orpheus, e s p . p p . 94-7.
3 9
C . H . D o d d , History and the Gospel ( L o n d o n , 1938), p p . gof: a similar view in D . F.
Strauss, Das Leben Jesu fur das deutsche Volk bearbeitet ( L e i p z i g , 1864), p p . 487f ( E T
A New Life of Jesus ii ( L o n d o n , 1865), 239).
4 0
F o r first-century E g y p t i a n J e w s the Jiscus iudaicus w h i c h r e p l a c e d the half-shekel has
b e e n estimated as, despite an apparent surcharge, not in itself financially
b u r d e n s o m e . See V . T c h e r i k o v e r , The Jews in Egypt in the Hellenistic-Roman Age in the
Light of the Papyri (2nd e d n . J e r u s a l e m , 1963), p p . X I I (English s u m m a r y ) , p . 94
( H e b r e w ) ; V . T c h e r i k o v e r and A . Fuks ( e d s . ) , Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum
( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , 1957) i, 8if.
4 1
E x o d . 30: 15: a charitable m a n m i g h t p a y o n b e h a l f o f the p o o r , Shek. i. 7.
4 2
S o J. K r e y e n b u h l , ' D e r A p o s t e l Paulus u n d die U r g e m e i n d e ' , ZNWy (1907), 180.
4 3
E. L o h m e y e r , Lord of the Temple ( E T , E d i n b u r g h , 1961, o f Kultus und Evangelium
( G o t t i n g e n , 1942)), p . 56.
 T h e T e m p l e tax 273

that the story is a church creation, finds its origin in the Qumran
community, which had reservations (see p . 2 7 9 below) on the payment o f
the tax. T h e church transferred the teaching to Jesus and added the
44
miracle. This conjecture depends on the initial assumption, which has no
sufficient grounds in the story itself.

(5) The provenance of the stater

Widely disparate arguments are brought to bear on the dating o f verse 2 7

and o f the passage as a whole in the light o f that verse.
(a) Critical considerations prompt the suggestion that, since the story
here touches a c o m m o n motif o f folklore, a current legend may have been
45
reapplied. Still within this sphere it is conjectured that verse 27 was meant
46
as a humorous hint to raise the money by selling the fish, or even making a
47
wealthy convert, or that its present form is secondary and results from
48
misunderstanding o f an original injunction o f this kind.
Historical considerations such as those noted in the previous section may
be allied with these literary-critical suggestions in an argument that the
49
verse is a later appendix.
(b) A different range o f arguments from philosophy and theology can be
adduced to show that if, as is probable, the text means to imply a miracle,
the implication is baseless. A prominent consideration o f this sort is the
50
claim that such a miracle would lack moral justification. Hence, once.
again, the verse would be in large part deprived o f evidential value,
although of course it could still be maintained that payment was made in an
ordinary way (so, for instance, H . W . Montefiore, see n. 1 4 , p . 2 6 7 ) . O n the
other hand, the moral point is used by Johannes Weiss (n. 5 0 , p . 2 7 3 ) to

^ F l u s s e r , Tarbiz 31 (1961/62), 150-6.

4 5
R i c h material from folklore is gathered b y Eisler, Orpheus, p p . 100-5; for J e w i s h
traditions see R . M e y e r , ' D e r R i n g des Polykrates, M t 17, 27 u n d die r a b b i n i s c h e
Uberlieferung', OLZ 40 (1937), 664-70; c p . D o d d , Historical Tradition, p . 225n., for
further e x a m p l e s from H a n s A n d e r s e n and m o d e r n C y p r u s .
4 6
H . E. G . Paulus a n d o t h e r eighteenth-century exegetes reviewed b y C . T . K u i n o e l ,
Evangelium Matthaei (2nd e d n . L e i p z i g , 1816), p p . 505-9, a d l o c ; similarly G . M .
L e e , 'Studies in T e x t s : M a t t h e w 17. 24-7', Theology 68 (1965), 38of, a n d G o u l d e r ,
Midrash, p p . 396f. F o r criticism o f such renderings see F. Field, Notes on the
Translation of the New Testament (Otium Norvicense, Pars Tertia, revised) ( C a m b r i d g e ,
1899), p p . I3f.
4 7
Eisler, Orpheus, p p . 93f, taking u p allegorical patristic interpretation o f the fish.
4 8
v a n d e r L o o s , Miracles, p . 687; J. J e r e m i a s , Neutestamentliche Theologie i (Giitersloh,
1971), p . 91 ( E T New Testament Theology i ( L o n d o n , 1971), 87).
4 9
Different datings in Kilpatrick, Origins, p . 41; H . W . M o n t e f i o r e , NTSt 10 (1964/65)
66.
5 0
Strauss, Leben Jesu, p p . 486-9 = New Life, ii, 237-41; J. W e i s s , Die Sckriften des Neuen
Testaments (2nd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1907), i, p . 348; v a n d e r L o o s , Miracles, p p . 686f.
274 WILLIAM HORBURY

clinch the conclusion that the whole paragraph is legendary. This range o f
argument is often combined with the critical considerations noted under
(a)..
Literary-critical considerations, examined so far as may be in isolation
from philosophico-theological ones, seem not to support as unambiguously
as is often assumed the conclusion that the verse is secondary to its context.
It has long been recognised that reports o f miracles c o m m o n l y begin to
circulate within the lifetime o f the person to w h o m they are attributed, and
d o not simply by their presence mark as late or otherwise discredit the
51
narratives in which they o c c u r . Further, two small but perhaps significant
differences between the Gospel narrative and its folkloric parallels have
been noted. E. Hirsch pointed out that whereas in folklore the precious
52
object is found in the fish's belly, St Peter's fish has the stater in its m o u t h .
Similarly J. D . M . Derrett notes that, by contrast with the parallels, there is
53
no question in the Gospel o f the recovery o f lost property. These
differences may be taken to reduce the likelihood that current folklore has
been reapplied tout court. Lastly, the conjectures that the verse represents
misunderstanding o f c o m m o n p l a c e advice on how to raise the money, or is
a later appendix to verses 2 4 - 6 , must be weighed against the observation
that the method o f payment described in verse 2 7 is peculiarly appropriate
to the teaching o f verses 2 4 - 6 . By using a lost coin rather than drawing on
the c o m m o n money box (John 1 2 : 6 , 1 3 : 2 9 ) Jesus meets the demand
54
without acknowledging it as a legitimate charge. Verse 2 7 thus coheres
with what precedes it.

5 1
A . H a r n a c k , Das Wesen des Christentums ( L e i p z i g , 1900), p . 17; E T What is Christianity}
( L o n d o n , 1901), p . 26; K n o x , Sources, i, xi.
5 2
H i r s c h , Fruhgeschichte, ii, 327. N o t e , h o w e v e r , a m o n g n u m e r o u s parallels c o n ­
c e r n i n g the fish's belly, t w o w h e r e the p r e c i o u s o b j e c t is found in the m o u t h
Eisler, Orpheus, p . 101. T h a t H i r s c h ' s p o i n t is not nullified is h o w e v e r suggested b y
the fact that St Hilary o f Poitiers (see n. 3, p . 265), M a l d o n a t u s ad l o c . ( e d . M a r t i n ,
i, 238), a n d Strauss, Leben Jesu, p . 488 = New Life ii, p p . 24of all note the strangeness
o f the c o i n in the m o u t h ; while precisely this detail is assimilated to the majority o f
the parallels b y a classicising paraphrast: 'huius p a n d a n t u r scissi penetralia
ventris;/illic i n v e n t u m d u p l e x dissolve t r i b u t u m ' , J u v e n c u s , Libri Evangeliorum iii.
394f. ( C S E L 24, p . 95).
5 3
Derrett, Law, p . 259n. ( n o t in NovTest 6).
5 4
M a l d o n a t u s a d loc. i, 239 M a r t i n ; Derrett, NovTest 6, 1 i f = Law p . 258; D . D a u b e ,
'Responsibilities o f M a s t e r and Disciples in the G o s p e l s ' , NTSt 19 (1972), 1-15
( 1 3 - 1 5 ) . In v i e w o f L u k e 8: 3, J o h n 12:6, 13:29 it seems better to c o n c l u d e that
Jesus deliberately refrained from using the c o m m o n purse ( o n e possibility
entertained b y J e r o m e , ad l o c , taken u p b y H e r v a e u s Natalis, De Paupertate Christiet
Apostolorum ( e d . J. G . Sikes in Archives d'histoire doctrinale et litteraire du moyen age ix
(1938), 209-97 (280)) than that he h a d not e n o u g h to pay (the first possibility
c o n s i d e r e d b y J e r o m e , ad l o c , taken u p b y A q u i n a s , Summa Theologiae I I I . xl. 3 and
W e l l h a u s e n , Matthaei, ad l o c ) , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e the main b o d y o f disciples w a s
absent ( M a l d o n a t u s , ad l o c . i, 239 M a r t i n ; c p . Derrett, NovTest 6 (1963), 6, 11 =
 T h e T e m p l e tax 275

Philosophical and theological criticism can be considered here only in so

far as it is directly linked with exegesis. First, it should be noted that the
datum o f verse 2 7 for the theologian is not necessarily a miracle o f power.
'Here I am at a loss which first to admire, the Saviour's prescience or his
might' (St Jerome ad loc. (see n. 2 , p . 2 6 5 ) ) . N o doubt many from the first
have thus understood creative power as well as foreknowledge to be in
evidence here; but the implication intended may simply be foreknowledge,
5 5
as probably in Mark 1 1 : 2 - 5 , 1 4 * 1 2 - 1 6 and parallels, Luke 5:1-11.
Secondly, this is not the only synoptic miracle-story which has been
56
thought to lack moral justification. T h e criticisms made in this case, as
stated representatively by Johannes Weiss - that the miracle satisfies no
57
need o f mankind, attains no religious goal, and appears selfish - perhaps
d o less than justice to the moral connotations o f verse 27 lest we cause them to
stumble and the theological point, noted already, o f this particular m o d e o f
58
payment.
T h e likelihood o f elaboration must be taken especially seriously when we
verge as closely as is the case here on a motif o f folklore. A scrutiny o f
criticisms nevertheless makes evaluation of verse 2 7 appear less simple than
the abundance o f parallels might suggest. For our present purpose it is not
59
necessary, even if it were possible, fully to reconstruct an incident in the
Galilaean ministry such that verse 2 7 came into being. These observations
may however support two conclusions bearing on historical assessment o f
this text. First, negatively, verse 2 7 provides no firm basis for dating the
whole paragraph late or questioning its evidential value. Secondly, and
positively, the difference between verse 27 and its legendary parallels, the
coherence o f the verse with its context and the moral and theological
significance o f payment in this particular way indicate that, despite the

Law, p p . 253, 257). O r i g e n and C h r y s o s t o m (notes 2 and 3 o n p . 265) emphasise

that the L o r d d i d n o t p a y from his o w n resources.
5 5
H u g o G r o t i u s , Annotationes in Novum Testamentum i ( A m s t e r d a m , 1641), 310;
Schlatter, Matthdus, p . 542.
5 6
C . F. D . M o u l e ( e d . ) , Miracles ( L o n d o n , 1965), p . 243, places the S y n o p t i c miracles
o f the swine and the fig-tree in this category.
5 7
W e i s s , Schriften, 1, p . 348.
5 8
T h e force o f such criticisms was less felt in patristic exegesis, w h i c h fastened o n the
s y m b o l i c character o f the d e e d , setting it beside the feeding miracles (Epistula
Apostolorum 5) as an act o f divine m e r c y d o n e o n o u r b e h a l f a n d foreshadowing
r e d e m p t i o n ( O r i g e n a n d J e r o m e , n. 2, p . 265; A c t s o f T h o m a s 143, a d d u c e d in
different versions b y F. C . Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe ii. ( C a m b r i d g e , 1904),
274; St H i l a r y o f Poitiers, n. 3, p . 265).
5 9
O u r i g n o r a n c e o f m a n y c i r c u m s t a n c e s is underlined b y the variety o f reasons
p r o p o u n d e d for the m e a n s o f p a y m e n t and its extension to Peter as well as J e s u s . See
the lists in St T h o m a s A q u i n a s , Catena Aurea, ad l o c . (ed. J. Nicolai ( A v i g n o n , 1851),
ii, 378) a n d M . Pole ( P o o l e ) , Synopsis CriticorumaliorumqueSacraeScripturaeInterpretum,
a d l o c . ( e d . J. L e u s d e n ( U t r e c h t , 1686), iv, c o l . 448).
276 WILLIAM HORBURY

strong prima facie case for suspecting <the narrative, it is more likely to have
originated in an incident than in pious imagination alone. T h e teaching o f
verses 24—6 would then have been followed, as H . W . Montefiore suggests,
by payment of the tax, probably from lost property rather than the c o m m o n
fund.

(6) The Petrine interest

This story, like some other parts o f the material peculiar to St Matthew, is
strongly Petrine in interest. St Peter is sole recipient (and therefore sole
60
transmitter) o f the Lord's c o m m a n d s . E. Hirsch founds his theory o f
61
origin o n this trait. He explains the story as basically a Petrine vision,
analogous to that o f Acts 10, received when St Peter as halakic authority
was faced by the half-shekel problem. In course o f time the vision was
recounted as an event in the life o f j e s u s . This ingenious conjecture could
claim consideration only if the story were in fact inexplicable as such an
event.

(*]) Doctrine presupposed

A pre-Easter setting for verses 2 4 - 6 has been urged on the ground that these
verses, if taken as a church creation, would presuppose teaching which is
atypical o f primitive Christianity. This teaching would comprise an
estimate o f non-Christian Jews as foreigners and a claim that Christians are
62
the true heirs o f the T e m p l e . It is not clear, however, that either this
estimate or the associated claim would have been unthinkable in the
primitive church. That the Jews may become aliens is suggested by the
warnings o f Matt. 8: 1 i f = Luke 1 3 : 28f, Mark 1 2 : 9 and parallels. Outside
the synoptic Gospels the theme recurs in a wide range o f sources: notably
Acts 3: 22f, among Pauline texts (but contrast R o m . 1 1 : 281) Gal. 4 : 30, Phil.
3: 2f, 1 Thess. 2: I5f, in the Johannine writings John 8 : 4 4 ( c p . Rev. 2 : 9 ,
3 : 9 ) . T h e repeated later query adversus Iudaeos 'whether this [Christian]
people or the former people is the heir' (Barn. 1 3 : 1 ) expects an answer
already given in primitive Christianity. Again, the T e m p l e is used
constantly by Christians according to Luke-Acts (Luke 24: 5 3 , Acts 2 : 4 6 ,
etc.), but no exclusive Christian claim to it is recorded, although such a
63
claim has been conjectured. T h e second-century accounts o f St James the

6 0
W e l l h a u s e n , Matthaei, p . 86. For the plural readings in verse 25 see N e s t l e - A l a n d ,
a d l o c . a n d (for their s e c o n d a r y character) A . M e r x , Das Evangelium Matthaeus
(Berlin, 1902), p . 260.
6 1
H i r s c h , Fruhgeschichte, ii, 326f.
« H . W . M o n t e f i o r e , NTSt, 10 (1964/65), 67.
6 3
A . A . T . Ehrhardt, The Acts of the Apostles ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1969), p p . 16-19.
 T h e T e m p l e tax 277

Lord's brother entering the Holy Place, and St John the Apostle wearing
64
the high-priestly nixdkov (a privilege also later ascribed to J a m e s ) show
that later thought could view the first Christians as presiding over the
Jewish cult. It seems hazardous to exclude the possibility that defence o f
Christian access to the T e m p l e might have taken the form o f a claim to be
the only legitimate worshippers there. Verses 2 4 - 6 cannot therefore be
dated with any confidence on these doctrinal grounds.

This survey o f criticism has led largely but not entirely to negative
conclusions. A date before or after 7 0 cannot be argued from the position o f
the story, nor a date before Jesus's death from doctrine implied in verses
2 4 - 6 . O n the other hand, origin late in the pre-70 period, or after 70, cannot
be deduced from the treatment o f the T e m p l e tax or the provenance
o f the stater. Verse 2 7 coheres with what precedes it: the ancient ring
o f the dominical logion does not mean that its context is only likely to
have been provided after the resurrection: and the style o f the whole
passage does not preclude the possibility o f its having been taken from
a source. Lastly, the logion o f verses 2 5 f only retains consistent force if
applied to tax levied in the name o f G o d , an application only possible
before 7 0 .
T h e central saying therefore suggests a pre-70 date, and nothing else in
the story rules this out. T h e passage can reasonably be considered as a
whole. With these points in mind we turn to its setting in Jewish history.
W h a t was thought and practised as regards the half-shekel tax in the time o f
Jesus?

II

It has long been suspected that the annual half-shekel T e m p l e tax did not
65
arise until late in the post-exilic p e r i o d . Exodus 30: I3f was understood by
the Pharisees as instituting an annual due, whereby all Israel shared
responsibility for the cult (Shek. iv. 1 ) . Payment o f this due came to be
66
ranked among the Positive Commandments o f the T o r a h . T h e Pen-
tateuchal text, however, ordains only ransom-money on the occasions when

6 4
H e g e s i p p u s and Polycrates o f E p h e s u s ap. Eusebius, H.E. ii. 23, iii. 31, v . 24
( G C S 9.1, p p . 166, 264, 490): St E p i p h a n i u s , Panarion xxix 4 ( G C S 25, p . 324).
6 5
M i c h a e l i s , Commentaries, iii, 1—19 ( B o o k iv i. Arts. 172-3); J. L . Saalschutz, Das
Mosaische Recht (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1853), p p . 291-3; A . E d e r s h e i m , The Temple
( L o n d o n , n . d . ) , p p . 72-4.
6 6
N o . 171 in the e n u m e r a t i o n o f M a i m o n i d e s , Sepher ha-Miswoth ii ( e d . W a r s a w ,
1883), 34: E T in C . B . C h a v e l , The Book of Divine Commandments i ( L o n d o n , 1940),
295. O n the cult as the responsibility o f all Israel see I. A b r a h a m s , Studies in
Pharisaism and the Gospels, First Series ( C a m b r i d g e , 1917), p p . 88f.
278 W I L L I A M HORBURY

67
the people are numbered. In the other relevant biblical passages a yearly
offering is only specified at Neh. 1 0 : 3 2 (where the tax is new and the
68
amount is one-third o f a shekel) and 2 Chron. 2 4 : 5 (where no amount is
named, and the account is composite). O n one occasion some Elephantine
Jews offered two shekels a head 'to the godyhw', but it is not clear if this was
69
a regular c u s t o m . Three inter-testamental sources which deal with
T e m p l e offerings fail to mention the half-shekel: T o b i t 1 : 6 - 8 , the Letter o f
70
Aristeas, and Jubilees. O n the other hand, whatever contributions may
71
have been levied earlier, it appears that royal subsidies to the T e m p l e
72
sacrifices continued up to Maccabaean times. This evidence has been
taken to suggest that an annual half-shekel due only became regular in the
73
Hasmonaean p e r i o d , perhaps at the time o f the Pharisaic-Boethusian
controversy over the provision o f the Tamid in the reign o f Salome
74
Alexandra, or even later.

6 7
E x o d . 38: 25f, 2 K i n g s 12:4-16 ( H e b r e w 5 - 1 7 ) , 2 C h r o n . 24:4-14, N e h . 10:32f. C p .
J. Liver, ' T h e R a n s o m o f H a l f Shekel' [sic], in M . H a r a n ( e d . ) , Yehezkel Kaufmann
Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, i960), H e b r e w section p p . 54-67: idem, ' T h e Half-Shekel
Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature', HThR 56 (1963), 173-98.
6 8
F o r r a b b i n i c exegesis o f this verse, not uniformly referring it to the T e m p l e tax, see
S t r a c k - B i l l e r b e c k , Matthaus, p . 761 and Liver, Kaufmann Volume, p . 62n. = HThR, 56
O963), i84n. M a n a s s e h b e n Israel, reconciling it with E x o d . 30:13, cites the
o p i n i o n s that N e h e m i a h ' s tax was n e w and distinct from the Pentateuchal o n e ( I b n
E z r a ) : o r , alternatively, that it w a s the same as the Pentateuchal tax, the shekel
h a v i n g increased in value ( N a c h m a n i d e s ) . See E. H . L i n d o , The Conciliator of R.
Manasseh ben Israel i ( L o n d o n , 1842), 198.
6 9
F o r the p a p y r u s listing m a l e and female contributors (with t w o w h o m a d e an
offering to o t h e r deities) see A . [ E . ] C o w l e y , Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C.
( O x f o r d , 1923), p p . 65-76 ( N o . 22). F o r the dating in 419 B . C . ( C o w l e y , Papyri, p .
66) 400 is preferred b y E. G . K r a e l i n g , The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri ( N e w
H a v e n , 1953), p . 62. N e h . i o : 3 2 f is c o m p a r e d at Kraeling, Papyri, p . 100.
7 0
E . B i c k e r m a n , ' H e l i o d o r e au T e m p l e d e J e r u s a l e m ' , Annuaire de Vlnstitut de
Philologie et dHistoire Orientales et Slaves 7 (1939-44), 13f, reprinted in E. B i c k e r m a n n ,
Studies in Jewish and Christian History ii ( L e i d e n , 1980), 159-91 (1671)- T h e
significance o f this silence is questioned b y V . T c h e r i k o v e r , Hellenistic Civilization and
the Jews ( E T Philadelphia, 1959), p p . 155,464f (notes 6 and 12), o n the g r o u n d that
n o relevant s o u r c e deals with the T e m p l e i n c o m e . But T o b i t a n d Jubilees, at least,
treat the Israelite's responsibility for offerings, and might therefore h a v e b e e n
e x p e c t e d to m e n t i o n the half-shekel.
7 1
N e h e m i a h ' s levy is regarded as t e m p o r a r y , that o f 1 C h r o n . 24 as c o r r e s p o n d i n g to
the offering o f E x o d . 25: i f rather than the half-shekel o f the r a n s o m ( s o also
M i c h a e l i s a n d Saalschiitz (see n. 65, p . 277)) in Liver, Kaufmann Volume, p p . 58-62;
HThR, 56, 178-85.
7 2
Ezra 6:9, 7: 21-3; J o s e p h u s , AJ xii. 140 ( A n t i o c h u s I I I ) ; 2 M a c e . 3:3 (his son,
Seleucus I V P h i l o p a t o r ) ; for the idea c p . 1 M a c e . 10:39 (offer o f Demetrius I
S o t e r ) , 2 M a c e . 9: 16 ( A n t i o c h u s Epiphanes's d e a t h b e d v o w ) .
7 3
B i c k e r m a n , ' H e l i o d o r e ' , p . 14.
7 4
Liver, Kaufmann Volume, p p . 66f: HThR 56 (1963), i8gf. For a m o d e r n re-statement
o f the tradition that 2 K i n g s 12:4 ( H e b r e w 5) implies an existing half-shekel levy see
C . A l b e c k , Einfuhrung in die Mischna ( G T Berlin, 1971), p p . 7f.
 T h e T e m p l e tax 279

If the annual tax was, as seems probable, o f comparatively recent origin,

it might be expected still to be controversial in the first century A . D . ; 4 Q 1 5 9
75
(Ordinances) points in this direction. A fragmentary halakic commentary
on verses from the Torah, it treats the half-shekel (col. ii, lines 6ff) with
emphasis: 'as for the half-[shekel, the offering to the L o r d ] which they gave,
each man as a ransom for his soul: only one [time] shall he give it all his
76
days'. This is best understood as polemical. With the Pharisees it assumes
that Exod. 3 0 : 1 3 institutes a regular offering. Against the Pharisees,
77
however, this offering is seen as due only once in a man's lifetime, not once
a year. This exegesis probably reflects one possible legal interpretation o f
the period before the triumph o f the Pharisaic view; while its sectarian
retention shows the continuance o f opposition to an annual half-shekel
78
levy.
79
Rabbinic sources further illuminate this opposition. Rabban Johanan

7 5
First edited and linked with M a t t . 17:24-7 b y J. M . A l l e g r o , ' A n U n p u b l i s h e d
F r a g m e n t o f Essene H a l a k h a h (4Q O r d i n a n c e s ) \ J S S 6 (1961), 7 1 - 3 : republished
in J. M . A l l e g r o and A . A . A n d e r s o n , Qumran Cave 4:1 (4Q158-4Q186), Discoveries
in t h e j u d a e a n Desert o f J o r d a n , v ( O x f o r d , 1968), p p . 6-9 a n d Plate 11: corrections
in J. Strugnell, ' N o t e s en m a r g e d u v o l u m e V des " D i s c o v e r i e s in the J u d a e a n
Desert o f J o r d a n " ', RdQ 7 (1970), 163-276 (165, nn. 3-5, and 175-9).
7 6
T h i s rendering follows the restoration and interpretation o f J. Liver, ' T h e
Half-Shekel in the Scrolls o f the J u d a e a n Desert Sect,' Tarbiz 31 (1961-2), 18-22
and HThR 56 (1963) 190-5. F r o m his recognition o f a parallel to E x o d . 38: 25f in
C o l . ii, lines 8-9 it follows that the lacunae at the end o f the lines m a y b e m o r e
extensive than a l l o w e d for in A l l e g r o ' s edition, and h e n c e that the reference to
valuation m o n e y at the b e g i n n i n g o f line 6 need not b e taken to identify it with the
half-shekel, but m a y form the end o f a separate lost clause. T h e main point o f
interest in the present c o n n e c t i o n - the half-shekel p a y m e n t o n l y o n c e in a l i f e t i m e -
is, h o w e v e r , equally clear if A l l e g r o ' s text is followed. T h i s remains true after the
corrections o f C o l . 11, lines 6f in Strugnell, 177.
7 7
L i v e r , Tarbiz 31 (1961-2), 21 a n d HThR 56 (1963), 191.
7 8
A n o n - Q u m r a n i c origin for the law o f the fragment, with the reservation that the
influence o f the Q u m r a n sect's v i e w o f the T e m p l e m a y b e discernible in the
particular instance o f the half-shekel, is suggested b y F. D . W e i n e r t , ' A N o t e o n
4Q159 a n d a N e w T h e o r y o f Essene O r i g i n s ' , RdQq (1977), 223-30. E v e n if the
interpretation o f E x o d . 30: 13 in the fragment should turn o u t to b e distinctively
Q u m r a n i c , Shek. i. 4 (cited in the following p a r a g r a p h ) s h o w s that the m e a n i n g o f
u m r a n s e c t
the verse was disputed b e y o n d the b o u n d s o f the Q -
7 9
T h e statement o f R . Samuel ( B a b y l o n , first half o f third century) cited in this
c o n n e c t i o n from K e t . 106a, T . J. Shek. iv. 2 b y M . Beer, ' T h e Sects and the
Half-SheqeP, Tarbiz 31 (1961/62), 2g8f, is o f doubtful historical relevance. It
includes a m o n g those paid from the half-shekel the disciples o f the W i s e (Pharisaic
sages) w h o taught the priests h o w to perform their duties. I f this was s o , another
m o t i v e for non-Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n to the tax is clear. T h e statement m a y b e
trustworthy: c p . J. J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu (3rd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1962), p p .
i 3 o f ( E T Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1969), p . 115). O n the other hand, it
m a y s i m p l y be an inference from the principle that all ancillary T e m p l e expenditure
should b e p u b l i c (derived from the half-shekel) rather than private. A s time goes o n
m o r e such expenses are specified: with Shek. iv 1, T . Shek. ii 6 c o m p a r e the longer
list in K e t . 106a, T . J. Shek. iv. 2, 48a (10b in the edition in the R o m m / W i l n a
280 W I L L I A M HORBURY

b. Zaccai concerned himself with the tax. In a frequently cited passage

(Shek. i 4) he fiercely denied the priests' claim to immunity. His haggadah
expounded the moral significance o f the half-shekel, its ten component
80
gerahs standing for the ten transgressed commandments. These sayings
81
illustrate the Pharisaic advocacy of the tax. T h e attitude against which the
Pharisees contended is illuminated by a third saying in his name, lamenting
the outcome of the Jewish W a r with reference to Song of Solomon 1 : 8 : ' Y o u
would not serve G o d , now you are made to serve the lowest of the Gentiles,
the Arabs: you would not pay to G o d the beka a head, now you pay fifteen
shekels under your enemies' rule: you would not repair the roads and open
places for the pilgrims, now you repair the posts and stations for those w h o
82
go to the kings' cities.' In this tripartite statement the second and third
members substantiate the opening accusation ' Y o u would not serve G o d . '
The first supporting example is the non-payment of the T e m p l e tax, termed
8 3
the 'beka a head' in accordance with Exod. 38: 2 6 . T h e second example is
the non-fulfilment o f a duty closely associated with the payment o f the tax
at Shek. i. 1; the language is identical with that o f the Mishnah. Thus in the
speaker's eyes a chief offence of Israel has been unwillingness to pay the due
which the Pharisees advocated.
The half-shekel also figures in a Mishnaic discussion o f the effect o f the
wording o f vows upon their validity, Ned. ii. 4. Here R. Judah is said to rule:
'If the v o w was o f undefined heave-offering, in Judaea the v o w is binding,
but in Galilee it is not binding.' An explanation is immediately a d d e d : ' - for
the men o f Galilee d o not recognise (or, distinguish: "eynam makkirin) the
heave-offering o f the chamber' (lifted up from the half-shekels, Shek. iii.
1-4). A second ruling follows: ' I f the v o w is of undefined devoted things, in
Judaea it is not binding, but in Galilee it is binding.' T h e explanation is: ' -
for the men o f Galilee d o not recognise the devoted things o f the priests'.

T a l m u d B a b l i ) . T h a t Pharisaic sages settled T e m p l e p r o c e d u r e is itself d o u b t e d b y

J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 ( L e i d e n , 1 9 7 1 ) iii, 228,
288.
8 0
T . J. Shek. ii 3, 46d (6a in the edition in the R o m m / W i l n a T a l m u d B a b l i ) ; W .
B a c h e r , Die Agada der Tannaiten i (2nd e d n . Strassburg, 1903), 3 2 .
8 1
T h e h a g g a d i c interpretation o f E x o d . 3 0 : 1 3 , w h e r e b y G o d s h o w s M o s e s the fiery
likeness o f a c o i n , has o b v i o u s d i d a c t i c value, and m a y be m e n t i o n e d as further
suggesting the kind o f teaching w h i c h the Pharisees m a y have g i v e n . See T a r g u m
Ps. J o n a t h a n a n d Rashi ad l o c , B . M a n d e l b a u m , Pesikta de Rav Kahana i ( N e w Y o r k
1 9 6 2 ) , 34, a n d L . G i n z b e r g , The Legends of the Jews iii (Philadelphia, 1 9 1 1 ) , I46f.
8 2
M e k i l t a , Yithro, Bahodesh i, o n E x o d . 1 9 : 1; H . S. H o r o v i t z and I. A . R a b i n , Mechilta
d'Rabbi Ismael (repr. J e r u s a l e m , i 9 6 0 ) , p p . 203f. F o r parallels see J. Neusner, A Life
ofYohanan ben Zakkai (2nd e d n . L e i d e n , 1 9 7 0 ) , p p . 1 8 5 - 7 , and for an annotated text
a n d translation S. K r a u s s , Griechen und Rbmer ( M o n u m e n t a T a l m u d i c a V . i, repr.
D a r m s t a d t , 1 9 7 2 ) , p p . i58f, n o . 3 7 2 .
8 3
R e n d e r e d 'einen halben Schekel' in the translation o f J o h a n a n ' s saying b y B a c h e r ,
Tannaiten i, 4 2 .
 T h e T e m p l e tax 281

The two rulings are both given in the parallel at T o s . Ned. i. 6, where the
second is credited to Eleazar b . Z a d o k , but the explanatory comments only
occur in the Mishnah. It has been conjectured that the first comment may
84
reflect first-century Galilaean reluctance to pay the half-shekel annually.
The suggestion is made tentatively, because the debate reflected in the
Mishnah probably belongs to the end o f the second century. This
consideration is underlined by the Tosefta, for it is not impossible that its
version preserves an earlier form, to which the stylised explanations o f the
Mishnah have been added. In any case, the object o f the first explanatory
comment is to show that, in a v o w made in Galilee, undefined
'heave-offering' is likely to mean the priest's portion ( N u m . 1 8 : 8 ) rather
than the offering from the T e m p l e tax; and the v o w is therefore invalid,
since it does not mention an offering intended directly for G o d . Devoted
things can likewise be set apart either for the T e m p l e ('unto the L o r d ' , Lev.
2 7 : 2 8 ) or the priest ( N u m . 1 8 : 1 4 , c p . Lev. 2 7 : 2 1 ) ; but in this case,
according to the second comment, the Galilaean is likely to mean things
devoted to the Lord, and so his vow will be valid. T h e implication is not that
Galilaeans are unwilling to pay the half-shekel, but that, unlike Judaeans,
they d o not have 'the heave-offering o f the chamber' in mind as the
heave-offering. T h e outlook envisaged as Judaean may perhaps be
illustrated from Shek. iii. 3, where the household o f Rabban Gamaliel are
said to have cast their coins at the officer's feet in order to ensure that they
were included in the heave-offering from the half-shekels, and not left over
in the surplus. Ned. ii. 4 therefore hardly constitutes evidence that the
Galilaeans formed a further group w h o were reluctant to pay an annual
half-shekel in the first century; but it does show that the offering heaved up
from the T e m p l e tax was thought to have attained such a degree o f
significance for Judaeans, near the T e m p l e , that it was considered 'the
heave-offering' par excellence.
This Mishnaic comment coheres with evidence that the redemptive
significance o f the half-shekel, given its identification with the ransom-
money o f Exod. 3 0 : 1 3 , was recognised both in Palestine and the Diaspora;
the finding o f a ransom may well have provided, as Philo suggests, a chief
85
motive encouraging payment. T h e sayings in Johanan b . Zaccai's name
show, however, that despite this motive, and despite Pharisaic advocacy,
Palestinian Jews at least were not paying the tax in a manner beyond

8 4
S. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian ( W i l m i n g t o n a n d N o t r e D a m e ,
1980), p p . 277-81.
8 5
' R . Eleazar said: W h i l e the T e m p l e stood, a m a n paid his shekel a n d m a d e
a t o n e m e n t for h i m s e l f , B a b . B. 9a: a i 6'eiocpoQai \VTQOL J i Q o a o v o ^ a ^ o v r a i , Philo,
DeSpec. Leg. 1. 77 ( L . C o h n and P. W e n d l a n d , Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt
v (Berlin 1906), 20).
282 WILLIAM HORBURY

86
reproach. This testimony agrees with the fact that the Mishnah provides
for distraint and payment in arrear (Shek. i. 3, vi. 5 ) . It is consistent, also,
with other Palestinian evidence for the non-payment o f sacred dues such as
87
tithes, arid for the evasion o f civil taxes.
T h e tax, then, probably o f comparatively recent origin as a regular
institution, was strongly advocated by the Pharisees. Its universal
incidence would entitle all Israel to the benefits o f the cult. Its redemptive
significance was felt, but there was, at any rate in Palestine, less widespread
88
willingness to pay than is often suggested. T h e priests claimed exemption,
the Q u m r a n sect did not agree that the tax should be annual, and there
were many w h o , for whatever reason, in practice did not pay.

Ill

It is this pre-70 background which the survey o f criticism suggested as

relevant. T h e tax-collectors' questions and the Lord's response can n o w be
viewed within this setting and with reference to Jesus's life and teaching.
'Does your master pay the half-shekel?' is an understandable question, if
it was known that Jesus and the disciples were supported by charity. T h e
collectors might simply wonder if Jesus's tax was paid by a patron (Shek. i.
7 ) . O n the other hand they might suspect that Jesus would refuse to pay on
some such principle as that o f the Q u m r a n community. Objections on
principle, as seen already, were attacked by the Pharisees. It is then also
possible that the collectors' question was linked with the Pharisaic testing
on Jesus. Perhaps, in view o f the searching character o f the response, this is
the most likely explanation. T h e collectors may have known that Jesus had
89
the reputation o f attacking T o r a h , or they may have been instructed to
discover his attitude on a halakic point which the Pharisees stressed.
Jesus teaches that the levy is wrong in principle, and he only pays in a
manner not admitting liability. T w o formal aspects o f the teaching give a
measure o f confirmation to the view that it is dominical. T h e first is the
primitive ring o f verses 25f, where the antithetical question formally
90
corresponds to synoptic sayings widely accepted as authentic. Secondly,
in Aramaic this question is likely to have had a degree o f alliteration, a

8 6
Philo (as cited in the previous note) says that the tax was paid JiQoOvjiOTaTa.
A l l o w a n c e should b e m a d e , h o w e v e r , for idealisation (he is emphasising the
perpetuity o f the T e m p l e i n c o m e ) a n d also, p e r h a p s , for particular d e v o t i o n to the
T e m p l e in the D i a s p o r a .
87
J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem, p p . 120-4, E T p p . 105-8, i25f.
8 8
E.g. L . Finkelstein, The Pharisees (3rd impression, Philadelphia, 1946), i. 281;
Derrett, NovTest 6 (1923), 2 = Law, p . 248.
8 9
S o St Cyril o f A l e x a n d r i a ( a b o v e , n. 3, p . 265).
9 0
S e e p . 270 a b o v e , and n. 7, p . 266.
 T h e T e m p l e tax 283

91
feature characteristic of Jesus's sayings. M o r e generally, as noted already,
its location in the Jewish thought-world is suggested by its resemblance to
the c o m m o n rabbinic comparison of G o d and king. A detail bearing this out
is the fact noted by Schlatter that the phrase 'kings of the earth' was current
92
in midrashic literature in a form differing from the biblical o n e . Its usage
here is thus consonant not only with direct dependence on the Bible, but
also with an indirect dependence through living tradition.
In content the saying, as already noted, is most easily comprehensible if
93
applied to this particular tax. Even earthly kings exempt their ' s o n s ' from
toll and tribute. It is best to take the 'sons' as Israel in general, rather than
Jesus and his followers in particular, since the unadorned description o f
other Jews as foreigners which the latter would imply does not occur
elsewhere in Jesus's teaching. In other sayings it is Israel's election which is
taken for granted (notably Mark 7 : 2 7 : c p . Matt. 1 0 : 5 ^ 1 5 : 2 4 ) , while
rejection is threatened rather than assumed (Matt. 8: 1 i f = Luke 1 3 : 28f:
Mark 1 2 : 9 and parallels).
T h e Jews, then, are G o d ' s sons, and (it is argued) an interpretation
which pictures their divine king as exacting something like a tribute from
them does not rise to a true theology. Jesus's teaching is thus implicitly but
radically critical o f the Pharisaic view. T h e overturning o f the money­
changers' tables in the cleansing o f the T e m p l e would be consistent with
this saying, even though the principal motives o f the cleansing were
94
probably different.
Retroversion o f the last words o f the instruction to pay (exeivov x . t A . )
95
gives notably succinct Aramaic with a striking assonance. A s seen
already, payment from lost property does not contradict the teaching. T h e
principle on which it is made is complementary to that assumed in Mark
9: 4 2 par. Matt. 1 8 : 6, Luke 1 7 : 2: there others are not to offend the 'little
ones', here the disciples are not to cause outsiders to stumble. Jesus and his
followers might d o so in this case either by appearing to controvert the
T o r a h itself (the Pharisaic interpretation being assumed as correct) or by
seeming to o p p o s e the T e m p l e . Jesus criticised Pharisaic interpretations,

9 1
A frequent initial Mem w o u l d b e p r o b a b l e , if s o m e t h i n g o n the following lines m a y
be conjectured: K0»1 N03» pane ^ 3 0 3 p | » NSHK \mv "|nin >K» For
alliteration c p . Black, Aramaic Approach, p p . 160-85: J e r e m i a s , Theologie, i, 371; E T
p p . 27-9.
9 2
Schlatter, Matthaus, p . 540, citing M e k i l t a , Yithro, Amalek i, o n E x o d . 18: 1,
n»TKn ( H o r o w i t z a n d R a b i n , Mechilta p . 188).
9 3
I.e. their o w n p e o p l e as o p p o s e d to subject aliens: so W e l l h a u s e n , Matthaei, p p . 85f;
Stauffer, Caesars, p . 130; N E B . F o r tribute as a sign o f servitude see Tertullian,
Apology xiii. 6. I f ' s o n s ' is u n d e r s t o o d as 'family' o r ' h o u s e h o l d ' ( s o Derrett, NovTest 6
(1963), 7-9 = Law, p p . 2541) the interpretation offered in the text c a n still stand.
9 4
C p . J e r e m i a s , Theologie i, p p . 144^ 20of; E T p p . 145, 207.
9 5
? -pVm 'DVn am 30 ; c p . Peshitta and O l d Syriac ad l o c .
284 W I L L I A M HORBURY

and even the T o r a h itself (notably Mark 1 0 : 5 ) , while he venerated the

9 6
T e m p l e as the house of God (Mark 1 1 : 1 7 and parallels, Matt. 2 3 : 2 1 ) . He
did not however scruple to announce its d o o m , and this announcement
97
figured in the charges against h i m . T h e care not to cause stumbling is
98
therefore perhaps more likely to concern respect for the T e m p l e .
The whole passage, then, can be understood within the life ofjesus and
contemporary Judaism. W e consider, in conclusion, its bearing on Jesus's
attitude to tax and government.

IV

Jesus's teaching here defines no doctrine on taxation levied by 'the kings o f

the earth', even though it has constantly been applied to secular taxes.
Some modern historians, however, find in verses 2 5 f a criticism o f the
R o m a n census, and therefore teaching comparable with Zealot belief.
99
Herbert L o e w e notes, after C . G . Montefiore, that Jesus respected the
T e m p l e . T h e passage, he thinks, may therefore be condemning the census
rather than the half-shekel. Comparing rabbinic sayings on the tax-
immunity which in principle belongs to the pious, he includes the passage
in the evidence for Jesus's teaching on taxation. H e draws the conclusion
that Jesus's attitude here is doubtful but, on the whole, indicates that
payment should be made.
100
D . Flusser, w h o takes the passage as a church creation (above p . 2 7 3 ) ,
accepts that it deals with the T e m p l e tax. H e thinks, however, that the
saying which likens the T e m p l e tax to the census is negative in its attitude
to the latter: it means that the 'sons' (Israel) ought not to be obliged to pay
it. This is comparable with the Zealot belief. Flusser sees here one more
indication that the saying is not dominical: for (he argues) on the census
Jesus's attitude was one o f greater compromise (Mark 1 2 : 1 7 ) . T h e church
took over this material, with its zealot-like implications, from Qumran.
101
S. G . F. B r a n d o n , without discussing the passage at any length or
expressing an opinion on its origin, sees it as significant in connection with
other evidence - such as that o f the tribute-money pericope - that the
payment o f tribute continued to be resented in the years following Judas o f
Galilee's rising. H e notes with approval E. Klostermann's interpretation,

9 6
F o r a recent discussion see J e r e m i a s , Theologie i, 1971; E T p p . 203-11.
9 7
M a r k 14:58, 15:29 a n d parallels: J o h n 2:19. C p . D o d d , Historical Tradition, p p .
89-91: D . R . C a t c h p o l e , The Trial of Jesus ( L e i d e n , 1971), p p . 126-32.
9 8
A c o m p l e t e l y different e x p l a n a t i o n in Derrett, NovTest 6 (1963), 9-11 = Law, p p .
255-8.
" L o e w e , Render unto Caesar, p p . 66-71.
1 0 0
Flusser, Tarbiz 31 (1961-62) especially p p . 153^
1 0 1
B r a n d o n , Zealots, p p . 49, 332n.
 T h e T e m p l e tax 285

rejected here, that Jesus and the disciples are in principle immune from
tax.
T h e factor c o m m o n to all these views is the interpretation of verses 2 4 - 6
as criticism o f the census. H o w justified is this interpretation?
T h e saying as a whole urges, as Flusser acknowledges, that G o d ' s people
should not be taxed in the name o f their divine king. T w o points speak
against the opinion that the census also is criticised. First, it is not
mentioned by itself, but as one o f two representative taxes, x£hf\ f\ xfjvoov.
Secondly, and more fundamentally, to find a criticism o f the census here
means neglecting the metaphorical character o f the saying ( c p . p . 2 7 1
a b o v e ) . This is not teaching about portoria or poll-tax, but an argument
that, as the 'sons' o f the kings o f the earth are protected from these
impositions, so Israel should be free from taxation in the name of their G o d .
T o substitute 'Israel' for 'sons', without also understanding G o d for the
kings and the half-shekel for the secular taxes, is illicit.

T o summarise: the passage originally refers to a particular problem in the

interpretation of Jewish law. Does the Torah justify an annual collection o f
the half-shekel? T h e Pharisees advocated this regular levy, which entitled
all alike to benefit from the sacrifices they subsidised. Jesus, on the other
hand, was closer to those w h o attacked the innovation o f annual payment,
although his criticism was far more profound than that expressed in the
variant halakoth o f the priests and Qumran. H e paid the tax so as not to
cause offence, but in a way which did not admit liability. His teaching,
couched in metaphorical form akin to that o f the Midrash, sets this halakic
problem in the light o f the doctrine o f election. H e made no incidental
criticism o f R o m a n taxation. In what he said and did far-reaching
principles are expressed: G o d does not treat his people like a subject race,
offence is not to be given without cause. Yet the immediate context o f both
teaching and deed is provided by Jesus's relation with other interpreters o f
Torah.
1 0 2
A s the early comments and the Diatessaric addition in verse 2 6 attest,
the saying was soon transferred from Israel to Christ and his church.
Equally, the half-shekel was sometimes, though by no means always (nn.
2 and 3, p . 2 6 5 ) , removed from its context o f Jewish law, and seen as
exemplifying secular tribute. Clearly such an interpretation could support
a negative attitude to civil power, Christians being considered in principle
tax-free. St Jerome's deduction o f this view from the passage formed the

1 0 2
Christ c o m m a n d s St Peter: ' T h o u t o o give, therefore, as o n e o f them w h o are
strangers.' C p . Burkitt, Evangelion ii, 274; W . Bauer, Das Leben Jesus im Zeitalter der
neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (1909, repr. D a r m s t a d t , 1967), p p . 39of.
286 W I L L I A M HORBURY

m
foundation of a later argument for clerical tax-immunity iure divino.
Michaelis tells o f the Matthaean text being used by a Pietist to justify
104
evasion o f the Prussian e x c i s e . If any first-century Christian may have
105
wished to base similar arguments on the dominical saying, he was
authoritatively discouraged from doing so ( R o m . 1 3 : 5 - 7 , 1 Pet. 2 : 1 3 -
1 0 6
15). T h e Lord's c o m m a n d in verse 2 7 , seen within this new context as an
order to pay tribute, was strongly emphasised. Its citation in the M i d d l e
Ages to defend Caesar's right to tax church and people (n. 2 , p . 2 6 5 ) simply
continues one well-marked ante-Nicene interpretation. Jesus's payment
became for the early Christian an interpretative parallel to his answer on
107
the tribute-money, and the prime example o f the rendering o f dues
108
enjoined in apostolic teaching.

1 0 3
St J e r o m e ad versum 25 (see n. 2, p . 265 a b o v e ) : for the canonists' argument, see n. 2,
p . 265; C o r n e l i u s a L a p i d e ad versum 26 (Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, e d . A .
C r a m p o n , x v (Paris 1877), 396) a n d J. B i n g h a m , Antiquities of the Christian Church V ,
n 2 _
iii, 1 ( e d . L o n d o n , 1843, > 5 7 ) -
1 0 4
M i c h a e l i s , Commentaries E T iii, 14.
1 0 5
T h i s is a s s u m e d b y M o r t o n Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark
( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , 1971), 189, 249.
1 0 6
C p . E. v o n D o b s c h i i t z , Die urchristlichen Gemeinden (Leipzig, 1902), p . 97: E T
Christian Life in the Primitive Church ( L o n d o n , 1904), p p . i3of.
1 0 7
S o St C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a and O r i g e n (see n. 2, p . 265 a b o v e ) .
1 0 8 O r i g e n cites the passage to illustrate R o m . 13 (see n. 2, p . 265 a b o v e ) , a n d St
A m b r o s e o n L u k e 5:4 (see n. 2, p . 265 a b o v e ) calls it ' m a g n u m . . . et spiritale
d o c u m e n t u m , q u o Christiani viri s u b l i m i o r i b u s potestatibus d o c e n t u r d e b e r e esse
subiecti' ( R o m . 1 3 : 1 ) .
 M.BLACK

'Not peace but a sword': Matt 10:34ff;

1
Luke 12:5 iff

Q u o t e d out o f context - as they often are - these verses seem more

appropriate to the Qur'an than to the Gospels; they sound like a cry o f
M u h a m m a d proclaiming a Jihad or holy war, rather than a genuine
utterance o f the Prince o f Peace.
Their context in the Gospels, however, is important if we are to seek to
understand their original meaning. They are found in the 'double
tradition', the source Q - which seems to have weathered continuous
criticism - and appear in a variant form in Luke: ' d o you suppose I came to
establish peace on earth? N o , indeed, I have come to bring division'' (NEB)
(6iaiA£Qioji6v for jidxaiQav, 'sword'). In both Matthew and Luke this
2
saying is followed by an adaptation o f M i c . 7: 6 , so that, for the c o m m o n
source o f both evangelists, the conflict o f division, which Christ here
declares he had come to bring, was not one within nations, or even within a
single nation, but within families - a situation all too familiar in Christian
missionary history. Although omitted by Matthew, Luke 1 2 : 49 contains a
similar kind o f saying ('I came to cast fire upon the earth . . . ' ) which, there
is g o o d reason to think, comes from the same source ( Q ) and which
certainly occurs in the same logia-group (Luke 12:49-53), so that any
interpretation o f Matt. 10: 34 par. would then require to take some account
o f its twin-saying at Luke 12:49.
There is ample and conclusive evidence in this sayings-complex in the
Gospels that Matthew and Luke (and earlier the 'author' o f Q ) are 'editing'
3
a traditional saying cast originally in poetic form and composed originally
in Aramaic. W e should translate Luke 1 2 : 49 (with the N E B ) : T have come
4
to set fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!' Matthew

' A n o t h e r version o f this article appeared in ExpT 81 (1969-70), ii5ff, and the
present article is printed b y kind permission o f the former editor o f that j o u r n a l ,
Dr C . L. Mitton.
2
T have c o m e to set a m a n against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son's
wife against her mother-in-law; and a m a n will find his enemies under his o w n r o o f
(NEB).
3
C p . C . F . Burney, The Poetry of our Lord ( O x f o r d , 1925), p . 90.
4
For this use o f e x c l a m a t o r y xi see m y Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd edn.
O x f o r d , 1967), p . 123.
287
288 M A T T H E W BLACK

and Luke reproduce (and edit) alternative versions o f an original Aramaic

5
sayings-source.
In an unpublished note, T . W . Manson has further suggested that Matt.
10: 3 6 is possibly a case where avSoowiog should have been read as ( 6 ) vide,
(xov) a v 0 Q O ) J t o u : the term otxiaxog, 'member o f his house', recalls Matt.
10: 2 5 b , where it refers to 'members o f the household o f Beelzebul'. Luke
1 2 : 5 2 could well be a paraphrase or 'targum' o f this saying. This possibility
widens the conflict to a 'division' between the kingdom o f G o d and the
6
kingdom o f Satan.
T h e parallel in Luke, 'division' - possibly a deliberate softening o f the
harsher expression in Matthew - makes it seem reasonable to assume that
'sword' is to be interpreted in this context in a figurative rather than in any
literal sense. 'There are . . . sayings where Jesus spoke o f the sword quite
figuratively. This is true o f Matthew 10: 3 4 , where he says: " I am come not
to bring peace, but the s w o r d . " Here the allusion is to the persecution to
7
which every disciple will be exposed.'
T h e assumption that there is a reference to persecution is frequently
made, and, no doubt, it is chiefly in situations o f persecuted minorities that
such divisions are found. It is important to emphasise, however, that, so far
as the evangelists are concerned, it is the division o f loyalties within a
'family' which the 'sword' here signifies. T h e ' M i c a h ' theme has become a
c o m m o n p l a c e o f Jewish life, history and literature; and the gospel verses
are simply a Christian extension of the same theme. Thus at Jubilees 2 3 : 1 6 ,
1 9 : 'and in that generation the sons will convict their fathers and their
elders o f sin and unrighteousness. . . . A n d they will strive with one
another, the young with the old, and the old with the young'; Mishnah, Sotah,
9, 1 5 : 'with the footprints o f the Messiah presumption shall increase. . . .
Children shall shame the elders and the elders shall rise up before the
children, "for the son dishonoureth", etc. (Micah 7 : 6 ) . T h e face o f this
generation is as the face o f a d o g , and the son will not be put to shame by his
father.' (Danby, 3 0 6 ) . T h e division 'three against two and two against
8
three' is explained as the division o f old and young, the 'generation g a p ' ;
the household consists o f the father and mother on the one side ( 2 ) , and the
son, his wife and daughter, on the other ( 3 ) . T . W . Manson comments: ' T h e

5
M a t t . 10: 34 r\KQov/ / L u k e 12:5i_JiaQ£Yev6uY)v; c p . J u d . 6 : 5 ; 9: 37; 19: 10; 2 K i n g s
1 0 : 1 6 , L X X JiafjevevovTO; A q . r\\Qov. H e b . nta-i ; T a r g . w i .F01 PotXeiv =
d o i r v a i , Jer. 37 (44): 18: L X X 6i6cog; A q . I6a)xag; S y m m . e(3dXexe: H e b . o n m ;
T a r g . pnarr . It is possible that N3">n (if this was the original) m a y have been
misread as Rmn in Luke. I o w e these observations to the note o f M a n s o n ,
mentioned above.
6
See further b e l o w , p . 289.
7
O s c a r C u l l m a n n , The State in the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1 9 5 7 ) , p . 32.
8
C p . M a r k 2: 2iff; 3: 3 1 - 5 ; Luke 9: 5 9 - 6 2 ; 14: 26.
 'Not peace but a sword' 289

picture here drawn by Jesus of the results of His work is in startling contrast
to the kind o f expectation shown in the role assigned to Elijah in Malachi
4: 5f. Here again Jesus reverses current expectations about the coming o f
9
the K i n g d o m . '
M a n y will no doubt be satisfied with such an explanation o f the 'sword'.
W e cannot be absolutely certain, however, that these words were originally
spoken by Christ with sole reference to the division o f loyalties which
allegiance to him would bring within the family. It could conceivably have
had a wider reference. If the suggestion o f Manson is accepted and verse
3 6 is translated 'and the enemies o f the Son o f M a n ([xov vlov] xov
&V9QU)J101)) shall be those o f his own household', the split Christ prophe­
sied would be not just within families but within Israel itself. T h e conflict is
then between the Son o f man (or the kingdom of G o d ) and Satan (the king­
d o m o f Beelzebul). Luke 1 2 : 5 1 - 2

dwells further on the point m a d e in verse 49. T h e manifestation o f the

K i n g d o m means war to the bitter end against evil; and evil is so firmly
entrenched in human life and human relations that much suffering and
heartbreak are inevitable before it can be cast o u t . . . T h e coming ofjesus
brings tension: it brings to sharpest issue the struggle between the
kingdom o f G o d and the forces o f evil. It compels man to take sides; and
10
members o f the same family may be in opposite c a m p s .

Moreover, one does not get rid entirely o f the difficulty o f Matthew's harsh
term 'sword' by describing it as purely figurative, for while 'division' may
imply 'conflict' but not necessarily 'violence', the 'sword' has all its
associations with violent conflict and with the use o f the armed hand.
It is on the strength o f sayings like this that Jesus o f Nazareth has, not
infrequently, been cast in the role o f political revolutionary. O n e o f the
earliest liberals, H . S. Reimarus, represented him as secretly working and
preparing for a national uprising. T w i c e Jesus believed it to be near at
hand, first when he sent out his disciples on the mission to Israel (Matt.
t n e
10:23); second and last occasion was after the triumphal entry, the
violent challenge to authority in the T e m p l e cleansing, and the great
incendiary harangue at Matthew 2 3 . But Jerusalem and the Jews did not
respond by rising in rebellion, as they had failed to d o when the disciples
11
were sent out to rouse them.
T h e 'political' theory of Jesus's messiahship has never been completely
12
disproved or a b a n d o n e d , and, indeed, has been attracting interest again

9
The Sayings ofJesus ( L o n d o n , 1949), p . 121.
10
M a n s o n , Sayings, p p . i2of.
11
See further, A . Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede ( T u b i n g e n , 1906), p . 19 ( E T The
Quest of the Historical Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1954), p p . 191).
12
T h e 1930s saw a n u m b e r o f these 'political' interpretations o f the life o f j e s u s in this
2gO M A T T H E W BLACK

in recent discussion. Thus, following the theory of Robert Eisler and Joseph
Klausner that Jesus was a Galilaean Zealot, Professor S. G . F. Brandon o f
Manchester has reviewed the evidence again, in particular in the light o f
our fuller knowledge o f first-century zealotism furnished by the Qumran
13
discoveries.
Jesus and his movement were, in fact, Dr Brandon argues, politically
involved (Simon, one o f the twelve, is called a 'Zealot', Luke 6: 1 5 ; Acts
1: 1 3 ) ; Jesus was crucified on charges o f lese-majeste. All this the R o m a n
Gospel o f Mark seeks to suppress, and Mark's apologetical interpretation o f
Jesus is further modified by the other evangelists into the traditional
portrait o f the 'pacific Christ', the Prince o f Peace.
Matthew 10: 3 4 is cited on the frontispiece o f Dr Brandon's book and
referred to more than once in support o f his theory: 'Verses 3 5 f (Luke
1 1 : 5 2 f ) appear to be an attenuated explanation o f the original Messianic
14
pronouncement.' This secondary explanation o f the original 'uncomfor­
table saying' was inspired by the primitive community's experience of what
discipleship o f Jesus meant in human relationships. The original
pronouncement ofjesus, however, is to be understood as clearly indicative
of a zealotic attitude and mission. ( C p . the statement on p. 2 0 , 'his recorded
sayings and actions signify variously both pacifism and violence'; a further
15
reference to Matt. 10: 3 4 follows.)
' S w o r d ' is thus taken in the sense o f violence to be applied for political
ends and refers to political zealotism. This understanding o f the text is
further supported by Dr Brandon in his interpretation o f the episode
recorded at Luke 2 2 : 3 5 - 8 , which is understood as a 'record ofjesus arming
16
his disciples, or rather his checking on their armament'.
T o see the possibility o f a Zealot uprising behind the passion story is
surely, however, to read too much into such scraps o f evidence; and, in any
case, as Cullmann has argued, the bearing o f weapons for defensive
purposes (in a land where violent attack might be expected in any
situation) is all that the evidence at Luke 22: 3 5 need imply. Self-defence is
17
quite different from embracing zealotism:

c o u n t r y : C o n r a d Noel, Jesus the Heretic ( L o n d o n , 1939), The Life of Jesus (2nd e d n .

L o n d o n , 1939); J o h n L e w i s , Christianity and the Social Revolution, ed. J. L e w i s , K .
Polanyi a n d D o n a l d K . K i t c h i n ( L o n d o n , 1935); and in m o r e recent years, H e w l e t t
J o h n s o n , The Origins of Christianity ( L o n d o n , 1953). C p . also the discerning study o f
H . G . W o o d , 'Interpreting T h i s T i m e ' , NTSt 2 (1955/56), 262ff. C p . E. B a m m e l
a b o v e , p p . 11-68, esp. n. 351, p . 56f.
13 1 4
Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967). P. 320, n. 2.
1 3
F o r a recent clarification o f Professor B r a n d o n ' s views, see his note o n ' "Jesus and
the Z e a l o t s " : A C o r r e c t i o n ' , NTSt 17, 4 (1971), 453. Is this note c o m p l e t e l y
consistent with earlier views?
1 6
P. 340, note 7. C p . also G . W . H . L a m p e b e l o w , p p . 335-51.
1 7
C u l l m a n n , State, p p . 32f.
 'Not peace but a sword' 291

It is for their defense that they are to be equipped with a sword at this time.
If we regard the saying as genuine (and I hold it impossible to assail its
authenticity), then we must in consequence take this command seriously.
Even so I do not believe we may draw the conclusion that Jesus really
embraced Zealotism here, even for a moment . . . He reckons with
eventualities in which, for the sake of the proclamation of the Gospel,
defensive sword-bearing may become a necessity for the disciples.

T h e passage, it seems to me, is not to be taken entirely literally as

Cullmann is inclined to d o . T h e selling up o f the outer garment (the
18
ijidTiov), a garment which was necessary for life, and the purchasing o f a
sword, is vivid language to underline the extreme gravity and danger o f the
moment.
W h a t has hitherto been unnoted (so far as I know) is that the word­
play in xeX.Eo9fjvai (is fulfilled) and TO mgi k\iov 19
Te^og exei (what
concerns me has an end) is even more striking in Aramaic, since a very
c o m m o n word for 'sword' is sayefa (see Tj Exod. 17: 3 0 , 2 Kings 3 : 2 1 ) ; there
is every reason why this word should have been employed in the original
20
logion. T h e Aramaic equivalents o f xeXeoGfjvai and xeXog are s u f (e.g.,
Dan. 4 : 3 0 , L X X XEkeoQr\OExai) and s o f a (Dan. 7: 2 8 ) : T O yeyQa\i\xevov
£l
5EI TeXeo6fjvai (1 e m i s o f) ev e j x o t . . . T O J I E Q I E\IOV TeX.og ( s o f a ) ex -

It has been argued that this genuine, apocalyptic word suggests that the
message o f j e s u s did in fact include references to the messianic war; here
Jesus is in direct contact with his Jewish apocalyptic milieu. T h e 'little
apocalypse' is further evidence for this, even if the role played by Christian
disciples seems there a purely passive one. By this word Jesus is,
21
symbolically at least, predicting the coming final armed conflict. (See
further, below, p . 292f.)
Such evidence, however, could also lead to the suspicion of a
'non-dominical' zealotic origin and inspiration for our saying, in particular
if it was in fact an isolated saying which the evangelists have given a
'comfortable' context: ' O n the whole, there is much to be said for the sug­
gestion that some astray Zealot phrases have somehow intruded their way
22
into the Gospel r e c o r d . '

18
Cp. Manson, Sayings, p. 51.
19
What Aramaic lies behind T O Jteoi E\IOV? Has ' i l i a aixia (cp. Dan. 6: 5, 6) been
omitted before ' a l a i Jieol K\IOV, the original reading f| aixia Jieoi K\IOV (better
xat' I\IOV) ( ' i l i a ' a l a i ) x e X o g e x e t ?
20
The reason why, in the Greek of Luke, not £icpog (i.e. KS-O ) but n&xaioa is used
will then be simply that, since the paronomasia could not be preserved in Greek, the
most natural word for sword was chosen.
21
Cp. H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (Tubingen, 1966), p. 93.
22
F. W. Beare, The Earliest Records of Jesus (Oxford, 1962), p. 229.
292 M A T T H E W BLACK

A different approach to the problem but one leading to a similar result is

found in the work o f modern German interpreters. R . Bultmann, for
instance, removes the difficulty altogether by explaining the words as a
community saying:

We are also faced with difficulties in considering Lk 12:51-53; Mt

10: 34-36. The prophecy in Lk 12: 52f. par. is the well-known prediction of
the troubles of the end from Mic. 7: 6, which is also the source behind Mk
13: 12. Cp. E. En. 100.2; Sanh. f. 97a: 'In that age, when the son of David
comes . . . the daughter will rise against her mother and the daughter-in-
law against her mother-in-law'. That this prophecy now appears in Mt
10: 35 in the form f|A.6ov yo.Q 6txaoai x.xA. is obviously a secondary
transposition. The Church, putting Jesus in God's place as the ruler of history, has
made him proclaim that he will bring the time of terror, and had obviously
experiened the fulfilment of the prophecy in its own life. But then it is clear,
that the previous saying Mt 10: 34 = Lk 12: 51 has the same meaning: in
the experience of the Church can be seen the fulfilment of that
eschatological prophecy, and in it all the Church knows, to its comfort in
suffering, that Jesus himself has both willed it and brought it to pass.
There is express defence against doubting his person and work in u*|
v o u x o n T E (or the questioning 6oxeixe), which also introduces the saying
23
in Mt 5: 17 which comes from the debates of the Church. (Italics mine.)

A fresh approach to the problem which seeks to take seriously the

'zealotic' phrases (and the reality behind them) is to be found in an article
24
entitled 'Jesu heiliger Krieg' (Jesus's holy war) by Professor Otto B e t z .
Betz argues in this study that concepts and language coming from the
Hebrew tradition o f 'holy war' may be traced in the teaching ofjesus; the
dark saying, for instance, about the 'storming' o f the kingdom o f G o d
(Matt, n : 1 2 , Luke 1 6 : 1 6 ) . It was not, however, against the R o m a n enemy
but against the embattled forces of Belial, the strong one ( c p . Matt. 1 2 : 2 9 ) ,
that this spiritual warfare was being waged. Within this universe o f
discourse Matt. 10: 34 is to be understood. It is a threat (Drohwort) against
an adulterous generation, against the godless w h o have no peace but will
fall by the sword that will be divinely drawn in the final war when the Last
Judgement breaks in on a godless world; and the no-man's-land between
righteous and godless will be found even within the close fellowship o f the
family itself (p. 1 2 9 ) .

2 3
Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (5th e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1961), p . 166. E T The
History of the Synoptic Tradition b y J o h n M a r s h (2nd e d n . O x f o r d , 1968), p p . 154-5.
F o r another ' s o l u t i o n ' o f the p r o b l e m , see Foerster in ThWNT ii, 412, a n d c p .
Stephen Neill's c o m m e n t : 'this takes seriously neither what Jesus says n o r the
t r e m e n d o u s significance o f w h a t he m e a n s ' (The Interpretation of the New Testament,
i86i-ig6i ( O x f o r d , 1964), p . 334).
24
NovTest 2 (1958), u6f.
 'Not peace but a sword' 293

M i c a h 7: 6 is adapted by the original author o f this passage to give

expression to this last terrible thought, but Dr Betz claims that the verse in
Q also falls within the traditions o f the Qumran sect. In one o f the
25
Testimonia it is said o f Levi that he will no longer know either father or
mother, children or brothers, since he holds G o d ' s word and covenant in
greater honour. Zeal for G o d may even turn his hand against the very life o f
members of his o w n family. Betz argues that behind this Q u m r a n 'zealotry'
lies E x o d . 3 2 : 2 7 - 9 and Deut. 1 3 : 7 - 1 2 , when all the Levites assembled to
receive the c o m m a n d o f Moses to take the sword and destroy the idolatrous
worshippers o f the golden calf: 'Thus saith the Lord G o d o f Israel, Put
every man his sword by his side . . . and slay every man his brother, and
every man his companion, and every man his neighbour' (Exod. 32: 2 7 ) . So
also Jesus, Betz argues, as 'the Holy O n e o f G o d ' (John 6: 6 9 ; Mark 1: 2 4 ) ,
brings just such a sword of judgement. In the Apocalypse of John, which
one could describe as a kind o f ' W a r Scroll' of Christianity, the sword is the
sign o f Christ triumphant. H e carries a sharp, two-edged sword which
proceeds out o f his mouth (Rev. 1: 1 6 ; 2: 1 2 , 1 6 ; 1 9 : 1 5 , 2 1 ) . It serves for
judgement on the godless, the heathen ( 1 9 : 1 5 - 2 1 ) or the unrepentant
members of the church ( 2 : 1 6 ) ; but as the sword of his mouth it is a spiritual
sword, the sword o f his W o r d .
Whether Jesus himself shared in the Qumran expectation of the holy war
o f the last days (the Armageddon o f the Apocalypse) which would herald
the end and the last judgement, it is impossible to say. C . H . D o d d once
noted, in a discussion o f Matt. 1 0 : 3 4 , that Jesus did expect a general
26
upheaval to follow the crisis o f his death. If we can take Matt. 26: 5 2 - 3 as
authentic dominical utterances, then they not only make it abundantly
27
clear that Jesus dissociated Himself absolutely from political zealotry, but
2 8
at the same time (verse 5 3 ) would seem to imply belief in the possibility o f
the intervention in the destiny of the world of'legions of angels', a heavenly
warrior host, exactly as in the apocalyptic war of the Sons o f Light with the
Sons o f Darkness. If Jesus did in fact share this item in the Zealot creed,
then the sword he foretold in our text was the sword o f the Lord of Hosts, or
rather o f his triumphant messiah. While not a political Zealot, Jesus could
perhaps be claimed as an apocalyptic Zealot, proclaiming a final
impending war against Belial and all his followers in heaven and on earth,
even in the same family. T h e sword would then be an image o f this terrible

2 5
J . M . A l l e g r o , 'Further M e s s i a n i c References in Q u m r a n Literature', JBL 75
(1956), l82f.
2 6
The Parables of the Kingdom (rev. e d n . L o n d o n , 1961), p . 50.
2 7
' P u t u p y o u r s w o r d . All w h o take the s w o r d d i e b y the s w o r d ' ( N E B ) .
2 8
' D o y o u s u p p o s e that I c a n n o t appeal to m y Father, w h o w o u l d at o n c e send to m y
aid m o r e than twelve legions o f angels?' ( N E B ) . T h e 'twelve' seems to b e s y m b o l i c
o f the a r m y o f the heavenly Israel.
294 M A T T H E W BLACK

prelude to the last judgement, the manifestation o f the wrath of G o d by the

armies o f heaven.
The 'uncomfortable words' would then follow appropriately on 1 2 : 4 9 in
29
Luke, a saying whose authenticity not even Bultmann challenges, and
which I have suggested earlier is a twin-saying to Matt. 1 0 : 3 4 .
The figure of'fire' at Luke 1 2 : 4 9 is almost certainly to be interpreted as a
symbol o f the divine judgement. T h e only satisfactory meaning the words
can have in their Lukan context, where the 'fire' is parallel to and to some
extent explained by the 'baptism' of Christ's death (verse 5 0 ) , is that Christ
anticipated that this divine judgement would be precipitated ('kindled') by
his death. ' T h e "fire" probably signifies the fire ofjudgement, to be kindled
30
as a result o f the completion o f his mission through death.' It may well
be that Christ is here represented (or interpreting his own mission) as a
messianic fulfilment o f the prophecy o f J o h n the Baptist (Matt. 3: 11 par. T
baptize you with water . . . he will baptize you (with the Holy Spirit and)
31
with fire'). Recent exegesis o f the verse goes on to interpret Christ's death
32
as the first instance o f this impending divine j u d g e m e n t , an anticipatory
exercise o f the divine jus gladii, but 5 i a tf|V 6ixaCu)Oiv f|[X(bv. It is certainly
clear that, within the whole context of verses 4 9 - 5 3 (and contrary perhaps
to current expectations o f a messianic reign o f peace), Christ's baptism o f
fire, the penal judgement to which he willingly submitted, would be the
beginning o f a greater conflagration, possibly Armageddon and the final
judgement itself.
T o this vivid biblical symbolism o f 'fire' for the wrath o f G o d in
judgement is added in Matt. 1 0 : 3 4 the symbolism o f the sword. T h e final
judgement o f G o d on the earth will be by fire and sword. T h e later N e w
Testament understanding o f the latter as the sword o f the Spirit could be a
spiritualisation o f the original apocalyptic imagery, but not one that
necessarily distorts or obscures its original meaning; it simply underlines
the nature o f the realities against which this 'holy war' was conducted, the
cosmic powers o f evil which the New Testament firmly believed to be at
work in the universe as well as in the world o f men.

2 9
Geschichte, p . 165 ( E T p . 154).
3 0
G . W . H . L a m p e , Peake's Commentary (rev. e d n . L o n d o n , 1962), ad l o c .
3 1
C p . M a n s o n , Sayings, p p . i2of.
3 2
See E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke ( L o n d o n , 1966), p p . i8ifT and G . Delling,
$ANXIO\IA, P a j i x i o 8 f j v a i , NovTest 2 (1958), 9 2 H (109).
0
 W.GRUNDMANN

The decision of the Supreme Court to put

Jesus to death (John 11:47-57) in its
context: tradition and redaction in the
Gospel of John

Mark, the evangelist followed by Matthew and Luke, introduces the

passion event with Jesus's entry into Jerusalem, which is preceded by the
healing o f a blind man as Jesus leaves Jericho (Mark 10: 4 6 - 5 2 par.; Matt.
20: 2 9 - 3 4 ; Luke 1 8 : 3 5 - 4 3 ) . Immediately afterwards come the cleansing o f
the T e m p l e , the question about authority and the parable o f the wicked
1
husbandmen. A t the end there stands in all three synoptics the intention to
seize Jesus, which, however, his opponents are prevented from doing
because o f fear o f the people (Mark 1 2 : 1 2 ) . After the associated debates
and the apocalyptic discourse, the decision is made in the high court to take
Jesus ' b y stealth' in order to put him to death. But in order to avoid a riot
2
this is not to take place in the presence o f the festival c r o w d . 'By stealth'
means therefore: secretly, without the people observing it. Fear o f the
people w h o are attached to Jesus is once again apparent. T h e decision of the
council is fixed by Mark with a time-note: two days before the feast. T h e
reason for the decision is made plain: the cleansing o f the T e m p l e and the
parable o f the wicked husbandmen which had been interpreted by the
Sanhedrin members as an unmistakable attack on themselves. T h e T e m p l e
hierarchy, w h o played a leading role in the Sanhedrin, applied themselves
to Jesus's arrest and destruction. While the Pharisees, or as the case may
be, the scribes among their membership, often appear in the Gospels as
Jesus's opponents, now they recede into the background. T h e T e m p l e
3
hierarchy leading the Sanhedrin brings about Jesus's death, in that they
are the persons who hand him over to the Romans.

1
T h e fig-tree p e r i c o p e ( M a r k n : 1 2 - 1 4 , 2 0 - 5 ; M a t t . 2 1 : 1 8 - 2 2 ) is absent from Luke,
w h o instead offers the p a r a b l e o f the fig-tree elsewhere ( L u k e 1 3 : 6 - 9 ) .
2
In M a r k 1 1 : iof, igf, 27; 14: 1 there can b e seen traces o f a time-scheme w h i c h
spread the event o v e r several days. C p . W . G r u n d m a n n , Das Evangelium nach Markus
(6th e d n . Berlin, 1 9 7 1 ) , p p . 2 4 5 - 7 ; c p . J. J e r e m i a s , Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (3rd
edn. G o t t i n g e n , i 9 6 0 ) , p p . 6 5 - 7 ( E T The Eucharistic Words of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1966),
PP- 7 i - 3 ) -
3
C p . G . B a u m b a c h , 'Jesus und die Pharisaer', in BLit 41 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 1 2 - 3 1 , e s p . 1 i4f.

295
20,6 W A L T E R GRUNDMANN

This synoptic scheme does not appear in the Fourth Gospel. Since it is
difficult to accept that J o h n knows any o f the synoptic Gospels, the
difference between him and the synoptics is not a question o f literary
criticism but rather one o f tradition. Is the connection between the T e m p l e
cleansing, the question about authority and the parable o f the wicked
4
husbandmen one which was received by Mark or first constructed by him?
Only in the former case would one have to take account o f some
acquaintance with this tradition on the part o f the fourth evangelist, and
consequently o f a deliberate transformation being undertaken by him.
Since he draws the T e m p l e cleansing back to the beginning o f his Gospel
5
with the question about authority still connected to it, the key element in
the Markan scheme is not available as the ultimate reason for the passion in
his account. H e is therefore bound to give an account of the cause of Jesus's
death which diverges from the synoptics. In the Fourth Gospel this is found
closely connected with the raising o f Lazarus; that event is followed by the
decision o f the Supreme Council to put Jesus to death; joined to that is the
account o f the anointing in Bethany, that is, the anointing o f the messianic
king as he nears his death; the extension to Lazarus ( 1 2 : iof) o f the plan
already formed by the high priests to put Jesus to death is attached to this
and shows the significance o f the Lazarus event. T h e entry into Jerusalem,
which is depicted as the reception o f a king and which also contains the
6
Lazarus reference ( 1 2 : 1 7 1 ) triggers off the request o f the Greeks. This
constitutes for Jesus the signal that 'the hour is c o m e in which the Son o f
man will be glorified' (cp. 2: 4 ; 7: 30; also 7: 6 - 8 ; 1 2 : 2 3 ; see also 7: 3 9 ; 1 1 : 4 ;
1 : 1 1 1 : 1
3 >3 ; 7 0 • T h e passages which speak of the hour that is future and yet
is now, Jesus's glorification o f the Father and his own glorification by the

4
T h i s q u e s t i o n has been raised recently with reference to the shorter form o f passion
narrative, b y E . L i n n e m a n n , Studien zur Passionsgeschichte ( G o t t i n g e n , 1970); the
s a m e applies all the m o r e to her o w n p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . It is scarcely p o s s i b l e to
affirm a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the ' t r i u m p h a l ' entry a n d the p a r a b l e o f the w i c k e d
h u s b a n d m e n in the narrative s e q u e n c e w h i c h c a m e d o w n to M a r k in oral tradition.
5
H . S c h u r m a n n , ' D e r Bericht v o m A n f a n g ' , in Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen
zu den synoptischen Evangelien (Diisseldorf, 1968), p p . 69-80 suggests that there w a s a
tradition c o n c e r n e d with the b e g i n n i n g o f the story o f j e s u s . I f this meets with
a p p r o v a l then it b e c o m e s clear that in J o h n not o n l y the report o f the end but also
that o f the b e g i n n i n g has b e e n given a n e w form. O n his theological v i e w p o i n t c p .
W . G r u n d m a n n , V e r k i i n d i g u n g u n d G e s c h i c h t e in d e m Bericht v o m E i n g a n g der
G e s c h i c h t e J e s u im J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m ' , in H . R i s t o w a n d K . M a t t h i a e , Der
historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus (Berlin, i960), p p . 289-308. B y m e a n s o f
1: 29; 2: 1, 4 a n d the position o f the cleansing o f the T e m p l e a n d its interpretation,
2: 13-22 a n d 3: i4f, the G o s p e l o f J o h n is p l a n n e d from the b e g i n n i n g with an e y e to
the crucifixion and resurrection. C p . also J. A . T . R o b i n s o n b e l o w , p p . 455-60.
6
C p . M . D i b e l i u s , An die Thessalonicher I, II (3rd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1937) o n 1 T h e s s .
4: 17; E. Peterson, ThWNTi, 380 ( E T TDNTi (1964) 3801), and also ' D i e E i n h o l u n g
des K y r i o s ' , in ZSTh 7 (1929-30), 682ff.
 T h e decision to put Jesus to death 297

7
Father, the role o f Lazarus w h o m Jesus loves - all these show clearly not
only that tradition is available but also that this tradition is deliberately
moulded and worked over redactionally. T h e redactional work o f the
8
Fourth Evangelist, however, bears an explicit theological stamp. The
pattern o f it brings to light the interpretation o f the passion event: Jesus is
the giver o f life; in the carrying out o f the sign o f giving life to Lazarus is to
be found the prime cause o f his own death. T h e giving of life by the life-giver
brings death to him. That is made plain by the bringing together in the
same context o f the raising o f Lazarus and the decision o f the Sanhedrin to
kill Jesus ( 1 1 : 4 5 - 7 ) . A t the same time the high priest's prophetic statement
makes clear that the death o f the life-giver means the gift o f life to mankind.
In this way the fourth evangelist interprets the saying o f the high priest
( 1 1 : 5 1 1 ) , and in this way the thought is carried through in the narrative
sequence from the anointing in Bethany to the request o f the Greeks. T h e
passage which tells o f the redemption by Christ's passion, is set by the
fourth evangelist in the context o f one central theological idea and so
betrays consciously undertaken redactional activity; in it the pericope
about the resolution by the Sanhedrin plays the part o f an essential
connecting link. That his giving o f life should bring death to the life-giver,
and that this death is his gift o f life to mankind is declared in the pericope
which encloses the total event o f the decision to put him to death. It has
therefore a fundamental significance as theology mediated through
redaction, though, at the same time, elements o f tradition can still be
clearly discerned in it. It must therefore be investigated in terms both of its
theological redaction and o f its historical contents as formed by tradition.

II

T w o things are noticeable. Firstly, by contrast with the synoptic tradition,

the Pharisees are involved in the decisive resolution. Secondly, this decision
to put Jesus to death is not as in Mark 1 4 : 1 fixed two days before the
Passover, but quite a while earlier, some time between the Feast o f
Dedication in D e c e m b e r (John 10: 2 2 ) and the Passover in April ( 1 1 : 5 5 ) .
T h e significance which the Pharisees have here is to be found in the
development which occurred between the time ofjesus and the period after

7
T h e striking e m p h a s i s o n the love a n d friendship o f j e s u s for L a z a r u s and the
e x t e n d e d reference suggest the thought that for the Fourth Evangelist L a z a r u s is the
disciple w h o m J e s u s loved ( 1 1 : 3 , 5 , 1 1 , 36; 13:23; 18:15; 19: 26; 20:2; 21: 7, 20).
8
O n the question o f tradition a n d redaction, c p . R . B u l t m a n n , Das Evangelium des
Johannes ( G o t t i n g e n , 1941), p . 301, footnote 4 ( E T The Gospel of John ( O x f o r d , 1971),
p . 395, footnote 4); E. H i r s c h , Studien zum vierten Evangelium ( T u b i n g e n , 1936), p p .
87-94-
298 W A L T E R GRUNDMANN

9
the Jewish war. Whereas before the war they had been one group among
others, they became after it the leading group which promptly determined
the reorganisation o f Israel and eliminated other forces. This development
is reflected in the Gospel tradition; these people w h o become the decisive
10
opponents o f early Christianity and inflict a curse upon it are made the
essential enemies o f Jesus too, and the dispute between Jesus and his
opponents concentrates on them. Other associated Jewish groups like
Zealots and Essenes d o not appear, although Jesus may well have been
involved in debate with them as well. All this is particularly plain in
Matthew. It is all the more noteworthy that the synoptics' passion
narrative speaks about the Sanhedrin and its grouping but says nothing
about the Pharisees; this is therefore clear evidence o f knowledge o f the
1 1
situation at the time o f j e s u s . In the Gospel o f John, however, the
Pharisees appear more as an official body than as a party (John 1 : 2 4 ;
1 2 13
9: 1 3 - 1 6 ; 1 1 : 4 6 1 ) . Since in J o h n the opponents o f j e s u s are 'the J e w s ' ,
account must be taken of the possibility that the passages which give to the
Pharisees a directly official character and which regard them, along with
the high priests, as the Sanhedrin (7: 3 2 , 4 5 ; 1 1 : 4 7 ; 3)> belong to the
14
tradition which has flowed into this G o s p e l .
T h e decision to put Jesus to death is fixed some time before his entry into

9
O n the Pharisee question, c p . R . M e y e r , Tradition und Neuschbpfung im antiken
Judentum (Berlin, 1965); H . F. W e i s s , Der Pharisdismus im Lichte der Uberlieferung des
Neuen Testaments (Berlin, 1965); R . M e y e r - H . F . W e i s s , ThWNT ix, 11-51 ( E T
TDNT ix (1974), u - 4 9 ) .
1 0
C p . the twelfth petition o f the Eighteen Benedictions prayer. S - B iv, p p . 2i2f.
" T h i s limited j u d g e m e n t o n the role o f the Pharisees does not i m p i n g e o n the
p r o b l e m o f the controversial passage M a r k 14: 53, 55-65. T h i s must b e treated in its
o w n right a n d b y a c o m p a r i s o n with o t h e r traditions. O n this, c p . the discussion in
P. W i n t e r , On the Trial ofJesus (Berlin, 1961) and J. Blinzler, Der Process Jesu (3rd
e d n . R e g e n s b u r g , i960) ( E T o f 2nd e d n , The Trial of Jesus ( C o r k , 1959).
1 2
T h e r e are h o w e v e r passages w h e r e the sense is o f a g r o u p or party, c p . 3: 1; 9:40;
a c c o r d i n g to 12:42 they are the powerful o p p o n e n t s o f j e s u s o f w h o m even the
O V T e a r e
Jewish a Q X £ afraid.
1 3
O n this, c p . W . Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium (3rd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1933), excursus
o n 1: 19; W . G u t b r o d , ThWNT'iW, 378-81, 387ftET TDNT'm (1965), 377-9, 3851);
E. Grasser, ' D i e antijudische Polemik i m J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m ' , NTSt 11 (1964-5),
74-90-
1 4
E . B a m m e l , ' E x ilia itaque d i e c o n s i l i u m fecerunt . . .', in The Trial of Jesus: Cam­
bridge Studies in honour of C. F. D. Moule, e d . E. B a m m e l ( L o n d o n , 1970), p . 21 c o n ­
c l u d e s that the formulation 'the high priests and the Pharisees' d o e s not a p p e a r to
b e a J o h a n n i n e figure o f s p e e c h ; he regards it as typical o f the period from A g r i p p a
to the w a r rather than o f the p r e c e d i n g o n e . It is necessary, h o w e v e r , also to reckon
with the possibility that it w a s fashioned after the J e w i s h war. In c o n n e c t i o n with
the Pharisees there w o u l d then b e within that d e v e l o p i n g situation an historicising
t e n d e n c y , j u s t as in M a t t h e w ' s formulation 'the Pharisees and S a d d u c e e s ' ( M a t t .
3: 7; 16: 1,6, 1 i f ) . O n this c p . R . H u m m e l , Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und
Judentum im Matthausevangelium ( M i i n c h e n , 1963), p p . 18-20. C p . further in the text.
 T h e decision to put Jesus to death 299

Jerusalem; it is publicised openly, and it issues in a demand to inform on

Jesus. O n the basis o f this decision and with the assistance o f Judas Jesus is
arrested, examined and handed over to Pilate for trial ( 1 8 : 1 to 1 9 : 1 6 ) . This
account diverges from that o f the synoptics. In c o m m o n with Luke, John
has no Jewish sentence o f death (Luke 2 2 : 6 6 - 7 1 ; John 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 4 , 1 9 - 2 4 ,
2 8 ) , while Mark and Matthew give a report o f proceedings against Jesus
before the Sanhedrin which culminates in the declaration that he deserved
death (Mark 1 4 : 5 3 , 5 5 - 6 5 ; Matt. 26: 5 7 , 5 9 - 6 8 ) ; this is followed by his
being handed over to Pilate (Mark 1 5 : 1 ; Matt. 2 7 : if). O v e r against this
J o h n has an explicit interrogation o f Jesus based on a Sabbath healing in
Jerusalem and the defence o f this action by reference to his working
15
together with the Father (John 5 : 2 f , 5 - 1 8 ) . Jesus's apologia is an
extended discourse in which he answers the charges brought against him
and also goes over to the offensive ( 5 : 1 9 - 4 7 ) . T o this there is attached a
1 6
discussion ( 7 : 1 5 - 2 4 ) . While this discussion refutes the accusation o f
Sabbath-breaking ( 7 : 2 1 - 4 ) , the apologia deals with his relationship to the
Father, which is the reason why the Jews want to assassinate him (cp.
5: 1 8 ) . T h e whole event occurs at the Feast o f Tabernacles, that is, a
considerable time before the final Passover. T h e ensuing discussion about
and with Jesus, which lasts right through to the end o f the festival, is
followed by a session o f the high priests and Pharisees (7: 4 5 , as also 1 1 : 4 7 )
in which members of the T e m p l e police report on the abortive attempt at an
17
arrest ofjesus for which they had been commissioned. This attempt had
also been initiated by the chief priests and Pharisees ( 7 : 3 2 ) , just as the
ultimate arrest is authorised by them ( 1 8 : 3 ) . In the events o f the passion
there is no completion o f the debate with the Jews: that has already been
finished. Rather, the climax is reached in the confrontation between Jesus

1 5 t n e
A s w e h a v e before us in J o h n 5: 19-47 literary form o f the a p o l o g i a , so in 13: 1 to
16: 33 w e have that o f the s y m p o s i u m .
1 6
T h e original s e q u e n c e m a y p o s s i b l y have run as follows: 4:43-54; 6: 1 to 7:13 (with
7: 12-13 forming the introduction to what follows); 5: 2-47; 7: 15-24. O n this, c p .
W . Strathmann, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (6th edn. G o t t i n g e n , 1951); W .
G r u n d m a n n , Zeugnisund GestaltdesJohannesevangeliums (Berlin a n d Stuttgart, 1961),
p p . 9-12.
1 7
T h e s e q u e n c e does exhibit s o m e inconsistencies. T h u s 5: 16 c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d as an
arrest o f j e s u s for the p u r p o s e o f interrogation. In 7: 25 s o m e Jerusalemites express
their astonishment that the plan directed against Jesus with a v i e w to killing him
has apparently been a b a n d o n e d . 7: 30, 32 refer to attempts at an arrest w h i c h
h o w e v e r c o u l d not b e b r o u g h t to fulfilment; their collapse is r e c o r d e d in 7:45-52.
Before w h i c h o f these instances d i d the a p o l o g i a o c c u r ? Different layers o f tradition
have b e c o m e visible w h i c h (as in other passages in the G o s p e l ) are not w o r k e d
together without seams. O b s e r v a t i o n s o f this sort have led m e to the c o n c l u s i o n that
the G o s p e l o f j o h n is an ancient w o r k w h i c h remained i n c o m p l e t e and w h o s e author
p r o c e e d e d with great c a u t i o n . O n this c p . m y discussion in Zeugnis und Gestault,
pp. f.
7
300 WALTER GRUNDMANN

and Pilate, which is concerned with imperium Romanum and the kingdom o f
God: these have their representatives in Pilate and Jesus. But in this
passage it is established that for J o h n it is the claim o f j e s u s to belong to
God as Son to Father which constitutes the deepest reason for the
opposition o f the Jews to him ( 5 : 1 9 ; 1 0 : 3 0 - 3 ; 1 9 : 7 ) .
This outline o f the story ofjesus and his passion in John is achieved with
the help o f a tradition which holds the decision by the Sanhedrin to put
Jesus to death and Jesus's condemnation to the cross by the Romans further
18
apart in time than is the case in the synoptics. If we must reckon with the
possibility that J o h n 1 1 : 4 7 - 5 7 in particular contains traditional elements,
then this divergence from the synoptics cannot be explained simply in
terms o f the theological viewpoint o f the fourth evangelist himself. This
conclusion is strengthened by the observation that the Johannine tradition
is confirmed by Jewish statements. In b. Sanh. 4 3 a it is said:

O n the eve o f Passover J e s u s w a s hanged a n d a herald w e n t out 40 d a y s

before (and cried): H e is to be stoned because he practised m a g i c a n d
beguiled a n d led Israel astray. A n y o n e w h o knows any justification o n his
b e h a l f should come and testify for him! B u t there w a s no defence found for
him a n d so he w a s hanged on the eve o f the Passover.

In an independent form therefore we have here what is contained in J o h n

1 1 : 5 4 , 5 7 . In both cases there is a gap between the decision o f the Sanhedrin
and its implementation. There is also an agreement between the T a l m u d i c
19
tractate and J o h n 1 8 : 2 8 , 1 9 : 31 as to the timing o f the crucifixion, and
similarly about the accusation brought against Jesus that he was a beguiler
of the people (so J o h n 7: 1 2 ) . Traces of a tradition o f a variant scheme o f the
trial o f Jesus, diverging from the synoptic account, are to be found
20
elsewhere in other passages in non-Christian tradition.

1 8
T h e possibility o f a considerable interval b e t w e e n the decision to bring a b o u t
Jesus's death and the final Passover can b e discerned in M a r k 3:6. C o n s e q u e n t l y
it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the M a r k a n a c c o u n t o f the Pass­
ion c o m p r e s s e s a s e q u e n c e o f events w h i c h in fact stretched o v e r a l o n g e r
period.
1 9
D i s c u s s i o n o f the question o f the dating o f Jesus's death and o f the p r e c e d i n g events
has recently b e e n r e n e w e d , c p . A . J a u b e r t , J e s u s et le C a l e n d r i e r d e Q u m r a n ' ,
NTSt 7 (1960-1), 1-30 a n d La date de la Cene (Paris, 1957), ( E T The Date of the
Last Supper ( N e w Y o r k , 1965)); E . K u t s c h , ' C h r o n o l o g i e ' , RGG i (3rd e d n . ) ,
1813.
2 0
C p . B a m m e l , Trial, p p . 30-2, a n d also 'Christian O r i g i n s in J e w i s h T r a d i t i o n ' ,
NTSt 13 (1966-7), 317-35, esp. 326f; W . H o r b u r y , ' T h e T r i a l o f j e s u s in J e w i s h
T r a d i t i o n ' , in B a m m e l , Trial, p p . 103-21. O n J o h n 11: 54, c p . O r i g e n , Contra Celsum
ii. 9: ' w h e n w e had c o n v i c t e d h i m , c o n d e m n e d h i m and d e c i d e d that he s h o u l d b e
p u n i s h e d , h e w a s c a u g h t hiding himself and escaping most disgracefully, a n d
i n d e e d w a s b e t r a y e d b y those w h o m he called his disciples . . . ' .
 T h e decision to put Jesus to death 301

l s
It is therefore not at all certain that John 1 1 : 4 5 - 5 7 'a Johannine
construction . . . behind which there is no source', a view drawn by R.
21
Bultmann from J. Finegan, or that it can be understood 'entirely as a
22
remodelling o f the Synoptics', to use the formulation o f E. Hirsch.
Contrary to this view C . H . D o d d sees in it 'a piece of tradition' and regards
it as 'improbable in the extreme that the composition o f the pericope is the
23
original work o f the writer'. From a form-critical angle he sees it as one o f
'several scenes in which Jesus does not appear in person', which he regards
24
as typically Johannine; it is fundamentally distinguished, however, from
the other scenes o f this type by the fact that it is the only one in which the
25
decisive saying is spoken by an enemy o f j e s u s .
T h e detailed tradition-historical and redaction-critical analysis o f the
form and content o f the pericope leads to the following insights. John 1 1 : 4 5
is the conclusion o f the raising of Lazarus; faith in Jesus had been awakened
in many w h o had witnessed that event. Verse 4 6 connects this with the next
event: some g o and inform the Pharisees, who are here, as in 9: 1 3 , depicted
as the authorities. This information becomes the pretext for convening the
Sanhedrin which consists o f the chief priests and Pharisees (as at 7: 3 2 , 4 5 ;
1 8 : 3 ) . Because o f the signs Jesus performs, this body is plunged into
26
perplexity. T h e question x i J i o i o i ) [ i e v ; corresponds to the noXka Jtoiei
or)(XEia. T h e fact that Jesus's deeds are here described, even by members o f
the Sanhedrin, as 'signs' rouses the suspicion that the following narrative
belonged to the signs source suggested and reconstructed by R. Bultmann,
27
and recognisable also in the conclusion at 20: 3 0 . If such a suggestion
meets with approval it means that this Vorlage also contained a
Passion-and-Easter narrative which was closely related to the Lukan
28
tradition. T h e theme o f the scene, the contrast between the 'one' and the
'whole nation', is set up; it is developed as the expression o f political anxiety
in verse 4 8 and it reaches its climax in the decisive saying o f Caiaphas the

2 1
J. Finegan, Die Uberlieferung der Leidens-undAuferstehungsgeschichteJesu (Berlin, 1934),
p p . 30I'; B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 313 footnote 2, E T p . 409 footnote 8.
2 2
H i r s c h , Studien, p . 93.
2 3
C . H . D o d d , ' T h e p r o p h e c y o f C a i a p h a s J o h n X I 47-53' in Neotestamentica et
Patristica, Freundesgabe fur 0. Cullmann ( L e i d e n , 1962), p . 135.
2 4
In Neotestamentica et Patristica, p p . I36f.
2 5
'the general b o d y o f oral tradition w h i c h , so far as w e k n o w it, is s h a p e d b y the
m o t i v e o f presenting Jesus himself in significant speech a n d a c t i o n ' .
2 6
O n the unusual formulation Ti Jtoio\)u.ev; c p . Bauer, Johannesevangelium, a d l o c , to
w h o m also B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 313 footnote 8 ( E T p . 410 footnote 5), refers.
2 7
T h e formulations in 11:47f a n d 20: 3of s h o w striking agreement.
2 8
O n this, see W . G r u n d m a n n , Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Berlin, 2nd e d n . 1961) p p .
17-22; P. Parker, ' L u k e a n d the Fourth Evangelist', NTStg (1962-3), 317-36. O n
t n e
the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n 1 1 : 4 7 - 5 7 and passion narrative in J o h n 18 and 19,
B a m m e l c o n c l u d e s similarly: 'the reports in c h s . 18 and 19 . . . are b a s e d o n the
s a m e s o u r c e as 11:47!?, Trial, p . 29.
302 W A L T E R GRUNDMANN

29
high priest, which is said to be prophetic. In verse 4 9 this is introduced
and in verse 5 0 it is formulated. In verse 51 it is established as prophecy, but
in verse 5 2 it receives comment along the lines o f a particularly important
Johannine theological statement. If one is to see in 1 1 : 4 7 the adoption and
adaptation o f tradition, then verse 5 2 was certainly not contained in the
signs source but is to be traced back to the evangelist. Verse 5 3 contains the
decision of the Sanhedrin, while verse 5 4 describes evasive action on Jesus's
part. Verse 5 7 reports the decree o f the Sanhedrin stating the reponsibility
of anyone w h o knows where Jesus may be staying to pass on the
information so that he can be arrested. In other words, an arrest warrant is
issued. T h e two intervening verses 5 5 and 5 6 are on the other hand unlikely
30
to be drawn from tradition; they are similar to John 7: 1 0 - 1 3 and in a
typically Johannine manner form an introduction to the following
31
narrative. Consequently the elements o f tradition which can be traced
back to the source comprise verses 4 7 , 4 8 , 4 9 , 5 0 , ( 5 1 ? ) , 5 3 , 5 4 , 5 7 . It is
improbable that they stood next to the raising o f Lazarus since it follows
from J o h n 1 1 : 2 that, while the Lazarus incident belonged to that signs
source, it had a different position from that which the evangelist has
editorially given it in his Gospel. Consequently the connecting verses 4 5
and 4 6 c o m e from him as well. If one enquires about the context o f
1 1 : 4 7 - 5 7 in the signs source, then the cleansing of the Temple emerges as a
32
possibility; according to 2: 2 3 signs had been performed in Jerusalem by
Jesus and 1 1 : 4 7 could be referring to these. It could also count in favour o f
this possibility that the synoptic account has given to the T e m p l e cleansing
and the events consequent on it the position which the fourth evangelist
gives to the raising o f Lazarus.
These fragments o f tradition give rise to a series o f questions. T h e signs
awaken belief in Jesus; the Sanhedrin stands in perplexity over against him.
33
T h e narrator has in mind an official meeting of the Sanhedrin leading to a

2 9
B a m m e l , Trial, p . 23: J o h n 1 r. 48 'contains a c o m p a r i s o n between " o n e m a n " and
the well-being o f the w h o l e nation . . .'
3 0
C p . B a m m e l , Trial, p . 35, footnote 121; verse 57 c o u l d even b e linked directly with
verse 54a/b.
3 1 r : 2 a n <
E x a m p l e s o f introductions o f this sort: 2: 23-5 for 3: 1-21; 7: 10-13 f ° 5 ~47 ^
7: 15-24; 10:40-2 for 11: 1-45; c p . also 4: 1-6 for 4: 7-42, and 4:43-5 for 4:46-54.
T h e y are, therefore, characteristic o f J o h a n n i n e style.
3 2
C p . B a m m e l , Trial, p p . 16-18; the healing o f the 38-year-old invalid at the p o o l o f
Bethesda ( m e n t i o n e d b y B a m m e l ) also belongs to the signs m e n t i o n e d in 1 1 : 4 7 .
3 3
O n ouvrJYCiYOV, A . Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthaus (Stuttgart, 1929), p . 32: ' T h a t
is the established formula for the s u m m o n i n g o f the C o u n c i l o r the p o p u l a r
a s s e m b l y , the parallel w o r d to o V o .' S o also J o s e p h u s BJ 1:457, AJ 5: 332. O n
oruve&QiOV c p . also Schlatter, Matthaus, p . 170; E. L o h s e , ThWNT vii, 858-69 ( E T
t n e
TDNT vii (1971), 860-71); o n J o h n 11:47-57 position o f Bultmann, as
expressed in his c o m m e n t a r y o n J o h n , has been taken over. B a m m e l , Trial, p . 20:
' T h e author is thinking o f an official meeting o f the Sanhedrin'.
 T h e decision to put Jesus to death 303

34
decision in this critical situation. If one were to answer 'nothing' to the
question about what action o f the Sanhedrin is called for by the action o f
Jesus, then even this policy of inactivity and laissez-faire must be rejected: ' I f
we let him g o on in this way, everyone will believe in him ancf the Romans
will c o m e and destroy both our temple and our nation.' T h e influence o f
Jesus on the people is thus seen by the members o f the Sanhedrin as a
danger. T h e activity ofjesus reinforces the gap between the people and the
Sanhedrin. T h e Sanhedrin members are apprehensive lest the R o m a n
power o f occupation and administration should be used to dismiss from
office the existing Supreme Council on the grounds of its inability to control
the situation, and along with this status to take away the place, that is the
35
T e m p l e , and the p e o p l e . This fear may originate, historically speaking, in
a reminiscence o f Herod's treatment o f the Council (Josephus, A J
1 4 . 1 6 3 - 8 4 ; 1 5 . 6 ) ; its formulation is probably determined, however, by the
36
abolition o f the Supreme Council during the Jewish war. For in spite o f
every uncertainty, especially with regard to the high priests, who frequently
changed, one thing must be observed: Caiaphas and Pilate held office
simultaneously, and simultaneously lost it, the dates of Caiaphas being A . D .
18-36 and those o f Pilate being A . D . 2 6 - 3 6 . Any intrusion on the
Sanhedrin's right o f assembly or any threat to its continuation is completely
unknown in the period between Herod and the Jewish war.
Perplexity and fear move Caiaphas to his decisive intervention. H e is
37 38
introduced as eig 5e (tig) e§ aviary, a formulation which suggests either
that the name o f an originally anonymous speaker has been inserted by the
evangelist into his traditional material, or that the editor o f the Gospel is the
first to give this person a name. T h e explanatory reference to J o h n 1 1 : 4 9 at
1 8 : 1 4 might support this suggestion. T h e whole context speaks o f the high
priest, though in a striking way; for the eig 5e Ti£ is not just anybody but the

3 4
'xt JiOiOXJjxev; is p r o b a b l y a rhetorical question aiming at the answer ' n o t h i n g ' and
g r o u n d e d in the 6x1 clause. Bauer, Johannesevangelium, ad l o c .
3 5
O n xojiog c p . H . K o s t e r , ThWNTVxW, 20$ ( E T TDNT viii (1972), 204).
3 6
C p . B a m m e l , Trial, p . 25: 'the political presentation o f the case o f j e s u s is typical
o f the time after 70. . . . Further s u p p o r t is offered there.
3 7 6 6
T h e reading o f p is o n l y eig 6e e£ avxoav.
3 8
O n this c p . also B a m m e l , Trial, p p . 38f. O n the question o f the n a m e , B a m m e l
c o n c l u d e s that it is likely that the office-holder w a s n a m e d a n d not j u s t i n t r o d u c e d
by etg 6e xtg 8= atrnbv. H e refers to F. Blass, A . D e b r u n n e r a n d R . Funk, A Greek
Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature ( C a m b r i d g e and
C h i c a g o , 1961), §301, a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h eig de xig is an introduction w h i c h
requires the n a m i n g o f the person c o n c e r n e d . B a m m e l draws the c o n c l u s i o n ( p . 39):
' T h e very fact that C a i a p h a s and not A n n a s is m e n t i o n e d here in a passage w h i c h
has n o equivalent in the Synoptics points to the n a m e as b e i n g original in the
c o n t e x t ' ( p . 39). H o w e v e r , w o u l d that not also a p p l y to a reference to the reigning
high priest, without necessitating the mention o f his n a m e ? F o r the evangelist it is
indeed C a i a p h a s , but whether the s a m e held for his source is q u e s t i o n a b l e .
304 W A L T E R GRUNDMANN

high priest himself. M a y we guess that the original Vorlage ran etc; 5e Tic,
autd)v, aQXiegeiJc; d>v xov kviavxov EXEIVOU with Caiaphas being
interpolated into the text at a later stage? T h e basic tradition, in the event of
its including a passion narrative, spoke (John 18: 1 3 , 24) only of Annas.
Then the evangelist will have constructed the reference to Caiaphas, and he
it is w h o is responsible for the insertion at 1 1 : 4 9 . T h e relationship between
39
A n n a s # n d Caiaphas was conceivably not without tension, perhaps above
all a tension between their followers. According to Luke 3: 2 and Acts 4 : 6
40
Annas appears to take public precedence above Caiaphas, and this could
also be showing itself in the structure o f the Johannine passion narrative. In
the same way as Matthew (26: 3, 5 7 ) introduced the name of Caiaphas into
the synoptic tradition, so also for John it is the latter who is the ultimately
authoritative person. So it is Caiaphas w h o is meant in both John 1 1 : 4 9 , 5 1
41
and 18: 13 by &QXteeei>S &v t o * kviavxov exeivou. It is true that the high
priest in the T e m p l e at Jerusalem was not appointed for a year but counted
as fundamentally non-deposable. But it had not been possible to maintain
this legal state o f affairs since the Syrian domination o f 1 7 5 B.C. Political
authorities had in fact appointed and deposed high priests. T h e
formulation xov eviouTOi) exeivov can therefore be understood in terms o f
cultic practice in Syria/Asia M i n o r where the leading priests changed
42
annually (in this case the evangelist would be 'wrongly orientated' vis-a-vis
the Jewish legal situation). Alternatively it may be a reference to a R o m a n
insistence on an annual confirmation o f the Jerusalem high priest, which
however is not attested elsewhere and can only be deduced from the
Johannine construction. T h e third possible interpretation is the view that
the genitive xov kviavxov exeivov means nothing more than 'in that year
43
when these events o c c u r r e d ' . Whichever view one may prefer it is the

3 9
O n this c p . B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 497, f o o t n o t e 4, E T p . 643 footnote 3. H i r s c h ,
Studien, p p . 93, u g f , traces the reference to C a i a p h a s back to the ecclesiastical
r e d a c t o r o f the g o s p e l and attributes the reference to A n n a s to the evangelist. W .
W i l k e n s , Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangelium ( Z o l l i k o n , 1958), p p . 79f,
leaves the interchange o f A n n a s a n d C a i a p h a s in its p l a c e undisputed and explains:
' I n this w a y he wants to represent the h e a r i n g before the J e w i s h authority as
u n i m p o r t a n t . F o r C a i a p h a s has i n d e e d a l o n g time earlier passed the definitive
sentence (11:49!!).'
4 0
T h e possibility o f an " A v v a g reading at A c t s 5: 17 is reckoned with ( c p . B u l t m a n n ,
Johannes, p . 497, footnote 4 ( E T p . 643 f o o t n o t e 3)), though admittedly o n l y o n the
basis o f a conjecture b y Blass. W e l l h a u s e n a n d H o l s c h e r a c c e p t e d this version
w h i c h H i r s c h , Studien, p . 120, d e s c r i b e d as 'the correct reading'.
4 1 4 5 s
T h e genitive is lacking in p , e, 1, s y at verse 5 1 .
4 2
T h u s B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 314, f o o t n o t e 2, E T p . 410 footnote 10.
4 3
T h u s A . Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes (Stuttgart, 1930), p . 258): J e s u s ' first
activity in J e r u s a l e m and J u d a e a , c h s . 2-4, as also the activity in Galilee w h i c h took
p l a c e before the desert meal w h i c h c o i n c i d e d in time with the Passover, is not
i n c l u d e d b y J o h n in this tviavxoq. H e i n c l u d e s the p e r i o d b e t w e e n the apostasy o f
 T h e decision to put Jesus to death 305

high-priestly office which makes the saying authoritative and gives it

prophetic weight.
T h e Fourth Evangelist describes the high priest as a prophet and sees his
prophethood as the property o f his office (verse 5 1 ) : ' H e did not say this o f
5
his o w n accord, but being high priest (that year) he prophesied. C . H .
D o d d declares that this idea is the reflection o f a Jewish belief o f the first
44
Christian century. T h e contemporary Jewish and rabbinic tradition knows
45
about high priests w h o hear voices and prophesy. While the ancient
capacity o f the high priest for spontaneous oracles, the so-called Urim and
T h u m m i m , had expired after the exile, yet nevertheless in popular
estimation the expectation o f a prophetic capacity bound up with the office
46
had been tenaciously preserved and constantly nourished. Josephus
attributes to J o h n Hyrcanus the roles o f high priest, king and prophet (A J
1 3 . 2 9 9 ; BJ 1. 6 8 ) . Especially in Hellenistic Judaism, as Philo above all
47
makes clear, prophecy and high-priesthood were connected together. The
Fourth Evangelist uses a tradition in which the prophetic high priest makes
the decisive utterance. In this way the account, in which Jesus himself does
not figure, gains the form of a narrative in which the authoritative saying is
48
introduced by a word o f the L o r d . W h a t the high priest says becomes for
the Fourth Evangelist the keyword for the whole event bracketed together
between 1 0 : 4 0 and 1 2 : 5 0 . T h e ideas Xoyi^eoSai and JiQoq)T]Tet3eiv which
d o not occur anywhere else in John suggest that verses 4 5 to 5 1 form the

the G a l i l e a n s and the Passover o f the crucifixion.' But if, as p r o p o s e d in footnote 16,
5:2-47 b e l o n g s b e t w e e n 7:13 a n d 7 : 1 5 , there stretches a full year from the
pre-harvest time in S a m a r i a (4:35), through the Galilaean p a s s o v e r (6:4), the
Feast o f T a b e r n a c l e s in J e r u s a l e m (7: 2, 37) and the feast o f T e m p l e purification in
D e c e m b e r (10: 22) to the p a s s o v e r o f Jesus's death. O n l y the early activity o f j e s u s
( 1 : 1 9 to 3:36) falls o u t s i d e this structure. W i l k e n s , Entstehungsgeschichte, p . 63 note
235, explains: ' T h e genitive refers rather to the m o m e n t o u s y e a r o f Jesus's activity
w h i c h o c c u r s d u r i n g C a i a p h a s ' term o f office, a n d is therefore a t e m p o r a l
genitive. . . . In his basic gospel the fourth evangelist describes the activity o f j e s u s
in the c o u r s e o f o n e year.'
4 4
D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 140: ' W e are therefore justified in c o n c l u d i n g that the
w o r d s o f j n . XI51 e c h o a p o p u l a r belief o f first-century J u d a i s m . ' C p . also p . 139:
'in p o p u l a r belief p r o p h e t i c p o w e r s were associated with the office o f high priest'.
4 5
C p . Schlatter, Johannes, p p . 259^ J. J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu 2 ( G o t t i n g e n ,
1958) ii B , 4f, E T Jerusalem in the Time ofJesus ( L o n d o n , 1969), p p . i49f. O n the high
priest, see J e r e m i a s , i b i d . p p . 3-17, E T p p . 142-60.
^ O n this, c p . E. B a m m e l , 'APXIEPEYZ nPOOHTEYQN', ThLZ 79 (1954),
351-6.
4 7
C p . e x a m p l e s in D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 139. T o this B u l t m a n n refers in
Johannes, p . 314, footnote 4 ( E T p . 411 footnote 2) particularly against Schlatter,
Johannes.
4 8
C p . D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 140: ' T h e w o r d s o f C a i a p h a s are a c c e p t e d as true
p r o p h e c y , a n d this is taken so seriously that they o c c u p y the p l a c e in a
" p r o n o u n c e m e n t s t o r y " w h i c h is n o r m a l l y given to a Herrnwort.' Neither
C a i a p h a s ' s w o r d s n o r the L o r d ' s are derived a q ) ' eauTOt); 1 1 : 5 1 5 5 : 1 9 ; 12:4957:17.
306 WALTER GRUNDMANN

kernel o f the tradition which has come d o w n to the evangelist and has been
49
worked over by h i m .
T h e high priest's prophetic statement begins with a sharp criticism o f the
members o f the Sanhedrin, certifying their lack o f understanding and their
thoughtlessness - 'you know nothing and d o not consider' - and making a
50
proposal: 'It is expedient for y o u that one man should die for the people
and the whole people should not come to g r i e f ( 1 1 : 5 0 ) . He and they hold in
c o m m o n the agreed distinction between the individual and the people. It is
posed as a question o f expediency. T h e Sadducean position in ethics and
politics gave to a man complete freedom in his actions and responsibility for
51
his deeds, and it erected as norms expediency and appropriateness. This
position is maintained by the high priest: it is appropriate that an
individual should die rather than the whole people perish. His remark takes
up a saying which had almost b e c o m e proverbial and which is attested
52
elsewhere both in non-Jewish and Jewish areas. T h e question, traceable
back to 2 Sam. 20, concerning the Tightness o f handing over an individual in
order to save many others ( c p . also J o n a h 1) was discussed a great deal in
53
the rabbinate at the time o f the Hadrianic persecution. It is questionable
whether the saying o f Caiaphas implies that the Sanhedrin was engaged in
discussing whether Jesus might be handed over to the Romans, since in the
first century A . D . there still held good the stern prohibition o f handing over
a J e w . Bammel therefore concludes 'that the whole subject of extradition is
54
outside the interest of both writer and reader of the passage'. That may be
right, especially if one agrees with Bammel that 'the scheme which
introduces the idea o f care for all (BJ 5 . 3 4 5 refers to this) is to be seen as an
55
independent piece o f political w i s d o m ' , on the basis o f which he can say
elsewhere 'that a principle and considerations o f this kind were not
56
unknown to members o f the Sanhedrin'. If we consider that in the
Sanhedrin's decision there is expressed the anxiety o f the members about
their position, but no proposal is made about handing over to the Romans,
then the high priest's declaration gains a decisive significance. What is it
aiming at? O n e thing is absolutely clear and unambiguous: the removal o f
Jesus. In order to save the people from the fate o f perishing (djioXrrtcu), a

4 9
C p . D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 141.
5 0
Instead o f i)u.iv s o m e m a n u s c r i p t s read r|ulv, w h i l e in others there is n o t h i n g at all.
5 1
C p . A . Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus (Giitersloh,
1932), p p . 186, 193, and also Johannes, p . 259.
5 2
O n this, c p . B a m m e l , Trial, p . 26 f o o t n o t e 81; Bauer, Johannesevangelium, o n 11: 50;
B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 314, f o o t n o t e 3, E T p . 4 1 1 , footnote 1; D . D a u b e ,
Collaboration with Tyranny in Rabbinic Law ( L o n d o n , 1965); o n this, E. B a m m e l , ThLZ
93 (1968), 833-5.
5 3 5 4
O n this, c p . D a u b e , Collaboration. B a m m e l , Trial, p . 28.
5 5
B a m m e l , ThLZ 93 (1968), 834. 56 B a m m e l , Trial, p . 28.
 The decision to put Jesus to death 307

fate with which they are now threatened, Jesus must die, the one for the
57
whole nation. In this statement the high priest is thinking about the
destruction o f the people through a R o m a n intervention in the face o f the
movement among the people stirred up by Jesus, an intervention which
would be spelt out in terms o f bloodbath, imprisonment and deportation.
As a prophetic utterance, however, this 'perishing' has as background
meaning the destruction which G o d ' s j u d g e m e n t brings upon mankind (cp.
:
John 3: 1 6 ; i o : 2 7 f ; * 7 12 etc). In the face of this 'perishing' the death o f the
one rescues the whole people. That is the prophetic meaning o f the high
priest's declaration, motivated though it is by mere expediency. In view o f
the heavy emphasis which the evangelist lays explicitly on its prophetic
sense, what is being said is this: without either knowing it or wanting it the
58
high priest unintentionally becomes G o d ' s prophet. By virtue of his office
he is jure dignitatis a prophet. Thus even the actions of G o d ' s enemies have to
subserve his plan. However great human freedom is and however far it can
go, it remains always circumscribed by the will and purpose o f G o d and
even at the point o f resistance must still submit to them. Bultmann speaks
59
in this context o f a 'moment o f tragic irony'.
But how then shall the death o f the one in the place of and for the sake o f
60
(VTIEQ) the whole people take place? Is Caiaphas thinking o f a swift
elimination o f j e s u s by the Jews themselves? This possibility seems to be
excluded by their statement before Pilate, when he releases Jesus to them
for condemnation: 'It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.' Is the
idea that Jesus should be arrested and then subsequently handed over to
the Romans? This seems to be indicated, not only by the issue o f an arrest
warrant as a result of the Sanhedrin session ( 1 1 : 5 7 ) , but also by the leading
ofjesus before Annas and the subsequent delivery to Pilate ( 1 8 : 1 2 - 2 8 ) . But
on the other hand the Johannine narrative involves R o m a n military
personnel in the arrest ( 1 8 : 3 , 1 2 ) . That presumes a previous understanding

5 7
C p . D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 138: ' T h e death o f j e s u s is regarded as a m e a n s b y
w h i c h the J e w i s h nation m a y b e saved from disaster.' H e continues in the same
passage: T t is a XVTQOV for Israel. It is the s a m e c o n c e p t i o n that underlies M a r k
X 4 5 , o n l y treated in a secular spirit. . . .' O n this see the subsequent observations.
T h a t o n e should b e c o m e a substitute for the w h o l e nation is a secular-political
principle o f a utilitarian kind; at the same time it is a confession o f faith: M a r k 1 0 : 4 5
for a J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n form, 1 T i m . 2. $f for a Hellenistic form.
5 8
C p . D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 138: ' W h e t h e r consciously o r u n c o n s c i o u s l y , the
high priest is a p r o p h e t jure dignitatis: this is an essential element in the passage as it
c a m e d o w n to the evangelist.'
5 9
B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 3 1 4 , footnote 4 ( E T p . 4 1 1 , footnote 2 ) .
6 0
O n iJJtefj c p . H . Riesenfeld, ThWNTx'm, 5 1 0 - 1 8 ( E T TDNTvm (1972), 507-16):
Riesenfeld looks for the origin o f UJiEQ-statements b y reference to Jesus in the
Eucharistic w o r d s o v e r the c u p ( p p . 5 1 3 - 1 5 ( E T p . 51 o f ) ) , within w h i c h is
expressed the theme o f the o n e a n d the m a n y .
3 o8 W A L T E R GRUNDMANN

between the Sanhedrin and the Romans from the beginning, an

understanding which has led to their participation in the arrest. Apart from
the possibility that different traditions may be overlapping here, it is
possible that an interrogation by the Jewish authorities preceding a verdict
by Pilate may have belonged within the terms o f the negotiated agreement.
If this interpretation is right, then by his vote the high priest set in motion a
course o f action in which the essential elements were these: ( i ) Preparation
for the arrest ofjesus - which, because o f the position o f the people relative
to Jesus, must be implemented with every caution. This point emerges from
both synoptic and Johannine versions. ( 2 ) Agreement with the Romans as
to the arrest and the course o f proceedings against him, for which the Jews
must hand over the relevant material ( c p . 18: 3 3 - 5 ) . This procedure could
61
make the fears o f the Sanhedrin groundless, for its members would
themselves help in putting d o w n the dangerous threat: indeed, they would
take the initiative in so doing. Thus far the affair is handled as an internal
62
Jewish matter. But it is only by co-operation with the Romans that it can
be settled and finished with (on this there is probably agreement between
the evangelist and the traditional report accessible to h i m ) . R o m a n
participation, above all, is going to produce a frightening effect on the
people w h o are devoted to Jesus.

Ill

T o the prophetic saying o f the high priest the evangelist adds a clarification
which is significant for his o w n theological scheme, in fact 'one o f the most
63
characteristic and distinctive ideas of this evangelist'. T h e evangelist says:
'. . . Jesus will die for the nation, and not for the nation only but to gather
into one the children o f G o d w h o are scattered abroad' ( 1 1 : 5 1 1 ) . Does this

6 1
E. B a m m e l has put forward the theory that 11:48b is 'a d e v e l o p m e n t from the
s e c o n d century, r e p l a c i n g a different piece o f reasoning . . . (its) author k n e w a b o u t
the J e w i s h discussion c o n c e r n i n g the question o f extradition, a n d w a n t e d b y m e a n s
o f his o w n e m b r o i d e r y to bring the m e m b e r s o f the Sanhedrin close to the position o f
delatores (as certainly v . 48b reads as an ex eventu formulation, and that i n d e e d in
p r o - R o m a n a n d not J e w i s h t e r m i n o l o g y ) ' , TkLZg^ (1968), 834f. C p . also B a m m e l ,
Trial, p p . 27L O n e m i g h t b e attracted to this c o n c l u s i o n if the idea o f extradition
p l a y e d a n y role in verse 48; it seems to us, h o w e v e r , to b e primarily an expression
o f perplexity a n d anxiety w h i c h the high priest sets himself to o p p o s e . T h a t is
m o r e o v e r recognised in B a m m e l ' s statement, cited a b o v e in the text: ' T h e w h o l e
subject o f extradition is outside the interest o f b o t h writer and r e d a c t o r o f the
p a s s a g e ' ( p . 28).
6 2
B a m m e l , ThLZ 93 (1968), 834: ' t o understand the passage entirely in a J e w i s h
context, w h e t h e r a historical o n e o r o n e o f literary reworking, a n d therefore to
e x c l u d e an implicit reference to a R o m a n trial'; similarly in Trial, p p . 26-8: ' T h e
question is treated as b e i n g an internal J e w i s h o n e . '
6 3
D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 134.
 T h e decision to put Jesus to death 309

take up the tenth petition o f the Eighteen Benedictions prayer which,

basing itself on the prophetic predictions, runs: 'Sound the great trumpet
for our freedom and lift up a banner for the gathering together of our exiles.
Blessed are you, O Lord, w h o gather the dispersed members of your people
Israel'? Is it the view o f the evangelist that Jesus's death brings about the
salvation and assembling o f Israel as a renewed people o f G o d to w h o m
may be assigned lordship? C . H . D o d d points out in this connection that the
64
idea o f the eschatological gathering o f the people o f G o d has deep roots.
H e alludes to Isa. 1 1 : 1 2 ; 5 3 : 5 , Ezek. 28: 2 5 , etc., while at the same time
affirming that 'the close connection o f this with the death o f Christ is
65
specifically J o h a n n i n e ' . T h e statements, to which the interpretation of the
prophetic word o f the high priest belongs, start with J o h n 10: 1 6 . Jesus who
manifests himself as the true shepherd, speaks o f his death as the proof of
66
the validity o f his position as shepherd. While his flock comprises those
w h o m he leads out of the sheepfold in which they have been previously, now
his vision extends further: ' A n d I have other sheep who are not of this fold; I
must bring them also and they will listen to my voice. So there shall be one
flock, one shepherd' ( 1 0 : 1 6 ) . In this passage it is clear that the bringing
together into the one flock by the one shepherd is linked with his death.
J o h n 10: 1 6 is preceded by the statement 'I lay down my life for the sheep'
and followed by the statement about the complete voluntariness o f this
laying d o w n o f life ( 1 0 : 1 5 b and 1 7 1 ) . But it is also clear that the other sheep
w h o m he must bring are not the Jews o f the Dispersion: they are not o f this
fold. T h e fourth evangelist goes far beyond and indeed remodels the
expectation voiced in the Eighteen Benedictions prayer. This is made even
clearer in the ensuing passage, J o h n 1 1 : 5 2 . W h e n the request o f the Greeks
67
w h o have c o m e to the feast (probably proselytes, w h o represent the
non-Jews, the nations o f the world) is passed on to him, Jesus knows that his

6 4
C p . S - B iv, 212; o n the gathering together o f the dispersed, iv, 902-10.
6 5
D o d d , in Neotestamentica, p . 134 footnote 2. A n inner c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the
p r o p h e c y o f the high priest and the evangelist's explanation is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h M .
Barker, 'John 11: 50', in E. B a m m e l , ed., Trial, p p . 41-6, w o u l d like to p r o p o s e with
the h e l p o f the e x p e c t a t i o n o f M e s s i a h ben J o s e p h . T o this C a i a p h a s alludes, and
the evangelist has it in m i n d . T h i s h o p e w a s w i d e s p r e a d in Galilee: he must die
before the M e s s i a h b e n D a v i d will c o m e . M . Barker c o n c l u d e s ( p . 46): ' T h e remark
o f C a i a p h a s effectively turns against the despised Galileans their o w n messianic
h o p e s . T h e M e s s i a h b e n J o s e p h had to die before the M e s s i a h b e n D a v i d c o u l d
a p p e a r (cf. here A c t s 3: 20), a n d if it was expedient that o n e m a n should d i e for the
p e o p l e , w h o was C a i a p h a s to prevent this?' O n the question o f Messiah b e n J o s e p h ,
c p . S - B ii, 292-9.
^ C p . o n this, W . G r u n d m a n n , ThWNT iii, 550 ( E T TDNTm (1965), 548O.
6 7
Similarly Y$\i\tm?iYm, Johannes, p . 323 footnote 6 ( E T p . 423, footnote 2). In the text:
' D o u b t l e s s these are so-called proselytes; if they are not d e s c r i b e d as such . . . but
rather as *EX.A.T]veg that is clearly b e c a u s e they are to b e u n d e r s t o o d as
representatives o f the G r e e k w o r l d . '
3IO W A L T E R GRUNDMANN

hour has come ( 1 2 : 2 0 - 3 ) . T h e hour is his death (cp. 1 3 : 1 ) , o f which he

68
speaks by means o f the metaphor of'lifting u p ' . It is the hour of XQiotg for
the world o f men. T h e ruler o f this world, w h o determines it, loses his
69
position; into his place there enters the one lifted up from the earth: T,
when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself ( 1 2 : 3 1 1 ) .
70
Drawing them to himself he gathers them and forges them into 'a unity'.
Since Jesus is speaking about his cross whenever he speaks of his exaltation,
and since this cross is at one and the same time his own glorification and
71
that o f the Father, this drawing-to-himself issues in a following after him
in his sufferings, within which at the same time the exaltation occurs
72
(12: 24-6). ' T h e sheep w h o are not o f this fold', that is, Greek non-Jews,
are 'those w h o believe in me through their word' ( 1 7 : 20) and concerning
whose unification he prays ( 1 7 : 2 1 - 3 ) ; these are the ones to w h o m his
disciples are sent out, equipped with the Holy Spirit who brings them to
new birth from above, and equipped with the authority to forgive sins
(20: 2 1 - 3 ) ; in them he continues his mission and through them his work o f
drawing men is carried out. If in John 1 r. 5 2 those w h o m he wants 'to
gather into one' are called the children o f G o d w h o are scattered abroad,
then this term may be understood in a potential sense. According to John
1 : 1 2 the authority to become G o d ' s sons is the gift of the Logos to those w h o
receive him; to receive him means to believe on his name; to believe on his
name is, however, to be born o f God. It is made plain in the conversation
with Nicodemus that 'being born o f G o d ' and therefore 'believing on his
name' includes within itself the reception of eternal life. A man receives this

6 8
C p . o n this, G . Bertram, ThWNT viii, 6o8f ( E T TDNT viii (1972), 610Q; c p . W .
T h u s i n g , Die Erhdhung und Verherrlichungjesu im Johannesevangelium (Miinster, i960),
PP- 3-37-
6 9
Behind this saying stands the picture o f Satan being thrown o u t o f heaven. T h e
p r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f this is J o b 1 a n d 2 where Satan is the heavenly accuser. T h i s
picture is further d e v e l o p e d in R e v . 12: 7-12, and there are traces also in L u k e
10: 18, 22: 3 i f a n d J o h n 12:31. T h e removal o f the accuser, w h o must give u p his
p l a c e to the a d v o c a t e , enables this w o r k o f assembling a n d leading to b e carried out
w i t h o u t a n y limits being i m p o s e d . T h e activity, d y i n g and rising o f j e s u s are p l a c e d
within the c o n t e x t o f this eschatological conflict with Satan; in J o h n , this, like all
e s c h a t o l o g i c a l - a p o c a l y p t i c affirmations, is referred to the presentness o f j e s u s in
w h i c h the future is already c o n c e n t r a t e d .
7 0
Ideas o f the a s c e n d i n g r e d e e m e r and the j o u r n e y o f the souls to heaven are here
m a k i n g a c o n t r i b u t i o n , c p . B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p . 330 ( E T p . 431).
71
T h e two-sided s h o w i n g o f respect a n d glorification w h i c h applies to the w h o l e
career o f j e s u s are b r o u g h t to c o m p l e t i o n in the passion and Easter (7: 39; 1 1 : 4 ;
12: 23; 13: 3if; 17: 1, 4, 5, 24). Jesus s h o w s all h o n o u r to the Father a n d glorifies h i m
in that he d e m o n s t r a t e s b y the laying d o w n o f his life his total love for the Father
(14: 301). T h e Father s h o w s all h o n o u r to the S o n and glorifies h i m in that he exalts
him to himself through death. T h e glorification and h o n o u r i n g o f G o d ' s n a m e as
Father is his w o r d a n d his mission.
7 2
C p . o n this, B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p p . 33of ( E T p p . 43if).
 T h e decision to put Jesus to death 311

from the Spirit into his earthly existence (which is comparable with a
mother's w o m b ) . This receiving o f life takes place through the hearing o f
the word (6: 6 3 ) , and its hidden life is released into its perfect form when one
7 3
dies ( 3 : 1 - 1 0 , 1 6 ; 1 6 : 2 0 - 2 ) . Since Jesus gives the authority for divine
sonship to those w h o m the Father has given him (6: 3 7 , 3 9 , 6 5 ; 1 7 : 6 ) , those
mentioned at 1 1 : 5 2 are children o f G o d , because they are amongst those
w h o m the Father has given him; this is the authorisation for their becoming
children of G o d . As such potential children of G o d they are scattered in the
world o f men but brought to a unity in him and together brought to the
Father ( 1 7 : 2 0 - 3 ) . His death releases his work which had been limited to
Israel and makes it universal, and this no longer limited work is
implemented through his disciples ( 1 4 : 1 2 ) . That is the decisive event of his
death: the one w h o for his own people is there on the earth, is now exalted to
a possibility o f effectiveness which is no longer subject to the previous
limitation o f being in the flesh. Consequently his death is the event which
becomes effective for an historical future and in which the eternal future o f
the believer is involved ( 1 2 : 2 6 ; 1 7 : 2 4 ; 14:21).

IV

Does the Johannine interpretation o f the high priest's statement, described

by him as prophetic, displace an event which originally had a political
character? Does it transform a political revolutionary leader, ultimately
shattered in confrontation with the R o m a n occupying power, into 'the
saviour o f the world' (4: 4 2 ) ? For one thing is quite clear: it was Pilate who
pronounced sentence against Jesus. He condemned him to death by
crucifixion and confirmed it in the superscription, 'Jesus o f Nazareth, the
king o f the Jews' ( 1 9 : 1 9 ) . Thus Pilate treated Jesus as a Zealot
revolutionary. Suspicion o f this at least has not been far from the minds o f
the high priest and o f the members o f the Sanhedrin. They refer to his
influence on the people, which is regarded as growing. This suspicion is
strengthened by the fact that according to the Johannine narrative the
R o m a n s had already been involved in the arrest o f j e s u s . T h e synoptic
Gospels underline more emphatically than John the Jewish participation in
the event which led to Jesus's crucifixion. But is the Johannine account o f
Jesus's passion supposed to link up with the fact that in his view Jesus's
death releases his work from the limitation to Israel and makes it effective
for mankind as a whole? In other words is it part of the movement out o f the
area o f the Jews into that o f the cosmos, the whole world? T h e debate

7 3
It is possible that the o l d Christian evaluation o f the d a y o f death as a d a y o f birth
into eternal life is c o n n e c t e d with this statement.
312 W A L T E R GRUNDMANN

between Jesus and the Jews is concluded with the Sanhedrin's decision to
bring about his death; the proceedings before Annas are the bridge leading
to the trial and the death. That death is prepared by the Romans and leads
to his work for mankind. Jesus's response to Pilate ( 1 8 : 2 8 to 1 9 : 2 1 ) is
determined by the theme which is decisive for this, namely Jesus as the
witness to the truth in the face o f an imperium which is based solely on
human might and which leaves open the question o f truth.
Now the Johannine account leaves no doubt about Jesus's career's
having had political effect. T h e signs which he does rouse in the minds o f
the people the idea that he is a messianic prophet and therefore provoke the
intention to proclaim him king ( 6 : 1 4 1 ) . According to the evangelist,
political expectations and hopes are excited by Jesus, but he turns firmly
away from them. His path to kingship does not lead via the battle-field and
74
the gaining o f power, but rather through his death on the cross. The
disappointment he brings to his Galilaean followers leads, according to the
Johannine version, to the great falling away in that area, after which only
the T w e l v e remain ( 6 : 6 0 , 6 6 to 7: 1 0 ) . In Jerusalem the people are divided
and kept under by the pressure o f fear o f the priestly authorities, and it is
this which forces Jesus to g o up to Jerusalem incognito for the Feast o f
Tabernacles (John 7: 1 0 - 1 3 ) . Admittedly he cannot maintain this
incognito and shows himself a free agent over against the pressure o f fear
(5: 2 - 4 7 ; 7: 1 5 - 4 4 ) . In fact, such is his freedom that this pressure becomes
ineffective (7: 4 5 - 5 2 ) and he brings others into his own freedom (8: 3 0 - 6 ) as
is particularly apparent in the case o f the man born blind ( 9 : 1 - 3 9 ) . T h e
Jews w h o stand over against him in hostility d o not hold back from an
attempt at stoning him (8: 5 9 ; 10: 3 1 ) , and finally they make the decision to
get rid o f him ( 1 1 : 4 7 - 5 4 , 5 7 ) . But Jesus takes his own people w h o m he
separates from the Jews ( 1 0 : 1 - 2 1 ) , forms from them the people o f G o d ' s
sons ( 1 0 : 1 6 ; 1 1 : 5 2 ; 1 2 : 321) and also gains a powerful influence over the
7 5
nation ( 1 1 : 4 5 - 7 ; 12.9-19; 1 2 : 4 2 1 ) . It is precisely his o w n liberating
freedom, clearly operative once again in his trial ( 1 8 : 1 to 1 9 : 3 0 ) , which
constitutes the great threat for the high priest and the Sanhedrin. It releases
76
fears which lead to the decision that he must d i e . The Jews recognise that

7 4
B y the transposition o f the d a y o f the anointing a n d the entry to J e r u s a l e m in J o h n
(12: 1-19) this m u c h b e c o m e s clear: the o n e w h o has been anointed for death enters
the royal city for his death in w h i c h he is p r o c l a i m e d as king before the w h o l e w o r l d
(John 19: 191) in the languages o f the w o r l d .
7 5
C p . 12: 19: T h e Pharisees say to o n e another, ' Y o u see that y o u c a n d o n o t h i n g ;
l o o k , the w o r l d has g o n e after h i m . '
7 6
O . C u l l m a n n , Jesus und die Revolutiondren seiner Zeit ( T u b i n g e n , 1970), p . 49, E T Jesus
and the Revolutionaries ( N e w Y o r k , 1970), p . 33: ' A c c o r d i n g to J n . 11:48 the
Sanhedrin take the decision to d e n o u n c e Jesus to the R o m a n s as a political rebel.
T h e y d o this for fear that the R o m a n s w o u l d hold the J e w i s h authorities responsible
 T h e decision to put Jesus to death 313

his freedom is based on his relationship to G o d , and precisely because o f

1 :
this he must die ( 5 : 18; 1 0 : 3 3 ; 9 l) • What J o h n is showing is this: Jesus has
great support among the people and he finds many followers, but he
nevertheless relies not on the people but on the Father (7: 2 9 ; 1 6 : 3 2 ) . So he
does not organise the people for revolution as a rebel leader would d o . Not
every movement among the people is a Zealot undertaking, nor is every
person who influences the people a Zealot leader. All this is affirmed by the
Johannine account, while at the same time it is not denied that every
movement among the people is liable to be misunderstood in a Zealot way.
In the discourse about the shepherd Jesus distinguishes himself from
77
others w h o make royal claims. In this setting, he speaks o f himself as the
truly authorised shepherd w h o dissociates himself from the thieves and the
78
robbers and the hireling. T h e decisive difference is to be found in the fact
that the false shepherds w h o are branded as thieves and robbers think only
o f themselves. They use the flock for their own advantage and like the
hireling abandon the flock to the wolf who tears them apart and scatters
them. T h e true shepherd is quite different: he lays d o w n his life for the
sheep and he gathers together the scattered ones ( 1 0 : 1 0 - 1 8 ) . By means o f
the imagery o f the shepherd J o h n makes Jesus speak about the essential
character o f his mission and the identity o f his person. T h e shepherd
discourse which stands at the midpoint o f the Gospel of J o h n provides the
basis for the raising o f Lazarus which is followed by the decision to put
Jesus to death. It is necessary therefore that attention should be devoted to
it finally in the context of examining the questions with which we have been
concerned.

if it s h o u l d so h a p p e n that a p o p u l a r m o v e m e n t in Jesus' favour should assume

w o r r y i n g p r o p o r t i o n s . ' But not every p o p u l a r m o v e m e n t is political, and there is n o
statement expressis verbis o f any d e n u n c i a t i o n o f j e s u s as a political rebel. L e a d i n g
the p e o p l e astray (John 7: 12) d o e s not h a p p e n o n l y in the political sphere. O n the
question o f the Z e a l o t s , c p . M . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten ( L e i d e n , 1961); G . B a u m b a c h ,
' Z e l o t e n u n d Sikarier', in ThLZ 90 (1965), 727-40, and also ' D i e Z e l o t e n - i h r e
geschichtliche u n d religionspolitische B e d e u t u n g ' , Liturgie und Leben 41 (1968),
2-25.
7 7
S h e p h e r d is a predicate o f royalty a n d divinity; c p . J. J e r e m i a s , ThWNTv'i, 484-98
( E T TDNTv'i (1968), 485-502); W . Jost, Poimen: Das Bild vom Hirten in der biblischen
Uberlieferung und seine christologische Bedeutung (Giessen, 1939); I. Seibert, Hirt, Herde,
Konig (Berlin, 1969). I f o n e surveys the breadth o f association o f this i m a g e as
revealed in I. Seibert's study, then it b e c o m e s quite clear that the picture o f the
shepherd is active in the b a c k g r o u n d o f b o t h the m e t a p h o r s o f living water (John 4)
and living bread (John 6). Its central position and significance are therefore
confirmed; c p . also footnote 82 o n p . 315 b e l o w .
7 8
T h e expression ' j o b b e r s ' (Xflorai) refers to Z e a l o t leaders (10: 1, 8, 10). C u l l m a n n ,
Revolutionaren, p . 53 ( E T p . 36), reckons with the possibility that an authentic
Jesus-saying lies beneath J o h n 10: 1 1 - 1 3 . O n the description ' r o b b e r s ' for Z e a l o t s ,
c p . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten, p p . 25-47.
3H W A L T E R GRUNDMANN

The shepherd discourse is attached without interruption (9: 4 1 / 1 0 : 1) to the

healing o f the man born blind, which reaches its conclusion in 1 0 : 1 9 - 2 1 . It
consists of a parable which derives its meaning from the healing of the blind
man, and its reflective development in 10: 7 - 1 8 . In the latter passage there
appear two of the seven 'I a m ' sayings of this Gospel, and both are repeated.
This in itself indicates their importance. Their theme is taken up once again
in the adjacent and final debate between Jesus and the Jews ( 1 0 : 2 5 - 3 0 ) ,
this time as the answer to the urgently posed question about his
messiahship: ' H o w long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ,
tell us plainly' ( 1 0 : 2 4 ) . T h e explicit question directed at Jesus and his o w n
reply are important for the understanding o f the Sanhedrin's decision to
put him to death. Jesus responds to the messianic question with a reference
to his authority as shepherd which is finally demonstrated in the raising o f
Lazarus. After this the decision to put him to death follows immediately.
This context provides insight into the evangelist's understanding ofjesus.
The connection between the healing o f the man born blind and the
shepherd discourse is denoted by the fact that the healed man is thrown out
of the synagogue community but found and accepted by Jesus. T h e
evaluation by Jesus of the blind man's disability has already been seen to be
different from that o f the Jews: it is not a divine punishment but the
79
occasion o f the revelation o f the works o f G o d to h i m . Jesus had already
defined the way o f discipleship as a remaining in his word which leads to
knowledge o f the truth and thus to freedom from sin in a context o f belief.
The blind man n o w treads this path. He has to endure the opposition of the
Pharisees but in this context he comes to stand by what Jesus had done for
him through his revealing word. Thus he recognises him as the one w h o has
c o m e from G o d (9: 33) and shows his freedom in resistance to Pharisaic
pressure. But this causes what his parents had feared would happen to him
(9: 2 0 - 3 ) : he is thrown out and put under a ban (9: 3 4 ) . Faced with this
threat and pressure, his parents are marked by the bondage o f fear, but in
contrast with them the man himself is free. He, although banned, is
80
accepted by Jesus. A n d Jesus interprets the proceedings in terms o f his
leading out his o w n and going before them; they follow him, listening to his

7 9
Since with verbs o f teaching and revelation etc. ev strengthens the dative, o n e will
h a v e to translate: 'that the works o f G o d m a y b e revealed to h i m ' . C p .
B l a s s - D e b r u n n e r ( E T B l a s s - D e b r u n n e r - F u n k , Greek Grammar), 220, 1.
8 0
In J o h n 9: 3 5 - 8 there o c c u r s an actualisation o f M a r k 8: 38: T h e m a n b o r n blind has
not been a s h a m e d o f j e s u s and his w o r d but has a c k n o w l e d g e d h i m . H e experiences
a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t b y the S o n o f man in that he confirms to h i m : ' Y o u believe o n the
Son o f m a n . ' His belief that Jesus is from G o d is belief in the S o n o f m a n .
 The decision to put Jesus to death 315

voice as he calls them by name. This is what the parable o f the true
shepherd ( 1 0 : 1 - 5 ) is saying: in this event the XQijxa (9: 39) is effected. T h e
parable which was not understood ( 1 0 : 6 ) is unfolded by means o f a
81
meditation. Jesus is the d o o r to the sheep ( 1 0 : 71) and for the sheep ( 1 0 : 9 ) ;
he is the truly authorised shepherd; in the laying down o f his life this is
made visible and also made effective, in that what obtains between him and
the Father n o w obtains between him and his own people. T h e Father knows
him, that is, he has chosen him. H e knows the Father, that is, he has
entrusted himself to him. H e knows his own, that is, he has chosen them
after they have been given to him by the Father. They know him, that is,
they entrust themselves to him and belong with him to the Father. By
means o f the relationship with himself into which he calls men, he
establishes the relationship with the Father which he himself enjoys and he
both seals and extends this relationship through the giving o f his life
( 1 0 : 1 4 - 1 6 ) . T h e decision o f the Jews against Jesus and his own (9: 2 2 , 3 4 )
leads to their separation from the synagogue which he himself brings about
( 1 0 : 7 f ) ; thus this passage serves to exhibit the honorific picture o f the
82
shepherd.
This theme is taken up again at the T e m p l e feast in Jerusalem on the
basis o f the question directed by the Jews to Jesus about his messiahship
( 1 0 : 2 2 - 3 9 ) . Schlatter rightly concludes: ' N o statement however rich in
content about the mission ofjesus could replace for the J e w what the term
"anointed o n e " meant to him. It was primarily in this term that the
prophetic prediction was recalled in the present. T h e decisive issue
83
therefore hung on this term.' But this term itself was at the same time
ambiguous and unmistakable. His answer runs: 'I have told you but you d o
not believe. . ., because you d o not belong to my sheep.' A n d n o w once
more Jesus speaks about the shepherd and his authority. T o the Jews who
ask about his messiahship he says: ' M y sheep hear my voice and I know

8 1
I f the s h e p h e r d s before h i m are thieves and r o b b e r s w h o o n l y c o n s i d e r themselves,
then the JIQO i\iov s h o w s that he is the true shepherd; it is not to be taken as a matter
o f time but rather a matter o f principle. W h o e v e r c o m e s after h i m either c o m e s as
o n e sent b y h i m (17: 18; 20: 21) o r belongs to the thieves a n d r o b b e r s 'before h i m ' .
T h u s he alone is the d o o r to the sheep.
8 2
B u l t m a n n , Johannes, p p . 272-98 ( E T p p . 358-91), w h o brings the shepherd
d i s c o u r s e back into another context and also rearranges it internally, e x p o u n d s the
shepherd i m a g e r y not in terms o f the ancient e a s t e r n / O l d T e s t a m e n t kingship and
divinity context but in terms o f gnostic traditions. In these the shepherd has b e c o m e
the revealer ( p p . 277-81). Such a v i e w o f J o h n ' s shepherd imagery is attractive.
H o w e v e r , if o n e retains the present position and context, then the features o f
majesty a n d divinity o b t r u d e . F o r it appears at the very m o m e n t w h e n , in the light
o f the exclusion from the s y n a g o g u e , the authoritative decision has to b e m a d e to
found a distinctive universal c o m m u n i t y .
8 3
C p . Schlatter, Johannes, p . 241.
316 W A L T E R GRUNDMANN

them and they follow me, and I give them eternal life and they shall never
perish and no one shall snatch them out of my hand' ( 1 0 : 2yi). This saying,
which consists o f a pair o f three line units, shows the personal character o f
the relationship between Jesus and his own. It is based on hearing his voice.
T h e use o f the word 'voice' is striking. T h e evangelist calls Jesus the W o r d
made flesh ( i : 1 4 ) ; the words which he speaks are given him by the Father,
for he does not speak for himself (3: 34; 7: i6f; 1 2 : 491); they are 'spirit and
life' (6: 6 3 ) . Hearing his voice, which is the basis o f the link between him
and his, shows therefore that his words are not separable from his person,
that is, the W o r d made flesh. They are words which are bound to and
cannot be divided from his person. His words serve to establish the
relationship with him, and therefore in hearing his word a man hears his
voice. His voice calls the individual by name (10:3) and therefore
84
establishes a personal relationship. Such calling by name is election - I
know y o u , that is, I choose you for myself by calling with my voice so that
you follow me. T h e relationship grounded in this electing call of his voice is
realised in following. In this spoken call there is contained the gift of eternal
life; those w h o hear his voice and follow him will never perish whatever may
happen to them. T h e y are not lost because they are protected in his hand,
and from that hand no destructive earthly power can tear them. For his
voice penetrates both the power and the scope o f death.
All o f this was expressed by the evangelist when he spoke about the voice
of the Son o f man which calls the dead (John 5: 2 5 - 9 ) . T h e dead are those
who, whether alive or deceased, have succumbed to the power of death. But
they receive life by listening to his voice. Those w h o are in the graves, that
is, the deceased, will be summoned out by his voice (5: 28f). As an example
85
o f this stands the raising o f Lazarus, at the end o f which it says: 'he cried
with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out." A n d the dead man came o u t . . .'
( 1 1 : 4 3 1 ) . T h e raising o f Lazarus becomes a sign o f the shepherd-authority
ofjesus; Lazarus is one o f his own ( 1 1 : 3 , 5 , 3 5 ) and he listens to his voice,
even though as one w h o has succumbed to the power of death. In listening
to his voice he receives the gift o f life. It is precisely this act which brings

8 4
A s regards M a r y M a g d a l e n e , J o h n 20: 1, 11-18 makes clear that she d o e s not c o m e
to faith in the risen o n e o n the basis o f the e m p t y t o m b , nor b e c a u s e o f the angel at
the grave, n o r as a result o f the a p p e a r a n c e o f the risen o n e ( w h o m she d o e s not
r e c o g n i s e ) , but rather b e c a u s e o f the fact that he calls her b y n a m e . She hears his
v o i c e , a n d that qualifies her to b e a messenger o f the resurrection to his disciples. O n
this c p . W . G r u n d m a n n , ' Z u r R e d e v o m V a t e r i m J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m ' , ZNW52
(1960,213-30.
8 5
T h i s t e n d e n c y , i m p o r t a n t to the evangelist, is w h a t causes h i m to w o r k o v e r the
legendary resurrection story. T h e part o f the original conversation between Jesus
and M a r t h a w h i c h c a n b e discerned in 11:28, 40 has been replaced b y n : 2 5 f :
w h o e v e r holds fast to Jesus, the giver o f resurrection life, over that person death has
n o ultimate p o w e r . T h a t is the point o f the sign o f the raising o f Lazarus.
 The decision to put Jesus to death 317

about the decision of the Sanhedrin to agree to what the high priest says and
to take the decision to put Jesus to death.
O n e last question must be raised at this point. Where does the name
Lazarus come from? Has the Fourth Evangelist taken it from the tradition
which quite often he holds in c o m m o n with Luke (Luke 1 6 : 1 9 - 3 1 ) ? Does he
know the story o f the rich man and the poor Lazarus? Does he want to show,
in the course o f his discussion o f the insufficiency o f a faith based on signs
(2: 1 1 , 2 3 - 5 ; 3 : 2 ; 4 : 4 6 - 5 3 ; 6 : 2 , I 4 f , 2 6 - 3 5 ) , what the Lukan parabolic
narrative is expressing, i.e. whoever like the Jews does not listen to G o d ' s
voice, whether through Moses and the prophets or through the true
86
shepherd, will not be helped even by the return of one already d e a d ? The
Jews impose death on the one w h o brings resurrection and create mortal
danger for the one to w h o m this resurrection happens ( 1 2 : 1 of). If so, the
debate about faith engendered by signs would find in this event its climax
87
and conclusion.
T h u s the Fourth Evangelist's account is rounded off. Jesus is the
dispenser o f that life which no further death can destroy. That is his
88
authority as shepherd, about which Jesus speaks explicitly ( 1 0 : 2 9 ) . It is
intrinsic to his relationship o f unity with the Father who chooses him and to
w h o m he has entrusted himself ( 1 0 : I4f, 30); it is described as effective in
the present - 'the Father in me' - and secure and authorised - 'I in the
Father.' For the Jews this is blasphemy and from their side it leads to his
death (5:18; 1 0 : 3 0 - 3 ; 1 9 : 7 ) . So this theologically-based statement is
articulated in the account o f the Fourth Evangelist: the life-giving o f the
life-giver brings death to him, but his death is his bestowal o f life on
mankind. Does the situation attested here correspond to Jesus's own
situation? T h e shepherd discourse and the conversation with Pilate about
the kingdom o f G o d distinguish him deeply and fundamentally from the

8 6
C p . W . G r u n d m a n n , ' V e r s t a n d n i s u n d B e w e g u n g des G l a u b e n s i m J o h a n n e s -
evangeliums,' KuD 6 (i960), 131-54.
8 7
In favour o f this c o u l d b e the explicit statement in 11:47: ' T h i s m a n d o e s m a n y
signs.'
8 8
T h e expression o p e n s u p t w o possible translations w h i c h are given b y the textual
analysis: ( 1 ) ' W h a t m y ( o r the) Father has given m e is greater than all and n o o n e
can tear t h e m out o f m y Father's h a n d . ' T h a t w o u l d then b e a reference to the
s h e p h e r d ' s authority w h i c h the Father has given h i m . (2) ' T h e Father, w h o has
given t h e m to m e , is greater than everything ( o r everyone) and n o o n e can tear them
out o f m y Father's h a n d . ' T h e greatness o f the Father, w h o himself has given his
o w n to J e s u s , is the guarantee o f their deliverance and protection. Verses 27, 28 and
29f together form three t h r e e - m e m b e r e d units. T h e first concerns h o w the
c o m m u n i t y is established (verse 27), the s e c o n d what the c o m m u n i t y receives from
the o n e w h o is the s h e p h e r d (verse 28), and the third its unity with the Father o n
w h i c h his gift to his c o m m u n i t y is based. B u l t m a n n opts for the s e c o n d possibility,
Johannes, p p . 294f footnote 4 ( E T p p . 386f footnote 3), with a reference to a
6 6
M a n d a e a n text: his possibility is n o w s u p p o r t e d also b y the reading in p .
3 i8 W A L T E R GRUNDMANN

leaders o f the people during his day and time. As the Samaritans called him
the saviour of the world, so he stands before Pilate as the witness to the truth
for men. A n d J o h n makes his own affirmation: This is G o d ' s eternal W o r d
89
become flesh, this is the Son w h o is one with the Father.

8 9
T h e article w a s translated b y D r D . C a t c h p o l e .
 D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E

The 'triumphal' entry

The tradition o f the 'triumphal' entry plays a crucial role in the Markan
scheme. T h e confession o f j e s u s as messiah in 8 : 2 7 - 3 0 had followed a
miracle on a blind man (8: 2 2 - 6 ) and had led immediately into a complex o f
material ( 8 : 3 1 to 1 0 : 4 5 ) structured by three sayings about the suffering
Son o f man (8: 3 1 - 3 ; 9: 3 0 - 2 ; 10: 3 2 - 4 ) and several ensuing traditions about
discipleship. With 10: 4 6 - 5 2 the journey to Jerusalem has reached Jericho
where there occurs a further miracle on a blind man. This tradition is
clamped to the following tradition o f the entry quite unmistakably: in both
'the w a y ' is mentioned ( 1 0 : 4 6 , 5 2 ; 1 1 : 8 ) , in both Jesus is acclaimed in
Davidic terms ( 1 0 : 47f; n : 1 0 ) , in both there is a ifidxiov reference ( 1 0 : 5 0 ;
m D O t n t n
11:71)? e theme o f salvation is prominent ( 1 0 : 5 2 ; 1 1 : 9 ) , and
significantly in both acclamation and following are joined ( 1 0 : 5 2 ; 1 1 : 9 ) .
Consequently it appears that the Markan plan is to link 1 1 : 1 - 1 0 with
1 0 : 4 6 - 5 2 in much the same way as 8: 2 7 - 3 0 is linked with 8: 2 2 - 6 . T h e
'triumphal' entry, therefore, matches the confession and has to d o with the
disclosure of Jesus's identity and status.
This Markan presentation o f the entry into Jerusalem by the one who
has already effected a victory is precisely what permits a classification
o f the story as such. For there is already in existence a family o f stories
detailing the celebratory entry to a city by a hero figure w h o has pre­
viously achieved his triumph. N o doubt the ultimate precedents are to
be found in Israelite kingship ritual, c p . 1 Kings 1 : 3 2 - 4 0 where accla­
mation (verse 3 4 ) is followed by a ceremonial entry (verse 3 5 ) by the
king-designate, w h o rides the royal animal (verse 38) and w h o precedes
a celebrating crowd 'playing on pipes, and rejoicing with great j o y ' (verse
4 0 ) . N o doubt precedent can genuinely be found in Zech. 9 : 9 where an
era o f universal peace is inaugurated by the arrival o f the king in pro­
cession, and riding upon an ass, an arrival which is to be greeted with
shouts o f j o y . A t all events, a more or less fixed pattern o f triumphal
entry can be discerned:
( 1 ) Alexander travels from Gaza to Jerusalem (Josephus, AJ 1 1 : 3 2 5 - 3 9 )
where his previously achieved authority is recognised without conflict. He
is ceremonially met outside Jerusalem, greeted, and escorted into the city
and then to the T e m p l e where he is involved in cultic activity.
(2) Alexander again is invited to enter Shechem (Josephus, AJ
1 1 : 3 4 2 - 5 ) , having been met 'with splendour and a great show o f eagerness

3*9
320 D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E

on his behalf. . . when he was hardly out of Jerusalem', a proposed visit

which would have reached its climax in the T e m p l e ( 3 4 2 ) .
(3) Apollonius is welcomed to Jerusalem (2 M a c e . 4: 2 if). H e is ushered
in with a blaze o f torches and with shouts, and the welcome is said to be
magnificent (^eYaAx^eoajg).
(4) Judas Maccabaeus returns home (1 M a c e . 4 : 1 9 - 2 5 ; Josephus, AJ
1 2 : 3 1 2 ) after victory over Gorgias, with his associates echoing the language
of the psalms as 'they sang hymns and praises to heaven, for he is g o o d and
his mercy endures for ever' (4: 24; c p . 4 : 3 3 ) . Similarly
(5) Judas returns from a military campaign (1 M a c e . 5: 4 5 - 5 4 ; Josephus,
A J 1 2 : 3481), passing through Judaea ( 5 : 45) to mount Zion with singing
and finally undertaking sacrificial activity. In Josephus's words, 'they came
to Judaea, playing harps and singing songs o f praise and observing such
forms o f merrymaking as are customary at celebrations o f a victory'
( 1 2 : 3 4 9 ) , while 1 M a c e . 4 : 5 5 puts it thus: 'All the people fell on their faces
and worshipped and blessed heaven w h o had prospered them.'
(6) Jonathan Maccabaeus is welcomed in Askalon (1 M a c e . 1 0 : 8 6 ; c p .
1 1 : 60) without the expected struggle, so the emergence o f the men o f the
city 'to meet him with great p o m p (ev bo%r\ \ktyakr\Y clearly implies their
acceptance o f his authority.
(7) Simon Maccabaeus enters Gaza (1 M a c e . 1 3 : 4 3 - 8 ) , having already
had his status and authority defined (verse 4 2 ) . Conflict having given way
to peace, Simon expels idolatrous inhabitants (verses 4 7 b , 4 8 ) , cleanses
idolatrous houses (verse 4 7 b ) and enters the city 'with hymns and praise
(i>|jivd>v xai EvXoyibvy. In a similar vein,
(8) Simon enters Jerusalem (1 M a c e . 1 3 : 4 9 - 5 1 ) , peace having again
replaced conflict. T h e pattern o f expulsion o f inhabitants (verse 5 0 b ) ,
cleansing away pollution (verse 5 0 b ) , and triumphal entry is repeated,
though the celebrations are described in unusual detail: 'they entered with
praise and palm branches, and with harps and cymbals and stringed
instruments and with hymns and songs' (verse 5 1 ) . T h e situation in (7) and
(8) is summarised later in 1 M a c e . 1 4 : 7 as an activation o f lordship
(exuQieuoev) which is unopposed, as well as involving a removal o f
uncleanness.
(9) Antigonus returns from a campaign (BJ 1: 73f; AJ 13: 3 0 4 - 6 ) with
glory, accompanied by soldiers and clothed splendidly, to such an extent
that his going to the T e m p l e becomes the occasion for criticism: 'out o f
keeping with the behaviour o f a private person . . . his actions had the
indications o f one w h o imagined himself a king' ( 3 0 6 ) .
(10) Marcus Agrippa is welcomed in Jerusalem (Josephus, AJ
1 6 : 1 2 - 1 5 ) , having been met by Herod and brought to the city; the people at
 T h e 'triumphal' entry 321

large meet him and welcome him with acclamations prior to his entry and
his offering o f sacrifice.
( 1 1 ) Archelaus, having been provisionally appointed king by Herod
(Josephus, AJ 1 7 : 1 9 4 - 2 3 9 ) and acclaimed as king by his adherents in
Jericho, goes to Jerusalem and the Temple in procession. T h e initial
acclamation is combined with an invocation o f G o d as helper ( 1 9 5 ; c p . BJ
1: 5 7 0 ) . In the T e m p l e he offers sacrifice and acts in a manner sufficiently
regal to provoke later accusations that he had taken power and unduly
infringed upon Caesar's authority to bestow the kingship. Specifically he
had sat upon a throne and 'had danced and sung as over a fallen enemy'
( 2 3 5 ) , as well as quelling riots in kingly style.
( 1 2 ) Alexander's 'double' claims kingship (BJ 2: 1 0 1 - 1 0 ; AJ 1 7 : 3 2 4 - 8 )
and is given a formal welcome by the Jewish population in R o m e , o f all
places. T h e y g o to meet him and surround him, shouting good wishes,
while he is said to have 'all the trappings o f a king' ( 3 3 1 ) .
It thus proves possible to locate the Gospel tradition of Jesus's triumphal
entry within a family o f stories, all members o f which exhibit to a greater or
lesser degree the following standard features: (a) A victory already achieved
and a status already recognised for the central person, (b) A formal and
ceremonial entry, (c) Greetings and/or acclamations together with
invocations o f G o d . (d) Entry to the city climaxed by entry to T e m p l e , if the
city in question has one. (e) Cultic activity, either positive (e.g. offering o f
sacrifice), or negative (e.g. expulsion o f objectionable persons and the
cleansing away o f uncleanness). Mark 11 contains all these major and
recurrent features. It also contains minor agreements with occasional
features o f some o f the other stories, for example, the reference to the royal
animal (1 Kings 1: 3 5 ; Z e c h . 9: 9 ) , the use of the language o f the psalms (see
4 a b o v e ) , the use o f the xlJQtoc; word group (see 7, 8 a b o v e ) , an earlier
decisive event in Jericho (see 1 1 a b o v e ) . Mark's story thus conforms to a
familiar pattern in respect o f both its determinative shape and some o f its
incidental details.
At this point reference ought also to be made to versions o f this story
other than that in Mark. John's version ( 1 2 : 1 2 - 1 9 ) , which, in the view o f
some, may be using an independent non-Markan tradition, works within
the same circle o f ideas. O n c e the typical Johannine features of
resurrection-inspired recall and reflection are subtracted, as well as the
Johannine-redactional link with the Lazarus story, we find ourselves
confronted with a story which merely develops details or draws out
implications from the synoptic versions: (a) T h e branches used are
specified as palm branches (xct ( 3 a i a xd>v qpotvixcov) - a natural inference
in view o f texts which see the symbols o f kingship as variously crown plus
322 DAVID R. CATCHPOLE

1
Patov (i M a c e . 1 3 : 3 7 ) or crown plus qpoivi^ (2 M a c e . 1 4 : 4 ; c p . Rev. 7: 9 ) ;
(b) the acclaiming crowd comes out from Jerusalem, rather than explicitly
accompanying him into the city - again a natural adaptation, given both
John's Jerusalem-centredness and the frequency o f the references in other
texts to the welcoming delegation (see 1, 2, 3, 6, 1 0 , 1 2 above and also 1
2
Mace. I I : 2 ) ; (c) Zech. 9 : 9 is explicitly cited in 1 2 : 1 5 as in Matt. 2 1 : 5
which, whether or not John is aware o f Matthew, is in each o f the two
Gospels a natural and indeed necessary inference from the form o f the
tradition used by Mark. As far as Matthew/Luke are concerned there is no
evidence o f any non-Markan source. Only at two points might the
suspicion arise that MattR and LukeR prove inadequate to explain
M a t t h e w / M a r k or Luke/Mark variations, that is, the correspondence
between aivog (Matt. 21:16) and aiveiv (Luke 19:37), and the
correspondence in the personalising o f the shout o f acclamation (Matt.
2 1 : 9/Luke 1 9 : 3 8 ) . These are, however, no indication of alternative Q-type
tradition. In the first case, atvog in Matt. 2 1 : 1 6 is part o f a quotation from
Psalm 8: 2 and is a natural term to use in the overall setting o f an entry
tradition (cp. 1 Mace. 1 3 : 5 1 : \iExa aiveoeog); LukeR has already
introduced aivog in 1 8 : 4 3 diff Mark 10:52. In the second case, the
personalising is an inevitable inference from Mark's version and matches
the preoccupation with the status o f the leader in other members o f the
family o f such stories; that is, the Matthew/Luke agreement is not an
agreement against Mark.
There being no grounds for concentrating on any version o f the
triumphal entry other than Mark's, we can now discuss briefly the
implications o f the formal analysis, and then g o on to examine how Mark
works in a distinctive way within the standard form. First, it is evident that
all such stories presuppose an already achieved victory; they d o not
describe a first move or the opening o f a campaign designed to achieve a
future victory. O n any level, whether Markan or pre-Markan, the absence
of any previous social/political conquest places a fatal question-mark
against the idea, whether originally suggested by H . S. Reimarus that 'this
extraordinary public parade which Jesus not only permitted, but
industriously organised, could aim at nothing other than a secular
3
k i n g d o m ' , or more recently by S . G . F . Brandon that Jesus's actions were

1
O n p a l m s as s y m b o l s o f victory, c p . B . A . M a s t i n , ' T h e D a t e o f the T r i u m p h a l
Entry', NTSt 16 (1969), 7gf.
2
W i d e s p r e a d oriental c u s t o m is involved here, c p . J u d . 11: 34; P r o v . 7: 15; T o b i t 7: 1;
J u d i t h 7 : 1 5 ; W i s d . o f Sol. 6: 16; Sira 15:2; 1 M a c e . 9: 39; 1 T h e s s . 4: 17. T h e r e f o r e it
is doubtful w h e t h e r the s c h e m e should b e confined to 'the joyful reception o f H e l ­
lenistic sovereigns into a city': R . E. B r o w n , The Gospel according to John I-XII ( N e w
Y o r k , 1966), p p . 46if. See also E. Peterson, d j i d v i n o i g , ThWNT'x, 380 ( E T TDNT
3
i ('964)* 38of)- The Goal of Jesus and his Disciples ( L e i d e n , 1970), p . 92.
 T h e 'triumphal' entry 323

'obviously calculated to cause the authorities, both Jewish and R o m a n , to

4
view him and his movement as subversive'. T o the contrary, on the
Markan level the presupposed victory is clearly that gained by healings, o f
which Mark 1 0 : 4 6 - 5 2 is intended as a typical example - an interpretation
to which all three other evangelists adhere in their various ways - while on
the pre-Markan level (supposing there is one) the story could not d o other
than receive its interpretative frame of reference from what Jesus is thought
to have done previously. Specifically, this implies that, since there is
unmistakable kingly messianic colouring in the story, the decision about its
historicity will depend not only on its internal viability but also very
directly on the extent to which Jesus's pre-entry activity as a whole can
justifiably be regarded as messianic. Second, it is apparent that a standard
element in the entry stories is movement to the T e m p l e . That being so, our
discussion cannot be concluded without coverage o f the so-called cleansing
of the T e m p l e (Mark 1 1 : 1 5 - 1 9 ) . O n the Markan level, the enclosing o f this
unit within the two parts o f the tradition o f the cursing o f the fig-tree is
5
typical o f the evangelist's redactional technique, used on this occasion to
make the T e m p l e incident an act o f judgement, while on the pre-Markan
level (again supposing there is one) the question will arise as to h o w far
there is o f necessity the same messianic presupposition as for the earlier
material.
T h e Markan entry story is divisible into two sections, in the first o f which
the initiative is wholly taken by Jesus (verses i ~ 7 a ) , while in the second all
the actions are taken by Jesus's associates (verses 7 0 - 1 0 ) . This ordering o f
events serves to indicate that the actions o f others are here silently endorsed
by Jesus and seen as the correct inference from his own actions. T h e claims
of others that he is a messianic figure are nothing less than his own claim to
such a status. His own actions are entirely concentrated upon the obtaining
of the appropriate animal, described by Mark as nuAog. By that word
6
Mark intends 'an ass'. That this is a very special animal is indicated by
three factors, (a) Jesus knows about it and its precise circumstances without
being himself*'?* situ; (b) he knows, moreover, that it has never previously
been used; (c) he names himself the lord o f the animal, for that is the
appropriate inference from the declaration that 6 xuQiog avxov %geiav
7
e / e i . T h e first o f these features is presented by a speech whose terms allude

4
Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p . 324.
5
See E. v o n D o b s c h i i t z , ' Z u r Erzahlerkunst des M a r k u s ' , ZNW 27 (1928), 193-8.
6
H . - W . K u h n , ' D a s Reittier in d e r Einzugsgeschichte des M a r k u s e v a n g e l i u m s ' ,
ZNW50 (1959), 82-91; otherwise, W . Bauer, ' T h e " C o l t " o f P a l m S u n d a y ' , JBL 72
(1953), 220-9.
7
J . D . M . Derrett, ' L a w in the N e w T e s t a m e n t : the Palm S u n d a y C o l t ' , NovTest 13
(1971), 241-58, esp. 245-7.
324 D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E

extensively to the established practice o f impressment (dyYCXQeia). In an

extensive study o f this section Derrett has drawn attention to the loosing o f
the animal without formal request (verses 2, 4 ) , the loosing as the act o f
borrowing and o f taking responsibility for the animal because it is tied in
8
the open street (verses 2 - 4 ) , need as a sufficient justification for
impressment (verses 3, 6 ) , the owners' recognition o f their obligation to
release the animal (verse 6 ) , and the hint o f a defined period o f time during
which the arrangement would last (verse 3 ) . All these details give
verisimilitude to the story, but they all belong to a speech by Jesus which is
both predictive and a demonstration o f his authoritative control - in short,
it is christologically determined. T h e second feature, the newness o f the
animal, is mentioned in such a way as to register the possibility that the ass
might have been used, a possibility amply attested by many and diverse
texts (see, for example, 1 Kings 1 3 : 1 3 ; Josephus, AJ 5: 1 3 8 and 6: 3 0 1 ; R H
1 : 9 ; Martyrdom of Polycarp 8: 1 ) . Newness, rather than sacred separateness
along the lines o f N u m . 1 9 : 2 ; Deut. 2 1 : 3 ; 1 Sam. 6 : 7 as sometimes
suggested, is confirmed as the intended meaning by Mark 1 1 : 7 where
clothing is laid on the animal in place o f the usual trappings which went
with an ass already in use (see BB 5 : 2; T o h . 3: 7 ) . T h e reference to the
animal's not having been previously used recalls not only the similar detail
in the burial traditions (Matt. 2 7 : 6 0 ; Luke 2 3 : 5 3 ; J o h n 1 9 : 4 1 ) but also the
rabbinic insistence (Sanh. 2: 5 ) that no one should use the animal on which
a king rides. A b o v e all, it matches the word v e o £ in Zech. 9 : 9 ( L X X , but
9
not M T ) . O n the Markan level it conforms to a theological pattern which
involves Jesus doing what others have not done or cannot d o (cp. 1: 27f; 2 : 7;
4 : 4 1 ; 5 : 3 - 5 ) . Again, therefore, a detail o f the story is christologically
determined. Finally, the third feature represents a confirmation o f the
christological sensitivity o f the other details. Jesus as lord takes charge o f
the ass which belongs to him. H e can be none other than the figure o f
Zech. 9 : 9 . A story rightly characterised by O . Michel as 'already full o f
10
mysterious links' with Z e c h . 9 : 9 points in a manner subdued but
significant to the status o f its central actor. H e is already the king.
The actions o f Jesus's associates (verses 7 0 - 1 0 ) demonstrate that they
have understood and accepted the implications. Their response to the
animal's newness has already been mentioned. Jesus's taking his place
upon the ass is followed by two specific acts o f homage, the placing o f

8
T h e fact that this detail is integral to the i m p r e s s m e n t s c h e m e makes p r e c a r i o u s a
suggested allusion to G e n . 49: n , c p . J. B l e n k i n s o p p , ' T h e O r a c l e o f j u d a h a n d the
Messianic Entry\JBL 80 (1961), 55-64.
9
F. H a h n , Christologische Hoheitstitel (3rd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1966), p p . 87f ( E T The Titles
ofJesus in Christology ( L o n d o n , 1969), p . 83).
l 0
6 v o g , TDNTx (1967), 283-7, esp. 286.
 The 'triumphal' entry 325

clothing on the road and the cutting o f branches. Again christology is

involved in both, for the placing of clothing on the ground was a response to
the announcement of Jehu's kingship (2 Kings 9: 13) and was followed by a
further formal proclamation, J e h u is king'. Similarly the use of branches in
acclamation ritual is a following o f precedent (see 1 M a c e . 1 3 : 5 1 ) . All o f
this prepares for the crescendo in verses gf. T h e deliberateness with which
the ass is obtained and then used for the short journey to the city is
reinforced by the formality o f the procession in which Jesus is preceded
and followed by the confessing crowd (cp. JtQodyeiv 4- &xoX.ou0eiv in a
processional context: Josephus BJ 1: 6 7 3 ; AJ 7: 40). T h e confession itself is
constructed on the foundation o f Psalm 1 1 8 : 2 5 ^ originally a prayer for
salvation and a greeting, a real communication o f blessing, to the arriving
pilgrims. But now there is more involved than that foundation. A chiastic
form puts two EQXsa6cu statements between two (boavvd calls, and the
second EQ%eoQai statement gives precise meaning to the first. T h e coming
of the Davidic kingdom is more than a mere spatial movement by a
11
pilgrim. Space has given way to time, geography to eschatology, and all in
the interests o f christology. T h e future king is the present Jesus!
As already mentioned, the decision about the historicity o f the story
depends in part on its internal viability. Tn this connection the unity o f the
tradition is almost certain. T h e precedents for celebratory entry stories are
sufficiently often indifferent to the method o f transport that one could
justifiably ask whether the later part o f the story which is closest to the
precedents (verses 8 - 1 0 ) genuinely needs the earlier part whose dominant
concern is the ass (verses 1 - 7 ) . Yet the later part is fully integrated with the
earlier part by means o f the c o m m o n christology, and the later part must
therefore share the vulnerability o f the earlier part to historical criticism.
The verisimilitude of verses 1 - 7 by virtue of the unlaboured, almost casual,
employment o f impressment motifs can be no protection, for a tradition
does not have to lack verisimilitude to be unhistorical. Consequently
several essential features o f the story excite critical doubts: Does not the
precise parallelism o f this tradition with that o f Mark 1 4 : 1 2 - 1 6 suggest a
stereotyped form? Does not Jesus's awareness o f the existence, the
circumstances, and the pre-history o f the animal amount, in Bultmann's
12
words, to the 'manifestly legendary'? Does not the thoroughness o f the
christological impregnation o f the story suggest the creative, rather than
merely the interpretative, role of scripture? But with that third question we
begin to move towards the topic o f what might be called the external

11
It m a y well be that Psalm 118: 25$had already been interpreted messianically: c p .
E. L o h s e , ' H o s i a n n a ' , NovTest 6 (1963), 1 1 3 - 1 9 .
12
The History of the Synoptic Tradition ( O x f o r d , 1963), p . 261.
326 D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E

relations o f this tradition to other messianic traditions with which it may,

indeed must, cohere. Here one must again emphasise that a celebratory
entry, precisely because it looks backwards to preceding events, cannot
survive without another earlier event containing an identical christology.
For such a role there is only one candidate, the confession o f Peter at
Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8 : 2 7 - 3 0 ) , whose historicity is therefore vitally
necessary for the historicity o f Mark 1 1 : 1 - 1 0 .
Formally, Mark 8: 2 7 - 3 0 is structured antithetically so that a series o f
incorrect identifications o f j e s u s by men in general (verses 2 7 b , 28) is set
over against an alternative identification o f j e s u s by the disciple group
represented by Peter (verse 2 9 ) . This alternative identification o f j e s u s as
'messiah' must, on the Markan level, be viewed as entirely correct for
13
several reasons. Firstly, the identification is the subject o f a secrecy
c o m m a n d (verse 3 0 ) , and secrecy commands in Mark, far from implying a
rejection o f what has previously been stated, in fact presuppose that it is
exactly right ( c p . 3: 1 1 reinforced by 1: 11 and 9: 7 ) . Secondly, Mark has
already confirmed in 1: 1 the accuracy o f the confession o f Peter. Thirdly,
the form o f the tradition itself requires that the inaccurate views stated in
verse 28 should not be set antitithetically over against another inaccurate
view but rather against an opposite and accurate view, and this formal
requirement is reinforced by the sharp contrast between the two groups
whose views are here surveyed. Not even the suggestion (in itself insecurely
grounded) o f a Markan critique o f the disciples, nor the argument that
14
8: 3 1 - 3 forces 8: 2 7 - 9 to register a critique of a 0eiog avrj@ christology, can
weaken this conclusion. Given, therefore, the endorsement o f Peter's
confession at the Markan level, the question arises as to what may have
been true at the pre-Markan level, that is, if there was one. A t this point we
have necessarily in the post-Wrede period to ignore the secrecy injunction
in verse 3 0 , but then two options become available. T h e first is to note the
probably secondary and Markan character of verses 3 i f and to infer that in
verse 3 3 there is preserved an original pre-Markan conclusion to the unit
1 5
involving verses 2 7 - 9 , and the second is to consider verses 2 7 - 9 without
reference to verse 3 3 at all. These options coalesce, however, in the light o f
some considerations affecting verse 3 3 itself. Firstly, even if it were
pre-Markan or even historical this would not demonstrate the historicity o f

1 3
E. H a e n c h e n , ' D i e K o m p o s i t i o n v o n M k 8.27-9.1 und par.', NovTest 6 (1963),
81-108, esp. 89f: ' M a n tragt in seinen T e x t etwas F r e m d e s ein, w e n n m a n das
Bekenntnis d e r Christenheit " D u bist der C h r i s t u s ! " in M u n d e des Petrus z u m
A u s d r u c k einer falschen Christuserwartung erniedrigt.'
1 4
T . J . W e e d e n , Mark-Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia, 1971), p p . 32-4.
1 5
H a h n , Hoheitstitel, p p . 227f ( E T Titles, p p . 224Q; R . H . Fuller, The Foundations of New
Testament Christology ( L o n d o n , 1965), p . 109.
 T h e 'triumphal' entry 327

verses 2 7 - 9 , which must stand up to scrutiny in their own right. Secondly,

the negativity o f verse 3 3 vis-a-vis Peter is certainly fierce and could (if
16
supporting evidence were forthcoming) even be taken as authentic, but it
fits easily into the Markan scheme in which the disciples' misunderstanding
is inevitable and christologically conditioned, precisely as a pointer to the
reader that in Jesus something is happening which is, in the style o f
apocalyptic, wholly other and wholly beyond man's capacity to understand
except through revelation. Thirdly, it stretches credulity to suppose that
any community influenced by the confession that Jesus is messiah could
possibly transmit a tradition in which Jesus vigorously disputed that
confession.
W e have, therefore, to assess the possibilities o f a pre-Markan existence
and o f substantial historicity in the case o f 8: 2 7 - 9 alone. Neither o f these
possibilities turns out to be particularly well grounded. Firstly, the
geographical reference to Caesarea Philippi (verse 2 7 a ) cannot carry
17
weight, for geographical references within the gospel tradition at large
fluctuate markedly. Secondly, the list o f incorrect opinions ofjesus (verse
28) is clearly related to the list in 6: 1 4 - 1 6 . In more precise terms 6: 1 4 - 1 6 ,
because it lists none but incorrect opinions - there is no antithetical
structure there as in 8: 2 7 - 9 , since Herod simply selects one o f the wrong
interpretations - and because it could scarcely exist as a separate unit
serving a purpose within Christian tradition, is dependent on and an
interpretation o f verse 2 8 . Significantly, it serves to highlight the
artificiality of verse 2 8 , especially in the case o f the suggestion that Jesus is
J o h n the Baptist. Four component ideas are severely open to question: first,
that one person's activities could only be explained on the basis of his being
another person in resurrected form; second, that Herod should anticipate
the Christian scheme whereby a general eschatological experience
envisaged by apocalyptic should here be brought forward in the case o f a
specific known individual; third, that the previously executed John in
particular should be regarded by him as the person now revived; fourth,
that the non-miracle-working J o h n could in any sense provide a strand o f
continuity through to a miracle-working Jesus. In sum, the list o f opinions
concerning the identity o f j e s u s reflects no real historical situation either
before or after Easter but is an artificial construction serving christological
ends. Thirdly, the raising by the Markan Jesus o f the question about his
identity is itself at variance with the concerns o f the mission of the historical
Jesus. It fits uneasily with the theocentric proclamation o f the near
kingdom, whereas its fits smoothly and easily with the recurrent Markan

1 6
H a h n , Hoheitstitel, p . 227 ( E T Titles, p . 224).
17
E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark ( L o n d o n , 1971), p . 171.
328 D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E

tendency to make various happenings provoke the question o f w h o Jesus

is (see, for example, 1 : 2 7 ; 4 : 4 1 ; 6 : 2 ; 1 4 : 6 1 ; 1 5 : 2 ) It looks suspiciously
like a situation in which a question, instead o f generating an affirmation,
is in fact generated by it. Fourthly, verse 2 9 contains a bald, precise
and direct christological affirmation in the form oil El . . . This is ex­
actly in the style o f 1: 11 and 3 : 1 1 and closely approximate t o i : 2 4 ; 1 4 : 6if;
15:2,39- y m

The evidence seems, therefore, to point towards the conclusion that

Mark 8: 2 7 - 3 0 is a Markan construction serving the purposes o f Markan
theology. If some pre-Markan influence contributed to the production o f
such a tradition it may be that Peter's having been the first to see the risen
one w h o was in that context affirmed to be XQtorog (1 C o r . 1 5 : 3 0 - 5 )
provided such influence. But in itself 8: 2 7 - 3 0 does not emerge from a
pre-Easter context, and it therefore leaves the tradition o f the triumphal
entry stranded.
At this point a rearguard action in defence o f the historicity o f Mark
1 1 : 1 - 1 0 might be mounted somewhat as follows: If Jesus was crucified as a
messianic claimant with the R o m a n definition o f his offence defined by the
titulus on the cross, then some earlier encouragement of the view that he was
messiah must have occurred. T h e alternative would be a situation in which
18
Pilate would be the creator o f christology. Might the historicity o f Mark
1 1 : 1 - 1 0 be salvaged along these lines?
The Markan narrative of the crucifixion uses several christological terms
of which 'the king o f the Jews', 'Messiah' and 'the king o f Israel' are clearly
synonyms ( 1 5 : 2 6 , 3 2 ) , all of them being gathered into the term 'son of G o d '
with which the climax is reached ( 1 5 : 3 9 ) . T h e titulus itself draws upon the
material in 1 5 : 2 , 6 - 1 5 , 1 6 - 2 0 within which 6 |3aaiX£i)g TuYv Tovdaicov
language recurs repeatedly. In the case o f 1 5 : 2 we clearly encounter
19
secondary material in context since (a) the specific question asked by
Pilate receives no preparation in 1 5 : 1 and appears abruptly; (b) the
generalised accusation noKka in 1 5 : 3 might more naturally occur before,
rather than after, a specific charge; (c) the answer o f j e s u s in 1 5 : 2 is at
variance with the presupposition o f silence in 1 5 : 4f. Not only is 1 5 : 2
secondary in context but also of doubtful historicity. T h e terminology used
by Pilate aligns Jesus with Jewish kings in general (see Josephus, BJ 1: 282;
AJ 1 4 : 3 6 ; 1 5 : 373f, 4 0 9 ; 1 6 : 2 9 1 , 3 1 1 , for example) and it is hard to imagine
a R o m a n procurator during a king-less period using such language. T h e
question and answer combination belongs to the context o f Christian
confession and probably reflects Mark's own technique, in spite o f the fact
1 8
O . Betz, ' D i e Frage n a c h d e m messianischen Bewusstsein J e s u ' , NovTest6 (1963),
20-48, esp. 34.
1 9
B u l t m a n n , History, p . 272.
 T h e 'triumphal' entry 329

20
that 'king o f the Jews' is not strongly attested in Christian texts - though
here we should allow for the precedent in Matt. 2: 2, in which context it is
immediately defined by more typical ideas ( 2 : 4 - 6 ) , just as happens to
2 1
Mark 1 5 : 2 in its own context ( 1 5 : 2 7 - 3 9 ) . Mark 1 5 : 6 - 1 5 presupposes
1 5 : 2 and makes kingship its major theme, but it is also weighed d o w n by
the familiar objections to the whole Barabbas tradition and by the clear
evidence o f an attempt to make Pilate a witness to the innocence ofjesus.
Mark 1 5 : 1 6 - 2 0 pursues the same theme in such a way that the claim o f
Jesus is subjected to ironic parody. Mark 1 5 : 2 6 itself could be omitted from
2 2
its context and allow a smooth connection between verses 2 5 and 2 7 , but
support for its historicity is found above all in its greater claim to
verisimilitude than that of any o f the other 'king of the Jews' texts. T h e idea
o f a titulus corresponds extremely closely to the practice documented in
Cassius D i o , Roman History 54.3.7; Suetonius, Gaius Caligula 3 2 . 2 ;
Suetonius, Domitian 1 0 ; Eusebius, H.E. V 1.434. But one must also observe
that, as previously mentioned, verisimilitude does not demonstrate
historicity, and, moreover, the precise wording used in 1 5 : 2 6 has still to be
scrutinised in relation to the related material in the surrounding context. In
this connection, 1 5 : 2 6 provides a starting point for a complex o f material
( 1 5 : 2 7 - 3 9 ) which conforms schematically to the pattern exhibited very
2 3
clearly in W i s d o m 2, 4 - 5 . Like the righteous man, Jesus has made certain
claims which form the basis o f hostile action (Wisd. 2 : 1 3 , 1 6 - 1 8 , 2 0 ; Mark
1 5 : 2 9 , 3 2 ; c p . 1 4 : 5 8 , 61 f). Like the righteous man, Jesus must be vindicated
before death if his opponents are to be convinced (Wisd. 2 : 17f; Mark 1 5 : 3 0 ,
3 2 ) . Like the righteous man, Jesus is maltreated, subjected to legal
proceedings - and he dies! (Wisd. 4 : 1 6 ; Mark 1 5 : 3 7 ) . Like the righteous
man, Jesus is recognised by his enemies as 'son o f G o d ' (Wisd. 5: 5 ; Mark
: a n e a
* 5 39)? id which includes the notion o f kingship (Wisd. 3 : 8 ; Mark
1 5 : 2 6 , 3 2 ) . Like the righteous man, therefore, Jesus is vindicated and his
claims confirmed, the only difference being that the enemies o f the
righteous man make their confession in the setting o f a disclosure/
revelation o f heavenly existence (Wisd. 4 : 2 0 to 5 : 8 ) whereas the
representative o f the enemies o f j e s u s does so with particular emphasis at
the scene o f death (Mark 1 5 : 3 9 ) . That means that the Markan narrative

2 0
Historicity is affirmed o n the basis o f the unusual terminology b y P. W i n t e r , On the
Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p p . 107-10; E. L o h s e , Die Geschichte des Leidens und
Sterbens Jesu Christi (Giitersloh, 1964), p . 89; Fuller, Foundations, p . 135.
2 1
C o m p a r e the s y n o n y m o u s a p p l i c a t i o n to D a v i d o f the t w o terms PaoiXeug
'Iou&aiwv and PaoiXeiig xdrv 'IoQaTiXixwv in Josephus, AJ 7: 72, 76.
2 2
E. L i n n e m a n n , Studien zur Passionsgeschichte ( G o t t i n g e n , 1970), p . 147.
2 3
C p . G . W . E . N i c k e l s b u r g , Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental
Judaism ( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , 1972), p p . 58-68.
33° D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E

uses a semi-adoptionist scheme but projects back before resurrection that

which, strictly speaking, presupposes resurrection. It is to such a scheme
that 1 5 : 2 6 contributes, and it is by virtue o f such a scheme, which Mark has
imposed with some tension on the crucifixion tradition, that the historicity
24
of the titulus has to be d o u b t e d . At the hands o f Mark the historical fact o f
the crucifixion o f j e s u s has been subordinated to the less historical idea o f
the crucifixion ofjesus the king of the Jews. A n d that in turn means that the
historicity o f Mark 1 1 : 1 - 1 0 cannot be sustained, either on the basis o f the
tradition o f an earlier event in the pre-Easter sequence (8: 2 7 - 3 0 ) , or on the
basis o f an appeal to the ground o f his ultimate execution ( 1 5 : 2 6 ) . That
Jesus went to Jerusalem is certain, and to that minimal extent one could
affirm historicity. Whether he was greeted like all other pilgrims with the
25
words o f Psalm 1 i 8 : 2 5 f , and/or whether an intensity o f expectation o f
26
the kingdom o f G o d was apparent in his companions, must remain
speculative and uncertain.
The review o f a series of celebratory entry stories suggested that action in
the T e m p l e was a frequently attested component o f the c o m m o n pattern.
Therefore the significance o f the so-called 'cleansing o f the T e m p l e '
tradition must be explored. Three preliminary observations must first be
made. Firstly, although the celebratory entry scheme includes the element
of T e m p l e activity, the record o f the latter is not necessarily rendered
unhistorical by a conclusion that the entry proper is, as presently described,
unhistorical. Arrival in Jerusalem (stated or presupposed) as a prelude to
action in the T e m p l e could easily have been expanded christologically to
form a fitting introduction. In short, Mark 1 1 : 1 5 - 1 9 has to be examined
without prejudice. Secondly, M a r k R is responsible for the enclosing o f the
tradition o f Jesus's T e m p l e activity within the tradition of the cursing o f the
fig-tree and therefore for the bridge-statement in verse 1 1 . Verse 11 a clearly
overlaps with, and may be an echo of, verse 1 5 a . Verse n b , if properly
attributed to Mark R, is not available to support the suggestion o f Brandon
that JieQipX,e\j)dp,evog Jtdvxa hints a t ' ( ? ) an act o f reconnoitring for action
on the morrow', action which would directly challenge priestly interests
27
and indirectly attack Roman authority. Thirdly, Mark's version o f the
tradition can again safely be regarded as the primary one. Matthew/Luke
agreements are confined to the affirmative, as against interrogative,
introduction to the quotation from Isaiah 5 6 : 7 and the absence of the words
jrdorv xoig EBVEOTV. Such agreements cannot sustain any suggestion o f an

2 4
Similarly, B u l t m a n n , History, p . 284.
2 5
H a h n , Hoheitstitel, p . 172 ( E T Titles, p . 156).
2 6
B u l t m a n n , History, p . 262.
2 7
T h u s , B r a n d o n , Zealots, p p . 9, 333. N o t e that JieQiPA.ejr.eiv o c c u r s in the N e w
T e s t a m e n t seven times, o f w h i c h six are M a r k a n .
 T h e 'triumphal' entry 331

independent source. John's version, with its much more elaborate list of the
items for sale, its more colourful description o f Jesus's intervention, and its
significantly different version o f Jesus's saying about the house o f G o d ,
might be independent. O n the other hand, the greater detail may be a
secondary development, and if the Jioieiv-saying in Mark 1 1 : 1 7 is
secondary in its own context as well as matching the Jioieiv-saying in John
2: 1 6 b , then the Johannine tradition could well presuppose secondary
developments in the Markan tradition and therefore emerge as dependent.
However, the choice between these two options is not critical since it is
unlikely that the ultimate meaning o f the traditions is affected. There is no
more than minimal risk involved in working from Mark 1 1 : 1 5 - 1 9 .
Within the section Mark 1 1 : 1 5 - 1 9 clearly not all the tradition can be
primary. N o contribution, except as a transition, is made by verse 1 9 , while
verse 1 8 has to be adjudged M a r k R in view o f its matching the M a r k R
passages 1 : 2 2 ; 3 : 6 . In verse 1 7 an antithesis is set up between o i x o g
ngooEvyi]!; and o j i r | X . a i o v XflOTcbv. This is done on the basis o f the
juxtaposition o f Isa. 5 6 : 7 and Jer. 7: 1 1 , the latter probably being attracted
to the former by the correspondence between 6 o i x o g [iov . . . xXr)6rjoeTCU
and 6 0 1 x 6 5 \iov . . . eJUXExXrjtca as a result o f which the latter phrase is
28 29
suppressed. Whether verse 1 7 has 'hit on Jesus' p u r p o s e ' can only be
decided by testing whether the activity which Jesus interrupts so
dramatically has changed an o i x o g Jioooevxfjc; into a OJif|Xaiov XTIOXWV.
In other words everything hangs on verses 15^ interpreted in isolation first
of all.
It would be tempting to interpret Mark 1 1 : 1 6 in terms of Josephus, C.
Apion 2: 106: 'one further point: no vessel whatever might be carried into the
temple, the only objects in which were an altar, a censer and a lampstand,
all mentioned in the law'. But Josephus is speaking about the holy place
whereas Mark is not. M o r e significantly, the term OXEIJOC; should not be
over-interpreted as a reference to any o f the holy vessels, as if Jesus is here
interfering with regular cultic activity. T h e term is frequently used in an
entirely secular sense, carrying a range of meanings which includes military
equipment, jewellery, baggage, undefined property in general, and
30
containers which may be used for any purpose. Since Mark 1 1 : 1 6 is
defined by the preceding statement in verse 1 5 the natural inference is that

2 8
N o t e that JI&OTV x o i g eGveoiv (verse 17a), although in Isa. 56: 7 and d o u b t l e s s o f
c o n s i d e r a b l e interest to M a r k ( c p . 13: 10), has n o counterpart in verse 17b.
T h e r e f o r e there is n o contrast intended b e t w e e n the use o f the T e m p l e b y Gentiles
and its use b y J e w s ( c p . 1 M a c e . 7:37; 3 M a c e . 2: 10).
2 9
F. H a h n , Das Verstandnis der Mission im Neuen Testament ( N e u k i r c h e n , 1963), p . 30
( E T Mission in the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1965), p . 38), w h o nevertheless argued
that the d o u b l e citation w a s s e c o n d a r y .
3 0
C . M a u r e r , o x e v o g , TDNT vii (1971), 358-67, esp. 359.
332 D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E

31
oxefiog refers to any container being used by those w h o bought or sold. A
closer parallel than the Josephus text would be Neh. 1 3 : 8, where Jidvxa x d
axeim oixou belonging to T o b i a h , clearly standing for his property in
general, are thrown out o f the temple buildings by Nehemiah. Mark 1 1 : 1 6
32
describes an action by Jesus which does not (pace Jeremias) presuppose
'the occupation of the temple gates by his followers' but rather coheres with
the action described in verse 1 5 . H o w then may that action be interpreted?
Firstly, the scale o f Jesus's intervention must have been small. T h e
notion that Mark has reduced its size and significance lacks all evidential
support, and the idea that Jesus and his followers were attempting the
seizure o f the T e m p l e and treasury with a force 'too strong to be routed
33
and captured' defies all probability. H a d this been so, the silence o f
Josephus, w h o includes in his accounts many more trivial events than that
would have been, is inexplicable. Moreover, the speed and decisiveness o f
the intervention by the authorities to crush developments which threatened
public order had frequently been, and would continue to be, unvaried and
unrestrained. T h e arrest o f forty persons by the T e m p l e captain and a
considerable support force after the attack on Herod's golden eagle
(Josephus, BJ 1 : 6 5 1 - 3 ; AJ 1 7 * 1 5 5 - 6 3 ) , the determined suppression o f
those w h o mourned for Judas and Matthias in 4 B.C. when they were
perceived as a threat to social and political stability (BJ 2: 1 0 - 1 3 ; AJ
17:213-18), the beheading by Gratus o f Simon the usurper after his
campaign o f loot and arson (BJ 2: 5 7 - 9 ; AJ 1 7 : 1 7 3 - 7 ) , the eliminating o f
l
the leadership of the uprising by Athronges (BJ 2:60-554/ T- 2 7 8 - 8 4 ) , the
decisive intervention o f the Romans to arrest Paul (Acts 2 1 : 3 0 - 3 ) , the
arrest and execution without trial o f Theudas and his collaborators (AJ
20: 9 7 - 9 ) , the relentless efforts of the authorities to arrest the Egyptian false
prophet together with the swift elimination of his followers (BJ 2: 2 6 1 - 3 ; AJ
20: 1 6 9 - 7 2 ; Acts 2 1 : 38) - all these examples show the standard response o f
34
the authorities. In Jesus's case, however, they apparently did not respond.
Even when allowance is made for the Markan order as the product o f
editorial activity, and therefore for the possibility that the arrest occurred
rather more immediately after the T e m p l e incident, it remains critical that

3 1
C p . N . Q . H a m i l t o n , ' T e m p l e Cleansing and T e m p l e B a n k ' , JBL 83 (1964),
365-72, e s p . 370. T h i s is p r o b a b l y m o r e true to the link between verse 16 a n d verse
15 than the suggestion that Jesus w a s s t o p p i n g water carriers from taking a short
cut t h r o u g h the T e m p l e (J. J e r e m i a s , New Testament Theology I: The Proclamation of
Jesus ( E T L o n d o n , 1971), p . 145).
32
J e r e m i a s , Theology, p . 228.
3 3
B r a n d o n , Zealots, p p . 255-7, 33°~9- Against this, see E. T r o c m e , ' L ' e x p u l s i o n des
m a r c h a n d s d u temple', NTSt 15 (1968), 1-22, esp. I5f.
3 4
O n the thoroughness o f policing arrangements, c p . V . Eppstein, ' T h e Historicity o f
the G o s p e l a c c o u n t o f the cleansing o f the T e m p l e ' , ZNW55 (1964), 42-58, esp. 46f.
 T h e 'triumphal' entry 333

Jesus was not arrested straightaway or in situ, while the disciples were not
arrested at all. T h e action in the T e m p l e must therefore have been trivial in
35
size and, moreover, as Mark himself indicates, an action by Jesus alone.
Secondly, the act o f expulsion is definitive. As already noted, an act o f
expulsion is frequently a component o f the celebratory entry scheme. This
may throw light on the Markan scheme within which the entry has become
subject to christological reflection, but at the pre-Markan stage (if Mark
1 1 : 1 5 f belongs to such a stage) this would be less applicable. Moreover, the
expulsions listed earlier are essentially acts of cultic conservatism, designed
to re-establish traditional modes o f belief and worship, whereas Mark
1 1 : 1 5 belongs to a setting in which no inroads had previously been made
into the traditional practice o f Judaism. Indeed, as has frequently been
observed, the practice o f money-changing and selling doves could easily be
36
justified and was intended to facilitate the traditional practices. O n e
might then have recourse to the idea that a justifiable provision was being
used for purposes o f unjustifiable exploitation, for example, undue
profit-making or financial irregularity. But that idea suffers from two
handicaps: (a) There is no evidence o f such exploitation by the T e m p l e
authorities, so it remains only a theoretical possibility; (b) Jesus's
intervention does not protect the exploited buyers by expelling the
exploiting sellers, but instead both buyers and sellers are ejected. T h e
consequence is clear, and the intention therefore evident, in the fact that
after Jesus's intervention there is no longer trade as such in the T e m p l e .
T h e fulfilment o f an ancient text has in a temporary and preliminary way
been achieved: 'There shall no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord on
3 7
that day' (Zech. 1 4 : 2 1 b ) .
Thirdly, consideration must be given to the degree o f coherence which
may exist between verses 1 5 f and verse 1 7 . Had the citation o f Isa. 5 6 : 7
alone been employed, and had attention been given to context, the stress
would have had to be placed on Jidoiv xoig eBveoiv and the passage would
simply have been given a new application as an instrument o f polemic.
With the assimilated citation attached from Jer. 7: 1 1 , JI&OIV xoig eSveoiv

3 5
M . H e n g e l , Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Philadelphia, 1971), p . 16; Schweizer, Mark, p .
231. T h e suggestion o f H a m i l t o n , JBL 83 (1964), 37of, that J e s u s b y his act
s u s p e n d e d the w h o l e e c o n o m i c function o f the t e m p l e ' is p r o b a b l y c o r r e c t in
orientation but t o o u n g u a r d e d as far as the scale o f the event is c o n c e r n e d .
3 6
E . L o h m e y e r , ' D i e R e i n i g u n g des T e m p e l s ' , ThBl 20 (1941), 257-64, e s p . 259:
'Diese K o n z e s s i o n b r a c h t e w o h l ihren I n h a b e r n . . . reiche G e w i n n e , aber sie diente
a u c h d a z u , d e n vielen Pilgern aus d e m Inland o d e r A u s l a n d ihre G e l i i b d e und
O p f e r ausserlich zu erleichtern.' Similarly, Eppstein, ZNW 55 (1964), 43;
Schweizer, Mark, p . 233.
3 7
C . R o t h , ' T h e C l e a n s i n g o f the T e m p l e a n d Z e c h a r i a h X I V 2 1 ' , NovTest 4 (i960),
174-81; T r o c m e , NTSt 15 (1968), 18.
334 D A V I D R. C A T C H P O L E

moves out of the spotlight, as it were, and is replaced by the antithesis 0 1 x 0 5

nQOoevx^OKr\katov Xflorcbv. Yet this polemical antithesis scarcely does
justice to the situation described in verses I 5 f , where the T e m p l e can
38
scarcely be said to have been prevented from being a house o f prayer, any
more than it can appropriately be labelled a cave o f rebels in either
Jeremiah's sense o f a citadel o f hypocritical worship by idolaters or in the
later sense o f a stronghold o f revolutionaries ( c p . Josephus, AJ 14:415;
3 9
15: 346). T h e connection between verses 1 5 f and verse 1 7 is therefore
forced and secondary, which means in turn that verse 1 7 reflects a later
anti-Temple tendency in primitive Christianity while the history o f the
tradition in verses I 5 f stretches at least as far back as the pre-Markan stage.
But does it g o even further back to the historical Jesus? This brings us to the
next point.
Fourthly, when Mark 1 1 : 1 5 f is understood in terms o f Z e c h . 1 4 : 21 there
is an unstrained convergence between it and historical Jesus traditions. For
Zech. 1 4 : 2 1 describes the eschatological order within which G o d ' s
kingship has been activated and established (verses 5 , 9, i 6 f ) . In relation to
that eschatological rule o f G o d the action o f j e s u s in the T e m p l e is an
anticipatory sign carried out in prophetic fashion. As the prophet o f the
4 0
kingdom o f G o d , Jesus is acting here in line with scripture but pointing
forward to that which will be both more comprehensive in scope and more
permanent in achievement; in other words he acts here just as in Matthew
1 1 : 5 ; 1 3 : i 6 f = Luke 7 : 2 2 ; i o : 2 3 f .
The conclusion o f the study o f the 'triumphal' entry and T e m p l e
cleansing traditions is now possible. T h e two have been welded into a single
whole under the combined influence o f an already existing Jewish pattern
and a post-Easter christological conviction. In the T e m p l e incident Jesus is
seen as what he was before Easter, the prophet o f the near kingdom. In the
'triumphal' entry Jesus is seen as what he later became, after Easter, the
Davidic messiah.

38Eppstein, Z M 5 5 (1964), 43.

3 9
R o t h , NovTest 4 (i960), 176.
^ T r o c m e , NTSt 15 (1968), 18, rightly criticises any attempt at i m p o r t i n g messianic
ideas into this event.
 G. W . H . L A M P E

The two swords (Luke 22:35-38)

'This record o f Jesus' arming o f his disciples, or rather his checking on their
1
armament', remarks S. G . F. Brandon, 'has greatly troubled commenta­
tors'. T h e idea that Luke 22: 3 6 - 8 really presents Jesus as acting like an
officer 'checking' his men's weapons before battle is bizarre; but that the
commentators have floundered in a morass o f perplexity when faced with
this notoriously difficult passage is undoubtedly true. Brandon cites
examples o f the diverse explanations o f exegetes, including myself, who
have tried rather desperately to establish the meaning, and indeed to make
any sense at all, o f this strange pericope. A longer list of interpretations was
collected by T . M . Napier, representing the period from Wellhausen to
1938,2 and they make discouraging reading.
T h e first question to be considered in any attempt to elucidate Luke
2 2 : 3 8 ( ' A n d they said, " L o r d , see, here are two swords." A n d he said, "It is
e n o u g h . " ' ) is the relation o f this verse, on the one hand to the preceding
dialogue, verses 3 5 to 3 7 , and, on the other, to Luke's version (verses 4 9 to
5 1 ) o f the Markan episode o f the assault, at or after the arrest o f j e s u s , on
the servant of the high priest (Mark 1 4 : 4 7 ; Matt. 26: 5 1 - 4 ; John 1 8 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) .
As this verse stands in its context in Luke, it is evidently intended to form
part o f the dialogue which precedes it ( 3 5 - 7 ) and which is itself an integral
part o f the warnings, prophecies, instructions and promises given by Jesus
to the disciples at the Last Supper - a section o f Luke which, on a small
scale, resembles the great Johannine discourses. Yet it does not appear to
be logically connected with this material. If it was originally a part o f the
dialogue which precedes it, it would seem that it must have been intended
simply to express the disciples' lack o f comprehension and their
insensitivity both to the true significance of Jesus's words in that dialogue
and to the situation which evoked them. If, as is probably the case, it has
been added to that dialogue by Luke himself, it seems that it is a clumsy
attempt to establish a connection between the dialogue (verses 3 5 to 3 7 )
and the episode o f the attack on the high priest's servant. O u r task is to
examine the question why Luke, on the assumption that this was the case,
composed and inserted verse 3 8 .
Luke has apparently brought together several distinct units o f material

1
Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p . 340.
2
' T h e E n i g m a o f the S w o r d s ' , ExpT 49 (1939), 467-70.

335
33^ G. W . H . LAMPE

and related them to one another. These are: the instructions given to the
Seventy when they were sent out on their mission ( 1 0 : 3!!), with the parallel
commissioning o f the Twelve (9: 3ff); the warning to the disciples that the
times have changed and that their original instructions given on those
earlier occasions have n o w to be countermanded (22: 3 5 - 7 ) ; the saying o f
the disciples concerning two swords, and Jesus's reply to them (22: 3 8 ) ; the
Markan story o f the attack upon the servant o f the high priest, preceded by
the disciples' question, ' L o r d , shall we strike with the sword?', and followed
by Jesus's healing o f the servant's ear ( 2 2 : 4 9 - 5 1 ) .
At 1 0 : 3 - 4 Jesus sends out the Seventy, ordering them not to take purse,
bag or sandals. This passage is broadly, though not precisely, parallelled in
Mark 6: 8 - 9 and Matt. 1 0 : 9 - 1 0 , followed also by Luke 9 : 3 - 4 , where the
orders are given to the Twelve. T h e source-criticism o f this passage is
complicated; it is possible that in this material there is an overlap between
Mark and Q , and perhaps L as well. However this may be, it is likely that
Luke has taken material which, in his source, referred to the sending out o f
the Twelve, and inserted it in the new context o f the commissioning o f the
3
Seventy. This passage is taken up at 2 2 : 3 5 : Jesus addresses the apostles
and reminds them how they had originally been sent out without purse, bag
or sandals. It may be that Luke is himself confused and has forgotten that
he had transferred these instructions o f j e s u s into his new context o f the
sending of the Seventy; but it is more probable that in Luke's source, which
4
Vincent Taylor may be right in assigning to the L material, the
groundwork o f verses 3 5 - 7 was already associated with the substance o f
10: 3 - 4 ; both referred to the sending out o f the Twelve. T h e problem o f the
5
sources o f verses 3 5 to 3 8 has been minutely studied by H . Schurmann as
well as by Vincent Taylor and others. It appears probable that verses 3 5 to
3 7 , and conceivably even verse 3 8 as well, are a Lukan redaction o f
source-material and were already, in the pre-Lukan stage o f the tradition,
linked with 1 0 : 3 - 4 as well as with the preceding 'farewell discourses' o f
Jesus to the disciples at the Last Supper (22: 2 1 - 3 4 ) .
Jesus reminds his disciples that when he had originally sent them out
they went without even the ordinary basic requirements for travel. H e asks
them whether they had lacked anything, and their answer, 'Nothing',
presumably implies that in that successful mission ( c p . 1 0 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) they had
been well received; they had found 'sons o f peace' to receive their greeting
and been given the hire which they deserved as workers ( c p . 1 0 : 5 - 8 ) . But
now ( 2 2 : 36) the situation has changed drastically. In the scheme o f

3
See A . L o i s y , Les Evangiles Synoptiques ii (Ceflfonds, 1908), 554-8.
4
The Passion Narrative of St Luke, e d . O . E . E v a n s ( C a m b r i d g e , 1972).
5
Jesu Abschiedsrede, Lk. 22:21-38 (Miinster, 1953); M . M e i n e r t z , Neutestamentliche
Abhandlungen x x . 5 (Miinster, 1957), 116-39.
 T h e two swords 337

successive epochs which Conzelmann discerns in Luke this phrase, aXkd

vCv, plays a decisive role. It inaugurates a new period, in which the
disciples begin once again to be assailed, after a time o f immunity during
6
Jesus's ministry, by trials and temptations (jteiQaojioi). It is very doubtful
whether this saying, or the similar 'epochal' turning-points on which
Conzelmann's exegesis o f Luke depends, will bear the weight which his
theory places on them. Within somewhat narrower limits of interpretation,
however, the contrast expressed in Luke's aXka vfiv does signify the
dramatic change that is going to come in the fortunes o f the disciples.
Whereas they had been popular preachers and healers, able to count on
the support o f the public wherever they went, the time is coming when
no one will help them. T h e y will have to fend for themselves; they will
need purse and bag, and, since every man's hand will be against them to
the point o f actually threatening their safety, each o f them will need to
arm himself with a sword, even at the cost o f selling his cloak, if necessary,
to buy it.
It may be noticed in passing that, as has often been pointed out, in
Matthew's version o f the Q material at Matt. 5 : 4 0 / L u k e 6: 2 9 the cloak
(ifi&xiov) which served the peasant as a kind o f sleeping-bag is the most
necessary garment of all, which a man would be most reluctant to surrender
(cp. E x o d . 22: 2 6 - 7 , L X X ) . In Luke's version, on the other hand, the order
is reversed, as though one would give up one's cloak sooner than one's tunic
(Xtxcov); and this is sometimes taken to indicate that Luke thinks like a
Greek city-dweller. In 22: 36, however, the need to buy a sword is so
pressing as to demand even the sacrifice o f the cloak itself - as though this
were the last thing that anyone would want to sell. Perhaps this is yet
another indication to add to the evidence adduced by Schurmann that this
pericope belongs to pre-Lukan literary tradition.
This passage (verses 3 5 to 3 7 ) falls, then, into an easily-recognised
category o f the sayings ascribed to Jesus by all the evangelists: that o f
future, or eschatological, warnings o f tribulation, distress and persecution.
These naturally tend, as often in the N e w Testament (Acts 20: 2 9 - 3 1 being
one example), to be uttered in the context of a leave-taking. Jesus's warning
that his disciples will have to face a hostile world, shunned, boycotted, and
in danger o f physical assault, is in line with parts o f the farewell discourses
in the Fourth Gospel, such as J o h n 15: 18-21 and 1 6 : 1 - 4 , with the
prophecies o f persecution in the eschatological discourses, such as Mark
1 3 : 9 - 1 3 and parallels, especially ' Y o u will be hated by all men for my
name's sake' (Mark 1 3 : 1 3 , Matt. 2 4 : 9 , Luke 2 1 : 1 7 ) , and the saying

6
H . C o n z e l m a n n , Die Mitte der Zeit (3rd e d n . T u b i n g e n , i960), p p . 74-6 ( E T The
Theology of St Luke ( L o n d o n , i960), p p . 80-2), etc.
33^ G. W . H. LAM PE

contained in the Q material at Matt. 10: 34ff/Luke 1 2 : 5 iff which warns o f

coming division and strife within households and families.
T h e last o f these passages is particularly interesting, for whereas in
Matthew's version Jesus says, 'I have not come to bring peace (to the earth)
but a sword (ji&xaiQav)', in Luke's the wording is different: ' D o you think
that I came to give peace on earth? N o , I tell you, but rather division
(6ia^eQiO(x6v).' It may well be the case that Luke has deliberately altered
the original form o f the saying. It is unlikely that he did this through fear
that the vivid and striking metaphor o f 'a sword' should be interpreted
literalistically as implying an intention on the part ofjesus to promote civil
7
war; Luke is not sensitive to such possibilities o f misunderstanding. More
probably he has altered the wording in order to clarify the meaning o f the
saying in its application to the actual experience of the early church in times
of persecution, and perhaps also because he has reserved the language
relating to a sword for the passage we are now considering. In this saying
the idea o f a 'sword' serves to express, not, as in Matt. 10: 3 4 , the disruption
which Christian conversion will bring to the closely-knit family ties that
8
were characteristic o f both Jewish and G r e c o - R o m a n society, but the total
hostility which disciples would encounter; every man's hand would be
against them.
This is a warning that the future tribulation, such as was described at
2 1 : 1 7 , is now imminent. It is expressed in the vivid, not to say violent,
pictorial imagery characteristic o f the eschatological predictions in the
Gospels and o f the 'farewell' warnings elsewhere in the New Testament, for
instance in Luke 1 7 : 3 1 - 7 ; 2 1 : 1 8 - 2 8 ; Acts 20: 2 9 ; 2 T i m . 3: 1 - 9 ; 2 Pet. 3: 3ff.
Jesus's c o m m a n d that any o f his disciples not already in possession o f a
sword should g o to the length o f selling his cloak in order to buy one need
not be taken literally; indeed, to d o so would be perhaps as inappropriate as
to press the details o f the eschatological warnings given at 1 7 : 3 iff and to
ask h o w a man could escape a universal catastrophe by fleeing from his
housetop or why the disaster should engulf only one o f two most intimate
companions and leave the other to survive. T h e violent language is
intended to convey one clear picture: whereas the disciples o f j e s u s had
once been made welcome everywhere, now each must be prepared for a
lonely struggle to survive in a bitterly hostile world; no one henceforth will
provide him with food or shelter, and he will be in constant danger o f
attack.

9
Jeremias argues that as an unfulfilled eschatological prophecy verse 3 6

7
C p . B r a n d o n , Zealots, p . 316.
8
C p . J . V o g t in A . M o m i g l i a n o ( e d . ) , The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the
Fourth Century ( O x f o r d , 1963), p . 42.
9
J . J e r e m i a s , Jtaig 9eoiJ ThWNTv, 712.
 T h e two swords 339

belongs to very ancient and authentic tradition. This, however, raises

far-reaching questions concerning the nature o f the eschatological sayings
in the synoptic Gospels as a whole. M o r e directly, it leads to the question o f
the relationship o f verses 3 5 to 3 6 to the saying in verse 3 7 and to the rest o f
Luke's Last Supper discourses. In verse 3 7 Jesus gives two related
explanations o f the reason for the drastic change in the situation o f his
followers. First, he is himself to suffer the fate prophesied in Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 , ' H e
was reckoned with transgressors.' Jeremias would interpret this to mean
that Jesus is to be cast out o f the community o f Israel as a transgressor
( d v o f x o g ) , this being the cause o f the coming boycott o f his followers. T h e
form in which this prophecy is cited, \itxa dv6(jicov ( O^E?S"TIK )
ekoy ioQy), is closer to the Hebrew than to the L X X which has ev x o i g
d v o f i O i g . . . . Since Luke commonly follows the L X X , this divergence from
that text has persuaded Schurmann and others that the citation is an
integral part o f the pre-Lukan material o f which verses 3 5 to 3 6 consist.
Although this is very possible, it would be rash to assume that it is
necessarily the case. This part o f the fourth 'Servant Song' was current in
the early church in various forms: 1 Clement, for example, gives it as x o i g
&v6|iOig without a preposition ( 1 6 : 1 3 ) , and it is by no means certain that
the insertion o f the citation in verse 3 7 is not the work of Luke himself rather
than his source.
T h e citation is followed by a second explanation o f the reason why the
disciples must n o w expect tribulation: xo Jiegl E|xoi3 xeXog e / e i . T h e
10
meaning o f this is ambiguous. Vincent T a y l o r approves o f the
11 12
interpretation given by Klostermann: 'my life draws to its end'. Eisler,
however, maintains that xeXog E%Ei refers not to the end o f Jesus's life, but
to the fulfilment o f his destined role; and in fact the meaning could be, 'the
destiny prophesied for me is being fulfilled'. In either case, whether the
sense o f x e ^ o g is primarily 'end' or 'fulfilment' (and the two possible
meanings may be intentionally c o m b i n e d ) , the question arises whether this
sentence is meant, in effect, to repeat and to some extent to clarify Jesus's
application o f Isa. 5 3 : 12 to himself, or whether it is a second, independent,
explanation o f the coming tribulation. If the latter seems more probable,
then at the pre-Lukan stage o f the tradition the saying may have taken the
form, 'let him buy a sword. For my life draws to its end (and then you will be
left alone to fend for yourselves).' In that case the introduction o f the
reference to Isa. 5 3 : 12 may have been due to Luke's redaction. According
to this view o f the matter, Luke may have introduced the citation from

10
Passion Narrative, p . 164.
11
E . K l o s t e r m a n n , Das Lukasevangelium ( T u b i n g e n , 1929).
•2R. Eisler, I H Z O Y Z B A Z I A E Y Z O Y B A Z I A E Y Z A Z ii ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1930),
2 66ff.
340 G. W . H . LAMPE

Isaiah in order to explain the phrase T O Jteoi k\iov xeXog e/ei which he
found in his source, and thereby produced the rather clumsy and am­
biguous juxtaposition o f 6EI TzkeoQf\vai ev e^ioi and xo KEQI k\iov xeXog
£%zi. W h y Luke should have introduced Isaiah's prophecy in this way must
be considered later. For the present we must concern ourselves with Luke's
placing o f verses 3 5 to 3 7 .
Schiirmann believes that the whole pericope, 3 5 to 38, already belonged,
in a pre-Lukan stage o f the written tradition, to a farewell discourse at the
Last Supper. This may be so, but it is by no means certainly the case.
Verses 3 5 to 3 7 appear to be a piece o f tradition relating to the future lot o f
Jesus's disciples rather than to the passion story. Schiirmann associates it
also with those passages in the N e w Testament which reflect early
Christian interest in the mission o f the apostles and h o w they and other
ministers in the apostolic church maintained themselves while they were
engaged in it; Luke 10: 7; Acts 20: 3 3 ; 1 T i m . 5 : 1 7 are examples o f these.
This is, no doubt, correct, but Schurmann's further assertion is highly
questionable: that the maintenance o f ministers from the church's c o m m o n
funds or from the c o m m o n table was a matter closely related to the early
Christians' c o m m o n meals and that the passage we are considering was
therefore appropriately located, even at a pre-Lukan stage o f the tradition,
in the context o f the farewell speeches ofjesus at the Supper which was the
prototype of Christian c o m m o n meals. A s a prophecy of coming tribulation
it could rather, perhaps, have belonged originally to the eschatological
material which Luke collected in the discourses in chapters 1 7 and 2 1 .
Luke, however, if not his source, has placed it in the context o f the series o f
warnings and promises which Jesus gives to the disciples at the Last
Supper.
13
Here it forms the last o f four units o f dialogue which M i n e a r finds
'homogeneous to the content, m o o d and implications o f the Supper'. T h e
themes o f these dialogues are Christ's covenantal promises to his disciples
(22: 1 7 - i g a , 2 9 ) and prophetic warnings o f their treachery (Judas), denial
(Peter), and, in the particular slant which Luke gives to the Isaianic
prophecy, lawless conduct: for they are to be the dvojioi with w h o m Jesus is
going to be reckoned. All the topics o f these dialogues - J u d a s ' s treachery
in relation to the predetermined fate o f the Son o f man ( 2 2 : 2 1 - 2 ) , the
disciples' quarrel about greatness in its relation to the promise to them as
participants in Jesus's miQCLO\ioi o f a table in his kingdom and thrones o f
j u d g e m e n t over Israel, the prediction o f Peter's denial in relation to the
promise o f his restoration and future leadership, and the saying about
buying a sword in its relation to the prophecy o f Isa. 5 3 : 12 - have to d o ,

1 3
P. S. M i n e a r , ' A N o t e o n L u k e 22:36', NovTest 7.2 (1964), 128-34.
 The two swords 341

according to Luke, with events that are to occur in the immediate future
when the hour o f Jesus's enemies and the power o f darkness are to be
manifested in the garden and beyond.
It would seem that Luke has taken from his source Jesus's warning of the
future plight o f the disciples; he has added to it the citation of Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 , or,
if this prophecy was already contained in that pericope as he found it, he
has given it a new meaning. If it was already part o f this passage in a
pre-Lukan stage it must have meant that Jesus was to be cast out of Israel as
a lawbreaker. Luke, however, understands it to mean that the disciples
have become lawbreakers and Jesus is to be numbered with them. He
conveys this meaning, in the first instance, by setting the pericope in the
context o f this series o f promises and warnings which reveal the apostles,
Jesus's followers, as lawless and unrighteous men. O n e is to betray the
Lord, one is to deny him, all - even in the setting of the covenant supper and
his predicted betrayal by one o f their number - quarrel about which o f them
seems to be great. All of them are avo^ioi because they, or some of them, are
armed, or are going to arm themselves, with swords and resort to the use o f
the sword in the garden.
Luke has thus imposed a quite new meaning on the old saying about the
need to buy a sword. H e has done this, first, by either introducing the
citation o f Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 , or if this was already there by placing it in a new
setting and giving it a new application; secondly, by adding the dialogue
about the two swords (verse 3 8 ) ; thirdly, by relating the whole pericope
both to the preceding warnings and prophecies o f treachery and failure on
the disciples' part and also to the episode o f the assault on the high priest's
servant which is to be narrated in verses 4 9 to 5 1 .
Verse 38 records the disciples' answer to Jesus's warning about his own
fate and their coming abandonment to their own devices: ' A n d they said,
" L o r d , see, here are two swords." A n d he said to them, "It is e n o u g h "
(ixavov e a t i v ) . ' It is conceivable that this short dialogue may have formed
part o f the whole pericope, verses 3 5 to 38, at a pre-Lukan stage o f literary
tradition. If so, it must have been intended as an inept comment by Jesus's
followers on his vivid picture o f their coming plight when they would need
to equip themselves with purse, bag, and, above all, sword. ' T h e y catch
14
only the surface meaning', and suppose that Jesus is talking literally about
swords and actually telling them to g o out and buy them on the spot. Such a
reaction on their part would, it is true, be in line with the incomprehension
and insensitivity which Luke makes them show in their response to his
warnings, for instance at 1 7 : 3 7 and 1 8 : 2 8 , and, in particular, to his
prophecies at the Supper about the betrayal and the denial ( 2 2 : 23ff, 3 3 ) .

1 4
V i n c e n t T a y l o r , Jesus and his Sacrifice ( L o n d o n , 1937), p . 193.
342 G. W . H . LAM PE

It seems, however, much more probable that verse 3 8 is Luke's own

composition, for the vocabulary and style are strikingly characteristic o f
Luke. Further, the verse raises notoriously difficult problems if it is taken as
an integral part o f a pre-Lukan pericope consisting of verses 3 5 to 38. These
include the provenance and purpose o f the swords which the disciples
happen to be carrying at the Last Supper, the reason why they were
carrying neither more nor less than two, and the meaning o f Jesus's final
words, Tt is enough.' If, however, the verse is recognised to be a Lukan
addition to the traditional material contained in verses 3 5 to 3 7 , inserted,
perhaps together with the citation o f Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 , in order to bring Jesus's
warning about his followers' future need for swords into line with the story
o f the high priest's servant (verses 4 9 to 5 1 ) , it becomes much easier to
understand. T h e preceding prophecies o f Jesus concerning Judas's
treachery and Peter's denial were shortly afterwards fulfilled in the garden
and the high priest's house. Luke understands this traditional prophecy
about the need to buy a sword as another similar short-term warning which
was also to be fulfilled on that same evening. Hence, by setting it in the
context o f the disciples' coming treachery and weakness (verses 21 to 3 4 ) ,
inserting the citation o f Isa. 5 3 : 12 or at least altering its application, and by
adding the dialogue in verse 3 8 , Luke has radically changed the
significance o f Jesus's prophecy and, in so doing, created major difficulties
o f interpretation. For the prophecy in verse 3 6 could not be brought into
relation with the episode in verses 4 9 to 51 without violent adjustment and
distortion. Nor does verse 38 provide any kind o f smooth transition from the
prophecy in verse 3 6 to the story in verses 4 9 to 51 which Luke takes to be
the fulfilment o f the former.
T h e starting-point, it would seem, for the whole of Luke's operation is the
incident recorded in Mark 1 4 : 4 7 which he reproduces at verse 5 0 and to
which, by the additions which he supplies in verses 4 9 and 5 1 , he gives an
interpretation o f his own. This event is an armed attack carried out by one
o f the disciples only (verse 5 0 ) . Yet the whole body of Jesus's followers (oi
negi auxov) are seen by Luke as being collectively involved in it, as he
shows in his addition to the Markan narrative o f their question, 'Lord, shall
we strike with the sword?' (verse 4 9 ) . T o Luke, it would seem, this violent
action, from which Jesus so emphatically dissociates himself, not only by
word but by miraculous action (verse 5 1 ) , identifies the disciples as the
avo(XOl to w h o m the prophecy o f Isa. 5 3 : 12 had pointed. It comes, indeed,
as a climax o f the offences committed by the disciples, or prophesied o f
them by Jesus, at the Last Supper: Judas's betrayal, Peter's denial, and the
quarrel about greatness which the disciples conceived in terms o f those
kingdoms o f the world which, as Luke made clear by his addition to the
story o f the Temptations (4: 6 ) , lie under the authority o f the devil - the
 T h e two swords 343

authority o f darkness which holds sway in the garden in the 'hour' ofjesus's
enemies ( 2 2 : 5 3 ) .
In order to explain the assault in the garden in these terms Luke has to
force the tradition ofjesus's prophecy about the need for a sword into line
with his interpretation o f Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 , imposing a new meaning on it, and
connecting it with its 'fulfilment' at verses 4 9 to 51 by means of the dialogue
about 'two swords' in verse 3 8 . T h e latter thus has to be understood in
relation, first, to the story o f the armed assault as Luke interpreted this,
and, secondly, to the warning in verse 3 6 as Luke reinterpreted this in the
light o f his application o f the prophecy o f Isa. 5 3 : 12 to that story.
M a r k 1 4 : 4 7 tells how, after the arrest o f j e s u s , 'one o f the bystanders
drew his sword and struck the servant o f the high priest and removed his
ear'. T h e way in which this story is presented to the reader is most
extraordinary. It has neither prelude nor sequel; indeed, it appears to have
no connection with the events that precede and follow it. W e are not told
w h o the assailant was. Mark does not say that he was one o f j e s u s ' s
followers. H e is simply one o f those anonymous 'bystanders' w h o appear
from time to time in Mark's passion narrative: minor actors in the drama,
brought on to the stage unintroduced and casually dismissed without their
presence on the scene being explained. Such 'bystanders' appear twice as
Peter's interrogators ( 1 4 : 6 9 , 7 0 ) , and once at the Cross when they hear
15
Jesus's cry, 'Eloi, Eloi', and say, 'See, he calls Elijah' ( 1 5 : 3 5 ) . L o h m e y e r
thinks that the story is told from the standpoint of those w h o arrested Jesus,
and that one o f the disciples, presumably standing about in a state o f
bewilderment, would appear to them to be a 'bystander'. But this would be
a very odd way o f describing one o f the band of disciples o f the man w h o m
the ' c r o w d ' (6x^.05) had c o m e to hunt down and arrest. T h e victim o f the
assault, on the other hand, seems to be someone w h o m the reader can
identify, for he is not simply 'a servant o f the high priest' but 'the servant o f
the high priest'. W e are not told why this man was attacked. It was not in
order to hinder the arrest ofjesus, for this had already been effected, and as
an attempt at rescue, even as a gesture in an impossible situation, it was a
singularly futile effort.
It seems reasonable to infer from Mark's peculiar treatment o f the
episode that he saw in it a symbolical significance. It would be natural to
expect it to have been constructed on the basis o f some scriptural type or
prophecy, but no passage o f the O l d Testament seems to have any
bearing upon it. T h e most ingenious attempt to discover a scriptural
16
foundation for the story is perhaps that suggested by H a l l . He thinks that

1 5
E. L o h m e y e r , Das Evangelium des Markus ( G o t t i n g e n , 1957), p p . 332ff.
1 6
S. G . H a l l , ' S w o r d s o f O f f e n c e ' , Studia Evangelica, i, T U 73 (1959), 499-505.
344 G. W . H. LAMPE

the incident has been constructed as a fulfilment o f Psalm 4 0 ( L X X 3 9 ) : 7,

in a version like that o f Aquila: 'ears hast thou dug for m e ' ((bxia 6e
17
eoxa\|)dg M-Oi), literalistically mistranslating ]TK r n s ('open the ear'), or
perhaps confusing this Hebrew verb with rn:> ('cut ofT). But this seems to
be both highly improbable and also irrelevant in Mark's context.
A g o o d case, however, has been made out for the view that the
significance o f the incident, as understood by Mark, lies in the fact that in
the person of his servant a contemptuous insult, directed against his sacred
18
character, was offered to the high priest himself. Mark's curious
expression 'the slave o f the high priest' is significant. It is repeated by the
other three evangelists. T h e use o f the definite article, when the servant is
not otherwise identified and the reader has been told nothing about him,
suggests that Mark's purpose is to call special attention to his status. H e is
'the servant' o f the high priest, his personal agent and representative. A n
insult offered to such a person when acting as his master's agent is an insult
to his master. D a u b e calls attention to the recognition in R o m a n law o f
vicarious insult and damage o f this kind: 'iniuria . . . d o m i n o per eum (sc.
servum) fieri videtur . . . c u m quid atrocius commissum fuerit q u o d aperte
in contumeliam domini fieri videtur, veluti si quis alienum servum
19
verberaverit' and also to the biblical examples o f such conduct in 2 Sam.
10: 4 f and the parable o f the wicked husbandmen (Mark 1 2 : 1 - 5 ) .
Mark has no interest in w h o struck this blow, nor in what became o f him.
T h e whole point o f recording the fact that it was struck is that at the very
moment when a crowd which had c o m e , as Mark specially emphasises,
'from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders' has laid hands on
Jesus, and the moment of the high priest's triumph has arrived, he receives,
through his personal representative at the scene o f the arrest, an injury o f a
peculiarly insulting and contemptuous kind, which, moreover, if inflicted
on his o w n person, would disqualify him for his office. As Rostovtzeff points
out, the cutting off o f an ear is not likely to happen accidentally in the course
of a scuffle. It was an intentional act, not done in a bungled attempt to kill
but meant to inflict on the high priest, vicariously, an indelible mark o f
contempt. Rostovtzeff, Lohmeyer and Daube have drawn attention to an
Egyptian court case in which 'Hesiod cut off the right ear of Dorion' (P. Teb.
iii 7 9 3 ) , to penalties inflicted under Assyrian and Babylonian law, and to
two close parallels to the Markan incident: Antigonus cut off, or slit (the
reading varies between djioxejiveiv and emxeixveiv) the ear o f Hyrcanus II

1 7 I I
See F. Field, Origenis Hexapla quae supersunt ii ( O x f o r d , 1875), 5 -
1 8
S e e M . Rostovtzeff, Oflg oe!=idv djcoxejiveiv, ZNW33 (1934), 196-9; D . D a u b e ,
' T h r e e N o t e s having to d o with J o h a n a n ben Zakkai: I I I , Slitting the H i g h Priest's
Ear', JThSt n.s. n (i960), 59-62; E. L o h m e y e r , Markus, p p . 332f.
1 9
G a i u s iii. 222.
 T h e two swords 345

to make him unfit for the high priesthood (Josephus, AJ 1 4 . 1 3 . 1 0 ) ; Johanan

ben Zakkai did the same to a Sadducee high priest to render him unfit to
carry out a cultic service (Tosephta Parah iii. 8 ) . Mark, then, is telling us that
as soon as his men had laid hands on Jesus the high priest was vicariously
marked out, by the symbolical action o f an unknown assailant, as
disqualified to retain his office. Luke adds to the Markan story the detail
20
that it was the servant's right ear which was cut off. This may merely be
due to Luke's fondness for vividly dramatic touches, as when he tells us that
it was the right hand o f the man in the synagogue which was healed ( 6 : 6 ,
contrast Mark 3: i / M a t t . 1 2 : 1 0 ) . M o r e probably, however, this detail
shows that Luke had taken Mark's point. It was the high priest's right ear
which was ceremonially smeared with the blood o f the ram o f consecration
(Lev. 8: 2 3 - 4 ) , and at the cleansing o f a leper some of the blood o f the lamb
offered as a trespass offering was smeared on the right ear o f the person to be
cleansed, as was also some o f the oil that he offered (Lev. 1 4 : 1 4 , 1 7 , 2 5 , 2 8 ) .
Luke may thus interpret the incident as a symbol, not only o f the dis­
qualification o f the high priest, but also o f his deconsecration and being
rendered unclean.
Luke, however, sees the affair in quite a different light from Mark. T h e
high priest may have been worthy o f contempt and rejection; but the armed
assault on his representative was lawless aggression. W e may compare
Luke's treatment o f the 'reviling' o f the high priest by Paul (Acts 2 3 : 3 - 5 ) .
Both Matthew and Luke believe that the assailant was one o f j e s u s ' s
companions; but whereas in Matthew and in John it is one man alone who
acts and is subsequently rebuked by Jesus (John naming him as Peter),
Luke makes all those w h o were with Jesus responsible for the assault and
implies that they tried to involve him in it as well. T h e y ask, 'Lord, shall we
strike with the sword?', and, without waiting for an answer, one o f them
strikes the servant; it is to them all, in the plural, that Jesus addresses his
rebuke, edxe ecoc; TOIJTOU, probably meaning, 'Let my enemies go so far as
21
to d o this.' By this rebuke Jesus instantly dissociates himself from his
disciples' 'lawlessness', and he then demonstrates his disapproval o f their
conduct and his own totally different attitude by healing the wounded man.
In this way Luke shows that the disciples were rebuked and that Jesus, the

2 0
J o h n d o e s the s a m e , perhaps following Luke; b u t since he agrees with M a r k against
L u k e in using d)T&(HOV for 'ear' a n d EJtaiOEV for 'struck', instead o f ovq a n d
£ j i d x a § e v , while differing from b o t h M a r k a n d L u k e in using cuiexotyev ('cut o f f )
instead o f CKpeihev ( ' r e m o v e d ' ) , the precise relation b e t w e e n J o h n and the
synoptists here is very hard to d e t e r m i n e .
2 1
P. S. M i n e a r , h o w e v e r , thinks (NovTest 7 . 2 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 128-34) that these w o r d s refer to
the fulfilment o f Isa. 53: 12: ' Y o u are permitted to g o this far, but n o farther' (for the
p r o p h e c y has n o w been a m p l y fulfilled).
34-6 G. W . H. LAMPE

22
'righteous Servant' was in no way involved in their transgression. Their
conduct was such as to mark them out as the a v o j j i o i with w h o m Isaiah had
foretold that the righteous Servant, himself free from ctvo^iia, would be
numbered. Indeed, that prophecy, according to the L X X , went on to say
that it was because of their sins that the Servant was 'handed over' to death
(jiaoe666r)), the word used o f the betrayal o f j e s u s by Luke ( 2 2 : 4 8 , c p .
2 2 : 4 , 6, 2 1 , 2 2 ) as also by the other evangelists. It may well have been the
appearance o f the key-word JiaQe668r) which led Luke to apply the
23
Isaianic prophecy to the 'reckoning' ofjesus with the 'lawless' disciples.
If Mark believed that this prophecy referred to Jesus, he saw its
fulfilment in the fact that Jesus was arrested as though he were a Xflorrjc;
('brigand' or 'terrorist') and was subsequently crucified together with two
\r\oxai ( 1 4 : 4 8 ; 1 5 : 2 7 ) . At a later period, indeed, this seemed so obvious a
fulfilment o f the prophecy that a widespread but inferior reading adds after
Mark 1 5 : 2 7 : ' A n d the scripture was fulfilled which says, " A n d he was
numbered with transgressors" ', evidently taking this text from Luke
2 2 : 3 7 , and thus quoting it in the form in which it appears there, and not
directly from the L X X .
In Luke this interpretation is entirely absent. Jesus is arrested as though
he were a X,T]OTTJ5, it is true, but the two w h o were crucified with him are not
hr\oxai. They are simply 'evildoers' ( x a x o i J Q Y O i ) , and Jesus is not in any
24
way 'numbered with' t h e m . T o Luke the 'transgressors' are Jesus's
disciples whose act o f violent lawlessness against the high priest's
representative comes after a series o f actual and predicted treachery,
quarrels to gain such power as the devil alone can give, and denial ofjesus.
Luke, therefore, seeing the assault in the garden in this light, applies
Isaiah's prophecy to it. H e then looks for some previous warning or
prophecy ofjesus concerning this transgression, parallel to those which he
gave to Judas and Peter. This he finds in his source material in the form o f
the 'farewell warning' about the coming need to buy a sword.
T h e two convictions, then, on which Luke's entire construction rests are
these: first, that the disciples as a b o d y were guilty of an assault with the
sword, an act o f violence which Jesus rebuked and the effects o f which he

2 2
In constructing this sequel to M a r k ' s story L u k e m a y have fallen into inconsistency.
H e tells us that J e s u s ' t o u c h e d the ear and healed h i m ' . But L u k e has already
r e p r o d u c e d M a r k ' s w o r d &<peiXev w h i c h m e a n s that the ear had not merely been
d a m a g e d but r e m o v e d . I f L u k e m e a n s that Jesus t o u c h e d the p l a c e o f the missing
ear and m i r a c u l o u s l y r e p l a c e d it, then this was an extraordinary healing, w i t h o u t
parallel in Jesus's ministry. It w o u l d certainly b e an unmistakable d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f
his attitude.
2 3
Possibly another i n d i c a t i o n that the H e b r e w form o f Isa. 53: 12 b e l o n g s to L u k e ' s
s o u r c e rather than his o w n writing.
2 4
L u k e 23:40, ' Y o u are u n d e r the s a m e sentence' has n o bearing o n this p o i n t .
 T h e two swords 347

promptly repaired by a miracle; secondly, that the saying about buying a

sword, with the interpretation applied to it from Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 , was one o f the
series o f short-term predictions and warnings delivered by Jesus at the
Supper and that it was fulfilled on the same evening in that assault. T h e
prophecy did not lend itself easily to this interpretation; Luke was trying to
combine and make sense o f material that lay before him in Mark and in his
L source, and he was not composing freely. H o w could the disciples
actually be expected to get hold o f purses and bags, sell cloaks and buy
swords late in the evening o f the Passover? Were they really meant to stop in
the city and try to d o these things on their way from the Supper to the garden?
H o w was it that some o f them had already obtained swords, as Jesus's
words implied that they had? Such questions were inevitably raised as a
consequence o f Luke's interpretation o f verses 3 5 to 3 7 , but he is not
concerned to deal with them. Mark had told him that a sword was used in
the garden. Mark was not interested in w h o used it or where he had brought
it from; all that mattered to him was that the high priest's servant's ear was
removed. Luke thinks that the disciples were reponsible for the use o f the
sword in the garden; therefore they must have had at least one sword with
them. Further, since they asked, ' L o r d , shall we strike with the sword?', the
man w h o struck the actual blow could not have been the only disciple with a
sword; and Jesus's words, 6 [ii] e/CDV, seemed to confirm this, for they
implied that some o f the disciples did have swords.
Luke makes the point clear in verse 3 8 , probably his o w n composition:
' A n d they said, " L o r d , see, here are two swords." A n d he said to them, "It
is e n o u g h . " ' T w o swords are enough, in Luke's view, to establish the guilt
o f the disciples as a body, to identify them collectively, and not only one
individual among them, with the dvo(jioi of Isa. 5 3 : 12 and bring about the
fulfilment o f that prophecy, and possibly also to testify to their
transgression as 'two witnesses' ( c p . Deut. 1 9 : 1 5 ) . This is probably what
Luke intends Jesus to mean by the words ixavov eaxiv. Luke does not
consider the question h o w the disciples had come into possession o f these
two swords and, according to his reconstruction o f the events, actually to
bring them to the Last Supper, any more than Mark troubled to ask why his
'bystander' should have happened to be carrying a sword. If Luke could be
questioned about this, he might perhaps reply that the disciples had
anticipated Jesus's warning and had brought to the Supper the instruments
o f their coming 'lawlessness', just as they had brought their rivalries about
worldly greatness and Judas had come with his intention to betray the
Lord.
T h e complex and subtle structure which Luke has built on the Markan
incident raises problems from which the simpler interpretations offered by
Matthew and John are free. In Matthew (26: 5 0 - 4 ) the assault was an
34** G. W . H. LAMPE

attempt to rescue Jesus, w h o had already been seized; it was rebuked by

him with the quasi-proverbial saying, 'all who take the sword die by the
sword', and the question, ' D o you suppose that I cannot appeal to my
Father, w h o would at once send to my aid more than twelve legions o f
angels? But how then could the scriptures be fulfilled which say that
this must be?' In John ( 1 8 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) Peter tries to prevent the arrest, and
Jesus's answer is, 'This is the cup the Father has given me; shall I not
drink it?' John, however, takes up Matthew's point in the dialogue be­
tween Jesus and Pilate ( 1 8 : 3 6 ) : ' M y kingdom does not belong to this
world. I f it did, my followers would be fighting to save me from arrest by
the Jews.'
Luke's more intricate composition involves the strange supposition that
Jesus believed his disciples to be predetermined to d o wrong, compelled to
act lawlessly by a prophecy that referred to them and must needs be
fulfilled. This, however, would present itself to Luke as only another aspect
of the great mystery that was focussed in the paradox that he repeats
( 2 2 : 2 2 ) from Mark: ' T h e Son o f M a n is going his appointed way; but alas for
that man by w h o m he is betrayed!' Moreover, although the disciples had to
become transgressors, this did not mean that they were abandoned without
hope to the power o f darkness (cp. 2 2 : 5 3 ) . T h e warnings that Jesus gave
them o f their treachery and weakness were relieved by promises: o f
c o m m u n i o n with the Lord in his kingdom, despite their strivings for
greatness, o f repentance and restoration for Peter, despite the denial.
Isaiah, too, showed that although the Servant was 'led to death from their
lawlessnesses', they were still 'my (that is, G o d ' s ) people' (Isa. 5 3 : 8 ) . If
Luke knew the H e b r e w text (as seems quite possible) o f the very prophecy
that foretold their lawlessness, he would be aware also that the Servant
'interceded for the transgressors' ( 5 3 : 1 2 ) .
If Luke has constructed his story in the light o f that prophecy, having to
use some very intractable material for this purpose, the many attempts to
explain verse 3 8 as a literal record o f an actual dialogue that took place
between Jesus and the disciples b e c o m e irrelevant. Chrysostom, for
instance, supposed that the 'swords' were in fact carving knives taken from
25 26
the table where they had been used for the Passover l a m b . Western
thought they were fishermen's knives, intended for use when the disciples
went back to their fishing in Galilee (John 2 1 : 3 ) , and had nothing to d o
with weapons, though in a later article the same writer suggested that by
i x a v o v eoxiv Jesus was either saying that these knives 'are large enough for
all the fighting that you will have to d o ' , or asking, 'are they large enough

2 5
C r a m e r , Catena in Luc. 22:50.
26 w. W e s t e r n , ' T h e E n i g m a o f the S w o r d s ' , ExpT$o (1939), 377, a n d 52 (1941), 357.
 T h e two swords 349

27
for the fighting which you contemplate?' H e l m b o l d mentions another
literalistic explanation: the disciples had found two old swords in Peter's
house at Capernaum, left over from past wars, and brought them to defend
the party against attack by Herod on their way up to Jerusalem.
Speculations o f this kind create immense difficulties o f interpretation.
28
Napier imagined that Jesus had discovered that two disciples had
provided themselves with swords. H e reminded them o f his previous
instructions to carry no purse or bag; then he said, in effect, Tf, now, you
mean to trust to yourselves and think G o d is no longer sufficient, then if
need be sell your cloak and buy a sword.' T h e disciples missed the point,
replied, 'Here are two swords', and Jesus's 'It is enough' is an expression o f
his sorrow. This explanation altogether fails to take the prophecy o f Isa.
5 3 : 1 2 into account; it is worth noticing, too, that the reading o f the
'Western' text, d o x e i for ixavov eoxiv, indicates that in antiquity the latter
phrase was taken literally. A similar interpretation was proposed by
29
Finlayson: Jesus knew the disciples were arming, but felt it impossible to
persuade them to desist; he alluded to the buying of a sword, their attention
was distracted, and their unwary reply, 'Here are two swords', revealed the
actual situation and prepared the way for Jesus's teaching that 'all w h o take
the sword shall perish by the sword'. This, again, leaves the all-important
prophecy out o f the explanation, and ignores the fact that Luke did not
record the saying o f j e s u s to which Finlayson believes that the whole
passage points.
30 31
Eisler, after referring to the discussion o f the passage by Schlatter,
32
takes up the question raised by Regnault, how it could have seemed
necessary to send a cohort (John 1 8 : 3) to overcome twelve men armed with
only two swords. His o w n answer is that the disciples were carrying two
swords each, in the manner o f the sicarii. This is highly improbable. Had
each disciple attended the Supper regularly equipped as an armed sicarius,
Jesus could scarcely be ignorant o f the fact. His comment, 'It is enough',
would then seem to express approval; hence his words at Luke 2 2 : 3 5 - 7
b e c o m e unintelligible, as does also the allusion to Isa. 5 3 : 1 2 ; and the
outcome of it all in the garden would merely show that as sicarii the disciples
were incredibly feeble and inefficient: twenty-two or perhaps twenty-four
swords between them and only one ear to show for all that formidable
weaponry!

2 7
H . H e l m b o l d , Vorsynoptische Evangelien (Stuttgart, 1953), p . 41.
™ExpTw (1938), 467-70.
2 9
S . K . Finlayson, ' T h e E n i g m a o f the S w o r d s ' , ExpT 50 (1939), 563.
30 Eisler, I H 2 0 Y 2 B A 2 I A E Y 2 , p p . 66ff.
2

3 1
A . Schlatter, Die beiden Schwerter, B F C h T h 20 (1916).
3 2
H . R e g n a u l t , Le proces de Jesus (Paris, 1909), p . 92.
350 G. W . H. LAMPE

Eisler in fact recognises that if the pericope o f the two swords is to provide
evidence for a theory that the disciples, and perhaps Jesus himself, were
militant Zealot revolutionaries, it has to be re-written and transferred to a
different context from the night o f the betrayal. He acknowledges that
Luke's framework for the saying, if it is to be interpreted on these lines, is
most implausible; he therefore argues that, as was mentioned above, TO
Jiegi e\iov xeXog e/ei (22: 3 7 ) bore no reference to the end ofjesus's life, but
indicated the fulfilment o f his destiny. T h e pericope belongs, according to
Eisler, to a time when Jesus was sending out his followers, some time after
their first mission, on a longer journey, equipped and armed. Jesus
expected most o f them to possess swords already; any who did not must sell
even those articles that would be most needed on the journey and buy one.
Others have tried to find evidence in this passage for a Zealot Jesus but
33
without re-working it on Eisler's lines. Brandon, for instance, says that

the fact (sic) that some at least of the disciples ofjesus were accustomed to
go about with concealed weapons, after the manner of the Sicarii, is
attested by Luke 22: 38. The fact that Jesus had to make sure that the
disciples were armed on this occasion (see verses 36, 38) indicates that
their weapons were concealed in their garments in Sicarii-fashion.

Brandon, having assumed that verses 3 5 to 38 mean that Jesus made sure
that his disciples were armed before going to the garden, naturally finds
Luke's story unconvincing.

Luke . . . endeavours to reduce its (i.e. the arming's) significance by

saying that Jesus did so in order to fulfil a prophecy, and that he
considered two swords enough for this purpose. The ascription of such an
artificial fulfilment of an obscure passage of Isaiah to Jesus on such an
occasion does no credit to Jesus and lowers our estimation of the sensibility
of Luke. With how many swords the disciples were armed is immaterial; it
34
is scarcely likely that it was only two.

T h e plain fact seems to be that any attempt to interpret verse 38

literalistically as a source o f factual information renders it impossible to
make sense o f Luke's narrative as a whole. As Brandon suggests, we have to
choose between Luke's 'sensibility' on the one hand and a reconstruction
along literalistic lines on the other; we cannot have both. O f all the attempts
to make sense o f Luke 22: 3 5 - 8 as a factual record perhaps the best is that o f
Cyril o f Alexandria (Luc. 2 2 : 34ft). H e understood Jesus to be foretelling the
Jewish war. T h e warning to get a sword and other necessary equipment,
though addressed to the apostles, was meant for every Jew. W a r would
come because Christ was to suffer a punishment meant for lawless men and

3 3
Zealots, p . 203. I b i d . p p . 340-1.
 T h e two swords 351

be crucified with Xr\oxai; thus the prophecies o f scripture were fulfilled and
the d o o m predicted by the prophets was bound to overtake his slayers. T h e
disciples misunderstood Jesus and thought he was referring to the
imminent incursion o f Judas. Jesus's reply, 'It is enough', was sarcastic:
' Y e s , ' he says, 'two swords are sufficient to resist the war that is going to
c o m e upon you, a war against which thousands o f swords will be o f no
avail.'
 E. B A M M E L

The titulus

Death penalties in the provinces used to be registered in the records o f the

R o m a n administrator and the execution was, when the circumstances
demanded it, reported to R o m e either by special message or as an item in
the reports on major events which were submitted at regular intervals.
1
These were the acts o f official notification. Different from this were the
means o f informing the general public. T h e oldest sources, sources not later
2 3
than the New Testament, mention a tabula which was to be carried by the
condemned man (or by someone else walking in front of him) on his way to
4 5
the place o f execution, which indicated the a i t i a . T h e fixing o f a tablet
6
with an inscription on the cross is less well testified; possibly because one
mention o f the tabula was considered sufficient by those who described a
crucifixion. In any case, the showing of a tabula either on the last journey o f
the delinquent or on the spot where he was publicly put to death was not
indispensable, not a constitutive part o f the procedure, and therefore not

1
W . R i e p l , Das Nachricktenwesen des Altertums ( L e i p z i g , 1913), p p . 27 i f and especially
G . R e i n c k e in PWxvi, I5i8ff.
2
Suet. Calig. 32; Domit. 10.1; D i o 54.8.
3
N o t , o f c o u r s e , identical with the tabella o n w h i c h the sentence was written d o w n
and from w h i c h it used to b e read out b y the j u d g e ; c p . Acta Cypr. iv. p p . c x n f Hartel:
'sententiam vix et aegre dixit verbis huius m o d i : diu sacrilega mente vixisti . . .
sanguine tuo sancietur disciplina. et his dictis d e c r e t u m ex tabella recitavit:
T h a s c i u m C y p r i a n u m g l a d i o animadverti placet.' T h e notice in this tabula was
c o p i e d a n d e m e n d e d in the r e c o r d o f the administrator.
4
Significantly it is merely a hint that is given in the formulation o f the titulus
a c c o r d i n g to the o l d e s t authorities: ' q u i c a u s a m p o e n a e i n d i c a r e t / y Q a u ^ a x o y v xf|V
a t x i a v . . . &T]Xot3vxa)v'. T h e report o n the L y o n n e s e martyrs i n c o r p o r a t e d in
Eusebius's c h u r c h history m e n t i o n s that o n e o f them w a s led r o u n d the arena
j t i v a x o g a t i x o v j i Q o a y o v x o g iv a> iyeygaKTO ' P w u m o x i ' o f a o g eaxiv " A x x c d o g 6
X f J i o x i a v o g ' (5.1.44), i m p l y i n g in this w a y that the p r o p e r j u r i d i c a l reason was not
given o n the p l a c a r d a n d , s e c o n d l y , that the c u s t o m o f carrying a Jtiva^ w a s not the
n o r m a l o n e in this p l a c e . T e r t . Apol. 2.20 presupposes that the tabella was the n o r m a l
a c c e s s o r y , but he harps o n the fact that the inscription w a s n o t in precise terms.
5
N o t identical with the inscriptio, w h i c h means the j u r i d i c a l form o f the accusation.
F o r the function o f the inscriptio see L . K . G . G e i b , Geschichte des romischen
Criminalprocesses (Leipzig, 1842), p p . 542ff.
6
C p . H . Fulda, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung. Eine antiquarische Untersuchung (Breslau,
1878), p p . I4if, 204 ( ' w e n n es konstanter G e b r a u c h . . . g e w e s e n ist . . . ' ) ; O .
Z o c k l e r , Das Kreuz Christi (Giitersloh, 1875), p p . 429^ 441 ( E T ( L o n d o n , 1877), p p .
405^ 417). C h r y s o s t o m m a y p r e s u p p o s e this lack o f e v i d e n c e in that he c l a i m s that
the r o b b e r s ' crosses d i d not have tituli and emphasises that the cross o f j e s u s c o u l d
already b e recognised b y the title (84.(85) H o m i l y o n J o h n ; PG 59.461).

353
354 E. BAMMEL

laid d o w n in detail. If an execution was meant to serve as a dreadful

warning and if, in fact, elements of mockery were not absent from what even
1
lawyers call Volksfesthinrichtungen, we cannot expect similar intentions to be
8
foreign to the phrasing o f a titulus. Even examples o f a pedagogical nature
9
are known. A n d the rhetorical element in the formulation is obvious.
It results from this that evidence o f the first or second type, if its
authenticity is indisputable, is superior to that o f the third or fourth kind.
T h e latter material cannot be taken as giving eo ipso the exact and juridically
10
correct reason for the condemnation; it raises additional problems, and
carries weight especially in cases where it is supported by other pieces o f
evidence.
T h e accounts o f the crucifixion ofjesus contain details which belong to
all four categories. T h e most striking piece o f information is, however, the
u
mention o f the titulus. T h e titulus is mentioned in all four Gospels. T h e
12
term itself is used only by John, whereas Mark and Luke speak o f
emYQaqpf| xfjc; atxiag, and Matthew describes it more loosely.
T h e wording o f it is basically the same: 6 PaoiAevg xcav Tou6aicDV.
13
Matthew introduces it by OVTOC; eoxiv 6 Tnooug, whereas J o h n renders
Tnooxjg 6 Na^cogaiog. Ev. Petr. i o reads ovxog eoxiv 6 BaoiXevc; xov
ToQarjX, combining the Matthaean form with the wording o f the mocking
salutation o f Mark 1 5 : 3 2 . T h e preference for 'IoQarjX (already so in verse
7) may be conditioned by the negative meaning o f Toudcuoi in the
14
Gospel. T h e rendering o f the titulus in the three languages is mentioned

7
T h e o d . M o m m s e n , Rbmisches Strafrecht ( L e i p z i g , 1899), p p . 925f.
8
' F u m o punitur, qui f u m u m v e n d i d i t ' ( L a m p r i d i u s 36). L a m p r i d i u s 51 narrates
that A l e x a n d e r Severus o r d e r e d the c r y i n g out o f the ' Q u o d tibi n o n vis fieri, alteri
n o n feceris' in several cases; c p . A . B . v o n W a l t h e r , Juristisch-historische Betrachtungen
titer die Geschichte vom Leyden und Sterben Jesu Christi (Breslau and Leipzig, 1738; 2nd
e d n . Breslau, 1777), p . 324. For the functioning o f the G o l d e n R u l e in the
C h r i s t i a n - p a g a n c o n t r o v e r s y a n d especially in the Historia Augusta ( w h e r e the
a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d passage is taken from: actually from A l e x . Severus 51) c p . J.
Straub, Regeneratio Imperii ( D a r m s t a d t , 1972), p p . 314ff.
9
Representations b y interested parties and equally stubbornness o n the side o f those
w h o believed they h a d c o i n e d a s p l e n d i d formulation are n o t i m p o s s i b l e .
1 0
R . Eisler, 'Ittoovg PaoiXeiJg ii ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1930), 532, goes t o o far in assuming that
the a t x t a w a s 'ein amtlicher A u s z u g aus d e m gefallenen UrteiF. F o r an evaluation
o f the different forms o f notification see M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p p . 517ff.
11
J. Gretser, Decruce Christi ( I n g o l s t a d t , 1600), especially i, 72ff is still i n d i s p e n s a b l e .
1 2
T h e w o r d i n v a d e d the G r e e k language via the Volkssprache ( c p . L . H a h n , Rom und
Romanismus im griech.-rdm. Osten ( L e i p z i g , 1906), p p . 2651). Its usage is therefore not
j u r i d i c a l l y exact, as is also s h o w n b y the fact that its meaning is different in j u r i d i c a l
l a n g u a g e : titulus gives the h e a d i n g o f a section in the Corpus Juris Civilis.
1 3
F o l l o w e d b y Act. Pil. x . 13 (rec. B ) but without 6 'iTjooxJg. For the s e c o n d a r y
character o f the M a t t h a e a n w o r d i n g c p . A . D a u e r , Die Passionsgeschichte im
Johannesevangelium ( M i i n c h e n , 1972), p p . 22if.
1 4
C p . the r e p l a c e m e n t o f 'Iov6aioi b y 'Iov6aia in a n u m b e r o f instances in the o l d
Syriac translation o f the G o s p e l .
 T h e titulus 355

only by John, Act. Pil. xi and in part o f the manuscript tradition o f

15 16
Luke. >
T h e context is not the same. Mark, followed by Matthew, mentions it at
the end o f the factual description o f the execution and before he goes on to
describe the reaction o f the onlookers. Luke, who places the ejUYQCKprj
notice in his account o f the remarks which in his representation mock the
kingly claim o f j e s u s , reproduces one mocking interpretation o f the titulus
17
itself, while leaving it open whether the inscription was meant to convey
the same impression. A further clue may be found in the Jewish accusa­
1 8
tion at the beginning o f the trial before Pilate (23: 2 ) . T h e titulus is
subordinate to the interest in different reactions. John, who places the
notice between the description o f the crucifixion and the casting o f lots for
the seamless garment, adds a judicial detail.
T h e authority by which the titulus was formulated and put up is not
mentioned in the synoptic Gospels. John attributes it to Pilate, whereas the
Acts of Pilate (Act. Pil. x. 1; rec. A . ) produce the strange description
exeXeuaev \izxa tfjv ajiocpaaiv eig xixXov e j t i y p a c p Y j v a i xf)v aixiav amov
19
. . . xaGcbg eircav °£ Tov6aioi 6x1 paodevg eoxiv xcbv Toudaioov, a
formulation which emphasises at one and the same time the c o m m a n d by
Pilate and a Jewish origin for the formula. Jewish responsibility is claimed
by the Gospel o f Peter (Ev. Petr. 4 : 1 1 ) ; and the same is true for the Sinaitic
20
Syriac.
T h e passage on the titulus was evaluated by Bousset as 'erbauliche
Betrachtung der glaubigen Jesusgemeinde', it could not be accepted as
21
historical because its wording constituted a 'Verhohnung' o f the Jews. R.

1 5
P. F. R e g a r d , ' L e titre d e la croix d ' a p r e s les Evangiles', RArch 28 (1928), 96 c o n ­
siders this text form as authentic.
1 6
Regard, ibid. h o l d s that the differences o f w o r d i n g o f the titulus can b e under­
s t o o d this w a y : M a t t h e w renders the Semitic text, L u k e the G r e e k and J o h n the
Latin text, whereas M a r k summarises. T h i s last m a y be true but the interpreta­
tion offered for the different texts is speculative.
1 7
C p . 23:37 el cnj ei 6 paoiA.eiJg xa>v ' I o u 6 a i a ) v xxX (but c p . M a n i ' s gospel fr. ii: the
soldiers say m o c k i n g l y : o u r king M e s s i a h ) ; p r o b a b l y already in v i e w o f the titulus.
1 8
It is there that the singular phrase XQtcrcog (3ctoiXei>g is used.
1 9
R e c . B X . 5 (P. V a n n u t e l l i , Actorum Pilati textus synoptici ( R o m e , 1938), p p . 97O
follows m a i n l y the J o h a n n i n e a c c o u n t .
2 0
C p . A . M e r x , Das Evangelium Matthaeus (Berlin, 1902), p p . 414^ c p . p p . 405, 407.
s
M a t t . 27: 37 starts in sy : 'and while they were sitting they w r o t e the trespass and set
it o v e r his h e a d ' . T h i s looks like an action undertaken o n the spur o f the m o m e n t
(like the casting o f the lots). T h e 'they' are in all likelihood the taxog to w h o m Jesus
had b e e n h a n d e d o v e r .
21
Kyrios Christos ( G o t t i n g e n , 1913), p . 56. C p . J. W e i s s and W . Bousset, Diedreidlteren
Evangelien ( G o t t i n g e n , 1917), p p . 215, 22of. Just the o p p o s i t e reason for the
unhistoricity o f the titulus is given b y E. H a e n c h e n : it is o f Christian origin, because
it contains the confession w h i c h was p r o c l a i m e d b y the Judaeo-Christian
35^ E . BAMMEL

Bultmann added to this the point that the passage is based on Mark 1 5 : 2 , a
2 2
verse which is secondary to 1 5 : 3 - 5 . Bousset's argument does not carry
weight, because the titulus is not used theologically by Mark, Matthew and
J o h n and even Luke bases his evaluation of the trial on 23: 4 3 rather than on
23
verse 3 8 . Bultmann's observation is substantiated. This does not mean,
however, that the PaoiTteiig-theme is a secondary intrusion in the Markan
text. W h a t is a secondary layer from the literary point o f view may,
nevertheless, contain information that is historically reliable. Executions
used to be public occasions at this time and at many times, and people -
unfamiliar with the subleties o f the legal position, with charging,
fact-finding and c o n d e m n a t i o n - r e m e m b e r e d clearly what had been visible
to their o w n eyes. J. Wellhausen had already set his face against such
24
scepticism and P. Winter's statement: 'if anything that is recorded o f his
Passion in the four Gospels accords with history it is . . . that the cross . . .
bore a summary statement o f the cause for which he had been sentenced to
25
the servile supplicium' may not be too far from the truth.
T h e meaning o f the titulus according to what became the standard
opinion o f the early church may be illustrated by the interpretation given
by Isidore o f Sevile, w h o , pointing to the title o f Ps. 5 7 , exclaims: 'spoil not
26
the inscription o f the title'. It is the climax o f a tendency which tried to
supplement Jesus's good confession before Pilate (1 T i m . 6: 13) by the
latter's o w n confession.

c o m m u n i t i e s without a n y h i n d r a n c e for a long time. T h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f such an

inscription b y the R o m a n s vvould not have constituted a p r o v o c a t i o n o f the J e w s
(Der Wegjesu (Berlin, 1966), p . 536).
2 2
Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition ( G o t t i n g e n , 1931), p p . 293^ 307 ( E T p . 272 - the
decisive sentence is o m i t t e d in the translation - p . 284). E. L i n n e m a n n (Studien zur
Passionsgeschichte ( G o t t i n g e n , 1970), p p . 134, 154) follows B.-J. Schreiber (Theologie
des Vertrauens ( H a m b u r g , 1967); Die Markuspassion ( H a m b u r g , 1969), p . 5 2 f - he is
d e p e n d e n t o n R . T h i e l , Drei Markusevangelien (Berlin, 1938), p . 26 - and especially
W . Schenk (Der Passionsbericht nach Markus (Berlin, 1974), p p . 37ff) d e v e l o p the
B u l t m a n n i a n view: t w o different a c c o u n t s o f the crucifixion were w o r k e d together
in the actual text o f M a r k ; the titulus is part o f the second a n d y o u n g e r report.
S c h e n k , Passionsbericht, p . 40, holds that IjtiYEYQaiiuivT) w a s a d d e d b y the
evangelist; that m e a n s that the tradition d i d not necessarily state that the aiTict w a s
fixed to the cross. J. R . D o n a h u e (Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of
Mark ( M i s s o u l a , 1973)) d o e s not g o into this particular question. H . B r a u n , Jesus
(Stuttgart, 1969), p . 50, follows B u l t m a n n , while E. Dinkier, Signum Crucis
( T u b i n g e n , 1967), p . 306, c o m e s o u t in favour o f the historicity o f the titulus.
2 3
E . H i r s c h argues that all the PaaiXeijg-references were a d d e d b y M a r k I I , they
s h o w the attempt to picture Jesus as having been c o n d e m n e d because o f his
m e s s i a n i c aspiration (Fruhgeschichte des Evangeliums \ ( T u b i n g e n , 1940), 163^ 21 o f ) .
T h e results o f his analysis c o n v e r g e with B u l t m a n n ' s findings.
2 4
Das Evangelium Marci (Berlin, 1909), p p . i3of.
2 5
On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p . 108.
2 6
Contra Judaeos o n Ps. 57; c p . A . L . W i l l i a m s , Adversus Judaeos ( C a m b r i d g e , 1935),
p . 287, n. 3.
 T h e titulus 357

Important as it was for centuries, this view has been replaced in this
century by the theory that the titulus is the chief witness for the trial before
Pilate, the precise indication o f what was going on on this memorable
occasion, and the exact formulation o f the causa poenae. Baoi^eiig is seen
as the confirmation of a claim that had political connotations and was liable
27
to punishment as an attempt at rebellion. T h e view that Pilate had reason
to think ofjesus in these terms while in essence he was mistaken in treating
28
Jesus as a politically dangerous person is a modification o f this theory.
T h e titulus does not, however, describe Jesus as a XflaTrjg, a man novarum
rerum cupidus. Such terms would have been appropriate and even imperative
if the titulus was meant to define the offence o f attempted insurrection
committed by the culprit.
T h e alternative theory that the titulus was meant to refer to the crime o f
29
laesa majestas recommends itself much more strongly. T h e claim to be a
30
king was according to this view eo ipso a challenge to the emperor. This is
certainly tenable in the light o f the development o f the later Roman public
law. T h e R o m a n rulers o f the period o f the Dominium and certainly o f the
post-Constantinian period were seen as (3aoiAeig (3aotX.ecov and any claim
31
not vouchsafed by them was bound to be regarded as high treason. T h e
matter was, however, different in the time o f the principate. T h e princeps
held the tribunicia potestas as his main office, he was by no means a king and
the populus Romanus was still regarded as the very majestas. True, the laesa
32
majestas populi Romani and that o f the princeps was already considered as a
33
crime and trials took place in Tiberius's time especially after the fall o f
34 33
Sejanus. This delict, which is equated with aoe|3eia is, however, hardly

2 7
W i n t e r , Trial, p p . 1380°; S. G . F. B r a n d o n , Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967),
p . 328, a n d , most forcefully, K . K a u t s k y : ' H i e r tritt der urspriingliche Charakter
der Katastrophe wieder deutlich hervor. Hier sind die R o m e r die erbitterten Feinde
J e s u u n d d e r G r u n d ihres H o h n s u n d ihres Hasses liegt in seinem H o c h v e r r a t , in
seiner A s p i r a t i o n a u f das j u d i s c h e K o n i g t u m , in d e m n Streben n a c h A b s c h u t t e l u n g
d e r r o m i s c h e n Fremdherrschaft' (Der Ursprung des Christentums (Stuttgart, 1908),
p . 430; for details o f E T see p . 19, n. 77).
2 8
H . V i n c e n t gives it a further n u a n c e b y assuming that Pilate chose to think so for
fear o f b e i n g castigated b y the R o m a n authorities ( ' L e Lithostrotos E v a n g e l i q u e ' ,
M 59 (1952), 526).
2 9
E.g. Blinzler, Der Process Jesu ( R e g e n s b u r g , 1969), p . 311.
3 0
T h u s H . W i n d i s c h : if Jesus professed his messianic character before Pilate, the
latter had n o c h o i c e but to c o n d e m n him (Imperium und Evangelium ( K i e l , 1931),
p . 22).
3 1
O n the other hand a Christian d o c u m e n t o f this time, like the Acts of Pilate, w h i c h
took this interpretation for granted, had to e m p l o y great skill in o r d e r to s h o w that
the secular authorities a c k n o w l e d g e d Jesus's claim to be a king.
3 2
W h o is, h o w e v e r , not e n d o w e d with a special inviolability ( M o m m s e n , Strafrecht,
p . 582 n. 1).
3 3
T a c . Ann. i v . 70: v i . 18; Suet. Tib. 58. 61.
3 4 3 5
C p . ThLZ 77 (1952), c o l . 207f. M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p . 540.
35^ £ . BAMMEL

applicable, as it presupposed, in the time o f the principate at least, direct

36 31
actions against the princeps. T h e same is even true for perduellio. Besides,
38
these laws were binding only for Roman citizens, whereas the trial which
took place outside the metropolis and over which the Roman administra­
tor took charge, was conducted according to the principles o f coercitio (or
Eigenkognition), thus giving the representative o f R o m e a far wider choice o f
action. This does not exclude the possibility that these regulations
influenced the frame of mind o f a Roman j u d g e in a general way, but it does
make it unlikely that quasi-automatic action was called forth by any
strange behaviour. Kingly claims outside R o m e might be regarded with
suspicion in the capital but they did not ipso facto clash with the established
order o f the day. Besides, the situation in Palestine was so complex, claims
39
of a messianic character were so c o m m o n and, on the other hand, refuted
already by part o f the population, that it was a matter of good policy for the
40
Romans to avoid involvement in these issues as far as possible. T h e
interpretation referred to is juridically doubtful and historically unlikely.
T h e interpretation the passion story itself provides is different. ' O
X Q I O T 0 5 6 (JaoiXeijg 'IoQarjX, - almost a repetition o f the titulus - is cited
mockingly in Mark 1 5 : 3 2 . X p i o i o g alone is given a mocking interpretation
41
in Luke 2 3 : 3 9 . This certainly gives an indication for the exegesis o f the
formula o f the titulus. Luke goes even further by citing the mocking
interpretation o f the OTQaTicoxcu (verse 3 7 ) before actually mentioning the
titulus itself. This understanding became quite c o m m o n in the following
42
centuries. W e could expect more on the lines of John 1 9 : 2 1 , more o f a
protest in the early tradition, if the titulus had had the intention of defining
the actual reason for the condemnation. But the mocking usage o f the
formula was readily at hand if the titulus itself already was meant to give an
adverse and ridiculing description o f some claim, the nature o f which was
left in the open.
T h e Johannine narrative demands special treatment. T h e reference to

3 6
T a c . Ann. iv. 34: iniuria; c p . M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p p . 541, 583f.
3 7
M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p p . 537^ 540, 546.
3 8
M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p . 543.
3 9
C p . E. K o c s i s , ' D e r j i i d i s c h e M e s s i a n i s m u s u n d d a s politische P r o b l e m in d e r
G e s c h i c h t e J e s u ' (Diss. Erlangen, 1959).
4 0
T h e case o f the 6eoji6cnJvoi, w h o were released even in the time o f D o m i t i a n (Eus.,
H.E., 3.20.5), is a telling e x a m p l e .
4 1
L u k e 23: 39 seems to b e a c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f t w o versions, o n e w h i c h d e s c r i b e d the
abuse in general terms a n d w h i c h is still d o c u m e n t e d in D e, a n d another w h i c h
g a v e the w o r d i n g o f the c a l u m n y , p r o b a b l y without having introduced it b y
e(3Xao(pr|[xei.
4 2
E.g. in M a n i ' s gospel the J e w s call J e s u s m o c k i n g l y ' o u r L o r d M e s s i a h ' ( E .
H e n n e c k e , Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, e d . W . S c h n e e m e l c h e r i ( T u b i n g e n , 1959),
262).
 The titulus 359

the inscription is substantially identical with the synoptic account, but for
the fact that it contains the supplementary detail that it was rendered in the
43
three languages. T h e Gospel contains, however, a comparatively long
addition which is completely absent from the parallel accounts. This deals
with the encounter between the Jewish leaders and Pilate; the former
44
entreat the prefect not to write (any l o n g e r ) king of the Jews and the latter
answers with the epigrammatic phrase: 'quod scripsi scrips?.
T h e addition starts with a remark that many Jews saw the inscription
45
because the place of the crucifixion was near to the town. These onlookers
are known from both the Markan/Matthaean and the Lukan account. In
the former tradition they are enumerated among those who mock at Jesus
(Mark 1 5 : 2 9 / ; Matt. 2 7 : 3 9 1 1 ) , whereas the Lukan account remains
46
strangely silent about this feature. While Luke, who calls the onlookers
6xX,°5, tends to attribute the mocking action to specific groups, to the
otQ/ovxeg, the aTQaxiuYcai and the one malefactor, John bypasses any
reference to the mocking o f the crucified one. T h e evangelist, who makes

4 3
Inscriptions in m o r e than o n e language are well k n o w n . In m a n y places it was
expedient to p r o m u l g a t e declarations in this form. T h e i r multilingual c o m p o s i t i o n
was an a c c e p t e d practice, although not imperative o r even very c o m m o n .
Inscriptions o f a m o r e private character were, h o w e v e r , normally p r o d u c e d in o n e
language o n l y . E x c e p t i o n s , e.g. in funeral inscriptions (examples in W a l t h e r ,
Betracktungen, p . 342), o c c u r r e d if the person c o n c e r n e d w a s a figure o f great
e m i n e n c e o r the society that maintained the cemetery was o n the brink o f shifting
from o n e language to another. M o c k e r y inscriptions in different languages are
certainly u n c o m m o n . J o h n , w h o emphasised the three languages, is likely to have
intended to p r o d u c e something that appeared already to the neutral eye as at least
as dignified as the w a r n i n g inscription o f the T e m p l e , which, J o s e p h u s maintains,
was e x e c u t e d in G r e e k and Latin (BJ 6 §125; the alternative M S . reading
t>u.£T£QCH5 w o u l d refer to an A r a m a i c w o r d i n g ) . T h e verdict, o n the other h a n d , was
to b e p r o n o u n c e d in Latin ( M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p . 449, n. 3), as is illustrated b y
the Acta Pionii, where the flow o f the narration is interrupted b y the remark that the
verdict was p r o n o u n c e d in Latin ( c h . x x ) (the prescription o f the C o r p . Jur. - c p .
W a l t h e r , Betracktungen, p . 342 - that the e l o g i u m had to be cried out b y the herald in
Greek and Latin points to a later d a t e ) . It results from this that the closer the titulus
is linked with the verdict the less likely b e c o m e s the J o h a n n i n e claim a b o u t the three
languages. In fact, the inscription is likely to have been written d o w n in the local
language ( c p . n. 4 o n L y o n s ) . T h e Syriac Schatzhohle emphasises the point that
the inscription was not written in Syriac, and d e d u c e s from this that the Syrians are
not guilty o f the m u r d e r o f Christ, while the Greek H e r o d , the J e w C a i a p h a s and the
R o m a n Pilate are. T h e inscription is thereby v i e w e d as a c o n d e m n a t i o n o f those b y
w h o m it w a s put u p and for w h o s e eyes it was written (53: 2iff).
4 4
\ir\ YQOKpe d o not g o o n writing; c p . W . Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium ( T u b i n g e n ,
1933), p . 222.
4 5
T h e remark is not a s e c o n d a r y addition (pace F. Spitta, Das Johannesevangelium als
Quelle der Geschichte Jesu ( G o t t i n g e n , 1910), p p . 3 7 9 0 - Otherwise w e w o u l d expect to
find it after verse 20b. O n the contrary, verse 20b is a pedantic interpretation o f 20a
(dveyvcDoav) w h i c h p r o b a b l y c a m e in at the redaction stage.
4 6 O V T £
V e r s e 35b introduces the m o c k i n g o f the a Q X S by a x a i and presupposes
thereby w h a t is lacking in the present text. T h e x a i is omitted b y x fi 3 al.
360 E. BAMMEL

the soldiers fall to the ground when they realise w h o m they are about to
arrest ( 1 8 : 6 ) , w h o deprives the Ecce homo scene of any crude feature o f
47
mockery and turns it into an occasion for something approaching a
confession, must have acted here equally deliberately: while the mocking is
not found worth mentioning, those whose mocking action is presupposed
are mocked themselves. What we find here is the fragment o f a controversy
with the Jews. While the first stage is left out, because the mention o f the
mocking would be at variance with the stylised christology, the answer o f
Pilate is phrased in such a way that it implies the categorical affirmative
that Jesus actually was the messiah o f the Jews. T h e reference to the three
languages highlights this from a different side. A n d the cryptic descriptive
48
appellation Na^coQaiog is to be taken as a feature similar to that. Such a
statement was serviceable in the discussion with the Jews after 7 0 , when
49
they became uncertain whether they still could expect a messiah. This
points to verses 20a, 2 i f having been formulated after the defeat o f the Jews.
It does not, however, mean that the substance o f these verses is not
50
historical. T h e matter must be left in the balance.
It is this approach o f the Fourth Gospel which is taken up in one stream
o f the Christian tradition and which finds, with respect to the titulus, its
climax in the claim that Pilate chose the text under the direction o f the Holy
51
Spirit: 'et manifestavit propheticum dictum'.
A Jewish report, in some ways similar to that on the titulus is cited in
5 2
Sanh. 4 3 a . According to this notice a herald marched round for forty days
53
either 'beforehand' or 'in front o f h i m ' , proclaiming the charges against
Jesus and inviting the submission of'mitigating reasons'. T h e passage has

4 7
M a r k 15: i g f are not r e p r o d u c e d b y J o h n .
4 8
E. Stauffer (Jesus war ganz anders ( H a m b u r g 1967), p . 191, c p . p . 60), holds that J o h n
a l o n e r e p r o d u c e s the c o r r e c t form o f the titulus. In this case, h o w e v e r , w e w o u l d
rather e x p e c t Na£arjr|Vog than Na^WQaiog. T h e same argument applies to A .
D a u e r , a c c o r d i n g to w h o m the titulus is an 'amtliche U r k u n d e ' in the v i e w o f J o h n
(Die Passionsgeschichte, p p . 1761).
4 9
T h e position taken b y J o c h a n a n b . Zakkai is indicative; c p . NovTest (1962), 2i9ff.
5 0
R e a s o n s , not altogether c o n v i n c i n g , for the historicity o f the passage are g i v e n b y
Eisler, 'It]0. |3ao. ii, 530-2.
5 1
T e r t . Apol. 21; for different o p i n i o n s o f the c h u r c h fathers c p . Fulda, Kreuz, p p .
205-7.
5 2
' O n the eve o f the Passover J e s h u w a s h a n g e d . For forty days before the e x e c u t i o n
t o o k p l a c e , a herald w e n t forth and cried " H e is g o i n g forth to b e stoned b e c a u s e he
practised s o r c e r y and enticed Israel to apostasy. A n y o n e w h o c a n say anything in
his favour, let h i m c o m e forward and plead o n his behalf." But since nothing was
b r o u g h t forward in his favour he was h a n g e d o n the eve o f the Passover. U l l a
retorted: D o y o u s u p p o s e that he was o n e for w h o m a defence c o u l d b e m a d e ? W a s
he not an enticer?, c o n c e r n i n g w h o m Scripture says "Neither shalt thou spare,
neither shalt thou c o n c e a l h i m . " W i t h J e s h u h o w e v e r it was different, for he w a s
c o n n e c t e d with the g o v e r n m e n t ' (after the S o n c i n o translation).
5 3
F o r the translation p r o b l e m see NTSt 13 (1966/67), 327 n. 4.
 T h e titulus 361

been revised several times. T h e submission o f pleas in defence after the

conviction is something that exists only in the theory o f the Mishnaic code
and is contrary to our information about the procedure of the earlier period,
54
which excludes the alteration o f the sentence once it has been passed. At
this point the principle o f Sanh. 6. 1 has exercised an influence on the text.
A s for the herald himself, in this case two strands o f tradition have been
combined. O n e o f these is that a herald preceded the criminal to the place o f
execution in order to proclaim the reason for the condemnation, the other
tells o f a proclamation made forty days before the execution took place. T h e
55
first procedure is the customary o n e ; it will have been carried out in the
case o f j e s u s too. T h e second, however, will refer to the proscription
56
peculiar to this case. It is in this piece of information that we have the
beginning o f the tradition about Jesus. It was combined with the
information about a detail o f the customary procedure for execution and
then altered to accord with the principles o f the Mishnah. It was in this
developed form that the tradition caused the annoyed protest o f Rabbi
57
U l l a h , which gave rise to a new justification of the procedure supported by
58
reference to special circumstances.
This passage, which goes back to the second century at least, contains
two pieces of information o f unique value: the indication o f the proscription
and the detailed formulation about the reason for the condemnation. T h e
form o f its proclamation by a herald walking in front ofjesus is even more in
59
keeping with the normal practice than the titulus. It seems that this detail
had retreated into the background in the Christian reports in favour o f the
narrative about Simon o f Cyrene and, indeed, the warning: 'weep for
yourselves and for your children' (Luke 2 3 : 2 8 ) .
60
T h e wording o f the Aramaic Toledoth J e s h u is to be seen as a variant
version. It is not denied in the text that Jesus misled the people - on the
contrary it is emphasised that he directed himself against the Torah
(rVHIX) - but it is heightened by the statement: 'he rebelled against the
61
great G o d ' . This is meant to be the counter-formulation and mockery o f
the claim Jesus is said to have made before Caesar, the claim to be a son o f

5 4
Sanh. 44b Bar; j Sanh. 23c; c p . the principle indicated in j Sanh. iv 6 (22b).
5 5
W a l t h e r , Betrachtungen, p p . 323f.
5 6
C p . Festschrift C . F . D M o u l e (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1971), p p . 33f.
5 7
H e c o m e s o u t against any ventilating o f mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e s in the case o f the
enticer a n d sticks thereby to the o l d e r , rigid views, at least in the case o f a religious
crime.
5 8
T h e rabbis w h e n answering this d o not disagree with him in principle. T h e y only
give a practical reason ('he w a s c o n n e c t e d with the g o v e r n m e n t ' ) w h i c h in their
o p i n i o n m a d e it desirable to p r o c e e d differently in the case o f J e s h u ( = J e s u s ) .
5 9
F o r the herald's role in the R o m a n trial c p . Riepl, Nackrichtenwesen, p . 333.
6 0
L. G i n z b e r g in S c h e c h t e r M e m o r i a l v o l . ii ( N e w Y o r k , 1929), 334f.
6 1
Km KnVw "nan p . 2a 1. 24 o f the M S p u b l . b y G i n z b e r g ; c p . p . 2b 1. 5f.
362 E. BAMMEL

6 2
the great G o d . T h e occasion on which this verdict is said to have been
pronounced (inDK ) by the Jews is different: it is the day when, after
certain misfortunes, the corpse o f j e s u s is paraded through the streets o f
Tiberias and the Jews thereby make evident their final victory. This shows
the development o f the tradition and indicates its Sitz im Leben in the
community o f Tiberias, which had become the centre o f the Palestinian
63
Jews in Byzantine times.
T h e written notification o f a verdict was another way o f informing the
public about an execution. Jewish sources insist that in cases o f a religious
64
crime 'all Israel' is to be informed. Accordingly Christian sources tell o f
65
embassies sent out eig Jidoav xfjv oixou^evryv in order to inform about
66
the verdict cast against Jesus. T h e reason given for the condemnation is in
keeping with Jewish law and not directly based on the Gospel reports or the
titulus. This tradition about Jewish reports is not early. It is, however, in
agreement with the procedure laid d o w n by the Mishnah and with factual
67
notices on related subjects going back to the first century. This does not
mean that something of this kind happened in the case ofjesus immediately
after his death. But it is probable that, at a later stage, when it became
apparent that Jesus's following had not dispersed, intelligence went round
about the reason for the condemnation o f j e s u s . It is not inappropriate to
take the references as more or less distant reflections of such information. If
that is their nature they have to be taken as an explanation from the Jewish
side parallel to that offered by the Christians in addition to the mention o f
the titulus incorporated in John 1 9 : 2of.
T h e existence o f direct documentary evidence on the trial o f Jesus,
68
available to emperor and senate, is presupposed by Justin and maintained
69
emphatically by Tertullian. T h e former seems to think o f the records o f
the prefect, whereas the latter claims that a special letter was written to
70
Tiberius. Both these reports (one o f them is supposed to be based on a

<*P. l b 1. 21.
6 3
T h e p o l e m i c a l m o t i f is d e v e l o p e d even further in the H u l d r e i c h version o f the
T o l e d o t h , a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h a d e f a m a t o r y inscription: 'the children o f adultery
w e r e h a n g e d at this place a n d her m o t h e r was buried beneath; y o u r m o t h e r is
c o v e r e d with s h a m e ' was set up o n the grave o f M a r y and her children (J.J.
H u l d r e i c h , Sepher Toledoth Jeskua ha-Notz.ri ( L e i d e n , 1705), p . 122).
6 4
S a n h . 8gBar. - J e h u d a even speaks o f messengers to b e sent to all places ( S a n h .
11.4).
65
J u s t i n , Dial.c. Tryph. 108.
66
|xdyog . . . xai XaoJtXavog (Dial. 69), jrldvog (Dial. 108).
6 7
Especially with A c t s 28:21.
6 8 6 9
1 Apol. 35 a n d 38. Apologeticum 5.21.
7 0
O u t s t a n d i n g a m o n g them is the letter c l a i m e d to have been written b y Pilate to
C l a u d i u s . F o r the theory o f a longer span o f the life o f j e s u s and his execution u n d e r
C l a u d i u s see H i p p o l y t u s I V , 23.3; c p . W . Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter
der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen ( T u b i n g e n , 1909), p p . 293f.
 The titulus 363

Jewish account), are produced in the genre o f the Acts of Pilate. They
11
describe Jesus as accused by the Jews 'Magum esse et contra legem eorum agere'
and testify thereby to the fact that they are a derivation from and correction
of non-Christian, most probably Jewish Acts. Their value consists in
72
certain details rather than in the general flow of their account. T h e letter is
73
merely an imaginative construction.
A unique form o f the titulus is rendered in the Slavonic Josephus: Jesus
the king did not reign but was crucified by the Jews because he prophesied
74
the destruction o f the city and the devastation o f the T e m p l e . T h e
75
inscription is said to have been placed on s o m e of the hewn stones with the
warning inscription which marked the entrance o f the inner court o f the
76 77
T e m p l e . T h e text itself is a combination of John 1 8 : igff and n : 48, 5 0
with the Jewish view expressed in Sanh. 4 3 a (see note 5 2 , p . 3 6 0 ) .
Historically extremely unlikely, it derives from the Jewish-Christian
controversy in late antiquity. It is the Christian counter-formulation to
Jewish claims and tries to outmanoeuvre the latter by pretending that this
was the official Jewish opinion in the time o f j e s u s .
The following conclusion arises from this: the evidence about direct and
official reports on the trial ofjesus is, although ample, rather to be taken as
an attempt to illustrate the event to a later generation than as historically
reliable information. Different in nature is the baraitha in Sanh. 4 3 a which,
besides containing details about the execution ofjesus, gives the reason for
the condemnation, the atxia in a form that agrees with Jewish law. T h e
wording o f the titulus as it is reported in the Gospels is in all likelihood
78
authentic. Its juridical relevance is, however, restricted by the influence o f
considerations and, indeed, emotions o f a different nature about its

71
Letter to C l a u d i u s ( W a l t h e r , Betrachtungen, p p . 432ff; C . v o n T i s c h e n d o r f (Evangelia
Apocrypha (Leipzig, 1876), p . 413).
7 2
C p . T . M o m m s e n , ' D i e Pilatus-Acten', ZNW 3 (1902), 205.
7 3
E. V o l t e r r a , ' D i una d e c i s i o n e del Senato R o m a n o ricordata d a T e r t u l l i a n o ' in
Festschrift C. Ferrini i ( = Pubblicazioni dell' Universita Cattolica del S. Cuore, n.s. xvii
( M i l a n o , 1947), 47 iff), h o w e v e r , a d v o c a t e s the trustworthiness o f Tertullian.
7 4
'Irjoovv PaoiXea ov (3aoiXei3oavxa oxavQO)0Evxa vnb (xd>v) 'Iov&aioav 6ioxe
ejiQOcpr|TEVoe (xfjv) xaGaiQEoiv (xfjg JioXewg) x a i (xf)v) EOT|U,OOIV (XOV) vaoij; the
text in Eisler, T n a . |3ao. ii, 5341T, 542: c p . W . Bienert, Der alteste nichtchristliche
Jesusbericht (Halle, 1936), p p . 165-7.
7 5
Eisler Clr\o. £ a o ii, 536 and especially 541), thinks o f two pillars at the side o f a
certain gate and o f the lintel o f the gate itself: the inscription w a s displayed at each
p l a c e in a different language.
7 6
T h e three languages, PaodEvg, 'IovSaioi ( r e m o v e d b y Eisler, 'ITJO. (3ao. ii, 541),
OXE . . . EIJIEV ( c p . ov paoiA.£i)oag).
7 7
EJtoocprjxEvaE, xojtog ( c p . vaog), E0vog ( c p . JioXig).
7 8
V a l i d arguments against the Christian origin o f its formulation are given b y J.
Finegan, Die Uberlieferung der Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu (Giessen, 1934),
p . 78.
364 E. BAMMEL

formulation. T h e titulus is therefore not to be taken as the 'one solid and

stable fact that should be made the starting point o f any historical
79
investigation', but rather as a piece o f evidence, the importance o f which
can only be assessed in conjunction with the rest of the material on the trial.

7 9
W i n t e r , Trial, p . 109; 2nd edn., p . 156. B r a n d o n goes even further b y c l a i m i n g that
J e s u s w a s c o n d e m n e d for sedition 'as the titulus s h o w s ' (Zealots, p . 328).
 E. BAMMEL

Romans 13

Chapter 1 3 : 1 - 7 o f Paul's letter to the Romans became perhaps the

most influential part o f the New Testament on the level o f world his­
tory. This happened in spite o f the fact that the interpretation o f the pass­
age has never been found easy and is nowadays more disputed than ever
before.
1
While the interpretations o f the patristic period ranged from the
identification o f the superior powers with evil angels to respect for them as
2 3
ecclesiastical officials; while, already in pre-Constantinian time an
interpretation that lends dignity to the state became dominant, although
T . Muntzer turned that into a kind o f revolutionary manifesto by main­
taining that the governments are instituted to execute the will o f G o d
and, conversely, if they fail to d o so, those w h o d o the will o f G o d are
4
bound to take the sword into their own hands, nowadays it is asserted
that the pericope contains nothing but a 'devastating undermining',
5
the Divine verdict on the Powers that b e ; and if indeed it were o f a posi­
tive nature Paul's statement would be in need o f radical demythologis-
6
ing.

1
K . H . Schelkle, 'Staat u n d K i r c h e in der patristischen A u s l e g u n g v o n R m 13: 1-7',
ZNW44 (1952-3), 22 ff.
3

2
D i d a s k . 2, 33, 2; 34, 1 ( F u n k ) ; the Catharens a r g u e d similarly; c p . I. v . Dollinger,
Beitrdge zur Sectengeschichte des Mittelalters I ( M i i n c h e n , 1890), p p . 183^
3
Schelkle, Z M 4 4 (1952-3), 227f.
*Schriften und Briefe, e d . b y G . Franz (Giitersloh, 1968), p p . 242ff. C p . E . B l o c h ,
Thomas Muntzer als Theologe der Revolution (Berlin, 1921; 2nd e d n . Frankfurt, 1962),
p p . I3iff.
3
K a r l Barth, Der Romerbrief (2nd e d n . M i i n c h e n , 1922), p . 467 ( E T O x f o r d , 1933, p .
483). T h e author ventilates at length the possibility o f revolution and c o m e s out
fervently against this attempt ' o f willing to d o w h a t G o d d o e s ' ( p . 474; E T p . 491);
these remarks are absent from thr. first edition (Basel, 1919). C p . the toning d o w n o f
this radical point o f v i e w in a late statement cited b y E. Busch, Karl Barths Lebenslauf
( M i i n c h e n , 1975), p . 478 ( E T p . 461). A . A . T . Ehrhardt takes u p these views o f
Barth a n d attempts to trace the s a m e position vis a vis the state w h i c h Barth finds in
R o m a n s 13 in the Christian d o c u m e n t s o f the pre-Constantinian period (Politische
Metaphysik von Solon bis Augustin II ( T u b i n g e n , 1959)). F o r the p r o b l e m o f a m o r e
radical position o f the y o u n g Barth allowing revolution, c p . F. W . M a r q u a r d ,
Theologie und Sozialismus. Das Beispiel Karl Barths ( M i i n c h e n , 1972), p p . I26ff, i35ff;
and I. J a c o b s e n ( e d . ) , War Barth Sozialist? Ein Streitgesprdch urn Theologie und Sozialismus
bei K. Barth (Berlin, 1975), especially p p . 34L
e
O . D i b e l i u s , Obrigkeit (Stuttgart, i960).

365
366 E. BAMMEL

I
7
Scholars have noticed the unusually isolated character of the passage, and
have made the most varied attempts to explain this, ranging as far as
8 9
interpolation hypothesis (A. Pallis, E. Barnikol ). The advice contains
elements o f a basic understanding o f the state, which both in its
semi-philosophical terminology and in its point o f departure from a
theology o f creation has no equal in the Corpus Paulinum. That this is not a
case o f free composition is shown by comparison with i Pet. 2: I3ff, a
passage which derives not from Romans 1 3 but from a third tradition which
10
made its imprint on both the New Testament writings. T h e fact that one
finds numerous parallels in hellenistic literature o f both pagan and Jewish
11
authorship leads one to seek the roots o f this tradition in the Judaism o f
the diaspora. Indeed M . Dibelius maintained that 'niemand kann
tiberhaupt aus diesem Text entnehmen, dass hier ein christlicher Apostel
12
eine christliche Gemeinde ermahnt'. Even the words 5id xf|V aweC5r]Oiv
13
need not be seen as a Christianisation o f the passage.

7
E.g. O . M i c h e l , Der Brief an die Rbmer ( G o t t i n g e n , 1966), p p . 313f. M . Borg, ' A n e w
C o n t e x t for R o m a n s X I I I ' , NTSt 19 (1972-3), 205, o n the other h a n d , tries to link
the passage with the m a i n themes o f the epistle. W h i l e his arguments are not
c o n v i n c i n g in this respect, he is right in attempting to give the passage itself a
historical setting.
8
To the Romans ( L o n d o n , 1920), p . 14 regards verses 1-10 as a c l u m s y insertion in a
c o n t i n u o u s c o n t e x t dealing with the correct w a y o f life for Christians. T h e verses are
in a c c o r d a n c e with the attitude o f the apologists, w h o , while pointing to d u b i o u s
m a c h i n a t i o n s , e m p h a s i s e d their o w n loyalty to R o m e . Therefore they are a d d e d
after A . D . 133. C h r . E g g e n b e r g e r , ' D i e Q u e l l e n d e r politischen Ethik des 1.
K l e m e n s b r i e f e s ' (Diss. Z u r i c h , 1951), p . 205 reserves j u d g e m e n t o n the question o f
Paulinity o f the passage.
9
' D e r nichtpaulinische U r s p r u n g d e r absoluten O b r i g k e i t s b e j a h u n g v o n R o m e r 13,
1-7' ( T U 77 (1961), 65-133). H e is followed b y J. Kallas, ' R o m a n s X I I I , 1-7: an
i n t e r p o l a t i o n ' (NTSt 11 (1964-5), 3 6 5 ^ W . Schmithals, Der Rbmerbriefals historisches
Problem ( G u t e r s l o h , 1975); and n o w J . C . O ' N e i l l , Paul's Letter to the Romans
( L o n d o n , 1975), p p . 207f; for criticism c p . K . A l a n d , Neutestamentliche Entwurfe
( M i i n c h e n , 1979), p . 41.
1 0
C p . D . D a u b e in E. G . S e l w y n , The first Epistle of St Peter ( L o n d o n , 1949), p . 488:
R o m a n s 13 and 1 Peter 2 used the s a m e s o u r c e , an 'early Christian c o d e o f
b e h a v i o u r within the n e w c o m m u n i t y ' .
11
E.g. J o s . BJ 2 §140 ( c p . M . D i b e l i u s , Rom und die Christen im ersten Jahrhundert ( S A H ,
1941/42), p . 8 ( = Botschaft und Geschichte ( T u b i n g e n , 1956), 182) and, m o s t recently,
R . B e r g m e i e r , ' L o y a l t a t als G e g e n s t a n d paulin. Paraklese', Theokrateia i (1970),
54ff); Ber. 58a; Aristeas § i87ff. C p . F. Delitzsch, Paulus desApostels Brief an die Romer
e
( L e i p z i g , 1870), p . 95: Der Apostel steht also auf echt jiidischem Boden'
12
Rom, p . 10 ( = Botschaft, ii, 184). C p . O . D i b e l i u s , Obrigkeit, p . 19. For a recent
discussion, c p . W . C . v a n U n n i k , ' L o b u n d Strafe d u r c h die O b r i g k e i t .
Hellenistisches zu R o m 13. 3-4' in Jesus und Paulus (Festschrift W . G . K i i m m e i ) ,
e d s . E . E l l i s and E. G r a s s e r ( G o t t i n g e n , 1975), p . 41.
1 3
A different v i e w , as it seems, is taken b y E. K a s e m a n n , ' R o m e r 13, 1-7 in unserer
G e n e r a t i o n ' (ZThK 56 (1959), 3 7 4 0 -
 Romans 1 3 367

Moreover the attempt to interpret Romans 1 3 on the basis o f the

14
eschatological context, and thus to put a veneer o f eschatological
Christianity on the passage, and in this way to insert a Christian
reservation in the text after all, does not make any proper headway. For
the admonitions o f Romans 1 3 are placed side by side without any
15
interconnection, as has been shown by E. K a s e m a n n . A n d even this
context does not allow any substantial limitation o f the pronouncement o f
Romans 13: 1 - 7 .
T h e state o f affairs is all the more peculiar in that on the other hand the
passage evinces concrete features o f a kind that is otherwise rare in the
Epistle to the Romans. Chrysostom expressed the conjecture that Romans
13 is intended to rebut the charge (jioXAg JieQiecpeQexo Xoyoq TOTE X X X . ) of
fostering revolutionary activities ( o x d o i g and x a i v o x o p u c t , avaxQOJif) xcbv
16
x o i v a w vojxcav). T h e conjecture is made o f course without any historical
backing, but none the less it shows the possibility that first suggested itself
to the ancient reader (the same suggestion, but expressed in over-
17 18
generalising terms, also reappears in K . Bornhauser and H . Preisker).
Indeed the injunction to pay taxes, the emphasis on subordination can have
been formulated only with regard to different tendencies on the part o f the
1 9
addressees - whether conjectured or already in evidence ( c p . 1 6 : 1 7 ) . In
form too the passage gives evidence o f its different setting.
If the stamp o f the pericope is thus a Jewish and not a genuine Pauline
one (while o n the other hand one must assume a concrete reference to
R o m a n conditions) the problem forces itself on us, h o w such a unique
20
combination could have c o m e into existence. T h e answer is to be sought in
the situation and history o f the R o m a n community. Oriental cults, while
permitted with great liberality outside the urbs, still came under the critical
eye o f the city prefect within R o m e during the early principate and could
1 4
T h u s M . Dibelius, Rom, p p . gff. ( = Botschaft ii, i8iff); W . Schrage, Die Christen und
der Staat (Giitersloh, 1971), p . 54; a n d recently A l a n d , Entwiirfe, p p . 48, 50.
15
ZThK 56 (1959), 374: the o p p o s i t e has to b e demonstrated in e a c h case. An die Romer
( T u b i n g e n , 1973), p . 337.
16
PG 60. 615; c p . Schelkle, Z W 4 4 (1952-3), 227f.
17
' P a u l u s u n d die obrigkeitlichen G e w a l t e n in R o m ' (Christentum und Wissenschaft 7
(1931), 20lfl).
1 8
' D a s historische P r o b l e m des Romerbriefes', Wissenschaftliche Zeitschr. d. Universitdt
Jena, 1952-3, p . 29.
1 9
For this verse c p . the discussion b y W . Schmidthals, ' D i e Irrlehrer v o n R o m . 16:
17-20', ST 1 (1959), 5iff, w h o , h o w e v e r , thinks o f gnostic o p p o n e n t s within the
c o m m u n i t y . H o w e v e r that m a y b e , even disturbances that were not primarily
directed against the state authorities c o u l d result in official measures being taken.
2 0
V e r y q u e s t i o n a b l e is the view o f H . Schultz (Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie 21
(1876), 128) w h o thinks that the a d m o n i t i o n suits the circumstances o f the
provincial p o p u l a t i o n better a n d , for this reason, c o m e s o u t in favour o f the
Ephesians as the addressees o f R o m a n s 13. T h e view seems to b e shared b y E. v o n
D o b s c h i i t z , Die urchristlichen Gemeinden (Leipzig, 1902), p . 97.
368 E. BAMMEL

only hope to be tolerated if their loyalty and good behaviour was beyond
21
question. Accordingly the public representatives o f R o m a n Judaism were
always loyal to the state, and - unlike many other synagogues o f the
22
Diaspora - even subordinate towards the Herodians as their patrons.
T h e y gave demonstrative emphasis to this attitude, and even went so far as
to make corresponding modifications in their own history, and to create a
23
myth accordingly. O n the other hand, it was not easy to maintain such a
position. While the Jewish communities in the East possessed a centralised
organisation, at R o m e they were split into different entities. T h e R o m a n
law o f congregations did not permit the Jews to establish any unity beyond
24
the level o f the different synagogues. This meant that different mentalities
could find footholds in the respective synagogues, and that it was difficult
for those Jews w h o collaborated willingly with the R o m a n authorities to
quell less desirable tendencies by action within Judaism. This had already
become noticeable in the disturbances after the death o f Herod. While the
25
establishment o f R o m a n Jewry had supported Herod's policy all the w a y ,
26
large crowds o f Jews demonstrated in favour o f the false Alexander.
Indeed, R o m a n Jewry was bound to be affected by any kind o f development
within J u d a i s m to an even higher degree than the communities in
Alexandria and Babylonia. It was a matter o f pride and, indeed, o f
missionary strategy for every religious movement to establish a foothold in
27
R o m e . W e know not only o f Christian preachers but also o f Simon M a g u s
28
and o f four unnamed Jewish propagandists w h o made their appearance in

2 1
E . S c h u r e r , Diedltesten Christengemeinden im romischenReiche ( K i e l , 1894), p . 12. C p . G .
V i t u c c i , Ricerche sulla praefectura urbi in eta imperiale ( R o m e , 1956).
2 2
F o r the c e l e b r a t i o n o f H e r o d ' s birthday b y the J e w s o f R o m e see Persius V , 180; c p .
R . Eisler, Jesous Basileus i ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1930), 348 and I. Scheftelowitz, ' D a s
F i s c h s y m b o l i m J u d e n t u m u n d C h r i s t e n t u m ' , AR W14 (1911), 20. F o r the existence
o f a ' s y n a g o g u e o f the H e r o d i a n s ' c p . H . Vogelstein and P. Rieger, Geschichte der
Juden in Rom i (Berlin, 1896), a p p . n. 124.
T h e y e m p h a s i s e d ( o r i n v e n t e d ) their lament o n the o c c a s i o n o f C a e s a r ' s death
( S u e t o n i u s , Julius 84). F o r an interpretation o f the funeral oration for C a e s a r , c p . E.
Stauffer,y*n/ja/*m und Rom ( B e r n , 1957), p p . 21 ff; a n d W . Kierdorf, Laudatio Funebris
( M e i s e n h e i m , 1980), p p . isoff.
T h i s has b e e n seen so far only b y E. v. D o b s c h i i t z , ' D i e Entstehung des
R d m e r b r i e f s ' , Deutsch-Evangelisch iii (1912), 398. C p . H . G r e s s m a n n , 'Jewish Life in
A n c i e n t Rome', Jewish Studies in Memory of I. Abrahams ( N e w Y o r k , 1927), p p . 17off.
G . la Piana, ' F o r e i g n G r o u p s in R o m e ' , HThR 20 (1927), 362 w a s u n a b l e t o find
c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e for a central g o v e r n i n g b o d y , although he w a s eagerly l o o k i n g
for it. It is p r o b a b l y for this reason that the epistle to the R o m a n s is not addressed to
the kKKknoia but to the cVytoi o f that city. It w a s precisely the lack o f a uniform
o r g a n i s a t i o n w h i c h forced the R o m a n Christians to b e c o m e masters in a c h i e v i n g
c o m p r o m i s e solutions. T h a t they were inclined to press t h r o u g h such solutions,
o n c e they h a d b e e n arrived at, not o n l y in the urbs but in the orbis as well, was o n l y in
k e e p i n g w i t h the general a t m o s p h e r e o f the m e t r o p o l i s .
*Bj2 §25, 81. *BJ2 § i o f ; 4 / 17 § 2 ff.
4 3 4

27
J u s t i n , Ap. 1. 26; Act. Verc. 32. 2
8Jos. AJ 18 §65.
 Romans 1 3 369

the capital. Equally, political movements needed a foothold in R o m e in

order to get information, to establish influence and to carry out financial
transactions. At least two o f the synagogues in R o m e had strong leanings
towards the fatherland and its messianic dreams, as the names chosen by
29
their supporters indicate. Such an environment was open to even more
radical agitation. T h e conflict between the limits drawn from outside and
the inner dynamics led o f necessity to points o f fierce tension in the Jewish
community, which as soon as they erupted, were bound to give rise to
repressive actions by the R o m a n officials. T h e different stern measures
taken by the R o m a n administration between A . D . 1 8 and A . D . 4 9 against
30 31
metropolitan J e w r y , the repeated references to 'disturbances', and the
equally ominous attempts in Jewish historiography to play d o w n the
32
events, make it quite clear that agitations occurred which could be seen by
the uninitiated eye o f the R o m a n police as having involved the whole o f
R o m a n Jewry. M a y b e the apocalyptic idea that the messianic battle will
have to take place in the headquarters o f G o d ' s enemies played its role in
these discussions and actions within Judaism. M a y b e an explosive mixture
o f provocation and shrewd political manoeuvring existed in R o m e . In any
case, R o m a n Jewry suffered its most severe blow when the Jews were
3 3
expelled from the urbs in A . D . 4 9 . That this happened under Claudius, w h o
was not at all a committted anti-Semite, is a sign o f the hardening o f the
hand o f the R o m a n administration. Since the beginning o f the rule o f Nero
the Jews had just begun to be able to filter their way in again. Their position
was still uncertain.
T h e Christians, obviously, had shared in the fate of the Jews. T h e case o f
34
Aquila and Priscilla is only additional proof. T h e situation o f those
Christians w h o returned or abandoned an underground existence after A . D .
5 4 was as unsettled as that o f the Jews, if not more so. Not only could they
not h o p e to make use o f the shelter and, in case o f difficulties, the mediating
activities o f what soon became the Jewish establishment, not only were
the Christians as an apocalyptic movement considered to be very far
from a position o f enthusiasm for any present order, the Christians in the

2 9
T h e s y n a g o g u e o f the H e b r e w s a n d the O l i v e T r e e s y n a g o g u e . T h i s is n o t seen b y
J . B . Frey, ' L e J u d a i s m e a R o m e aux premiers temps d e l'eglise', Bb 12 (1931),
i2gff, w h o denies (147) the existence o f messianic expectation in R o m e .
30 C p . ZThK 56 (1959), 2 f f . 95

3 1
Suetonius, Claudius 25; D i o 60.6.
3 2
T h e actions taken against the J e w s are d e s c r i b e d b y J o s e p h u s as measures caused
b y the trespasses o f a few J e w s w h o had not even been resident in R o m (AJ 18 §84).
Philo heaps all the b l a m e o n the arch-evildoer Sejanus a n d stresses that the
measures were revoked i m m e d i a t e l y after the latter's execution (Leg. §1601).
3 3
A different interpretation is given b y E . Schiirer, Geschichte d.jud. Volkes im Zeitalter
Jesu Christi iii ( L e i p z i g , 1909), 62 ( E T ii, 2 ( E d i n b u r g h , 1901), p . 23).
3 4
A c t s 18:26.
37° E- BAMMEL

35
orbis and especially Paul himself had learnt already by bitter experience
that Jewish attempts to divert the activities o f anti-Jewish officials against
the Christians had already started - a tendency which became o f crucial
importance in the Neronian persecution.
In such a situation it was a matter of vital importance to Paul to dissipate
every suspicion. There may have been reason for suspicion against the
community and the apostle himself. T h e man who describes himself as
36
^r)Xo)xf|g xo>v JiaxQixorv Jiagadooecov (Gal. i: 14) must, like Josephus,
have at times been tempted to join the ranks o f the activist branch o f the
Pharisaic observance, that is, the Zealots. T h e man whose reputation was
far from good in the Christian communities, who was considered a
trouble-maker and someone whose views were vacillating and therefore
unreliable had every reason to make clear his political position. If it is true
that the letter to the Romans is inter alia the apostle's apologia pro vita sua, it is
likely that chapter 1 3 is conceived not without awareness o f these factors.
M o r e important is the problem o f the community. T h e congregation in
Corinth - nota bene a place much closer to R o m e both geographically and in
mentality than any other frequented by Paul - had been on the verge o f
37
succumbing to the domination o f libertines. T h e situation in R o m e was
not entirely different, as chapters 1 4 and 15 o f Paul's letter show. There is
some evidence for Zealot inclinations in the Christian community at R o m e .
Romans 1 6 : 17 speaks of those who cause 5ixooxaoiat and oxdvdaXct; this
is expressed in religious language, although it refers rather to resistance
against vjiaxorj (verse 19) than to doctrinal aberrations. T h e coined term
38
dv0£OXT]x6x£c; = insurgents would hardly have been used without some

3 5
T h e Christians were in a position different not o n l y from that o f the Greeks b u t from
that o f the J e w s as well. A certain d e g r e e o f animosity o n the side o f the G r e e k s
against the R o m a n s was taken for granted. ( F o r the beginnings o f this hostility see J.
D e i n i n g e r , Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland 217-86 v. Chr. (Berlin,
1971); for the d e v e l o p m e n t c p . E. A . B a u m a n n , Beitrdge zur Beurteilung der Romer in
der antiken Literatur ( R o s t o c k , 1930)). F r o m the time o f C l a u d i u s the R o m a n s even
tried to satisfy the Greeks. T h e philhellenic gestures o f N e r o are the c l i m a x o f the
n e w p o l i c y . T h e J e w s had been s u p p o r t e d b y the R o m a n s for a l o n g time. F r o m the
reign o f C l a u d i u s , h o w e v e r , the R o m a n officials shied a w a y from giving the J e w i s h
privileges a generous interpretation and w e r e not discinclined to m a k e such
gestures t o w a r d s the G r e e k side as d i d not h a r m the J e w s t o o m u c h . T h e Christians
w e r e in d a n g e r o f b e i n g g r o u n d b e t w e e n t w o millstones. F o r the beginnings o f
J e w i s h activities against the Christians, c p . the references in 1 T h e s s . 2: 14f.; 3:4;
G a l . 4: 29.
3 6
J o s e p h u s describes o n e Z e a l o t b r a n c h as that with cleaner h a n d s (xeiQi • • •
xa0aQO)TEQOV BJ 2 §258). Eisler's c o n t e n t i o n (Jesons Basileus, ii, 707), that this
r e c o g n i t i o n w a s given b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s himself had b e l o n g e d to the s a m e o r a
similar b r a n c h o f Z e a l o t s , has m u c h to r e c o m m e n d it.
3 7
C p . B . R e i c k e , Diakonie, Zelos und Festfreude in Verbindung mit der altchristlichen
Agapenfeier ( U p p s a l a , 1951), p p . 2330°. C p . especially 1 C o r 14:33.
3 8
J o s . AJ 18 §100.
 Romans 1 3 371

39 40
reason. T h e c l i m a x o f the diatribe, the urge to pay cpogog and xekoq,
must equally have been formulated with something in mind that was going
on in this milieu. Taxes were a problem for both libertines and activists. It
was tempting for the former to make practical use of the privilege of the vloi
(Matt. 1 7 : 2 6 ) and to evade paying taxes. It is well known that the Zealot
party was welded together by its resistance against the R o m a n taxes and
41
that the population gave up or delayed paying taxes in A . D . 6 6 . Such
42
means o f evading taxes may have been quite effective in the Empire,
whereas in R o m e , where a good part o f the population was exempt from
capitation, any inclination to usurp the privilege o f the civis Romanus was
bound to stir up the hostility o f the privileged and to be met by most severe
43
reactions from the side o f the state.
T h e situation, as the 'traveller and R o m a n citizen', the keen observer
from outside might notice, had the facets described above. Certain features
in the Pauline presentation can best be explained as allusions to these
problems. Even more crucial is another observation, which has been made
44
before: the passage contains elements o f argumentation. This is at
variance with the normal exhortation in the Pauline letters, even with the
call to give honour to the king in 1 Pet. 2: 1 7 . It is equally different from the

3 9
It is in keeping with this, that a c c o r d i n g to Passio Petri et Pauli 37 Paul defends
himself b y citing this verse: I instructed the merchants to p a y taxes to the state
officials.
4 0
T h e v i e w that the v e r b in 6a is not imperative but indicative ( W . Bauer, Jedermann
sei untertan der Obrigkeit\ (Gottingen, 1930), p . 3; similarly O . M i c h e l , Der Rbmerbrief,
p . 319) is at variance with verses 5 a n d 7.
41 Jos. BJ 11 §404.
4 2
C p . T e r t . Apol. 42 o n heathen w h o d o n o t p a y taxes p r o p e r l y . A k i b a permitted
certain devices to a v o i d taxation ( B Q 113a).
4 3
It w a s C l a u d i u s w h o h a d given full j u r i s d i c t i o n to the procuratores in matters o f
taxation, a b o u t w h i c h p e o p l e h a d quarrelled so often seditione aut armis ( T a x . Ann.
12.60; c p . A . Strobel, ZNW55 (1961), 61). T h i s w a s b o u n d to h a v e its repercussion
o n the state in the m e t r o p o l i s . T h e attempt w h i c h was m a d e recently (J. Friedrich,
W . P o h l m a n n and P. S t u h l m a c h e r , ' Z u r historischen Situation u n d Intention v o n
R o m . 13. 1-7', ZThK 73 (1976), 13iff) to give R o m a n s 13 its setting in the
c o n t r o v e r s y m e n t i o n e d b y T a c i t u s (Ann. 13:50!) a b o u t the abolition o f duties
(vectigal) w h i c h took p l a c e in A.D. 58 is interesting but less relevant than is a s s u m e d
b y those w h o directed attention to it. It is possible to avoid Ttkn b y various d o d g e s ,
while it is far m o r e difficult to avoid cpoQOi. C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y the p r o b l e m o f (poQOi
is very m u c h in the foreground o f Paul's a d m o n i t i o n (only (poQOi are m e n t i o n e d in
verse 5), whereas xiXt] m a y h a v e c o m e in for the sake o f alliteration
( X E X O 5 < — m u r | , qp6fx>g<—xpoPog). Tiht] were indeed the o n l y p r o b l e m o f the
citizens o f R o m e , w h o were exempt from cpoQOi. T h e incident mentioned by Tacitus
is in keeping with this. T h e battle against xeXt] c o u l d , h o w e v e r , o n l y b e w o n b y
collective pressure a n d not b y individual action, while the latter is the situation
w h i c h Paul supposes his readers find themselves in. Besides, the R o m a n proletariat
is not likely to have permitted n e w c o m e r s to p l a y a role in its fight.
4 4
W . M a n g o l d , Der Rbmerbrief und seine geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen ( M a r b u r g , 1884),
P- 233-
372 E. BAMMEL

45
eulogy o f the ruler which we find, with certain differences in detail, both in
46
the Hellenistic and in the R o m a n world in the forms o f the acclamation
47
and o f the tractate.
It is tempting to link R o m a n s 13 with the prayer o f intercession which is
48
c o m m o n in the ancient w o r l d , which was adapted by the Jews already at
an early stage, and reference to which plays a not insignificant role in the
49
self-explanation o f the Jews to the outside w o r l d . T h e text o f these prayers
50
for the superior powers is only known in outline. T h e advice to offer such a
prayer and the meditation on it already contain elements o f reflection on
51
the state, although only expressions o f practical w i s d o m and o f apolo­
52
getic v a l u e W h a t we find in Romans 1 3 is more, is a fuller description
o f the superior powers than usual, and it attempts a theory o f the state as
such.
T h e oldest Jewish formulae dealing with non-Jewish government just
speak o f the king and his son or his family. This was sufficient. It was
however not adequate in the city states o f the Mediterranean world with
their oligarchic or quasi-democratic constitutions. T h e Jewish community

4 5
C p . I. O p e l t , ' Z u m Kaiserkult in d e r griech. D i c h t u n g ' , Rhein. Museum 103 (i960),
43*f.
4 6
E.g. the e p i g r a m o f A c t i o n o r the A u g u s t u s h y m n o f Philo (Leg. § 143(f).
4 7
E.g. A s c l e p i u s ' s aretalogy o n the king ( c p . A . F. G . Heinrici, Die Hermes-Mystik
u.d.N.T. ( L e i p z i g , 1918), p p . 761).
4 8
O p p i a n , Halieutika 2.41; A p u l e i u s , Metamorph. x i 17 (prayer in mystery c u l t s ) .
4 9
C p . the a p o l o g e t i c narration in 1 M a c e . 7:33 a n d J o s . AJ 12 §406.
5 0
Ezra 6: 10 (offerings are a c c o m p a n i e d b y p r a y e r s ) . Baruch 1: 11: JiEQi xfjg Ccofjg
N. paoiAioog xai eig £a>f|v B . VIOV avxov iva a>oiv ai f|uirjai avxcbv xxA..; R o s .
Sukkah 4. T h e r e is little to b e said for the theory o f H . St J. T h a c k e r a y , w h o thinks
that the p r a y e r for the ruler in B a r u c h 1 c a m e in only after the collapse o f the first
J e w i s h revolt, a n d is inclined to give the w h o l e b o o k a late date (Septuagint andJewish
Worship ( L o n d o n , 1921), p p . 89(f). T h e formula 'king and his sons' is found again
in O p p i a n , Halieutika 2.41. L . Biehl, Das liturgische Gebet fur Kaiser und Reich
M i i n c h e n , 1937), d o e s not g o into these questions.
5 1
Jer. 29: 7: it is g o o d for y o u if the city flourishes; Baruch 1:1 if: xai bibazi xvgiog
IOXIJV r\\tiv; A b o t h 3.2: without the state o n e w o u l d d e v o u r the other. C p . M . Rivkes
w h o d e m a n d s with reference to Sanh. 105a that prayer should b e m a d e for the
welfare o f the k i n g d o m u n d e r w h o s e wings w e shelter (J. K a t z , Exclusiveness and
Tolerance ( L o n d o n , 1961), p . 165). A m o r e cynical slant is given to this in the J e w i s h
p r o v e r b : D o n ' t p r a y for the death o f a king, n o b o d y knows w h o will succeed h i m .
5 2
Especially J o s . C. Apion 2 §196, w h e r e J o s e p h u s claims that the offerings in the
T e m p l e w e r e a c c o m p a n i e d b y prayers for the xoivfj aomjQta ( = salus publico)
w h i c h takes preference o v e r private offerings ( c p . 2 §77) because m a n is, it is
p r e s u p p o s e d , a £cpov JioXixixov. T h i s must refer to the prayer for the ruler a n d is
e m p h a s i s e d in a n s w e r to the accusation that the J e w s are not sacra colentes and
despise the l a w s o f the state (Juvenal 14.96!!). C p . Philo, w h o claims that the J e w s
are the o n e s w h o are cpiXoxaioaQES in their heart (Leg. §280), a n d the defence m a d e
b y J o s e p h u s ('legislator n o n quasi p r o p h e t a n s R o m a n o r u m p o t e n t i a m n o n
h o n o r a n d u m ' ; c. Apion 2 §75), a n d the accusations against the J e w s cited in M e g .
13b and j e r . Ter. 8. 10 (46b/c).
 Romans 13 373

in Alexandria seems to have pledged its loyalty to the king without

53
mentioning the municipal authorities. W e d o not know which formula - if
54
any - was used by the long-standing Jewish communities o f the Diaspora.
T h e communities in the proud 'free' cities o f the Greek world are likely to
have mentioned the municipal authorities and more or less disregarded the
R o m a n ones. It was different outside the established Greek commonwealth.
T h e problem became very acute in Rome, a place where the source o f
authority had been shrouded in mist, where the princeps only exercised the
55
Samtherrschaft and his official position was that o f the tribunus plebis, where,
on the other hand, every R o m a n citizen could claim to be a sovereign. It is
in keeping with this situation that R o m . 1 3 : 1 and 3 speak o f different stages
o f authority and it is the point o f the passage that divine authorisation is
56
bestowed on each o f them, without exception: ov yag eoxiv e^ovoia xxX.
T h e claim made in Romans 13 is not new. T h e book o f Daniel emphasises
57
that G o d will give (&(boei) the power to the king. T h e Letter o f Aristeas
58
states that G o d stands behind the king. T h e consequence, however, that
the whole pyramidal system of governmental organs is divinely ordained is
rarely drawn. Equally tdxteiv goes beyond 6i66vcu; it states a more
o v x e
far-reaching intervention o f G o d . T h e consideration that the a Q X S
cause fear only to the evil and not to the good is equally a stock phrase o f
political ethics; it is used and paraphrased in Josephus's description o f
59
Agrippa's speech to the inhabitants o f Jerusalem and likewise by the
author o f the first Epistle o f Peter. 60
T h e qualification as 5idxovog QEOV

5 3
C p . Aristeas 15f.
5 4
I f E. B i c k e r m a n n ' s theory that the civic prayer for Jerusalem s h o w s marks o f Greek
influence (HThR 55 (1962), 185) is right, it is all the m o r e likely that the s y n a g o g u e
o f the d i a s p o r a h a d started to formulate prayers for their respective cities and
governments.
5 5
T . M o m m s e n , Rom. Staatsrecht ii (4th e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1952), n67ff.
5 6
££01)01011 = potestates. O n l y consul a n d praetor are in possession o f the imperium while
the rest o f the officials have merely a potestas. R o m a n s 13: 1-3 seems to emphasise
that even the lower ranks o f the officials are to b e heeded as XeixovQYOi 9eov. T h e
s a m e phrase (xov 66vxa 001 xr\v Paodetav xavxr\v &Qxr|v) is found in Acta
Catharinae V ( c ) c h . 6. It is h a z a r d o u s to take this phrase as an a r g u m e n t against an
early origin o f the text as has been d o n e b y E. K l o s t e r m a n n and E. Seeberg in
Schriften der Kbnigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft i (Berlin, 1924), 8off. C p . the saying o f
C h a n a n b . R a b b a a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h even the custodian in c h a r g e o f a well m a y b e
taken as o r d a i n e d b y G o d (Ber. 58a).
5 7
D a n . 1: 2; 2: 37ff; 5: 18; c p . E. Stauffer, Gott und Kaiser im N .T. ( B o n n , 1935), p p . 7fT.
5 8
Aristeas 15.
3 9
Befjajieveiv yaQ o v x eQE0i£eiv XQ*1 t o ? e^ovoiag; there is n o t h i n g that stops o n e
b e i n g w h i p p e d s o o n e r than bearing it patiently (cpeoeiv); forbearance b y those w h o
are maltreated (d&ixoi>u.evoi) leads to a c h a n g e o f m i n d o n the side o f those w h o
inflict injustice (ddixovoiv) (BJ 2 §351). C p . 1 Pet. 2: 15.
6 0
3: 13; the very close parallelism between this passage and the o n e cited in n. 43 is
w o r t h y o f note.
374 E- BAMMEL

which Paul stresses so much, is u n c o m m o n . T h e same is true for

0161 6 2
XeiTODQY Q E O O - a formula which, although based on Isa. 6r. 6, seems
to have been coined ad hoc with this meaning - and the even more far-
reaching statement on the activity: J i Q o a x a o x e Q O u v x e s . Taken together
63
this amounts to a fairly extended theology of o r d e r which goes far beyond
the acclamation or prayer for the king.
It is partly paralleled in the prayer for the aQXOVxec; and f|YOi3|xevoi
which is incorporated in i Clem. 6 1 : the reference to different superior
powers, the correlation between heavenly and earthly powers, the emphasis
on subordination, the description o f any resistance as revolt against G o d
are the same, while the rest o f the prayer proceeds along different lines. T h e
coincidence is not to be explained by the assumption of direct dependence,
as some o f the Pauline terms are lacking whereas others are used differently.
64
It has been n o t e d that chapters 6of display Jewish features. It seems
reasonable to suppose that a synagogue prayer was adapted and
augmented by the Christian community o f R o m e .
Paul must have known such a text - not necessarily o f R o m a n , but
probably o f Western origin. It is likely that his formulation in Romans 1 3 is
a carefully designed texture consisting o f traditional elements and Pauline
additions. T h e former are to be found in verses 3 a , 4 b , c (without 8 e o v
61CIXOVO5), 5; but other terms as well are likely to have their Jewish
pre-history. Pauline, however, is not only the blunt linking o f the powers
with G o d , but also the use o f the genitive, the emphasis on subordination
and the stigmatisation o f resistance, and insistence on paying taxes.
Paul does his utmost to combat all political inclinations among the
Christians. H e not only exhorts his readers in passing to be loyal to the state
D U t n e
(as he does later; Phil. 1 : 2 7 ) , takes up and gives concrete reference to
formulae o f basic affirmation o f the state, which could be understood by
both Jews and Gentiles. T h e fact too that the proverbial wisdom o f R o m .
1 2 : 1 6 is not taken up suggests political motivation. It is the particular
situation o f his readers, whether or not the community still consisted
65 66
primarily of Jewish Christians, that explains the passage most readily.

6 1 s e e
F o r the m e a n i n g o f XetTOVQYOS F• Oertel, Die Liturgie (Leipzig, 1917; 2nd e d n .
1965)-
6 2
C p . h o w e v e r the statement o f j a l q u t Shimoni o n Ps 132: 9, according to which rulers
m a y act as priests o f G o d .
6 3
C p . O . E c k , Urgemeinde und Imperium (Gutersloh, 1940).
6 4
W . M a n g o l d , De ecclesia primaeva pro Caesaribus ac magistratibus Romanis preces fundente
( B o n n , 1881).
6 5
F o r the J e w i s h character o f the Christian c o m m u n i t y at R o m e see M a n g o l d ,
Romerbrief, passim; for a later discussion o f the p r o b l e m c p . W . G . K u m m e l , Einleitung
in das Neue Testament ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1973), p p . 27of ( E T L o n d o n , 1966, p p . 2i8ff).
C p . W . Wiefel, 'Die j i i d i s c h e Gemeinschaft i m antiken R o m und die A n f a n g e des
 Romans 1 3 375

R o m a n s 13 is written as a warning to the fellow members o f the community

and even as an alibi, a proof o f innocence to the officials; it is the beginning
o f Christian apologetic. Its comprehension is made possible not by
emendation but by fitting it into its proper historical context. T h e passage
does indeed contain a theology, and an even more heightened theology o f
the state can be deduced from it, but it was not the typically Pauline
approach that directed its formulation.

II
6 7
' W h e n they say, "Peace and security" ' (1 Thess. 5: 3 ) , a phrase which
68
received fame by its citation in mediaeval mystery plays and at the end o f
Luther's 9 5 theses, is the other Pauline reference to the political world. T h e
69
customary reference to Jer. 6: 1 4 amounts to only a partial parallel;
moreover such a reference is unlikely, in that 1 Thessalonians does not give
evidence of any explicit O l d Testament citations. T h e half verse must be set
in the context o f a different tradition.
Ps. Sol. 8: 1 8 relates that Pompey entered Judaea like a father entering
70
the house of his children |iexd eigr|vr]s. . . (xexd dacpaXeiag jroXlfjg. The
psalmist adds that he then poured out the blood o f the citizens of Jerusalem
like dirty water. T h e phrase quoted expresses the claim made by the
conqueror, and indeed in his own words. For everywhere that R o m e makes
an appearance, the provision of peace and security is made to justify the loss
o f autonomy and more than compensate for all the initial terrors. Since the
word pax, unlike eiQTJVT), 71
has a no more than formally legal content,
referring to a transaction rather than a condition ( c p . pactum), the term
72
demands a supplement to give it substance. This is given by means o f an

r o m i s c h e n Chnstentums\Judaica 26 (1970), 65ft. E T in K . P. Donfried, The Romans

Debate ( M i n n e a p o l i s , 1977), p p . iooff.
6 6
T h i s v i e w was put forward in ThLZ 85 (i960), c o l . 8 3 7 ^ T h e line o f a p p r o a c h was
taken u p b y J. K o s n e t t e r , ' R o m e r 13: 1-7 eine zeitbedingte V o r s i c h t s m a s s n a h m e
o d e r grundsatzliche Einstellung?' (AnBibl 17 (1963), 347!!) and V . Zsifkovits, Der
Staatsgedanke nach Paulus in Rbmer 13: i-y ( W i e n , 1964).
6 7
T h e V u l g a t e renders it in such a w a y that t w o citations are i m p l i e d . T h i s is parallel
to the t e n d e n c y o f using these terms as formulae o f a c c l a m a t i o n .
^ C p . W . M e y e r , ' D e r L u d u s d e A n t i c h r i s t o ' in Gesammelte Aufsatze, i (Berlin, 1905),
169.
6 9
J. B. Lightfoot (Notes on the Epistles of St Paul ( L o n d o n , 1895), p . 72) even takes the
verse as a 'direct q u o t a t i o n from o u r L o r d ' s w o r d s ' .
7 0
F o r the Pax Romana c o n c e p t o f P o m p e y see M . Gelzer, Pompeius ( M i i n c h e n , 1959),
P- 94-
7 1
It is therefore often - and m o r e adequately - rendered b y felicitas temporum.
7 2
T h e a s s u m p t i o n o f a translation from H e b r e w , where indeed m"?tr is often used
together with other terms ( R o m . 1: 7; G a l . 6: 16 e t c . ) , can b e disregarded in this
case.
37^ E. BAMMEL

adjective, complementary noun or significant symbol (caduceus or cornucopia

or the like). It is in such a form that pax becomes the programme of the time
o f the principate. This happens for the first time in the large aureus o f 28
73
B . C . , on which the contents o f the Pax are defined by the addition o f a
74
caduceus (the same caduceus plays an especial role in the history o f
75
Thessalonica). T h e programme is then given concrete expression in the
76
Ara Pads Augustae, the construction o f which was begun in 1 3 B.C.
Characterised in this way, Pax includes both urbs and orbis. Within the walls
o f R o m e the term used is pax et concordia, since the inhabitants formed the
sovereign body, and after the terror o f the Civil Wars it is the unanimity
77
among them that is o f decisive importance. T h e corresponding formula
for the empire outside R o m e is pax et securitas. If this is not always in express
terms, the reason is that the Pax Romana was usually imposed on the peoples
by means o f warfare. In such a case it was the R o m a n mercy which first o f
all showed itself, sparing the stiff-necked instead o f wiping them out. O n
these occasions therefore it is dementia that is the object o f praise. Where
however the subjugation was brought about peacefully (as was initially the
case in Judaea), or where the blessings given by R o m e had already been
familiar for some time, it is not the single event but the mark o f complete
78
peace, i.e. securitas, that is celebrated. Thus Velleius Paterculus, writing in
A . D . 3 0 , makes his description o f the present state o f affairs culminate in
79 80
praise of securitas. T h e same eulogy is still found in Aristides. With regard
to this it is necessary to take into consideration that a correspondence exists

7 3
H . M a t t i n g l y and E. A . S y d e n h a m , The Roman Imperial Coinage I ( L o n d o n , 1923),
p . 60; c p . C . K o c h , ' P a x ' in: PW2nd ser. 18 (1949), c o l . 243off. F o r the R o m a n s '
o w n interpretation o f the Pax Augusta c p . H . E. Stier, ' A u g u s t u s - F r i e d e u n d
r o m i s c h e K l a s s i k ' in Aufstieg undNiedergang der romischen Welt, e d s . H . T e m p o r i n i and
W . H a a s e , ii, 2 (Berlin, 1975), 13fT.
7 4
Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, e d . H . M a t t i n g l y , i ( L o n d o n , 1923),
p . 112; C . H . V . Sutherland, Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy ( L o n d o n , 1951), p . 31.
7 5
A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Macedonia, e d . R . S. P o o l e
1 1
( L o n d o n , 1879), P- 7 -
7 6
S . W e i n s t o c k , ' P a x and the A r a P a r i s ' , y / ? S 50 (i960), 44H"; K . H a n e l l , ' D a s O p f e r
des A u g u s t u s an d e r A r a Paris', Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Roma, A c t a
Instituti R o m a n i R e g n i Sueciae; q u a r t o series x x (i960), p p . 33ff. F o r a brilliant
interpretation o f the c o n c e p t o f A u g u s t u s c p . E. Buchner, ' S o l a r i u m A u g u s t i u n d
A r a P a r i s ' , Romische Mitteilungen 83 (1976), 3196°.
7 7
1 C l e m 37:5, the parable o f the b o d y with its praise o f auujtveiv is a R o m a n t h e m e
par excellence.
7 8
A p a r t from securitas w e find terms like tranquillitas, stabilitas temporum, quies, C p .
Tertullian: rerum quies (Apol. 39).
7 9
Hist. Rom. ii. 80.
8 0
Orat. 26; for a searching interpretation o f Aristides' s p e e c h see J. P a l m , Rom,
Rbmertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit ( L u n d , 1959), p p . 56ff.
C p . Arist. Orat. 100 feig d o c p d X e i a v 8 = a Q x e l ) , Ps. Arist. Orat. eig (3ao. 37 and
already I s o c r . , De pace 17. C p . W . G e r n e n t z , Laudes Romae ( R o s t o c k , 1918), p . 142.
 Romans 1 3 377

m
between securitas and aeternitas. If the artistic attributes o f pax already
provide a religious aura, with aeternitas a full religious claim, that of political
realisation o f salvation (Heilsverwirklichung) is made.
After the daring attempt o f Caligula, who had his three sisters portrayed
82
on a coin as Concordia, Securitas and Fortuna, the inscription securitas was
83
also put on coins from the time o f Nero onwards. From this point on the
84
motto became a commonplace on coinage up to Constantius. This could
85
not have happened earlier, because it was only under Nero that the doors
86
o f the temple ofJanus were shut again for the first time since Augustus. It
was possible for propaganda to anticipate something that was not yet
permitted to the mintmasters, whose issue had to be a correct proclamation
o f the present state o f affairs.
It may be no chance coincidence that Ps. Sol. 8: 18 is the earliest piece o f
evidence for this ideology. For Pompey the Great was the first and also the
most imposing o f the homines imperiosi o f R o m a n history. In 1 Thess. 5 : 3 too
it must be these Latin terms that are taken over, since in Greek, where the
term eiQrjvr] is understood differently, the inclination to supplement eiQTJvt)
87
with a complementary word does not become apparent. Nor is this
8 8
done in the eulogy of Simon Maccabaeus in 1 M a c e . 1 4 which imitates the
Greek.

8 1
C p . T h e references a d d u c e d b y Fr. Sauter, Der romische Kaiserkult bei Martial und
Statius (Stuttgart, 1934), p p . 1241!
8 2
M a t t i n g l y , Coins of the Roman Empire 1, p . 152. C l a u d i u s issued a p r o g r a m m a t i c c o i n
w h i c h marked the third centenary o f the temple o f Janus, w h i c h bears the inscription
Pad Augustae and s h o w s pax with the wings o f victoria, the attributes o f the caduceus
(=felicitas; c p . securitas) a n d snake ( = salus) a n d the gestus ofpudor; Coins of the Roman
Empire i, C l a u d i u s n. 6; c p . Sutherland, Coinage p . 127. C p . the statues o f three
deities (Salus Publica, Concordia a n d Pax), o n the Ara Pads Augustae ( D i o 54.35.2).
8 3
T h e m o s t c o m p l e t e collection of securitas coins is given b y J. Bernhart, Die Miinzen der
romischen Kaiserzeit ( M i i n c h e n , 1942), p p . 1240°. T h e theme c o u l d not b e a b a n d o n e d
o n c e securitas had a p p e a r e d o n c o i n s . It is d u e to this that especially in the stormy
time o f the year o f the four e m p e r o r s pax a n d securitas c o i n s are struck; n o w they
represent a p r o g r a m m e rather than a factual statement.
8 4
Securitas a n d quies play a special role in the inscriptions o f Constantius; c p . L .
Berlinger, ' B e i t r a g e z u r i n o f f i z i e l l e n T i t u l a t u r d e r r o m i s c h e r K a i s e r ' (Diss. Breslau,
i935)> P- 54-
8 5
A different interpretation is suggested b y H . M a t t i n g l y , Roman Coins ( L o n d o n ,
i960), p. 161.
8 6
It is typical for b o t h the reality and the aspirations o f the time o f C l a u d i u s that the
c o i n inscription Pad Augustae o c c u r s regularly ( c p . O . T . S c h u l z , Die Rechtstitel und
Regierungsprogramme auf rbm. Kaizermiinzen ( P a d e r b o r n , 1925), p . 58): w h a t c o u l d not
b e said o f the present time o f w a r against the Britons was projected into the future
b y reference to the past. Similarly Velleius Paterculus hailed the revocata pax o f the
time o f T i b e r i u s (Hist. Rom. ii. 89), although the reality w a s different.
8 7
T h e instances to the contrary, a d d u c e d b y G . Delling, Romer 13, 1-7 innerhalb der
Briefe des NT (Berlin, 1962), p p . 4of, d o not alter the picture.
8 8
C p . especially verse 8 (\iex' eiorjvrig) and verse 11 (eJioiTjoe xf)v eiQTyvr)v EJU xr\q
378 E. BAMMEL

It is n o less significant that the phrase happened to be incorporated in the

T a l m u d . W h e n Akiba and his fellow-rabbis pay their visit to the capital
they find those w h o live there in a state o f security and peace. T h e welfare
o f those w h o d o not perform the will o f G o d becomes a tantalising ques­
tion for those w h o obey his commandments even in the most trying circum­
stances. This theodicy problem, which is solved by a new perspective
89
w h i c h Akiba becomes aware of, is given depth and illustration by the
c o m p l a i n t that the Romans, w h o d o not obey G o d , live in peace and
90
security.
It is, we remember, a phrase which was coined for the R o m a n realm
outside the city but which is used here to characterise R o m e herself and her
inhabitants. It should be noted that it is not a phrase that could have been
picked up during the stay at R o m e that is employed here. Instead, a term is
e m p l o y e d that was current in the rabbis' homeland, so much so that it was
cited in a theological debate and given point by its incorporation in the
description o f a visit to the metropolis which took place at the beginning o f
the s e c o n d century.
Paul takes up the phrase with polemical intent. Here one must note that
he is commenting on an ideology that was in vogue at the time and taking
off a generally prevalent self-awareness propagated by the panegyricists
and encouraged by the state authorities, not however singling out for attack
a formula already made sacrosanct by official proclamation (on a c o i n ) .
Besides, a distinct confrontation or even hostility against Jewish-Christian
eschatology is not noticeable on the other side - it is only imported by the
91
addition o f y&Q or 5e at the beginning o f the sentence. Thirdly Paul
expresses himself in personal terms ( o x a v Xiywow . . . a u x o i g ) .
T h u s in this direction the conflict lacks a final sharpness o f definition.
M o r e o v e r Paul is directing himself towards the Thessalonians with these
w o r d s . A m o n g them, or among some o f them, he sees the imminent danger,
that the mirage of fulfilled eschatology may cause them to forget the future.
N o n e the less he is indirectly making a revaluation o f a political ideology
that was identical with the imperial government's view o f itself, and which
the state could expect as a matter o f course to be treated with respect. This
verse, it would seem, is the one in the Corpus Paulinum where this is done
most unambiguously. It is questionable whether Phil. 3: 20 contains an

8 9
C p . Donum Gentilicium. Festschrift D . D a u b e ( O x f o r d , 1978), p p . 295ff. F o r general
information c p . G . S t e m b e r g e r , ' D i e Beurteilung R o m s in d e r rabbinischen
Literatur' in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, 11 19, 2 (1979), p p . 338ff.
9 0
M a k k . 24a: op^m roa |*3tfv .
9 1
T h e a d d i t i o n s are well attested - see T i s c h e n d o r f , Novum Testamentum Graece
( L e i p z i g , 1876), ad h o c . - and d e w a s even valued as original b y B. W e i s s .
Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe ( L e i p z i g , 1896), p . 118.
 Romans 1 3 379

92
allusion to emperor worship. In any case it is only implicit in the verse.
Here however a critical position is taken expressly.
T h e wording o f the warning - as is shown by verse 3 b and the word
6XE8QOC„ which is rare in Paul - is governed by apocalyptic motifs. There
is, however, no example in apocalyptic literature o f so concrete and
93
discriminating a form o f polemics. Moreover most significant is the fact
that Paul does not remodel the m o o d he characterises into an apocalyptic
sign - or rather into a stage in the evolution o f the last things. Thus the
impression is reinforced that it is an actual Pauline opinion that is
expressed here. This proviso is made by the same Paul w h o , three chapters
earlier, had viewed a political measure o f the R o m a n government in a
94
favourable light. T o illuminate such a phenomenon in different ways, on
one occasion to set it in the flow o f eschatological events, and on another to
interpret it purely personally, corresponds fully to the multiformity o f
apocalyptic impression and thought.
2 Thessalonians 2: 6ff, a passage which is to be taken as Pauline, may
serve as an additional piece o f evidence for this. T h e passage cannot be
95 96
referring to either the R o m a n state or the mission. For the use of the word
97
vvv (vvv . . . ol'5axe is to be rendered: you now come to k n o w ) indicates
that it is a question o f an event that has manifested itself as xax&xov only
98
after Paul's preaching in Thessalonica. Thus it can only be a particular
measure taken by the xaxexcov, within the narrow limits o f a specified
period o f time. In any case the xaxexcov is a person w h o had the power o f
momentarily halting the wheel o f historical destiny. A closer identification
is made possible by verses 3ff. T h e term djiooxaoia, as was recognised by
Bernhard Weiss, refers to what he styles the 'definitive Entscheidung des
99
judischen Volkes gegenuber der Heilsbotschaft'. T h e dvxixei^ievog is an
expected figure, w h o brings to its climax this apostasy, pointedly

9 2
E. L o h m e y e r , Der Brief an die Philipper (Gottingen, 1953), p p . 27f. F o r the m o r e
recent discussions o f this passage, c p . A l a n d , Entwurfe, p p . 5off.
9 3
In p r i n c i p l e it is c o n c e i v a b l e that J u d a i s m c o u l d have argued along the s a m e lines.
In fact, h o w e v e r , J u d a i s m d e v e l o p e d its position from the basis o f J e w i s h
self-consciousness a n d w a s not eager to attack errors o r d e v e l o p m e n t s within p a g a n
consciousness w h i c h , it must b e r e m e m b e r e d , d i d not exist as a challenging entity
from the J e w i s h point o f v i e w .
9
* C p . ZThK 6 5 (1959), 2 f f .
94

9 5
W . B o l d , Obrigkeit von Gott? ( H a m b u r g , 1962), p p . Sytt.
9 6
O . C u l l m a n n , ' L e caractere e s c h a t o l o g i q u e d u d e v o i r missionaire . . .' in Recherches
Theologiques a la memoire de W. Baldensperger (Paris, 1936), p p . 26ff; Der Staat im N.T.
( T u b i n g e n , 1956; E T L o n d o n , 1957); similarly J. M u n c k , Paulus und die
Heilsgeschichte ( C o p e n h a g e n , 1954; E T L o n d o n , 1959).
9 7
E. v o n D o b s c h i i t z , Die Thessalonicherbriefe ( G o t t i n g e n , 1909), p . 279, o n the other
hand, links it with i l l in the s a m e verse.
9 8
Rightly s o H . H a n s e , ThWNT ii, 830 ( E T ii, 830).
99
Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des N.T. (Stuttgart, 1903), p p . 22 f. 4
3 8o E. BAMMEL

designated as dvo^iia, and ends in theomachy. T h e xaxexoov inhibits this

Jewish persecution o f the Christians. It is only indirectly that he delays the
end; primarily it is the repulse o f the djicoXeia that is implied. So one should
think o f Claudius and his repressive policies against the Jews. T h e same
experience lies also behind i Thess. 2: 1 6 . Only here Paul adds that the
persecution o f the persecutors does not yet proclaim the immediate
proximity o f the day, but that djtooraoia must come first. I f this
djiooxaoia culminates in an individual, one must assume that he too
appears in political dress - not indeed preceded by the R o m a n fasces but
100
perhaps in Jewish messianic g a r b . A further counterpoint o f c o m ­
prehension!
1 Thessalonians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 2 d o not speak directly of the state
per se but rather o f manifestations o f the political world. T h e y d o not
contradict each other, but take different approaches in showing the
ambivalence o f the political powers as revealed to apocalyptic thought,
which comprehends world history and salvation history in continual
movement - made possible by an extraordinary variability o f the
apocalyptic scheme itself and o f its application to historical events. In each
case man interprets the phenomena and signs by his active and passive
participation in the events. This means that eschatological reflection lies
at the beginning o f this perception. M a n stands over against the happen­
ings o f the political world and does not see himself as entirely subordinate
to them. H e only criticises, however, so far as his fellow men are led into
temptation. There is no time for anything else. T h e intensified eschatology
makes it easy for Paul to regard practical problems as o f secondary im­
portance.
The- difference from Romans 1 3 is obvious. O n the one side a
dynamic-apocalyptic understanding o f state and history which embraces
the events in continually new and different ways, on the other the static
view o f the state o f a quod semper ubique, while, it is to be emphasised, there
are no lines o f argumentation attributing special distinction and a role in
101
salvation history to the R o m a n empire. It is impossible to insert the
eschatological understanding o f 2 Thessalonians 2 - seen with a positive
102
bias - into R o m a n s 1 3 (as has been done occasionally) and thus even
to attribute an eschatological dignity to the state. T h e Thessalonians

Is it the e x p e c t e d ruling o f a high priest w h o claims to give his decision b y the

authority o f G o d ? O r is the dvTixeinevog a J e w i s h revolutionary? Is the sitting in
the T e m p l e a scene like the o n e , d e s c r i b e d b y H e g e s i p p u s ( E u s . H.E. 2.23.1 iff.),
that led to the e x e c u t i o n o f J a m e s the R i g h t e o u s (similar in a p p e a r a n c e b u t the
o p p o s i t e in c o n t e n t s ) ?
F o r references to this a p p r e c i a t i o n see Palm, Rom. p p . ii4ff.
E c k , Urgemeinde, p p . 6 6 f and B o l d , Obrigkeit, p . 82.
 Romans 1 3 381

passages and Romans 1 3 represent two different types o f understanding o f

the state, which have little in c o m m o n .
Paul's theology as a whole and in particular his eschatology is largely
dictated by apocalyptic. With regard to his view of the state, he undertook,
as has been shown, characteristic changes within this framework. Thus the
apocalyptic type may be regarded with some certainty as the type, in which
the Pauline philosophy o f the state is moulded.
T h e development o f Pauline theology has not yet been sufficiently
investigated. Perhaps the theology o f martyrdom in the thought o f his
middle period may partly explain his sharp attitude towards the political
powers, perhaps in the other direction the lessening influence o f
103
eschatology may have prepared the ground for R o m a n s . Perhaps such an
investigation might throw some more light on the chapter - it will scarcely
be possible to uphold the theory o f a favourable impression made by the
happy Quinquennium Neronis. Nor is the solution to wriggle out o f the stern
meaning o f Romans 1 3 by stating that remarks on the divine ordination o f
the ruler were quite natural in an environment where so much was linked
104
with the heavenly sphere. W e are bound to admit that the passage
appears just as much a foreign b o d y when seen from the general viewpoint
o f Pauline theology as it is evidence for an exceptional case when viewed
historically. Therefore, whatever its biblical theological significance may
be and however great the momentum it gathered in church history has
been, in an account o f the Pauline view o f the state Romans 1 3 must be
105
given its place rather in a side aisle than in the n a v e .

Ill

T h e passage is, however, o f greatest importance for the characterisation

o f Paul, the leader o f his communities. T h e distaste for any form o f a t a x i a
is noticeable from the beginning o f the time we can trace his steps (1 Thess.
5: 1 4 ) . Its combating became a dominant theme the more he encountered
the effect o f disorder in his foundations. It is in this context that the term
JlQOloxd^ievoi occurs for the first time. It is significant that the pyramidal
106
structure is meant to be confined to the c o m m u n i t y . T h e world is an
entity outside (1 Thess. 4 : 1 2 ) , its representatives are a 5 i x o i (1 C o r . 6: 1 ) ,

1 0 3
T h u s C . H . D o d d , ' T h e M i n d o f Paul V, New Testament Studies ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1953),
p . 118.
1 0 4
A d . v . H a r n a c k , ThLZ 6 (1881), c o l . 499 (review o f M a n g o l d ) . T h e o b s e r v a t i o n
itself is, o f course, true a n d has b e e n a m p l y substantiated b y subsequent research
(e.g. Berlinger, Titulatur, especially p p . 891).
1 0 5
C p . W i n d i s c h , Imperium, p . 30.
1 0 6
H . v . C a m p e n h a u s e n , ' Z u r A u s l e g u n g v o n R o m e r 13 . . in Festschrift A. Bertholet
( T u b i n g e n , 1950), p p . i09f argues differently.
3 82 E. BAMMEL

the Christian task is not to give offence and therefore r\ovx&t,Eiv (i Thess.
4: 1 1 ) . It may be that Paul had been influenced by that rabbinic school o f
thought that stopped short o f considering pagan authorities as divinely
107
ordained and confined itself to a qualified appreciation for practical
108
reasons. But it is typical that, already at the beginning, he is more
109
concerned about the reputation o f the communities in the outside w o r l d
than Jewish missionary literature appears to have been. As soon as he
realises that disorder may carry serious consequences for the communities
he urges obedience to the government. H e enforces this c o m m a n d by giving
it an ultimate direction. H e achieves this by moving the pyramidal system,
which he had recommended as basic to his communities, into the public
world. It is this interaction between care for the well-being o f the
community and circumspection about dangers that may arise from outside
that are constitutive factors for Paul's design in Romans 1 3 .
110
Celsus accuses the Christians o f taking no interest in public affairs.
111
W h a t was not entirely true for his time was in all probability valid for the
lifetime o f Paul. Rendering honour and paying taxes were the only direct
contributions for the general welfare which were made by those w h o lived
in the conviction that they possessed a KoXiTEV\ia in heaven. Social status,
foreign descent and, indeed, a tense eschatology militated against anything
else. It was, however, no less than the government expected o f people o f this
strand o f society. In a sense it was even more, if taken together with the
apostle's insistence on regular work and his dislike o f disorderly, let alone
revolutionary, activities. Seneca stresses that the service o f a g o o d citizen is
never useless: by being heard and seen, by his expression, by his gesture, by
112
his silent stubbornness and by his very walk, he helps. It was in a similar
113
way that Christians were admonished to render their services. Even the

1 0 7
T h a t the p o w e r is given to R o m e from heaven is emphasised b y J o s e p h u s (BJ 5
§307) a n d a d m i t t e d in a n u m b e r o f r a b b i n i c statements (Jose b . K o s m a in A b . z . 18a
(whereas C h a n i n a o p p o s e s h i m ) a n d especially R e s h L a q u i s h in C h a g . 16a.
1 0 8
C h a n i n a in A b o t h 3.2 ( m e n w o u l d d e v o u r e a c h other without fear b u t for the
g o v e r n m e n t ; interesting is Eisler's statement: ' d e r Stoss seufzer des R . C h a n i n a . . .
ist kein vollwertiges Gegenstiick ( z u R o m e r i^)\Jesous Basileus, ii. 749) a n d , even
m o r e reserved, Gen.r.82 (resistance is equal to s u i c i d e ) .
1 0 9
W . C . v . U n n i k , ' D i e Rucksicht a u f die R e a k t i o n d e r Nicht-Christen als M o t i v in
d e r altchristlichen Paranese' in BZNW 26 (i960), 22iff.
110 O r i g e n , C. Cels. viii. 73, 75.
1 1 1
A . Bigelmair, Die Beteiligung der Christen am bfjentlichen Leben in vorconstantinischer Zeit
( M i i n c h e n , 1902).
1 1 2
N u m q u a m inutilis est o p e r a civis b o n i ; auditus visusque, voltu, nutu, obstinatione
tacita i n c e s s u q u e ipso prodest (De otio i v . 6).
1 1 3
A l t h o u g h the pressure exercised o n m e m b e r s o f the higher strata o f society to take
o v e r h o n o r a r y offices caused great difficulties ( c p . R . Freudenberger, ' R o m a n a s
c a e r i m o n i a s r e c o g n o s c e r e ' in Donum Gentilicium. Festschrift D . D a u b e ) ( O x f o r d ,
1978), pp. 238ff).
 Romans 1 3 383

eschatological view could, as has been shown, result in a positive valuation

o f certain aspects o f governmental activity. T h e very mutability o f the
eschatological interpretation o f time, for which the Pauline letters give such
ample evidence, made it easier for the Christians to adapt themselves to a
new situation and to take up new challenges. They resulted in
developments which had their o w n problems, problems the church tried to
c o p e with by a reinterpretation o f Romans 1 3 , the essence of which is most
lucidly expressed in the text o f Bach's cantata:

Die Obrigkeit ist Gottes Gabe,

Ja selber Gottes Ebenbild.
Wer ihre Macht nicht will ermessen
Der muss auch Gottes gar vergessen:
114
Wie wiirde sonst sein Wort erfullt?

It needs, there is little doubt, a revaluation in our days. This can be

attempted by giving the passage its proper focus, by placing it in a situation
which is in some ways, although not entirely, beyond recall, while the
apostle's concern and consideration sets an example that it would be
unwise to disregard.

1 , 4
C a n t a t a 119 (Sdmtliche von Johann Sebastian Bach vertonte Texte, e d . W . N e u m a n n
( L e i p z i g , 1974), p . 170).
 K. SCHUBERT

Biblical criticism criticised: with

reference to the Markan report of Jesus's
examination before the Sanhedrin

1
In the introduction to the third edition of his Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre
Heinrich Zimmermann writes that he has not mentioned religio-historical
study among the methods o f scholarly New Testament interpretation,
because he does not know 'which N e w Testament pericopae could be chosen
as examples, from the point o f view o f the history o f religions', to
demonstrate its use and applicability. His book is accordingly for the most
part a full and highly instructive presentation o f literary-historical
methods, particularly form-criticism and redaction-criticism. T h e tradi­
tions which are shaped in transmission and combined in redaction have
nevertheless an historical background. In form- and redaction-criticism
this is virtually excluded from examination. These methods are concerned
primarily with the moulding o f the traditions by congregational Sitz im
Leben and editorial outlook. Enquiry is directed at the process o f literary
formation rather than the historical background from which the process
begins. Heinz Schiirmann justly observes that enquiry into the Sitz im Leben
o f the congregations which proclaimed the Gospel is too limited in scope for
him to say that his acceptance o f the Gospel is vindicated by it. If, for
instance, the Gospel statements on Jesus are to be interpreted only in the
light o f Easter and Whitsuntide, and cannot be 'traced back to the
historical Jesus and into the company o f the disciples before Easter', the
Christian message would lose 'the factum historicum? which is its basis, and
2
could accordingly 'no longer be distinguished from Gnosis'.
Kurt Luthi, in his review o f A d o l f Holl's Jesus in schlechter Gesellschaft,
sums up by saying that New Testament study has foregone 'any direct
apprehension ofjesus'. ' T h e phrase "historical Jesus" ', he says, could only

' H e i n r i c h Z i m m e r m a n n , Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre (3rd e d n . Stuttgart, 1970),

p . 7.
2
H e i n z S c h i i r m a n n , ' D i e vorosterlichen A n f a n g e der Logientradition. V e r s u c h eines
formgeschichtlichen Z u g a n g s z u m L e b e n J e s u ' , in H e l m u t R i s t o w and K a r l
M a t t h i a e ( e d s . ) , Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus (Berlin, i960),
p p . 342-70 (370).
385
386 K. SCHUBERT

3
signify something 'entirely beyond scientific history.' Liithi is formulating
what could almost be called communis opinio of most contemporary exegetes.
Here, however, this view is resisted for basic theological reasons as well as
from the point o f view o f exegetical method. I cannot rid myself o f the
impression that the widespread refusal to elucidate biblical traditions
historically stems from the current prevalence o f literary-critical methods.
By virtue o f their very starting-point these methods are more concerned
with the factors that form tradition than with historical background. Thus,
to begin with, exegetical methods rule out elucidation o f the historical
fundamentum in re for the Christian message; and then this fundamentum in re is
declared irrelevant, because the student working solely with literary
criticism can only attain to the testimony o f the witnesses and so to the
belief o f the church.
Yet the committed faith o f the primitive and early Christian witnesses to
Jesus left its literary deposit in the Gospels. Can we really be asked to take
that faith seriously, and make it our own, without also being interested in its
object, the historical Jesus himself? W o u l d not that mean that we should
have faith in the faith o f the witnesses, although the content o f their faith
had no longer any relevance for us? O f course the whole biblical message o f
the O l d and New Testaments is determined by the faith o f those who have
handed it on to us. O f course the biblical writers use various styles o f
composition, including that o f legend, to bring out the meaning o f what
they transmit for faith. Nevertheless, for anyone who wants to believe
today, it is still a decisive question whether behind the different calls to faith
there are or are not historical facts. This question may not be weakened or

3
K u r t Liithi, J e s u s in schlechter Gesellschaft', Wort und Wahrheit, 26 (1971), 463-6
(463). T h e o b j e c t i o n to a faith-motivated interest in the history b e h i n d the k e r y g m a
is especially forcibly expressed b y G e o r g Strecker, ' D i e historische u n d t h e o l o g i s c h e
P r o b l e m a t i k d e r Jesusfrage', EvTh 29 (1969), 453-76. Strecker, 468, rightly o p p o s e s
the c l a i m that the historical Jesus must p r o v i d e the g r o u n d o f certainty for faith. F o r
Strecker, i b i d . , faith's g r o u n d o f certainty is not attainable outside faith, even in the
p r o c l a m a t i o n o f j e s u s himself. A t 469 he writes: ' T h e trans-subjective, to w h i c h
faith refers itself, c a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d as an " o b j e c t i v e saving fact", as s o m e t h i n g
attainable in general e x p e r i e n c e , w h i c h w o u l d also b e accessible to the secular
historian. Rather, that w h i c h gives the believer certainty is not d e m o n s t r a b l e ; it is
inextricably b o u n d u p with the event o f faith. Certitude o f belief o n l y o c c u r s with
the a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f faith.' Strecker's position here seems to m e to need s o m e
m o d i f i c a t i o n . I n d e e d history d o e s n o t offer the basis for certainty in faith, but it d o e s
p r o v i d e the c o n d i t i o n s w i t h o u t w h i c h n o basis for certainty is possible. T h e b i b l e in
b o t h O l d and N e w T e s t a m e n t s is interpreting historical events, w h i c h as events
m u s t b e accessible to the historian also, so that c o m m i t t e d faith c a n ascribe to t h e m
the m e a n i n g o f saving events. T h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n for certainty in faith is indeed not
d e m o n s t r a b l e , but an historical p r o o f that Jesus o f Nazareth had never existed
c o u l d never b e r e m o v e d b y any p o s s i b l e g r o u n d o f certainty for faith. It seems to m e
that Strecker has m a d e a quantitative p r o b l e m ( h o w far must the historical
fundamentum in re extend?) into a qualitative o n e .
 Markan report of Jesus's examination 387

relativised by the observation that the nature of historical fact is a

debatable subject. In the present context an historical fact is an historical
factum, o f equal validity however it is transmitted or interpreted, and o f
equal validity however we relate ourselves to it. In my opinion no historian
should lose sight o f the question o f historical facts in this sense, even when
he is aware that any historical fact becomes, the moment it is transmitted,
more (or at least other) than historical fact alone. It is the historian's
business to evolve methods which bring him as close as may be to historical
fact. H e should not, however, imitate those many exegetes who rest content
with literary criticism alone and declare the historical basis o f the biblical
message to be unattainable in the first place and in the next place
irrelevant. Here a virtue seems to be made out o f necessity.
T h e question o f the historical basis o f the message is essentially that o f
continuity between event and report. Only a demonstrable continuity here
can be accepted, even from the standpoint o f faith, as legitimate
development. Thus if, for example, no proto-Israelitic group - however it
may be more exactly defined - had the experience o f emigrating
successfully from Egypt, there would be no grounds for the basic avowal o f
ancient Israelite faith, that G o d brought his people out o f Egypt. A further
implication emerges, in my opinion: the Exodus can only be understood as
a saving act o f G o d for Israel, because it was experienced by a definite
group o f people and because it is open to interpretations other than that o f
Israelite belief (and so can be seen, for example, as a flight or an expulsion).
In other words, the understanding o f history as salvation-history
presupposes historical events which took place independently o f their
interpretation as salvation-history and can be understood in a different
4
way. A joke from East-European Jewry may illustrate this. A pious Jew is
in a place where it is impossible to eat kosher. Driven by the pangs o f hunger
he goes into a butcher's and asks: ' H o w much is one portion of ham?' At this
instant there is a loud and distinct clap o f thunder, for meanwhile a storm
has arisen. At the thunder-clap the pious Jew leaves the shop at once and
lifts his eyes to heaven with the words ' M a y n ' t a man so much as ask?!' For
no-one else in the whole town does the thunder possess the meaning it has
for the Jew in our story. Everyone hears it, but only this one Jew
understands it as G o d ' s communication to him personally. If it had not
thundered so that others too could recognise the thunder, our story would
lack fundamentum in re, and the Jew's sudden flight from the butcher's would
only be the result o f his own fancy. If it really did thunder, however, the
thunder could be given a corresponding interpretation. If the thunder were

4
[ F o r a version o f this j o k e in V i c t o r i a n Britain see J. C . M a c D o n n e l l , The Life and
Correspondence of William Connor Magee (2 vols., L o n d o n 1896), i, 256: ii, 280. Trans.]
388 K. SCHUBERT

only a manifestation o f the bad conscience o f the Jew, his aversion on this
account in our story to eating unclean meat would be evinced as simply the
product o f his fancy.
These considerations compel us to inquire about historical events as they
took place, if we wish to understand them as relevant to salvation-history.
Yet historical events are virtually untouched in research which is solely
directed towards literary criticism. Thus the question o f the Last Supper
cannot be posed if we only enquire about the Sitz im Leben o f the community
in which the accounts o f the meal were formed and handed down. Gerhard
5
Schwarz in his book on Jesus rightly criticised the literary-critical methods
which n o w govern exegesis, and rightly asked for the criteria guiding
decisions in (for instance) the important area o f christology. ' D o the
(christological) statements already presuppose the later christology, or was
6
the later christology only possible because of Jesus' own statements?' Here
it seems to me rightly recognised that the criteria for dating a tradition
cannot always be found by literary-critical methods. It is indeed in the area
o f christology that the influence of presuppositions is extraordinarily clear.
Sharply expressed, the assumption runs: Jesus was lacking in knowledge
about himself, his person and his function, in just the same degree as the
church by its Easter faith was instructed concerning him. Everything that
brings Jesus, even indirectly, into connection with messianic-christological
language is to be understood as church-creation. It is this presupposition-
and not any literary-critical necessity - that marks all these passages as
church-creation.
Here the Markan account o f Jesus's examination before the council will
serve to show that this presupposition requires criticism. At the same time
it will demonstrate how investigation o f religio-historical milieu can
contribute greatly towards recognition o f historical fundamentum in re.
Indeed we shall be asking what can be, rather than what cannot be,
historical.

II

First some literary points must be established. In Mark and Matthew the
tradition o f Jesus's examination before the council by night, Mark
1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 (with the mockery following, Mark 1 4 : 6 5 ) is inserted into the
story o f Peter's denial. Immediately annexed to this story is the observation
o f Mark 1 5 : 1 that 'at once, in the early morning' the members o f the
Sanhedrin assembled and after deciding accordingly sent Jesus bound to

5
G e r h a r d S c h w a r z , Was Jesus wirklich sagte ( W i e n , 1971).
6
S c h w a r z , Jesus, p p . 67f.
 Markan report o f j e s u s ' s examination 389

Pilate. It can therefore be contended that a single sentencing ofjesus by the

council has been reported twice, first in the context o f the hearing by night
and secondly in accordance with the note o f time 'at once, in the early
morning'. This consideration alone already warrants scepticism from a
literary-critical viewpoint as to the historicity o f the nocturnal hearing
7
before the Sanhedrin.
This suspicion is strengthened by three further observations.
( 1 ) Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 contains christological statements about Jesus. From
the presumption that Jesus was first taken to be messiah by witnesses to
Christian faith after the resurrection - a presumption that must be critically
examined! - it follows necessarily that Jesus and the high priest could not
have used christological formulae o f this kind. Hence they could only be
expressions o f the faith o f the church, whose members understood Jesus in
8
messianic terms.
(2) In Luke the Sanhedrin d o not examine Jesus by night, but only in the
morning (Luke 2 2 : 6 6 - 7 1 ) . Some important elements placed by Mark, and
Matthew after him, in the nocturnal session are referred by Luke to the
morning in a shortened and somewhat altered form. A n example is Jesus's
reply to the high priest, with its reference, following Ps. n o : 1, to the
exaltation o f the Son of man to G o d ' s right hand. T h e allusion also made in
this reply to Dan. 7: 1 3 (Mark 1 4 : 6 2 , Matt. 2 6 : 6 4 ) is not transmitted by
Luke, in accord with his distinctive presuppositions, because it stresses the
expectation o f the parousia. T h e formal agreement o f the notes o f time in
Luke 2 2 : 6 6 and Mark 1 5 : 1 can then be taken as indicating that the earliest
tradition of all knew nothing of a hearing by night, and only recorded one in
9
the morning.
(3) Literary resemblances between Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 and Mark 15:2-5
can be taken to show that the first passage (nocturnal hearing before the
Sanhedrin) depends on the second (pleading before Pilate). T h e high
priest's two questions to Jesus correspond to Pilate's two questions. Both
reports stress Jesus's silence before his judges. Like Pilate (Mark 1 5 : 4 ) , the
high priest (Mark 1 4 : 6 0 ) asks Jesus: 'Answerest thou nothing?' N o w if
Jesus was lawfully condemned to crucifixion by Pilate, and if the objections
to the report o f the nocturnal hearing mentioned under ( 1 ) and (2) above
are valid, it follows that the report o f the proceedings before Pilate was

7
T h i s scepticism w a s already formulated b y H a n s L i e t z m a n n , ' D e r P r o z e s s j e s u ' in
Sitzungsberichte derpreussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil. -Hist. K l . xiv (Berlin,
1931), p p . 313-22. It laid the foundation for Paul W i n t e r , On the Trial of Jesus
(Berlin, 1961).
8
See for e x a m p l e F e r d i n a n d H a h n , Christologische Hoheitstitel, 2nd e d n . G o t t i n g e n ,
1964 ( E T The Titles of Jesus in Christology, L o n d o n , 1969.
9
S o for e x a m p l e W i n t e r , Trial, p . 25; H a n s W e r n e r Bartsch, ' T h e o l o g i e und
G e s c h i c h t e in der Uberlieferung v o m L e b e n J e s u ' , EvTh 32 (1972), 128-43 (*39)-
390 K. SCHUBERT

already constructed and available when the report o f the nocturnal

10
proceedings before the Sanhedrin was drawn u p . If we ask whether Jesus's
examination before the high priest by night belongs to history, considera­
tions o f this kind alone already seem to put us in the wrong and to attribute
11
our question to an illegitimate 'historicizing interpretation'.
Internal analysis o f Mark 14:55-64 also supplies considerations
suggesting that Jesus may not have been examined before the Sanhedrin by
night. Mark 1 4 : 6 2 contains a combined scriptural citation linking the
concepts o f the returning Son o f man (Dan. 7: 1 3 ) and the exalted Son o f
David (Ps. 1 1 0 : 1 ) . It would be concluded almost universally that a
combined citation o f this kind cannot stem from Jesus himself, but only
from the faith o f the early church. Likewise, the high priest's question on
Jesus's messiahship would be held to imply belief in Jesus as Son o f G o d ,
that is, the belief o f the early church. It is twice reported ( M a r k 1 4 : 5 6 , 5 9 )
that the testimonies o f the witnesses against Jesus did not agree. T w i c e
12
seems once too often, for such a claim needs no repetition. T h e saying on
the destruction o f the T e m p l e (Mark 1 4 : 5 8 / M a t t . 2 6 : 6 1 ) recurs as the gibe
of passers-by under the cross (Mark I 5 : 2 9 / M a t t . 2 7 : 3 9 1 ) . In Luke it is
missing at both places, but the motif reappears, once again as false witness,
in the case against Stephen (Acts 6: i%f). In contrast with Mark and
Matthew, w h o ascribe the saying on the destruction o f the T e m p l e to false
witnesses against Jesus, J o h n (2: 1 9 - 2 1 ) gives it as a genuine saying ofjesus
at the cleansing o f the T e m p l e - a scene which in J o h n stands at the
beginning o f j e s u s ' s public ministry, but in the other evangelists after the
messianic entry into Jerusalem and before the passion. John, for w h o m the
saying is authentic, interprets it allegorically o f the three days between the
death o f j e s u s and his resurrection. It is therefore widely concluded that
the saying originally circulated in isolation and was first placed in these
13
different contexts as a result o f developments in tradition. Nevertheless
one must surely also reckon with the possibility that it could have belonged
originally to at least one o f these contexts!
A further, more fundamental objection to the possible historicity of Mark
1 4 : 55—64 is raised by the view that no one w h o could be reckoned a witness
of the nocturnal hearing will have belonged to the Christian church. Even
14
references to Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus are not relevant here.

1 0
G . B r a u m a n n , ' M k 15, 2-5 und M k 14, 55-64', ZNW52 (1961), 273-8; J o a c h i m
G n i l k a , ' D i e V e r h a n d l u n g v o r d e m S y n e d r i o n u n d v o r Pilatus n a c h M k 14, 53-15,
5', EKK Vorarbeiten, Heft 2 ( E i n s i e d e l n / N e u k i r c h e n , 1970), p p . 5-21 (7, 12); Eta
L i n n e m a n n , Studien zur Passionsgeschichte ( G o t t i n g e n , 1970).
11
Gnilka, ' V e r h a n d l u n g ' , p . 15.
1 2 1 3
L i n n e m a n n , Passionsgeschichte, p p . 109-16. G n i l k a , ' V e r h a n d l u n g ' , p . 18.
1 4
E d u a r d L o h s e , Die Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens Jesu Christi (Gutersloh, 1964),
p . 83.
 Markan report of Jesus's examination 391

O n the other hand it should be noticed that according to Acts 6: 7, 1 5 : 5

both priests and Pharisees found their way into the primitive church.
A m o n g these could have been some with knowledge of what went on during
the nocturnal hearing. Likewise we can assume that in the courtyard o f the
high priest's palace Peter had the amplest opportunity to gain first-hand
information on events in the hall o f judgement. In arguing now that the
Markan account o f Jesus's examination before the council is basically
historical I proceed from two assumptions: ( 1 ) the primitive Christian
community had its sources o f information on the examination o f j e s u s by
the Sanhedrin; ( 2 ) the report in Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 is no court record, but only
recounts the incidents which were decisive for Christian belief. T e n verses
o f course could not suffice for a record in due form.
At this point, however, at least a brief debate must be attempted with
those w h o maintain that the Lukan passion-narrative is older and more
original than the Markan. So for example it is argued that in Luke the two
titles 'messiah' and 'Son o f G o d ' are not yet combined in the manner o f
Mark 1 4 : 6 1 / M a t t . 2 6 : 6 3 . In Luke these two titles are divided between the
verses 2 2 : 6 7 and 2 2 : 7 0 . I f we can presume that here a stratum emerges
older than that in which the two titles are j o i n e d , the Lukan account o f
Jesus's examination before the Sanhedrin will be ascribed to an especially
15
early stage in tradition. As I shall try to show, however, the presumption
that Mark 1 4 : 6 1 presents us with a christological testimony from the early
church seems to be false. It is far more likely that we have to d o with a true
record o f what the high priest said! T h e separation o f the two expressions
'messiah' and 'Son of G o d ' accordingly indicates Lukan literary craft rather
than especially ancient and original tradition. A number o f detailed
observations show that Luke has remodelled the tradition that reached
him. I mention only the most important. Luke 2 2 : 5 6 - 6 2 deals with Peter's
denial. After this 2 2 : 6 3 notes: ' A n d the men that held him (Greek a u x o v )
mocked him, beating him.' Luke's text would lead one to believe that this
verse concerns Peter, w h o is spoken o f immediately before, if one did not
know from Mark 1 4 : 6 5 that it can only refer to Jesus. Luke here has
obscured the meaning o f the passage by moving the verse into a different
16
context. In contrast with Mark and Matthew, Luke does not break up the

1 5
S o for e x a m p l e D . R . C a t c h p o l e , ' T h e P r o b l e m o f the Historicity o f the Sanhedrin
T r i a l ' , in E . B a m m e l ( e d . ) , The Trial ofjesus ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 47-65 (65). A m o n g
a d v o c a t e s o f the priority o f the L u k a n passion-narrative are: G . Schneider, 'Jesus
v o r d e m S y n e d r i o n ' , BibLeb 11 (1970), 1-15; Carsten C o l p e , ' D e r Begriff
" M e n s c h e n s o h n " u n d die M e t h o d e d e r Erforschung messianischer P r o t o t y p e n ' ,
Kairos 13 (1971), 1-17 (13); J a c o b K r e m e r , 'Verurteilt als " K o n i g der J u d e n " -
verkiindigt als " H e r r und C h r i s t u s " ' , BLit 45 (1972), 23-32 (29).
1 6
A b r a h a m Shalit, review o f W i n t e r , Trial, in Kirjath Sepher 37 (1962), 332-41 (339):
392 K. SCHUBERT

story o f Peter's denial by inserting an account ofjesus's examination before

the Sanhedrin by night. Mark obviously intended this insertion to
emphasise that Jesus's confession o f faith happened at the same time as
Peter's denial. For literary reasons Luke achieved this emphasis in another
way. It is only in Luke 2 2 : 6 1 that the Lord turns and looks upon Peter as he
denies. Mark and Matthew lack this notice because they take literary
means to show that confession and denial occurred together, inserting the
nocturnal hearing into the story o f the denial. Luke did not wish to
interrupt this story. His literary scheme therefore compelled him on the one
hand to place the mockery before the account o f the hearing before the
Sanhedrin (not after it as in Mark and Matthew) and on the other hand to
locate the whole examination in the early hours of the morning only. Again,
the form ofjesus's reply to the high priest's messianic question is obviously
secondary in Luke 2 2 : 6 9 as compared with Mark 1 4 : 6 2 , because here the
typical Lukan softening o f the early Christian expectation o f the parousia is
responsible for the Lukan wording. W e must then begin with Mark
1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 if we would investigate the historical fundamentum in re o f j e s u s ' s
examination before the Sanhedrin.

Ill

The most important unargued ground for the evaluation o f Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4

as unhistorical is the assumption that the christological passages on Jesus
are to be understood only as witnesses to the faith o f the primitive Christian
17
church. It must therefore first be asked if this assumption isjustified. T h e
charge that Jesus drives out devils by Beelzebub the prince o f the devils
occurs in Mark 3: 2 2 - 3 0 / M a t t . 1 2 : 2 2 - 3 7 / L u k e 1 1 : 1 4 - 2 3 . According to
Luke 1 1 : 20 Jesus answered this charge with the words: ' I f I by the finger o f
G o d cast out devils, then indeed the kingdom o f G o d has already c o m e to
you'. Since this verse is witnessed in Matthew but not Mark it may come
from the so-called Sayings Source, which contains old material. The
wording in Matt. 1 2 : 28 is o f course somewhat less anthropomorphic: ' I f I
by the spirit o f G o d cast out devils . . .' Here the Lukan text, with its
anthropomorphic 'finger o f G o d ' , appears closer to the original form o f the
saying. T o expel demons and make them powerless is a sign o f the end in
Jewish apocalyptic thought. T h e demons are the cause of all failure in man
18
and nature. Their power will therefore be broken at the end.

' T h e r e is n o vestige o f truth in the critical position that L u k e h a d at his disposal a

m o r e reliable tradition than M a r k . '
1 7
E d u a r d L o h s e , Leidens, p . 7 5 .
1 8
O t t o Betz, Der Paraklet ( L e i d e n , 1963).
 Markan report o f j e s u s ' s examination 393

Extraordinary healings were understood by Jesus's contemporaries as acts

depriving the demons o f their power, and so as miracles. O n a critical view
o f the tradition it can hardly be denied that Jesus performed such
19
healings. M e m b e r s o f the primitive Christian church still performed
'healing miracles' o f this kind. (It would be absurd, and out of keeping with
the task of evaluating historical sources, to enquire here whether healings o f
this kind are medically possible.) T h e rabbinical literature provides one
testimony, in my opinion indisputable, from the early second century. Here
it is forbidden to allow oneself to be healed in the name o f j e s u s . T h e very
ancient formulation runs ( T o s . Hullin ii. 2 2 f ) :

The story of Rabbi Eleazar ben Dama, who was bitten by a snake. Jacob of
Kephar Sama came to heal him in the name ofjesus ben Pantera [rabbinic
mode of reference to Jesus]. But Rabbi Ishmael forbade him and said to
him: 'You have no right to do this, ben Dama.' He contradicted him: 'I
will give you proof that he may indeed heal me.' But he had no time to do
so, for he died. Rabbi Ishmael then said: 'Well is it with you, ben Dama,
that you have gone forth [from the world] in peace and have not broken
20
the ordinances of the Wise.'

The attitude which Jesus's opponents adopted to his miracles was similar;
they held that the power o f evil must be responsible for these healings and
that they could only take place by the aid o f Beelzebub. Jesus himself,
however, saw in them a sign of eschatological power. Thus Jesus's healings
already e m b o d y the beginnings o f later christology.
Even clearer than the reports o f the 'healing miracles' o f j e s u s is the
report o f Peter's messianic confession in Mark 8: 2 7 - 3 3 / M a t t . 1 6 : 1 3 - 2 3 /
Luke 9 : 1 8 - 2 2 . According to Mark Jesus asks his disciples w h o m people
take him to be. H e receives the most various answers, all o f which, however,
point to the view that Jesus is the prophet to come in the last days, w h o m
21
many groups in Judaism awaited. Only Peter explicitly calls Jesus
messiah. Jesus's first declaration concerning his suffering follows. It ends
with the statement that the Son o f man will be put to death, but will rise
again after three days. T h e text immediately continues with the discussion

1 9
A n historical report o f this kind seems to m e to b e p r o v i d e d for instance in M a r k
3 : 1 - 6 ( M a t t . 12:9-14, L u k e 6 : 6 - 1 1 ) : see K . S c h u b e r t , Der Historische Jesus und der
Christus unseres Glaubens (Wien, 1962), p p . 15-101 (68f).
2 0
T o s . H u l l i n ii. 22f (ed. Z u c k e r m a n d e l , 503): parallels in j . S h a b b . xiv. i4d foot, b .
A Z 27b. See M o r d e c a i M a r g a l i o t h , Encyclopedia of Talmudic and Geonic Literature
( H e b r e w ) ( T e l A v i v , i960), i, 12if.
2 1
D e u t . 18: 15, 18 ( n e w p r o p h e t like M o s e s ) ; M a i . 3: 23f. (return o f Elijah). F o r
expectation o f an unidentified eschatological p r o p h e t see 1 M a c e . 4:46; 14:41;
Q u m r a n M a n u a l o f Discipline ( i Q S a ) i x 1 1 . A t 2 Esdras 6:26 it is said, in
c o n n e c t i o n with the last things: ' T h e n shall m e n g a z e o n those m e n w h o o n c e were
taken a w a y and w h o never tasted death since their birth.'
394 K. SCHUBERT

between Jesus and Peter. Peter reproaches Jesus because he has spoken o f
suffering. Jesus reacts extremely sharply: ' A w a y from me, Satan! for y o u
think not the thoughts o f G o d , but those o f men' (Mark 8: 3 3 ) . In view o f
Peter's leading role in the primitive church from the very beginning it is
absolutely impossible to regard this verse as a church-formation. A
disagreement o f the kind described must have been so well known that it
could not be blotted out. Further, the subject o f disagreement, the concept
of messiahship, is historically probable. Jesus somewhat harshly repudi­
ated Peter's triumphalist concept. N o doubt is cast on the existence o f this
disagreement if we assume that Jesus's sayings on his suffering were
entirely formulated after the resurrection, because they close with the
statement that the Son o f man will rise after three days. O n the contrary,
this state o f affairs itself suggests that originally, in place o f the prophecy o f
suffering formulated after the resurrection, a differently-worded disagree­
ment between Jesus and Peter over the concept o f messiahship must have
occurred. This supposition is fortified by a circumstance which has hitherto
been too little noticed. According to the very old formula o f belief in 1 C o r .
1 5 : 3, 'Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.' Here for the
first time in Jewish religious history the passage on the suffering servant o f
22
G o d in Isa. 5 2 : 1 3 to 5 3 : 1 2 is taken messianically. Isa 5 3 : 5 is especially
alluded to. T h e christological reference o f the suffering servant o f G o d is so
familiar to us as Christians that we d o not consider h o w absurd it must have
been for a J e w o f the New Testament period to say o f the messiah, w h o
should reign over G o d ' s kingdom in the last days, that his death was an
atoning death. The most obvious explanation is simply that this
interpretation goes back to Jesus himself and that Peter objected to it. T h e
first declaration o f Jesus's suffering therefore reflects Jesus's reaction to
Peter's messianic confession, in the language o f the proclamation o f the
Gospel after the resurrection. Thus the disagreement o f j e s u s with Peter
over the c o n c e p t o f the messiah also belongs to the historical foundations o f
the Gospels.
O n l y if we assume that Peter conceived o f the messiah in a triumphalist
way can we understand why he went in to the court o f the high priest's
palace. H e wanted to be at hand if Jesus was manifested over against his
judges as L o r d and Christ. T h e story o f the denial reflects the crisis into
which Peter entered because his triumphalist interpretation o f Jesus's
messiahship was not fulfilled.
A further indication that the earthly, historical Jesus was understood to

2 2
G e o r g F o h r e r , ' D a s Alte T e s t a m e n t u n d das T h e m a " C h r i s t o l o g i e " ' , EvTh 30
I
( 97°)> PP- 281-98 (291); idem, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion (Berlin, 1969), p p .
1
3 5 J 353 ( E T History of Israelite Religion ( L o n d o n , 1973), p p . 3 4 3 0 -
 Markan report o f j e s u s ' s examination 395

be messiah by his followers can be found in Mark 1 0 : 3 5 - 4 0 / M a t t . 20: 2 0 - 3 .

Here James and John, the two sons o f Zebedee, ask Jesus if they may sit at
his right and left in his kingdom. Pretensions to political power are
unmistakably involved. Judas's betrayal might be similarly understood. If
his motive was simply to gain money, his suicide after Jesus's death on the
cross is incomprehensible; for he must have known the outcome to be
expected when he handed Jesus over to enemies with political power. He
cannot then have reckoned with the possibility that Jesus would fail before
his j u d g e s . Judas may have been led to betray Jesus by a motive very like
that which drove Peter into the court o f the high priest's palace. He wished
to force a confrontation in which Jesus could only prove victorious. Judas,
the sons o f Zebedee and Peter were altogether unprepared to see Jesus as
the suffering servant o f G o d . Jesus, then, was taken by his followers to be
messiah; and from this standpoint it is not surprising that the examination
before the high priest dealt with the messianic question and that Jesus was
crucified as ' K i n g o f the Jews'.
Luke 1 2 : 8 can also be adduced as evidence for messianic interpretation
o f the earthly Jesus. 'Everyone w h o shall confess me before men, him shall
the Son o f man also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth me
in the presence o f men shall be denied in the presence o f the angels o f G o d . '
The fact that here Jesus is not explicitly identified with the Son o f man
suggests that we are very close to the original form o f the saying. Matthew,
aware o f this deficiency in assertion, emphasises in his o w n wording (Matt.
1 0 : 321) that the Son o f man is identical with Jesus: 'Everyone w h o shall
confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in
heaven. . . .' But is is clear even from the indefinite (and so probably
earlier) formulation in Luke that the connection between Jesus and the Son
o f man is so close, that men's relation to the Son o f man at the judgement
will be decided by their relation to Jesus. Here there is at least a step towards
23
the understanding ofjesus as the Son o f m a n . T h e unargued assumption
that the Gospel statements about Jesus as Christ have no fundamentum in re
from the time o f the earthly, historical Jesus therefore seems to me false.
With this established, Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 will repay closer examination.

IV

It is striking that Jesus's opponents in the passion narrative - identified as

the high priests, the elders and the scribes - are not the same as his

2 3
O n the Son o f man see Carsten C o l p e , 6 vibq xov d v S o a m o v , ThWNTviii (1969),
403-81 ( E T TDNT viii (1972), 400-77) idem, ' D e r Begriff " M e n s c h e n s o h n " und
die M e t h o d e der Erforshung messianischer P r o t o t y p e d , Kairos 11 (1969), 241-63;
12 (1970), 81-112; 13 ( 1 9 7 0 , 1—17-
39^ K. SCHUBERT

opponents elsewhere in the Gospels. In the passion, then, according to the

Gospels, it is the Establishment o f the Jerusalem T e m p l e , that is the
Sanhedrin, w h o lead the opposition to Jesus. Here he was confronted, not
as hitherto in Galilee with the adherents o f another teaching, but with
political power. For that reason this confrontation ended not in theological
controversy, but with the cross on Golgotha. T h e passion-narrative thus
depicts the historical situation with fundamental accuracy. I f Jesus, as
before in Galilee, was to oppose his own self-understanding to the
established order, confrontation with political power was unavoidable. It
may be that Jesus was wholly aware o f this situation and for that reason
applied to himself the passage on the suffering servant of G o d in Isa. 5 2 : 1 3
to 5 3 : 12. A t any rate he was not prepared to play d o w n his message during
his stay in Jerusalem. T h e so-called cleansing o f the T e m p l e (Mark
1 1 : 1 5 - 1 9 / M a t t . 2 1 : I2f/Luke 1 9 : 4 5 - 8 ) , which must always be understood
24
with this point in m i n d , was a provocation o f the governing priestly
nobility. It was a prophetic sign against malpractices in the T e m p l e ,
comparable with such O l d Testament precedents as are described in A m o s
3: 1 3 - 1 5 ; 7: 1 0 - 1 7 and Jer. 7: 1 - 1 5 . T h e wandering preacher o f Galilee was,
as is to be assumed from the start, no unknown quantity to the priestly
aristocrats o f Jerusalem. T h e y therefore took his audacious appearance in
the T e m p l e as a messianic challenge to their own claim to leadership, and
reacted accordingly. This becomes more comprehensible when we recall
the ideas typical o f that period in the history o f Jewish religion. Since the
early second century B.C. groups o f apocalyptically-minded priests had
considered that the Jerusalem T e m p l e was defiled, and governed by
unworthy priests. It must be replaced, they believed, by a new heavenly
25
Temple. So we read, for example, in the great apocalyptic survey o f
history in 1 Enoch 9 0 (first half o f the second century B.C.):

I stood up to see till [God] folded up that old house. They carried off all the
pillars, and all the beams and ornaments of the house were folded up with
it. They carried it off and laid it in a place in the south of the land. I saw, till
the Lord of the sheep brought a new house, greater and loftier than the
first, and set it up in the place of the first which had been folded up. All its

2 4
T h e cleansing o f the T e m p l e was certainly not an action o f the kind carried o u t b y
Z e a l o t s , as is often c l a i m e d t o d a y . F o r a careful a d v o c a c y o f this v i e w see S. G . F.
B r a n d o n , Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967); idem, The Trial ofJesus of Nazareth ( L o n d o n ,
1968). F o r criticism see M a r t i n H e n g e l , WarJesus Revolutionary (Stuttgart, 1970); E T
Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Philadelphia, 1971); Giinther B a u m b a c h , Jesus von
Nazareth im Lichte derjudischen Gruppenbildung (Berlin, 1971); K u r t S c h u b e r t , review
o f B r a n d o n , Trial, in Kairos 14 (1972), 7 1 - 6 .
2 5
D a v i d Flusser, ' T h e T e m p l e not M a d e with H a n d s in the Q u m r a n D o c t r i n e ' , IEJ9
(1959), 99-104; K u r t S c h u b e r t , Die judischen Religionsparteien in neutestamentlicher Zeit
(Stuttgart, 1970), p p . 18-21.
 Markan report o f j e s u s ' s examination 397

pillars were new, and its ornaments too were new and larger than those o f
the first, the old o n e which he had carried off; and the Lord o f the sheep
was within it (1 E n o c h 90: 28f).

Jubilees, which belongs to the same milieu and comes from about the
middle o f the second century B.C., knows the same idea. In J u b . 1: 2 7 the
angel o f the presence is c o m m a n d e d by G o d : 'Write for Moses from the
beginning o f creation till my sanctuary has been built among them for all
eternity.' T h e angel o f the presence must write out the whole history o f the
world from the beginning o f creation to the new creation in the last days.
T h e Essenes o f Qumran also knew this expectation o f a new T e m p l e at the
26
end. Because o f their opposition to the state o f affairs in the Jerusalem
T e m p l e they withdrew to the wilderness of Judaea and regarded their life
there as both a substitute for Temple-worship and a preparation for the
service o f the new T e m p l e o f the last days.
Nothing is therefore more probable than that the Jerusalem priestly
nobility should have associated Jesus's audacious appearance in the T e m p l e
with ideas o f this kind and so secured his arrest and handing-over to Pilate.
Yet they felt themselves imperilled by Jesus's criticism o f the T e m p l e in the
sphere which was above all their o w n . Mark 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 is to be understood
from this presumption. Like any investigation, Jesus's examination began
with a general hearing o f witnesses. W e can gather from the Gospels the
general drift o f the evidence for the prosecution. O n the Sabbath Jesus
27
heals sicknesses where there is no danger o f death. H e has therefore
made a bargain with the Devil (Mark 3: 2 2 , Matt. 1 2 : 24, Luke 1 1 : 1 5 ) . That
these testimonies were too varied to agree could be conjectured even if it
were not expressly emphasised in Mark 1 4 : 5 6 . A particular charge, noted
outside the tradition as well, concerned the destruction o f the T e m p l e .
This was certainly the decisive point for the Jerusalem priestly Estab­
lishment.
In this connection we must ask whether or not Jesus spoke o f the
destruction o f the T e m p l e . In Mark i 4 : 5 8 / M a t t . 2 6 : 6 1 it is the false
witnesses w h o claim that he did so, but according to John 2: 1 9 Jesus did say
something o f the kind at the cleansing o f the T e m p l e . Mark 1 3 : i f (Matt.
2 4 : if; Luke 2 1 : 5 1 ) must also be taken into consideration: ' A n d as Jesus
went forth out o f the temple, one o f his disciples saith unto him, Master,
behold, what manner o f stones and what manner o f buildings! A n d Jesus
said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left here

2 6
D . B a r t h e l e m y a n d J. T . M i l i k ( e d s . ) , Qumran Cave 1 , D J D ( O x f o r d , 1955), i34f;
J. M . A l l e g r o ( e d . ) , Qumran Cave 4, D J D v ( O x f o r d , 1968), p p . 53f.
2 7
H e a l i n g o f mortal illnesses w a s permitted o n the S a b b a t h : S c h u b e r t , Religionspar-
teien, p p . 34f.
398 K. SCHUBERT

one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown d o w n . ' T h e English
exegete and student o f comparative religion, S. G. F. Brandon, holds that
this saying on the destruction o f the T e m p l e is in tension with Mark 1 4 : 5 7 ^
where it is described as false witness. H e tries to resolve this tension by
ascribing Mark 1 4 : 5 7 f to Christian Jews with an affirmative attitude to the
T e m p l e , w h o wanted to avoid Jesus's words o f wrath against it. According
to Brandon the pre-Markan version o f the passion-narrative already
impugned the witnesses as false, entirely without historical justification. In
Brandon's view, then, we must conclude that Jesus was in fact hostile to the
T e m p l e . Brandon infers from Mark 1 3 : 2 that Jesus there intended to allude
to actions o f his o w n against the T e m p l e . He sees Jesus accordingly as a
sympathiser with the anti-Roman revolutionary movements which also
directed themselves against the collaborators with R o m e among the Jewish
28
priestly nobility. T o foretell the destruction o f the T e m p l e does not,
however, imply either sympathy with such anti-Roman groups or an active
personal share in the destruction. O n the contrary, the renowned Pharisaic
teacher, Johanan ben Zaccai, w h o cooperated with the Romans against the
2 9
rebels in the First Revolt ( A . D . 6 6 - 7 0 / 7 3 ) , is said to have prophesied to the
T e m p l e that it would be destroyed forty years before this came about. ' O
T e m p l e , why are you anxious? I know that you will be destroyed' ( b . Y o m a
u s t
39°)- J as Johannan ben Zaccai spoke against the T e m p l e without
entertaining any sympathy for the rebels, Jesus prophesied to the T e m p l e
that it would be destroyed without wanting to ascribe an active part to
himself in the destruction. O n the other hand it can easily be understood
that the T e m p l e priesthood and their followers should have taken Jesus's
words to imply action of his o w n . T h e eschatological claim ofjesus, and his
criticism o f the T e m p l e , could only too easily be misunderstood in this sense.
Why did Jesus have no affinity o f any kind with the anti-Roman
30
revolutionary groups? From the numerous arguments for this position I
bring forward only one, which seems to me o f great weight. T h e Zealots,
from w h o m the revolt against R o m e in A . D . 6 6 began, received their name
because, like the priest Phinehas in N u m . 2 5 : 7 - 1 3 , they were zealous for
the L a w . This also emerges clearly from Sanh. ix. 6, where the Zealots make
away with anyone w h o has sexual intercourse with a pagan woman. This
zeal for the Law is, however, incompatible with Jesus's own attitude to the
Law! See for example Mark 7: 1 5 (Matt. 1 5 : 1 1 ) : 'There is nothing from
without the man, that going into him can defile him: but the things which
proceed out o f the man are those that defile the man.'

2 8
S e e n. 24 o n p . 396 u n d e r B r a n d o n .
2 9
b . Gittin 56ab; A b h o t h d e R a b b i N a t h a n 4; Ekhah R a b b a t h i I, 244-90 ( e d . S.
B u b e r , H i l d e s h e i m , 1967, p p . 65-9).
3 0
S e e n. 24 o n p . 396, u n d e r H e n g e l , B a u m b a c h a n d Schubert.
 Markan report o f j e s u s ' s examination 399

If then Jesus said nothing corresponding verbally to the witness cited in

Mark 1 4 : 5 8 , it is clear from the formulation o f that verse that statements
were before the Temple authorities which linked the widespread
expectation o f a heavenly T e m p l e at the end with Jesus's appearance in the
T e m p l e . David Flusser, the Jerusalem student o f the history o f religions, is
therefore fully justified in saying:

It is in the highest degree probable that, when Jesus was examined by the
High Priest, the first question was whether he had in fact uttered the
saying against the Temple. . . . It seems to me to follow from the accounts
in the Gospels that the proclamation of the Temple's destruction was for
31
the High Priests the real ground for handing Jesus over to Pilate.

I heartily assent to this thesis of Flusser. It implies, however, that the saying
on the T e m p l e has its original Sitz im Leben in the account o f the
examination, although o f course it is given as the statement o f false
witnesses. W e must therefore resist the view that 'it was first worked into
32
the scene o f the examination before the high priest by the evangelists'.
Jesus's saying on the destruction o f the Temple may then be traced back
to the interpretation o f his attitude to the T e m p l e by others. That an
interpretation o f this kind should not have been everyone's opinion is more
probable than that it should have been advanced unanimously. Thus Mark
1 4 : 5 9 is entirely right in indicating that 'not even so did their witness agree
together'. W h e n even the high priest did not win from Jesus the expression
o f any viewpoint on these evidences, he could d o no other than pose the
messianic question in so many words: 'Art thou the Christ, the Son o f the
Blessed?' T h e wording o f this question is generally attributed to church
theology (or perhaps to the Markan redaction) wherein Jesus was already
3 3
ranked as a Son o f G o d . Such a view seems to me fundamentally false. T h e
expression 'Blessed' is not a usual circumlocution for G o d among
Christians, but it is the current Jewish term: haqqadosh barukh hu\ 'the Holy
One, Blessed be he'. With his own religious presuppositions the high priest
could scarcely have posed the messianic question otherwise than as it is
reproduced in Mark 1 4 : 6 1 . There is no trace here o f a Christian confession
o f faith. It is in the highest degree probable that this decisive question of the
high priest is verbally reproduced here through the mediacy o f an
ear-witness, and that we have, so to say, ipsissima vox of the high priest! T h e

3 1
D a v i d Flusser, ' T h e T r i a l and D e a t h o f j e s u s o f N a z a r e t h ' ( H e b r e w ) , Molad 2
(1968), 202ff (211), reviewing the b o o k o f this title ( E T L o n d o n , 1969) b y the Israeli
judge Haim Cohn.
3 2
G e r h a r d S c h n e i d e r , ' G a b es eine vorsynoptische Szene "Jesus v o r d e m
1
S y n e d r i u m " ? ' , NovTest 12 (1970), 22-39 (3 )-
3 3
F e r d i n a n d H a h n , Hoheitstitel, p p . 126-32, 181 ( E T p p . 129-35, ^ 2 ) ; B r a n d o n ,
Trial, p . 89; L o h s e , Leidens, p . 85.
400 K. SCHUBERT

messianic question put to Jesus could not have been worded more Jewishly
34
than is the case in Mark 1 4 : 6 1 ! It therefore seems to me, with J. Blinzler,
that we should not doubt that this wording indeed goes back to the high
priest. It is not a formula o f the primitive Christian kerygma. Every
descendant o f David counted from his coronation onwards as an adopted
Son o f G o d : see Pss. 2: 7, n o : 1; 2 Sam. 7: 1 2 b , 1 4 . This last verse is already
developed in 1 Chron. 1 7 : 11 b , 13 with reference to a descendant of David at
the end o f days. T h e reference is still clearer in a commentary on 2 Sam.
7: 1 1 - 1 4 a from Q u m r a n Cave 4 : 7 will be to him a father and he shall be to me a
son. This is the " b r a n c h " (semah) o f David, which comes forth with the
35
"teacher o f the L a w " , w h o shall be in Zion at the end o f d a y s . ' T h e term
branch according to the O l d Testament means the Davidic messiah, Jer.
2 3 : 5 ; 3 3 : 1 5 ; Z e c h . 3 : 8 ; 6: 1 2 . There can be no doubt that the messiah, the
awaited 'Son o f David', must also be in the adoptive sense 'Son o f G o d ' . T h e
Jewish character o f the high priest's question to Jesus is in no way altered
by the fact that it could easily be taken by the church in its o w n Christian
sense.
In Mark 1 4 : 6 2 Jesus's affirmative reply is expanded by a combined
citation o f Dan. 7: 1 3 and Ps. n o : 1. Here too we need only find a
church-formation if we exclude the possibility that Jesus himself may have
linked himself with the expectation o f a messianic Son o f man. As emerged
above in the discussion o f Luke 1 2 : 8f, such an assumption would be
unjustified. T h e earthly Jesus has already envisaged himself in such close
relationship with the Son o f man that it is far more likely that he declared
himself Son o f man before his judges than that the church created the
saying. Thus at the most the reference in Mark 1 4 : 6 1 to Ps. n o : 1, which
obviously assumes exaltation, can possibly be regarded as a product o f the
church. W e are not, however, compelled, in my view, to take it so, for
Son-of-man messianology is already combined with the concept o f a
Davidic messiah in a clearly Jewish context in the pre-Christian period
(probably the first century B.C.). In order to assess this state o f affairs
correctly one must consider that the term messiah is not yet applied to the
Davidic messiah in the O l d Testament, for which the messiah, the anointed
one, is the reigning king o f David's line. T h e term messiah acquired its
messianic character when the ideas connected with the Davidic kings were
projected into eschatology. In texts from the first century B.C. there are
three attestations o f the messianic application o f the word messiah: Ps. Sol.

3 4
J o s e f Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (4th e d n . R e g e n s b u r g , 1969), p p . igsf. ( C p . E T The
Trial of Jesus ( C o r k , 1959), p . 102, representing the 2nd edn.; the 4th e d n . is
substantially enlarged h e r e ) . [ S o , t o o , Burkitt, in his review o f L i e t z m a n n ' s Der
Prozess Jesu mJThSt, 33 (1932), 64-6 (66).]
3 5
E d u a r d L o h s e , Die Texte aus Qumran, hebrdisch unddeutsch ( M i i n c h e n , 1964), p p . 256f.
 Markan report o f j e s u s ' s examination 401

17 and 1 8 , the Q u m r a n Manual o f Discipline ( i Q S a ) , and the Similitudes

of E n o c h (1 Enoch 3 7 - 7 1 ) in the passages dealing with the Son o f man (1
Enoch 4 8 : 1 0 ; 5 2 : 4 ) . T h u s the very texts which speak o f the transcendent
messianic figure o f the Son o f man apply this term borrowed from Davidic
royal ideology to the messiah. T h e equation o f Davidic messiah and Son o f
man is still clearer when the sayings on the Son of man in 1 Enoch 48: 4 are
retroverted into Hebrew. In this process a terminology is brought into use
such as is also witnessed in the contemporary messianic texts from
Q u m r a n . 1 Enoch 48: 4 runs: ' H e shall be a staff to the righteous, whereon
they may stay themselves and not fall; he shall be the light o f the nations
and the hope o f the afflicted'. T h e term 'staff, Hebrew shebhet, comes from
Gen. 4 9 : 10 and N u m . 2 4 : 1 7 . It is applied to the Davidic messiah in Test.
36
J u d a h 2 4 and the Q u m r a n texts. T h e phrase 'light o f the nations' (Isa.
4 2 : 6 ; 4 9 : 6 ) is a combination o f Isa. 2 : 2 and 9: 1. In Isa. 2 : 2 'at the end o f
the days' all nations will c o m e on pilgrimage to the T e m p l e on the hill o f
Z i o n , and in Isa. 9: 1 a light comes out for men in the land 'of the shadow o f
death'. If the Son o f man according to 1 Enoch 4 8 : 4 is the 'hope o f the
afflicted', here there is an allusion to Gen. 49: 10, where the ruler from the
tribe o f Judah is called 'hope of the nations'. Since the 'nations' were named
immediately before, the phrase 'hope of the nations' will be reinterpreted in
the sense o f Trito-Isaiah (Isa. 6 1 : 1; 66: 2) with its eschatological piety o f
the ' P o o r ' . This piety o f the 'Poor' was also one o f the basic elements in the
37
theology o f the Qumran Essenes. Thus the 'hope o f the nations' became
the ' h o p e o f the afflicted'. A pre-Christian Jewish text therefore already
combines Son-of-man concepts with Davidic royal ideology in a manner
analogous to that o f Mark 1 4 : 6 2 . W e are then not compelled to ascribe a
combination o f this kind to primitive Christian christology. Yet this verse
also involves a linking o f two other concepts, the exaltation and the
parousia. These are specifically Christian and d o readily suggest an
ecclesiastical origin for this element in the combination.

These considerations lead to a clear conclusion: there is g o o d ground for

seeing in Mark 14:55-64 ancient, pre-Markan tradition, which has
preserved the decisive elements o f Jesus's examination before the
Sanhedrin in their correct order. Both the imprecisely defined charges in
respect of the destruction of the T e m p l e and the assertion that the witnesses

3 6
K u r t S c h u b e r t , ' D i e Messiaslehre in d e n T e x t e n v o n C h i r b e t Q u m r a n ' , BZ 1
(1957), 177-97-
3 7
K u r t S c h u b e r t , Die Gemeinde vom Totem Meer ( M i i n c h e n , 1958), 76-9.
402 K. SCHUBERT

contradicted one another fit the context o f the examination well. T h e

climax was the high priest's messianic question, which, as can be made
probable, is transmitted in its original form, and the messianic confession o f
Jesus which followed upon it. This view o f the circumstances fits the
religio-historical situation o f Judaism in the time o f Jesus. Study
predominantly directed towards literary criticism should not forgo
38 39
arguments from the history o f r e l i g i o n s . '

3 8
H a n s W e r n e r Bartsch, EvTh 32 (1972) tried to p r o c e e d to the historical J e s u s from
literary criticism. A l t h o u g h he is not c o n c e r n e d 'to objectify certain events in the life
o f j e s u s as facts, in s o m e w a y to authenticate them b y means o f source-analysis', he
asks ' w h a t in Jesus's d e e d s and sufferings has p r o v e d to b e real?' ( p p . 1301). Y e t ,
since Bartsch t o o regards the form-critical m e t h o d w h i c h n o w g o v e r n s study as the
s u p e r - m e t h o d , w i t h o u t setting it u n d e r the corrective o f religio-historical study, he
r e n o u n c e s a n y attempt to s h o w that certain events in the life o f j e s u s are basically
factual.
3 9
T h e article w a s translated b y D r W . H o r b u r y .
 GERHARD SCHNEIDER

The political charge against Jesus

(Luke 23: 2)

1. T h e narrative in Mark

The Third Gospel - by contrast with the older Gospel of Mark which Luke
used - specifically states the details o f the charge which was brought
forward against Jesus before Pilate by the members of the Sanhedrin. Mark
1 5 : 2 indirectly carries the implication that the members o f the Great
Council must have declared before the R o m a n j u d g e that Jesus voiced the
claim to be 'king'. Only if this is the case can Pilate's question, 'Are y o u the
K i n g o f the Jews?', which in the present context has no preparation, be
intelligible. T h e n for the first time it is recorded in 1 5 : 3: ' A n d the chief
priests accused him o f many things.' At that Pilate once again directs a
question to the accused: 'Have you no answer to make? See how many
charges they bring against y o u ' (Mark 1 5 : 4 b ) . Jesus, w h o had responded
to the question about his kingly claim with an unequivocal yes (verse 2 c ) ,
makes no comment on the specific charges o f the chief priests; this causes
Pilate some perplexity (verse 5 ) . In the following Barabbas scene the
procurator's question shows that in the face o f the Jewish crowd he would
like to proceed on the basis o f the issue ofjesus being 'the king o f the Jews'
(verse 9 ) . At the same time however it is remarked that the chief priests had
handed Jesus over 'out o f envy' (verse 1 0 ) . W h e n the Jews demand the
release of Barabbas (verse 1 1 ) , Pilate asks them: 'What then shall I d o with
the man w h o m you call the king o f the Jews?' T h e Jews demand his
crucifixion (verses 1 3 , 1 4 b ) whereas the R o m a n regards him as innocent
(verse 1 4 a ) . T h e title 'king o f the Jews' reappears yet again in the scene in
which the R o m a n soldiers scornfully acclaim Jesus ( 1 5 : 18) and then again
in the superscription on the cross ( 1 5 : 2 6 ) . Further, in the scoffing words o f
the chief priests there is another reference to the title, though admittedly in
the form adopted by Jewish usage, 'king o f Israel' ( 1 5 : 3 2 ) . T h e last
mentioned passage is, however, significant from another point o f view. It
shows, first of all, that the priestly group did not believe in any kingly power
o f j e s u s , understood in the sense o f power to step down from the cross. It
shows, further, that 'king o f Israel' (or 'king o f the Jews') is an equivalent
paraphrase o f ' t h e messiah'. Mark intends, by setting 'messiah' and 'king of
Israel' in apposition, to show that these two titles are identical in content. It
is, of course, true that 'king o f the Jews' expresses the this-worldly political

403
404 G E R H A R D SCHNEIDER

1
aspect o f the claim. But ifJesus affirmed before the Sanhedrin that he was
the messiah ( 1 4 : 6 i f ) , then it is clearly on this confession that the charge
before Pilate rests, and the latter is intended to place squarely in the
foreground a kingly-political claim by the accused ( 1 5 : 2 ) .
For Mark there is virtually no contradiction between the messianic claim
and the kingly claim. Before the Sanhedrin some incriminating evidence
against Jesus had been sought. T h e saying about an intended attack on the
T e m p l e would have been one such piece o f evidence ( 1 4 : 5 8 ) . But the
witnesses did not agree. So the high priest's question was intended to elicit
the confession o f the accused. Jesus then admitted to being the messiah.
This was assessed as blasphemy and a crime worthy of death ( 1 4 : 631). T h e
messianic, or in other words, the kingly claim ofjesus is thus the only point
o f the accusation which is brought into the open before Pilate. H o w this
kingly claim was made into a capital crime it is not possible to deduce. N o
criminal activities ofjesus are recounted, even though the evangelist knows
that such must have been brought forward ( 1 5 : 31). But in that respect he
assumes that they were not sufficient to convince the procurator that Jesus
had done 'anything evil' ( 1 5 : 1 4 ) . Viewed as a consecutive factual record o f
events the Markan report is inadequate, but in theological terms it appears
to have a great deal o f content. By means o f several 'contrast-scenes' the
actual kingship o f j e s u s is disclosed. Even though Jesus is accused as a
revolutionary, regarded as a criminal, rejected by the people and scorned
by the soldiers, nevertheless everyone is compelled to witness to his
2
identity, even if they d o so in complete ignorance and blindness. T h e
historically unimpeachable point o f departure in the Markan account is to
be seen in the titulus on the cross ( 1 5 : 2 6 ) . From this the charge before Pilate
can be inferred.

2. T h e concrete charges according to Luke

It is necessary to have recognised the weakness o f the Markan account as a

'report' if one is to appreciate the way in which Luke does his best to present
the course o f the Pilate trial in a more coherent manner. A t any rate Luke
2 3 : 2 presents concrete and precise 'political' charges brought against
Jesus. T h e decisive question is whether these detailed charges have been
created by the third evangelist - in line with his conviction about h o w the
history should be reconstructed, or pursuing certain definite theological
intentions - or whether he is here following a separate source which is
perhaps older than the Markan account.

1
C p . F. H a h n , Christologische Hoheitstitel (3rd e d n . G o t t i n g e n , 1966), p . 196 ( E T The
Titles ofJesus in Christology ( L o n d o n , 1969), p . 174).
2
See H a h n , Hoheitstitel, p p . 1961*, E T p . 174.
 T h e political charge against Jesus 405

Alongside the section Mark 1 5 : 1 - 5 stands the passage Luke 2 3 : 1 - 5 :

T h e n the whole gathering o f them arose, and brought him before Pilate.
A n d they began to accuse him, saying, ' W e have established that this man
is leading our nation astray; he forbids the payment o f tax to Caesar and he
is putting it around that he is the Messiah, a king.' But Pilate questioned
him, asking: 'Are you the K i n g o f the Jews?' But he answered him: ' Y o u
say it.' Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds: 'I find n o crime in
this m a n . ' But they declared even more insistently: ' H e is rousing the
people to revolt with his teaching in the whole o f Judaea, stretching from
Galilee even to here.'

If one wants to separate tradition and redaction in this Lukan section,

there are, broadly speaking, two possibilities open. These are represented
3
by two commentaries on the Third gospel. J. Schmid thinks that in this
section Luke 'the historian' has remoulded the passage Mark 1 5 : 1 - 5 ,
which is hardly satisfactory as an historical report, and that he has
fashioned it into a narrative which is historically more convincing. In
particular he places in the forefront the Jewish accusations which Mark
mentions only incidentally and without being specific. Only then does
Pilate's question about the claim to kingship follow. T h e charge brought
by the Jews is made concrete, and at the same time unmasked as a slander­
ous accusation. Further, it is important to the evangelist that the R o m a n
j u d g e should explicitly affirm the innocence o f j e s u s (Luke 2 3 : 4 ; c p .
23: 1 4 , 2 2 ) .
While Schmid does not accept any parallel Lukan source for the
4
composition o f this scene, W . G r u n d m a n n is o f the opinion that the
evangelist has used an extra source alongside the Markan Gospel; he thinks
that this forms the thread o f the Lukan passion narrative from 2 2 : 1 4
onwards. O n l y Luke 2 3 : 3 is taken over from Mark 1 5 : 2 . Consequently the
special Lukan tradition did not report any real hearing before Pilate but
only assumed it from the evidence o f 2 3 : 4 b .
In a similar way recent investigations o f the trial ofjesus part company

3
J. S c h m i d , Das Evangelium nach Lukas (3rd e d n . R e g e n s b u r g , 1955), p . 342. T h a t
L u k e w a s here w o r k i n g o v e r material d r a w n o n l y from M a r k h a d earlier been
a c c e p t e d b y R . B u l t m a n n , Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (5th e d n . Gottingen,
1961), p . 294 ( E T History of the Synoptic Tradition ( O x f o r d , 1963), p . 280); J . M .
C r e e d , The Gospel according to St Luke ( L o n d o n , 1930), p . 279; J. Finegan, Die
Uberlieferung der Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu (Giessen, 1934), p p . 27, 38f.
4
W . G r u n d m a n n , Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Berlin, 1961), p . 421. Similarly, the
v i e w that a special source w a s available to Luke w a s a c c e p t e d b y B. H . Streeter, The
Four Gospels ( L o n d o n , 1924), p . 222, in the context o f his p r o t o - L u k e theory; A .
Schlatter, Das Evangelium des Lukas (Stuttgart, 1931), p p . 439f: 'the n e w narrator'.
See also E . H a e n c h e n , Der Wegjesu (Berlin, 1966), p . 518; V . T a y l o r , The Passion
Narrative of St Luke ( C a m b r i d g e , 1972), p p . 8 4 - 9 ^ . Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Lukas
(Regensburg, 1977), p p . 62if.
406 G E R H A R D SCHNEIDER

5
from one another over the matter o f the Lukan source. J. Blinzler leaves
open the question o f whether in 2 3 : 2 the evangelist is following a special
source or only (on his own initiative) clarifying the Markan narrative. But
certainly Luke is taken to reproduce faithfully the historical state o f affairs,
particularly with respect to the political orientation o f the charge. T h e
expression 'king o f the Jews' is, in his view, the secularised form o f
'messiah' and represents merely a shift on to a profane political level.
6
The Jewish scholar P. Winter arranges the passion narrative in the
Gospel in three strata which are said to exhibit a traditio-historical
development in the material. T o the oldest (primary) tradition he assigns
Luke 2 3 : 2, 3 (alongside Mark 1 5 : 2 - 5 ) . In any case the exact description o f
the items o f the charge in Luke are not classified as 'editorial accretion'. In
7
another place Winter has traced Luke 2 3 : i b - 3 back to a special tradition
(L) available to Luke, but at the same time the attempt is made to show that
2 3 : 4 - 5 is a later interpolation. Winter's theory plainly coheres with his
attempt to demonstrate that the political trial before Pilate is the only
historical one. T h e trial scene before the Sanhedrin ( 2 2 : 6 6 - 7 1 ) is similarly
8
understood as an intrusion from the hand o f the same interpolator.
V e r y similar to Winter in his evaluation o f the trial o f j e s u s is S. G . F.
9
Brandon. H e does not explicitly take up any position on the source
question at Luke 2 3 : 2 and in fact does not engage in any source-critical
analysis. But nevertheless he comes to the conclusion that Mark was very
probably acquainted with the specific (political) charge against Jesus from
the tradition which had become available to him. H e has, however,
suppressed it in his o w n account in the interests o f political apologetic.
Luke, on the other hand, has taken up this point o f accusation from the
tradition, because in his later situation a more objective record of the trial o f
Jesus had b e c o m e possible. In this connection it is clear that Brandon does
not want to attribute Luke 2 3 : 2 to the redactional activity of the evangelist.
He regards the political points o f accusation as historically convincing and
indeed justified. This is another case o f the evaluation o f sources being
bound up with a fundamental concern o f the author. H e is anxious to show
the penalty o f crucifixion as the consequence o f politically revolutionary
activity on Jesus's part.
The only study which explicitly concerns itself with the source question

5
J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (2nd e d n . R e g e n s b u r g , 1955), p . 138; similarly in the 3rd
edn. (i960), p . 201, and the 4th edn. (1969), p . 278.
6
P . W i n t e r , On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p p . 136f.
7
P. W i n t e r , ' T h e T r e a t m e n t o f his Sources b y the T h i r d Evangelist in L u k e
X X I - X X I V ST 8 (1954/55), 138-72, esp. i 6 f . 5

8
I b i d ; c p . Trial, p . 136.
9
S . G . F. B r a n d o n , The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth ( L o n d o n , 1968), p p . ii9f.
 T h e political charge against Jesus 407

10
in the trial before Pilate has come from H . van der K w a a k . Certainly he
does not state explicitly that the divergences between Luke 2 3 : 1 - 5 and
Mark 1 5 : 1 - 5 g o back to the hand o f Luke. But he shows in a convincing
manner that the differences which are a feature o f the third gospel can be
explained in terms o f the evangelist's purpose and the editorial method.
A t the end o f this survey we have arrived at the point where the question
about possible sources for Luke 2 3 : 2 can be directly posed. In the matter o f
method the procedure must be first o f all to examine whether the verse in
question can be explained in terms of the interests and the editorial method
o f Luke.

3. Luke 23:2. Lukan 'redaction'?

11
As far as Luke 2 3 : 2 is concerned, one can affirm with Conzelmann: ' I f the
Lukan Tendenz is recognised, the "proto-Lukan" material disappears.'
But the analysis which follows must be concerned not only with the
question o f whether and to what extent Luke 2 3 : 2 expresses the Lukan
purpose in writing ( d ) . Before that it is necessary to ask about Lukan style
and vocabulary ( b ) . Further, the evangelist's technique o f composition in
2 3 : 1 - 5 must be scrutinised ( c ) . If it should turn out that 'non-Lukan' or
'anti-Lukan' elements are found, then it will be possible to deduce a source
other than Mark. But as long as that is not the case, verse 2 should be held
to be the work o f the evangelist. That is not, however, to assume that Luke
has freely invented the content o f the material present in this verse.
12
Schurmann has remarked, on the smaller narrative elements which, like
Luke 2 3 : 2 , deviate from Mark, that it would be contrary to all our
observations o f Lukan redactional work in general if we were to regard
these minor details as the free artistic creation o f Luke. But even someone
w h o , like Schurmann, prefers not to deduce free invention of this sort by the
evangelist, will still be able to attribute the verse to Luke's own hand,
provided he can demonstrate where the third evangelist has obtained the
material setting out the points o f accusation ( a ) .

(a) The materials

Contrary to the view o f most commentators on 2 3 : 2 the verse does not

contain three charges, but only one; this is then particularised in two

1 0
H . v a n d e r K w a a k , Het Proces van Jezus (Assen, 1969), p p . 140-4.
11
H . C o n z e l m a n n , Die Mitte der Zeit (4th edn. T u b i n g e n , 1962), p . 78, footnote 1,
following o n from G . D . K i l p a t r i c k , ' A T h e m e o f the L u c a n Passion Story a n d L u k e
X X I I I . 4 7 ' , 7 ^ 4 3 ( 1 9 4 2 ) , 34-6-
1 2
H . S c h u r m a n n , Jesu Abschiedsrede ( M u n s t e r , 1957), p . 140, footnote 476.
408 G E R H A R D SCHNEIDER

13
concrete points. This is shown by the grammatical structure o f the second
part o f verse 2 . T h e twofold xai does not bind together three participles
paratactically, but xai, xoaMovTa and also xai Xiyovxa are subordinate to
14
the 5 i a o T Q e c p o v T a . In addition the two last mentioned participles are
brought into a closer relationship with one another since in each case an
infinitive follows (5i56vai and evai). Further, Luke 2 3 : 5 , 1 4 show that
for the evangelist the charge before Pilate can be concentrated and
summarised in the accusation o f leading the people astray:

23: 2b: this man leads our people astray (6iaoTQ8(povTa)

2 3 : 5 : he stirs up the people ( d v a o e i e i )
2 3 : 1 4 : he is one w h o perverts the people ( a J i o o T Q e c p o v x a )

The reproach o f leading the people astray, or o f inciting them, is

interpreted by Pilate in exactly the way intended. T h e R o m a n procurator is
intended to infer that Jesus was wanting to cause the Jewish people to rebel
against R o m e ( 2 3 : 1 4 ) . As to substance the accusation rests on declarations
like Luke 1 9 : 4 8 ( c p . Mark n : 1 8 b ) ; 2 0 : 6 ( c p . Mark 1 1 : 3 2 b ) ; 20: 1 9 ( c p .
Mark 1 2 : 1 2 a ) ; 20: 2 6 and 2 2 : 2 ( c p . Mark 1 4 : 2 ) . Finally the third evan­
gelist had not only read in Mark that the people listened to Jesus but
also that the members o f the Sanhedrin for this reason wanted to kill him. It
is indeed 6id qpBovov that they have handed him over to Pilate (Mark
1 5 : 1 0 ) . As for their charge against Jesus, it is exposed as falsehood. That is
the implication o f Mark 1 5 : 1 1 , a verse which Luke omits but which tells o f
how during the Barabbas scene the chief priests had stirred up the crowd
( d v e a e i o a v ) so that they would demand the release o f the criminal. Even
though the reader o f the Third Gospel does not have this Markan verse in
front o f him, Luke's intention is quite clear: it is not in fact Jesus w h o is the
one w h o leads the people astray, but rather the Jewish leaders w h o stir
15
them u p .
T h e allegation that Jesus hindered the payment of tribute to the emperor
must, after Luke 20: 2 0 - 6 , appear a total slander. T h e way in which Luke
has in that passage edited his Markan source (Mark 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 ) shows
clearly that the evangelist traces this hypocritical question o f Jesus's
opponents back to their purpose o f getting Jesus to incriminate himself with

1 3
So, as far as I k n o w , o n l y in G r u n d m a n n , Lukas, p . 422: ' T h e leading astray o f the
p e o p l e consists o f this, that he d e m a n d e d the w i t h h o l d i n g o f tribute a n d p r o c l a i m e d
himself the M e s s i a h , i.e. in Pilate's eyes: m a d e himself a king.'
1 4
See also F. Blass a n d A . D e b r u n n e r , Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (9th
edn. G o t t i n g e n , 1954), §444, 3 ( E T 4 Greek Grammar of the New Testament ( C h i c a g o ,
J
9 6 i ) , §444, 3), with reference to L u k e 5:36; c p . also 5:37.
, 5
C p . o n this slant in the a c c o u n t , L u k e 23: i8f, 25; A c t s 13:50; 14: 19; 1 7 : 5 - 8 , 13;
18: 12-17; 21: 27f.
 T h e political charge against Jesus 409

an anti-Roman remark 'in order to deliver him up to the authority and

jurisdiction o f the governor' ( 2 0 : 2 0 ) . Since, however, Jesus explicitly
permits the imperial tax (verse 2 5 ) the opposition are not able to 'catch'
him and as a result are reduced to silence (verse 2 6 ) .
T h e second specific charge is that Jesus had claimed to be 'the Messiah, a
K i n g ' , i.e. he had assumed for himself a kingship which was political and
therefore anti-Roman. This allegation takes up the subject matter o f Luke
1 6
2 2 : 6 7 - 7 0 ( c p . Mark 1 4 : 6 i f ) and anticipates Luke 2 3 : 3 (par. Mark 1 5 : 2 ) .
Jesus is 'the Messiah' and at the same time 'the King o f the Jews'. That
Jesus certainly laid claim to kingship in an unpolitical sense is something
which Luke knows and which Pilate also is able to establish ( 2 3 : 4 ) . So with
this last element in the charge the evangelist makes the transition to the
procurator's question (Mark 1 5 : 2 = Luke 2 3 : 3 ) . T h e question about
Jesus's claim to kingship, which in Mark occurs without preparation, is
m a d e plausible in the Lukan context.
T h u s it is apparent that Luke can have deduced the concrete charges o f
the Sanhedrin authorities from Mark. In this matter he had no need o f any
new information from any other source. T h e same applies to 2 3 : 5 . O n c e the
scheme o f the Third Gospel is known, as well as its dependence on Mark's
Gospel, there is no need to postulate as the source o f 2 3 : 5 any pre-Lukan
17
summary.

(b) Vocabulary and style

T h e following analysis o f Luke 2 3 : 2 has not merely to enquire statistically

about favourite Lukan words but has also to test the pattern o f speech for
usages characteristic o f the evangelist.
( 1 ) fJQ^avxo with infinitive following occurs in Matt, once, Mark 8 times,
Luke 8 times, Acts once but nowhere otherwise in the N e w Testament. In
front o f the infinitive Luke has merely inserted 6e (cp. Luke 4 : 2 1 , 2 0 : 9 ) .
T h e statistics already indicate a preference on Mark's part for this usage.
Yet it is probable that the third evangelist also writes it on his own
initiative each time: Luke 5 : 2 1 ; 7 : 4 9 ; 1 1 : 5 3 ; 1 4 : 1 8 ; 1 5 : 2 4 ; 1 9 : 3 7 ; 22: 2 3 ;
2 3 : 2 ; Acts 2 : 4 . Only Luke has in this connection the subject ctJiav T O
JlXfjBoc; with the following genitive plural ( 1 9 : 3 7 ) as in our present passage.

1 6
See also M a r k 15:32: 'the M e s s i a h , the king o f Israel'.
1 7
C o n t r a C o n z e l m a n n , Die Mitte der Zeit, p . 79 ( E T The Theology of St Luke ( L o n d o n ,
1961), p . 86, n. 1). L u k e , like M a r k , stresses the teaching activity o f j e s u s in
J e r u s a l e m ( L u k e 19:47; 20: 1, 21; 21:37; c p . M a r k 1 1 : 17; 12: 14, 35; 14:49). W i t h
reference to Galilee, L u k e 23:5 makes the transition to the H e r o d scene (23:6-12).
C p . G . S c h n e i d e r , Die Passion Jesu nach den drei dlteren Evangelien ( M i i n c h e n , 1973),
p p . 90-3; idem, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, K a p i t e l 11-24 ( G i i t e r s l o h - W u r z b u r g ,
1977), PP- 471-3-
410 G E R H A R D SCHNEIDER

Only in Luke does the infinitive xatT^YOQeiv occur after T J Q ^ a ( v ) x o ( 2 3 : 2;

Acts 2 4 : 2 ) .
(2) keya)V (-ovreg) follows fjg^a(v)ro with the infinitive in the N e w
Testament in Matt. 1 6 : 22 and 5 times in Luke (Luke 5 : 2 1 ; 1 9 : 3 7 ^ 45f;
23:2; Acts 2 4 : 2 ) . In that context there stands twice the infinitive
xaTnyopeiv (Luke 2 3 : 2; Acts 24: 2 ) . O f these instances it is certain that
Luke 5 : 2 1 ; 1 9 : 37f, 4 5 f stem from Lukan redaction.
(3) xarrjyogea) is a favourite Lukan word. In the N e w Testament it
occurs in Matt, twice, Mark 3 times, Luke 4 times, J o h n twice, Acts 9 times,
Romans once and Revelation once. T h e infinitive x c t x n y o Q e i v stands with
the object avxov only in Luke 6: 7; 2 3 : 2 ; Acts 24: 2 . There is no doubt that
Luke 6: 7 goes back to the hand o f the evangelist ( c p . Mark 3: 2 ) .
Points 1 to 3 show that the statement introducing the details o f the
accusation has been formulated by Luke. It draws its content from Mark

(4) xovxov evgajuev takes up the Lukan formulation in Luke 6: 7: the

scribes and the Pharisees had wanted for some time to 'find' a point o f
accusation against Jesus. e v Q i o x c o is in itself a favourite Lukan word: 8 0 o f
its 1 7 6 occurrences in the N e w Testament are to be found in Luke's work.
EVQiaxo) + object + participle, the last expressing an action o f the object,
occurs (sometimes in a different word-order) in Matthew 5 , Mark 6 , Luke
11 times, J o h n once, Acts 7 times and Revelation twice. O f the Lukan
occurrences only 3 indicate a source (Mark: Luke 1 9 : 3 0 ; 2 2 : 4 5 ; and Q :
Luke 1 2 : 4 3 ) , whereas in the Matthaean occurrences this applies 4 times
(Mark: Matt. 2 1 : 2 ; 2 6 : 4 0 , 4 3 ; and Q : 2 4 : 4 6 ) . O n x o v x o v statistics show
Matt. 4 times, Mark 3, Luke 1 1 , J o h n 1 3 and Acts 20 occurrences whereas
in the rest o f the New Testament there are only 9 .
(5) diaoTQecph). Apart from Matt. 1 7 : 17 = Luke 9 : 4 1 and Phil. 2 : 1 5 (the
'perverse generation'), the only occurrences in the N e w Testament are
Lukan: Luke 2 3 : 2; Acts 1 3 : 8, 10; 20: 30. According to Acts 1 3 : 8 the Jewish
magician Elymas was causing the governor Sergius Paulus 'to turn away
from the faith'. H e was thus 'making crooked the straight paths o f the
L o r d ' ( 1 3 : 1 0 ) . O n the other hand, in the Pilate trial the Jews slanderously
accuse Jesus o f leading the people astray (Luke 2 3 : 2 ) .
(6) TO eOvog rjjudjv is encountered in the N e w Testament only at Luke
7: 5 and 2 3 : 2 . Comparable is x o e8vog jiou in the mouth o f Paul (Acts
24: 1 7 ; 2 6 : 4 ; 2 8 : 1 9 ) . In the Acts passages it is (the 'Lukan') Paul w h o is
speaking, in Luke 7: 5 the Jewish elders say o f the Gentile centurion:
'He loves our nation and he built us our synagogue.' In all these passages it
is extremely likely that we are dealing with Lukan patterns o f speech.
F r o m points 4 to 6 it emerges that in terms o f style and word-count -
quite apart from actual Lukan interests ( c p . no. 6 ) - the main charge
 The political charge against Jesus 411

against Jesus has been formulated by the evangelist, and therefore no

pre-Lukan source apart from Mark should be proposed.
( 7 ) xai-xai is admittedly not a Lukan speciality, but nevertheless it can
be used by the evangelist, even by contrast with his source, as Luke 5: 3 6 b
and 2 2 : 33 show. T o be set alongside these are the occurrences in special
18
Lukan source-material ( 1 : 1 5 ; 2 : 4 6 ) and in Acts (6 examples).
(8) xwXvco can, on statistical grounds, be reckoned a favourite Lukan
word: Matt. 1, Mark 3 , Luke 6, Acts 6 occurrences (rest of New Testament
7 ) . Matt. 1 9 : 1 4 is, like Luke 1 8 : 1 6 , dependent on Mark ( 1 0 : 1 4 ) , as is Luke
9: 4 9 , 5 0 . T h e passages Luke 6: 29; 1 1 : 5 2 ; 23: 2 are clearly worked up by the
evangelist, which may also be, at least in part, the case at Acts 8: 3 6 ; 1 0 : 4 7 ;
1 1 : 1 7 ; 16:6; 24:23; 27:43.
(9) cpogovg didovai recalls Luke 20: 22 (in the pericope about paying
tribute). There Luke has substituted c p o Q o v 6 o w a i for 6oi)vcu xfjvaov
(Mark 1 2 : 1 4 ) . So the formulation in 2 3 : 2 belongs to the evangelist.
Elsewhere in the New Testament qpOQog occurs only at R o m . 1 3 : 6 f . T h e
recipient is - in line with Mark 1 2 : 1 4 - in both Lukan passages the
'emperor'. In each case it is only Luke w h o places the verb at the end of the
phrase.
From points 7 to 9 it results once again that this section o f the verse is to
be attributed to Luke's own hand. T h e Jewish leaders assert the exact
opposite o f what Jesus himself had declared.
( 1 0 ) xai Xiyovxa eavrdv . . . eivai. T h e reflexive eauxov appears in the
New Testament as follows: Matt. 5 , Mark 5 , Luke 1 2 , John 8, Acts 7 times
(and 2 5 instances in the rest o f the New Testament). O f the examples in
Luke, 3 come from Mark (Luke 9: 2 3 ; n : 18; 2 3 : 35) and 4 from the sayings
source ( 1 4 : 11 twice and 1 8 : 1 4 twice); in the special material stand 10: 2 9 ;
1 5 : 1 7 ; 18: n ; 2 3 : 2 . O n l y 9 : 2 5 can be shown to be Lukan redaction o f
Mark; however, the special material will also have been extensively
remodelled by the evangelist (cp. 10: 2 9 ) . eauxov and eivai follow a verb o f
speaking elsewhere only at Acts 5 : 36; 8: 9. In both these cases we find, as at
Luke 2 3 : 2, the present participle o f \iyu>. This is to be compared with the
redactional usage in Luke 1 0 : 2 9 (8eXa)V 5ixaid>aai eauxov), similarly
Acts 1 6 : 27; 1 9 : 3 1 ; 2 5 : 4 . Statistics for the infinitive eivai indicate a Lukan
preponderance (Matt. 6, Mark 8, Luke 23, John 3, Acts 20, other New
Testament occurrences 6 5 ) .
( 1 1 ) XQioxbv fiaoikea. T h e direct linking o f the messianic title with
fiaoikevc, is attested elsewhere in the New Testament only at Mark 1 5 : 3 2 .
The combination appears in Luke not as a reminiscence o f this Markan
text, but by virtue o f a combination o f the messianic confession o f Mark

1 8
S c h i i r m a n n , Abschiedsrede, p . 32. C p . B l a s s - D e b r u n n e r , Grammatik, §444, 3.
412 G E R H A R D SCHNEIDER

1 4 : 6 i f with Pilate's question about Jesus's kingship, Mark 1 5 : 2 . Equally,

John 1 9 : 12 ('everyone w h o makes himself a king sets himself against
Caesar') is no indication o f some special Luke-John tradition available at
this point; for the fourth gospel also depends here on Pilate's question, 'Are
you the king o f the Jews?' ( 1 8 : 3 3 , c p . 1 9 : 3 ) , drawn from the Mark tradition.
What Luke wants to say by means o f the (3aoiXea placed in apposition
to 'messiah' is plain from Acts 17: 7. In the synagogue at Thessalonica Paul
preached Jesus as the messiah (verse 3 ) . Jews and god-fearing Hellenists
responded in faith (verse 4 ) . At this the rest o f the Jews, moved with envy,
stirred up a riot, in order to haul Paul and Silas up before the politarchs.
T h e legal action concerned comprehensive incitement to disorder and
rebellion against the imperial regulations. T h e offence against the imperial
d o y ^ t a was regarded as an expression o f the confession, 'another is king,
Jesus' (verse 7 ) . Here Trjaow is in apposition (just as (JaoiXea is at Luke
23:2).
( 1 2 ) keycov fiaoiXea eivai finds, both in terms o f form and content, its
parallel in Acts 17: 7: (JaaiXea Xeyovxeg eivai. In both places the kingship
o f j e s u s is regarded (by the Jews) as directed against the regulations o f
Caesar, while Luke for his part understands the kingship in a non-political
sense (Luke 1: 3 3 ; 2 2 : 29f; 2 3 : 4 2 ) . Furthermore we meet here once more the
Lukan theme o f the Jews, w h o accuse Jesus o f stirring up a riot, being
themselves in fact the ones w h o stir up a riot.
Points 7 to 12 demonstrate once again that Luke is assembling material
which he knows about from Mark. H e has given it his own linguistic and
stylistic character.
A corresponding conclusion can also be reached in respect o f 23: 1, 4 , 5 .
But we must at this point d o without a detailed spelling out o f the case for
this view. It does not turn out to be possible to demonstrate on stylistic
grounds the existence, and availability to Luke, o f a non-Markan (literary)
source.

(c) Method of composition in Luke 23: j - 5

T h e editorial composition o f Luke 23: 1 - 5 can be convincingly interpreted

as a Lukan working over o f the Markan source in order to achieve the
presentation o f a coherent and comprehensible account. From the
procurator's question, M a r k 1 5 : 2 , Luke concludes that the Sanhedrin
authorities must previously have accused Jesus o f being a messianic
pretender and in that situation produced many allegations against him. By
reconstructing such allegations out o f the Markan material, the evangelist
is able at the same time to fashion the Pilate scene into a regular proceeding
in which first o f all the delatores appear and then the accused is granted
 T h e political charge against Jesus 413

19
opportunity for self-defence. Finally this setting o f the scene also gives the
evangelist opportunity to cause Pilate to attest before the Jews the
innocence ofjesus. Although the Jews have listened to this from Pilate, they
nevertheless persist with their claim that Jesus is an (anti-Roman) inciter o f
the people (verse 5 ) . T h e mention o f Galilee then provides the catchword
for the scene Jesus before H e r o d ' ( c p . 2^6f).
If it is permissible to understand the scene 2 3 : 1 - 5 in this way as a Lukan
2 0
construction, conversely it follows that a pre-Lukan context 2 3 : 1 - 2 , 4 - 5 is
unlikely. A unity o f this sort must certainly be disputed since verse 1, like
verse 2 , clearly assumes the Markan source, which is all the more true, o f
course, at verse 3 . T h e charge concerning tribute to Caesar stands formally
in relation to Luke 2 0 : 2 0 - 6 , a pericope which is plainly dependent on
Mark. But if 2 3 : 2 assumes at this point the Lukan redaction o f Markan
material, then this verse cannot be pre-Lukan. T h e declaration o f Pilate in
opposition to the accusers (verse 4 ) cannot follow unless and until Pilate
has (by means o f the question to Jesus in verse 3) convinced himself o f
21
Jesus's innocence.

(d) The purpose of the account

A n important purpose o f Luke's two-volume work is to produce political

22
apologetic vis-a-vis the R o m a n state. This is plain also from the charges
against Paul and the demolition o f these in Acts ( 1 7 : 7 ; 2 4 : 2 - 5 , 10-21;
2 5 : 7f; 2 6 : 2 - 2 3 ) .
After the arrest ofjesus and the hearing before the Sanhedrin the Jewish
leaders bring charges against Jesus before the R o m a n governor, the
allegations which they produce being known to be false. T h e points o f
accusation are so planned that they are bound to rouse the interest o f the
R o m a n Pilate ( 2 3 : 2 ) : Jesus is said to have wished to stir up the Jewish
people, in that he demanded the withholding o f tribute to Caesar and
played the role o f a messianic claimant. This state o f affairs would
necessarily be o f interest to Pilate in his official capacity. Yet the allegations

1 9
See A . N . Sherwin W h i t e , Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament ( O x f o r d ,
1963), p p . 24-6; c p . v a n der K w a a k , Het Proces, p p . i4of.
2 0
Suggested b y Streeter, Schlatter a n d G r u n d m a n n (see a b o v e , footnote 4 o n
P. 405)-
2 1
T h i s d o e s not m e a n that Pilate u n d e r s t o o d Jesus's reply as a negative (thus
G r u n d m a n n , Lukas, p . 422). R a t h e r the evangelist assumes that Pilate realises the
unpolitical ( L u k a n ) interpretation o f kingship ( c p . C o n z e l m a n n , Mitte, p p . 78f ( E T
Luke, p p . 851).
2 2
C p . o n this, C o n z e l m a n n , Mitte, p p . 128-35 ( E T p p . 138-44); G . Schneider,
Verleugnung, Verspottung und Verhbr Jesu nach Lukas 22, 54-71 ( M i i n c h e n , 1969), p p .
193-6; c p . the m o r e differentiated statement o f the s a m e a u t h o r in his recent article
' D e r Z w e c k des lukanischen D o p p e l w e r k s ' , BZ 21 (1977), 45-66, esp. 59-61.
4H G E R H A R D SCHNEIDER

are demonstrably wide o f the mark. Jesus had affirmed the payment o f the
imperial tax (20: 2 0 - 6 ) ; his messiahship is not kingship in a political sense
as the Jews understand it and as they want to make the governor believe
(cp. 1 9 : 1 1 ; 2 2 : 2 4 - 3 0 ; 2 3 : 3 5 , 3 7 , 3 9 ) . In fact it consists o f serving ( 2 2 : 2 7 ) .
Therefore it is a gross calumny when the Jews accuse Jesus o f political
rebellion. In reality it is they themselves who not only approve o f uproar
(23: i8f, 2 5 ) but even arouse it (Acts 1 3 : 5 0 ; 1 4 : 1 9 ; 1 7 : 5 - 8 , 1 3 ; 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 7 ;
2 1 : 2 7 ) . Pilate is able to convince himself that Jesus is guiltless (Luke 2 3 : 4 ,
I4f, 2 2 ) , and he is anxious to let him g o free ( 2 3 : 1 6 , 20, 2 2 ) .

4. Conclusion

Luke 2 3 : 2 relies, according to the foregoing analysis, on the material in

Mark which Luke has edited in order to reconstruct a specifically detailed
charge from the Jewish side before Pilate. That the evangelist has thereby
grasped in its essentials the historically true position can be indirectly
confirmed from the Jewish tradition about Jesus, a tradition which sees in
23 24
Jesus one w h o led the people astray. '

2 3
C p . b. Sanh. 43a (baraita): Jesus practised m a g i c a n d 'enticed Israel to apostasy
and r e b e l l i o n ' . Blinzler, Prozess, p . 42, wants to explain the claim that Jesus w a s a
beguiler a n d instigator o f rebellion in terms o f the J e w i s h situation o f the s e c o n d
c e n t u r y w h e n Christianity h a d c o m e to b e regarded as 'heretical'.
2 4
T h i s article has been translated b y D . R . C a t c h p o l e .
 E. BAMMEL

The trial before Pilate

' T h e most interesting isolated problem which historical jurisprudence can

1
present' - such is a characterisation given to the trial ofjesus. T h e R o m a n
part o f it is no exception to this.
T h e nature o f the trial before Pilate is indicated in the introductory terms
used by Mark: br\oavxeg . . . jragedcoxav ( 1 5 : 1 ) . T h e binding ofjesus is
not mentioned in the Second Evangelist's introduction to the Sanhedrin
trial, as indeed the fettering of a person who is still only under accusation is
2
unusual. T h e term implies that Jesus's judicial position was different from
that after the arrest, in other words that the deliberation o f 1 5 : ia, which
sums up the nocturnal events, did not refer to these as a preliminary
3 4
interrogation but constituted an act that had its procedural consequences.
T h e position is different in John, where Jesus is bound immediately after his
arrest ( 1 8 : 12) and kept fettered during the night ( 1 8 : 2 4 ) . T h e difference is
conditioned by the fact that here Jesus is, when taken captive, a
^T)TOt3[xevog, whose fate had already been decided upon - pending the
5
emergence o f mitigating circumstances. Mark and John agree in
describing Jesus's situation at the beginning o f the trial before Pilate as that
6
o f a culprit. Matthew follows Mark, whereas Luke omits this detail.
IlaQa6i6cDju is a word that is used in a more general and even
7
half-metaphorical way quite often in Christian language. This secondary

1
A . T . I n n e s , The Trial ofJesus Christ. A legal Monograph ( E d i n b u r g h , 1899), p . 2.
2
F o r the position a c c o r d i n g to R o m a n law, w h e r e the personal status o f the accused
m a n is affected o n l y in so far as he is not permitted to apply for o n e o f the c i v i c offices
a n d w h e r e only i m p r i s o n m e n t is m e n t i o n e d as a m e a n s o f coercitio see T . M o m m s e n ,
Rbmisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899), p p . 39iff.
3
T h u s P. W i n t e r , On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p . 27.
4
N o t noticed b y E . H i r s c h , Fruhgeschichte des Evangeliums (2nd e d n . T u b i n g e n , 1951),
p p . i64f.
5
C p . Festschrift C.F.D. Moule (2nd e d n . L o n d o n , 1971), p p . 33-5.
6
H i s formulation c o u l d b e taken to m e a n that n o c o n d e m n a t i o n h a d taken place
( W i n t e r , Trial, p p . 28ft). Rather, the o p p o s i t e is the case. N o a p p e a l for an
a d m i s s i o n o f guilt is possible w i t h o u t a charge; equally n o statement like that o f
22: 71. Further, verse 71 p r e s u p p o s e s that enquiries had been m a d e before and that
their result is c o n s i d e r e d t o b e confirmed b y J e s u s ' s o w n attitude vis-a-vis his j u d g e s .
T h a t m e a n s , the L u k a n scene o n l y b e c o m e s c o m p r e h e n s i b l e if w e p r e s u p p o s e the
existence o f an a c c o u n t w h i c h is not recorded in the actual text. L u k e 22: i f d o e s not
meet this d e m a n d ; o n the contrary, the w o r d i n g is less formal than in M a r k , let
alone in M a t t h e w . S o it must b e a scene like the o n e d e s c r i b e d in J o h n 11:45ff.
7
E.g. Papyrus E g e r t o n A . 1. 29. T h e same m a y b e true for M a r k 1: 14; J o h n 3: 36 e
yhmg (referring to the Baptist) a n d especially M a r k 9: 31 (jtaQCtdiooxai is passivum
S

415
416 E. BAMMEL

usage which is based on reflection on the passion story is, however, not
likely at a place where both the traditor and those to whose keeping the
culprit is handed over are juridical persons - whatever overtones may be
8
present. T h e same word is used in J o h n 1 8 : 3 1 , 3 5 , at the beginning o f the
J e w s ' dealings with Pilate and o f the interrogation ofjesus. In both cases it
is in a reference at the beginning of a dispute and not in a factual description
9
that the term o c c u r s . This is true to the Johannine style o f presentation
which disregards an even flow o f narration. Substantially, however, the two
traditions agree.
T h e point is confirmed and even stressed by J o h n 18: 3 5 : TO eBvog . . .
10
xai 6 ciQXiEQeijg jictQedcoxav. T h e two nouns refer to the two
representatives in Judaism. JHD and *ian - the latter is not a yegovoia
11
but the whole community, the Volksgemeinde — are named in the
12
inscriptions on the coins o f the Hasmonaean period. T h e formula has an

Divinum; n o t h i n g can b e d e d u c e d from it for the details o f the trial o f J e s u s ) .

T e c h n i c a l l y it means the transference from o n e authority to the other (John 18: 35)
o r from o n e stage o f the p r o c e e d i n g s to the next ( 4 / 20 §200: A n a n u s w i t h his
S a n h e d r i n JiaoEdcoxe J a m e s to b e s t o n e d ) . T h e w o r d receives the subsidiary
m e a n i n g o f treachery if the h a n d i n g o v e r is performed to an outside p o w e r (the term
u s e
Jiaod&ooig is d in BJ 7 §415 for the handing o v e r o f the Z e a l o t s b y the J e w i s h
authorities o f A l e x a n d r i a to the R o m a n s : they had been fugitives - §413 - and were
therefore n o t under the jurisdiction o f the J e w i s h yEQOUOia; the fact that they h a d
already c o m m i t t e d m u r d e r s in A l e x a n d r i a is given as an additional r e a s o n ) . T h i s
n o t i o n is expressed b y £x&id6vcu even m o r e strongly AJ 14 § 15; Eusebius H.E. 1.5.1.
C p . D . D a u b e , Collaboration with Tyranny in-Rabbinic Law ( O x f o r d , 1965), p p . 7f; D .
Schirmer, 'Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Johannes-Evangelium'
( D i s s . Erlangen, 1964), p p . 133^, 179fT.
8
T h i s is especially the case in the references to J u d a s , 6 Jtaoadi&ovc; atitov (John
18:5; c p . 18:2; 6:64, 71; 12:4; 13:2, 11, 21).
9
A . D a u e r , Die Passionsgeschichte imjohannesevangelium ( M i i n c h e n , 1972), p . 122 h o l d s
that the first passage is the elaboration o f a source, in w h i c h the handing o v e r was
m e n t i o n e d in the form o f a narration. T h i s is doubtful a n d even m o r e s o the
attribution o f the d i a l o g u e to the t h e o l o g y o f the evangelist.
1 0
X * ( C . v o n T i s c h e n d o r f , Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus ( L e i p z i g , 1863), p .
59*); L b ( w h i c h in the o p i n i o n o f A . Julicher, Itala iv (Berlin, 1963), 196 represents
1
the text o f the Itala for this verse), ff (principis sacerdotum) m a y b e d e p e n d e n t o n a
similar, a l t h o u g h less precise text (servusprincipis etc?), e, representing the afra, has
the s a m e reading. G . D . Kilpatrick (Festschrift M. Black ( E d i n b u r g h , 1969), p p .
l£ £
203ft) o b s e r v e d a t e n d e n c y to replace aQX Q iS b y -Qevg, b e c a u s e the w i d e r usage
o f the w o r d h a d b e c o m e o b s o l e t e . It is, h o w e v e r , difficult to see that this t e n d e n c y
s h o u l d h a v e i n v a d e d a chapter in w h i c h t w o high priests had already been
m e n t i o n e d b y n a m e . A p a r t from this the passage in question is different b e c a u s e it is
o f a p i e c e with the p r e c e d i n g .
11
E . Schiirer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im ZeitalterJesu Christi i ( L e i p z i g , 1901), 269
( E T - b a s e d o n the 1890 edition - i. 1.284). J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s a different
t e r m i n o l o g y . W h e n referring to the Sanhedrin he describes it in its different
c o m p o n e n t s and uses therefore with preference the plural formulation, w h i c h
i n c l u d e s the m e m b e r s o f the high-priestly families.
1 2
A . R e i f e n b e r g , Jewish Coins (Jerusalem, 1947), p p . 40-2.
 T h e trial before Pilate 417

official ring and, used in this context, means that the recognised authority
o f Judaea had taken a decision in consequence of which Jesus was standing
before Pilate.
Accordingly no accusation is raised in these strands o f the tradition and
not even the reason for the condemnation is reproduced in a satisfactorily
formulated form in the section on the trial before Pilate. Jesus is taken as a
xaxdv JIOIWV (John 1 8 : 3 0 ) , just as the two other persons w h o will be
01
crucified with him are briefly styled as xaxouQY (Luke 2 3 : 3 3 ) . N o
witnesses are called nor even is the condemnation rendered in unmis­
13
takable words. T h e verdict is presupposed; it is the basis o f the following
scenes. N o indication is given that Pilate deals with the question ab ovo.
W h a t is asked and stated by him, is done with reference to what had been
found before by the Sanhedrin.
T r u e , the question: ov ei 6 (3aoiXei>c; xd)v Tou6ai(ov has been taken to
mean that a new accusation is being dealt with, that a political trial is about
14 15
to start after the religious trial or as the only trial proper. Such an
e c o n o m y seems probable and has therefore become the classical approach
in Prozessforschung. A complete separation is, however, not possible: the
scene before Pilate starts with the taking up o f the findings which had been
made before. Even if the Gospel reports on the Sanhedrin trial were
unreliable, some form o f investigation leading up to paoiXeiig xxX. must
have initiated the proceedings and preceded the reports on the R o m a n part
o f them. T h e knowledge Pilate has about the material (John 18:33b)
makes it likely that he had been instructed in a form not dissimilar to the
direction o f his own examination.
It is, o f course, possible to avoid this conclusion by assuming that it was
the Sanhedrin itself that raised a new and different accusation in front o f
16
Pilate. Possible as it is, this theory presupposes an action on the side of the
Jewish authorities which is far less in accord with Jewish law than any other
course attributed to them: it involves the denunciation o f someone w h o is
not liable to punishment according to Jewish law and w h o is, at the same
time, not charged by the Romans. It demands ex5ooig rather than
JiaQd5ooig - without external pressure to d o so. Paul, following an iron

13
J . W e l l h a u s e n , Das Evangelium Johannis (Berlin, 1908), p . 83 sees t w o lines in the
J o h a n n i n e a c c o u n t : o n e a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the J e w s act as accusers, another in
w h i c h they j u s t d e m a n d execution a n d 'verbieten i h m (Pilate), in die merita causae
einzugehenV
1 4
E.g. J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu ( R e g e n s b u r g , 1969), p p . 278ff.
1 5
W i n t e r , Trial, passim; H . H . C o h n , The Trial and Death ofJesus ( N e w Y o r k , 1971), p p .
I42ff.
1 6
E . g . E . Stauffer, Jesus war ganz anders ( H a m b u r g , 1967), p . 188. T h e v i e w that a
different a c c u s a t i o n w a s put foward in front o f Pilate is taken already in Const.
Apost. v . 14.
418 E. BAMMEL

rule of Jewish behaviour, admonishes the members of his community not to

frequent heathen lawcourts in matters o f dispute (lites), although they were
in the unhappy situation o f being unable to benefit any longer from the
17
services o f the local Jewish court. T h e same is all the more true for capital
cases and indeed those Jews who were able to execute judgement
themselves. Such a procedure was not employed vis-a-vis the followers o f
18
Jesus, the early Christians. T h e case in Josephus, where ex5oi3vai is used,
indicates h o w Jewish authorities were likely to react: Florus c o m m a n d s
(exeXevoev) the Jewish authorities to exdowcu those w h o had offended
19
him, but his request is resisted. It shows that the horror with which
20
100 is used in talmudic times lays open a feeling that is deeply rooted
and was present in the Jewish mentality at an earlier time. T h e theory is not
21
absolutely impossible, but very unlikely.
If, then, there was a connection between the Sanhedrin investigation and
the one carried out by Pilate, the link must be found in the question with
which the R o m a n prefect, according to the reports o f all the four Gospels,
starts his interrogation, the question o f j e s u s ' s kingship. T h e part in the
Jewish statement that caught his interest and fitted the framework o f his
understanding is phrased by him in these words. It does not mean that the
Jews had described Jesus as king-pretender nor that, in doing so, they
22
made themselves guilty o f great deceit consciously committed. The
political relevance was not necessarily stressed by the Jews - paoiXetjg has
primarily a religious meaning in Jewish language. It may rather have been
brought out by the Christian narrators w h o wanted to make Pilate reject an
insinuation with these particular overtones.
Neither the truth o f the accusation nor the nature o f the claim is
investigated. This points to a religious charge which the prefect was unable

1 7 1 8
1 C o r . 6: iff. C p . the case o f J a m e s .
1 9 2 0
T h e term is used in BJ 2 §3oa. D a u b e , Collaboration, p . 19.
2 1
S y m p t o m a t i c a n d at the s a m e time e n i g m a t i c is the case o f j e s u s b . A n a n i a s , w h o
after h a v i n g started to utter cries against J e r u s a l e m a n d the T e m p l e while standing
in the latter, is arrested, chastised b y lives xd)V imoi\\UtiV by\\iox(bv a n d , b e c a u s e he
c o n t i n u e d , w a s b r o u g h t (dvdyeiv) b y the doxovxeg before the R o m a n ejiaoxog.
T h e g o v e r n o r flayed h i m to the b o n e s , but let h i m g o , w h e r e u p o n he c o n t i n u e d with
his lament for several years (BJ 6 §300-9). It is to b e assumed that the J e w i s h
authorities, w h o o b v i o u s l y h a d failed to get hold o f h i m while he w a s still in the
p r e c i n c t o f the T e m p l e , tried and p u n i s h e d h i m first, then h a n d e d h i m o v e r to the
R o m a n s in o r d e r to achieve a severer p u n i s h m e n t , i.e. execution. H a v i n g been set
free b y the R o m a n j u d g e he can c o n t i n u e b e c a u s e the J e w i s h authorities, h a v i n g
h a n d e d h i m o v e r to the R o m a n s , c a n n o t t o u c h h i m again. T h e story shows that
capital p u n i s h m e n t w a s not any longer in J e w i s h hands at that time. F o r an
interpretation o f this J e s u s ' s p r o p h e c y o f d o o m c p . A . Schalit, ' D i e E r h e b u n g
Vespasians . . in Aufstieg und Niedergang der alten Welt ii. 2 (Berlin, 1975), 276,
322-7.
2 2
T h u s Blinzler, Prozess, p . 279.
 T h e trial before Pilate 419

to re-examine rather than to a political accusation which would have called

for further enquiry in order to find out more about accomplices etc. Instead,
the culprit's confession is invoked and, subsequently, a series o f attempts is
launched by Pilate to make Jesus give an innocent interpretation to this
charge. That means Pilate looks for mitigating circumstances, whereas the
matter itself is seen by him as a fait accompli according to the Mark/John
report. This allows conclusions with regard to the judicial nature o f the
proceedings.
Mark, Luke and J o h n agree in claiming that the decision was not
taken as a matter o f routine but only after several interludes. T h e num­
ber o f scenes varies and their description too, but the basic feature is the
same.
Additional elements occur in the course o f these proceedings on the side
both o f the prefect and o f the Jews. This is elaborated especially in the
Fourth Gospel, whereas Mark, w h o summarises the proceedings, gives only
hints. First, Pilate tries to rid himself o f the matter, the nature o f which is
not explained to him. T h e Jewish demand, that he should fall in line with
their findings without any ado, is well in keeping with the tendency to turn
the legal situation to one's maximal advantage, known from Josephus's
interpretation o f Caesar's edicts and other sources. T h e suggestion made by
Pilate in J o h n 1 8 : 3 1 a , Xdpexe auxov u|ieig, xai xaxa xov vofiov v\i(bv
23
XQivaxe auxov, is the obvious answer, which forces the Jews to give a
24 25
reason and to demand execution explicitly. T h e second additional

2 3
T h e Syriac text allows t w o different translations: j u d g e him a c c o r d i n g to y o u r law;
a n d j u d g e h i m as it (is) l a w .
2 4
It seems that elements b e l o n g i n g originally to i8:3of were transposed b y the
evangelist to 19:6b, 7. T h e t w o elements o f J o h n 19:6 (oxavQWOOv/Xapexe x x L )
are taken at face v a l u e a n d given a very articulate interpretation b y A . Schlatter: the
J e w s insist o n d e p r i v i n g Jesus o f his h o n o u r c o m p l e t e l y and they k n o w that this is
o n l y a c h i e v e d if he is executed at the hands o f the R o m a n s (Der Evangelist Johannes
(Stuttgart, 1930), p . 344). T h i s p o i n t is taken u p b y W . G r u n d m a n n : J e s u s was
h a n d e d o v e r to the R o m a n s for execution in o r d e r to separate h i m c o m p l e t e l y from
J u d a i s m ; stoning w o u l d have been an h o n o u r for h i m , for this m o d e o f execution
w o u l d h a v e meant the recognition o f j e s u s as b e l o n g i n g to t h e m (Jesus der Galilaer
( W e i m a r , 1940), p . 162). T h e v i e w c o u l d find s u p p o r t in R . O t t o ' s interpretation o f
M a r k 14: 22," a verse w h i c h points to Jesus's expectation o f being ' b r o k e n ' like
b r e a d , i.e. stoned to death (Reich Gottes undMenschensohn ( M i i n c h e n , 1934), p p . 251,
253^ E T ( L o n d o n , 1938), p p . 296, 3001). T h e theory p r e s u p p o s e s not o n l y full
J e w i s h j u r i s d i c t i o n even in capital cases ( c p . J o h n 19:6a) but the successful attempt
to lure Pilate into carrying o u t an action w h i c h the J e w s themselves c o u l d have
taken. T h e possibility o f c o m p l e x J e w i s h schemes has been ventilated o n c e and
again ( c p . J. D . M . Derrett, Law in the New Testament ( L o n d o n , 1970), p p . 389ft), but
this o n e has little foothold in the sources, quite apart from the fact that - c p . note 199,
p . 442 - the J e w s were not afraid o f i m p l e m e n t i n g 'separation', even b y carrying out
executions b y w a y o f crucifixion. W . K o c h (Der Prozess Jesu ( K o l n , 1966), p . 169)
appears to b e influenced b y the S c h l a t t e r - G r u n d m a n n theory. Act. Pil. 4.3f narrates
that the J e w s w o u l d h a v e been able to stone Jesus, but they w a n t e d h i m to b e
420 E. BAMMEL

feature is the giving o f a choice between Barabbas and Jesus. T h e

suggestion is only meaningful if the two persons were understood to
26
represent different aims and standpoints and thereby gave a chance to
confuse the ranks o f the Jews and to outmanoeuvre those w h o wanted to
have their o w n way. Additional moves on the side o f the Jews are
2 7
accusations (Mark 1 5 : 3 ) and attempts to exercise pressure on the prefect
2 8
(John 1 9 : 1 2 ) . Both these features, interesting as they are for the literary
development o f the narrative as well as the historical situation they attempt
to mirror, are not relevant for the description o f the legal situation.
There occurs, however, one element in the narrative which is to b e c o m e
o f 'crucial' importance: the silence o f Jesus, a gesture which already
29
puzzled the earliest opponents o f Christianity so m u c h . Mark, followed by
30
Matthew and Luke, reports the ambiguous ov Xiytiq in reply to Pilate's
question about his kingship, and emphasises that after this Jesus said
3 1
OuXETl ovbiv ( 1 5 : 5 ) . Luke gives the motif its setting in his account o f the
Herodian trial ( 2 3 . 9 ) . John has both features ( 1 8 : 3 7 ; 1 9 : 9 ) , although they
are flanked by lengthy pronouncements which definitely are stamped in the
Johannine mould.
T h e matter is different with the verses which introduce the Johannine ov
Xiyeig. A theological ingredient is present only in 1 8 : 3 6 a , c. Apart from this
two topics are dealt with which are closely linked with the materia itself.
Verse 3 6 b touches upon a problem that had played a certain role in the
32 3 3
Johannine account o f the arrest and the Sanhedrin proceedings ( 1 8 : 20) :
the involvement o f the disciples in the activities o f their master. While

crucified a n d it is for this reason that they h a n d h i m o v e r to Pilate; this text seems to
c o i n c i d e with the v i e w discussed a b o v e .
2 5
F o r the latest attempt to trace a pre-Johannine tradition in the verses see D a u e r ,
Passionsgeschicte, p p . i45f.
2 6
M a r k emphasises the political activity o f the counterpart o f j e s u s , carried o u t in the
(!) ordoig a n d thereby makes clear the difference. J o h n , w h o o n l y touches u p o n the
subject in passing, reduces the political significance o f B a r a b b a s .
2 7
J. W e l l h a u s e n : ' S c h a d e , dass der Inhalt der A n k l a g e nicht a n g e g e b e n w i r d ' (Das
Evangelium Marci (Berlin, 1909), p . 128).
2 8
For an interpretation see ThLZ 77 (1952), c o l . 205fT.
2 9
C e l s u s ( O r i g e n , C. Cels. ii. 35); P o r p h y r y fr. 63 (Porphyrius 'Gegen die Christen'. 15
Bucher Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate, e d . A . v o n H a r n a c k , S B A 66 Phil. -hist. K . ,
PP- 4 0 -
3 0
E v e n m o r e so with the J o h a n n i n e addition: oti (5aoiXei)g eijii.
3 1
It is for this reason that the silence m o t i f appears at a later stage o f the J o h a n n i n e
tradition. F o r the historical evaluation see C . H . D o d d , Historical Tradition in the
Fourth Gospel ( C a m b r i d g e , 1963), p . 104.
32
1 8 : 8 b ; it b e l o n g s to the basic layer o f the story b e c a u s e the urging question o f j e s u s
is inconsistent with the p o w e r o f the divine n a m e displayed in the redactional
material.
3 3
It is there rather the p r o b l e m o f secret, possibly heretical teaching that is at stake
than revolutionary activity (thus W i n t e r , Trial, p . 49). C p . the parallel in
 T h e trial before Pilate 421

34
Jesus's negative reply there had led to his first buffeting, it is here again
that, by emphasising an otherworldliness for his kingdom o f such a kind as
to prohibit his disciples from raising arms for it, he explicitly protects those
35
disciples against recriminatory actions which undoubtedly would have
36
followed any admission o f political ambitions. T h e other statement o f
Jesus is an enquiry as to w h o caused Pilate to presume his kingship: ctcp'
eauxoti . . . f\ aKkoi. T h e question seems to be irrelevant, because only the
accusation matters in the circumstances. It even seems inappropriate,
37 38
evasive and out o f place: 'so spricht kein Angeklagter sondern der Herr'.
In fact, the matter is different. A n assumption and charge, conceived and
formulated by Pilate independently, would not only have meant something
amounting to a new trial but would have given Jesus the opportunity to
speak his mind freely. A charge communicated through the Jews would, on
the other hand, have forced him to raise a counter-accusation against those
w h o are named by Pilate in his answer. Such a procedure might have
brought Jesus into collision with the rule that required a Jew w h o was
unfortunate enough to stand in the dock o f a Gentile court to say nothing
that might imperil his fellow-countrymen. In asking this question and
39
complying with the Jewish code o f behaviour Jesus proves to be a loyal

A r i s t o b u l u s 481": M o s e s received the teaching in t w o forms, esoteric and exoteric

instruction.
3 4
It is the j u d i c i a l buffeting parallel to that o f M a r k 14:65 (and possibly Luke.23:6ff),
different from the scene o f m o c k e r y in 19: 2ff (with its parallels in M a r k 15: i6ff and
L u k e 22:63ft).
3 5
A parallel m a y b e found in Asc. Is. 5.13, where Isaiah discharges his fellows and
sends t h e m to T y r e a n d Sidon, saying ' T h e c u p was p r e p a r e d o n l y for m e . ' T h e
verse is already a Christian addition, as the m e n t i o n o f the ' c u p ' and o f ' T y r e and
S i d o n ' indicates, a n d it m a y b e influenced b y the a c c o u n t o f the trial o f j e s u s . For
the historical p r o b l e m w h e t h e r the disciples b e c a m e involved in the p r o c e e d i n g s
against Jesus, c p . M a r k 14: 70, a passage w h i c h m a y possibly i m p l y a hunt after the
followers o f j e s u s , a n d E v . Petr. v . 26, w h i c h actually states that the disciples had to
g o into hiding because they were accused o f having intended to burn d o w n the
T e m p l e . T h e circumstantial e v i d e n c e speaks against the c l a i m o f the G o s p e l o f
Peter.
3 6
V e s p a s i a n o r d e r e d an ava^TlTTjoig o f all the scions o f the D a v i d i c family, causing a
persecution thereby (Hegesippus a c c . to Eusebius H.E. iii 12; c p . E. M e y e r , Ursprung
und Anfdnge des Christentums i (Stuttgart, 1921), 72, n. 2). J. K l a u s n e r , The Messianic
Idea in Israel ( L o n d o n , 1955) rightly states that such an utterance as that o f J o h n
18: 36 w o u l d have been impossible for a J e w i s h messiah.
3 7
R . v o n M a y r , ' D e r Prozess J e s u ' , ArchivfurKriminal-Anthropologie undKriminalistik 20
(1905), 276.
3 8
D a u e r , Passionsgeschichte, p . 253. In fact, bold utterances are k n o w n from b o t h the
reports o n J e w i s h m a r t y r d o m s (2 and 4 M a c e . ) as well as those o n the p a g a n
martyrs o f A l e x a n d r i a (Acta Alexandrinorum. De Mortibus Alexandriae nobilium
fragmenta papyraica Graeca, e d . H . A . M u s u r i l l o ( L e i p z i g , 1961)).
3 9
T w o points result from this. Firstly, not to frequent heathen courts at all in
questions o f litigation ( c p . 1 C o r . 6: i f f ) ; secondly, not to give witness against a
fellow-countryman, b r o t h e r etc. Both elements are present in the Messiah Sutra
422 E. BAMMEL

40
J e w . H e does so in most trying circumstances: not even the accusers are
exposed by him.
41
True, the silence o f j e s u s is often explained by reference to Isa. 5 3 : 7:
2
oux avofyei to orojia . . . acpcovog ouxcog oux dvoiyei TO ox6|xa amov*
43
T h e parallel cannot, however, mean that the remark is unhistorical. T o o
many features o f the story point in the same direction. Equally it should not
44
be taken as an admission of guilt; neither the R o m a n legal system nor the
45
reaction o f Pilate, as it is recorded in the Gospels, allows this
interpretation. T h e silence is the conclusion drawn and posture adopted by
46
the one w h o had already invoked divine justice against the Sanhedrin and
who is now not any longer willing to defend himself. T h e petition for the
enemies, which Luke records as having been uttered on the mount o f
47
Calvary and to which is appended the legal phrase: 'they d o not know

w h i c h is b a s e d o n a Syriac d o c u m e n t : ' b r i n g not y o u r c o m p l a i n t before the

magistrate . . . if y o u k n o w the details o f the matter y o u need not give any
information t h e r e o f (verse i3of; c p . P. Y . Saeki, The Nestorian Documents and Relics in
China (2nd e d n . T o k y o , 1951), p . 138).
4 0
O n e is t e m p t e d to think o f J o n a h , w h o , a c c o r d i n g to J e w i s h tradition was so eager to
'insist o n the h o n o u r o f the son ( = I s r a e l ) ' that he tried to flee a n d even to attempt
suicide in o r d e r to e s c a p e carrying o u t an action w h i c h was detrimental to his
nation, M e k i l t a Pis'cha 1 ( L a u t e r b a c h 1. 9). T h e 'sign o f J o n a h ' m a y b e interpreted
against this b a c k g r o u n d rather than as a sign o f penitence.
4 1
T h e silence in front o f the c o u r t is n o t u n i q u e . Certain traditions, in contrast to the
standard tradition represented b y X e n o p h o n , Plato etc., attribute silence o r an
almost resilient gesture to Socrates (Philostrat. Vit. Apoll. 8.2; M a x i m u s o f T y r e ,
Diss. 3), a n d m a k e A p o l l o n i u s a d o p t the s a m e position in his trial while p o i n t i n g to
the great e x a m p l e (Vit. Apoll. 8.2; c p . 8.7 - the statement is in fact the b e g i n n i n g o f a
l o n g s p e e c h ) . T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , n o reason to s u p p o s e that this m o d e l , if it h a d b e e n
established already b y Jesus's time, p l a y e d a role either in Jesus's o w n m i n d o r in
the evangelist's report - the link b e t w e e n Socrates and Jesus w h i c h J. G . K l o p s t o c k
establishes m his famous rendering o f Portia's d r e a m (Der Messias vii. 399ft) is
entirely d u e to the great p o e t ' s i n g e n i o u s vision. C p . H . G o m p e r z , 'Sokrates
H a l t u n g v o r seinen R i c h t e r n ' , Wiener Studien 54 (1936), 32. T h e silence o f j e s u s b .
A n a n i a s ( J o s . BJ 6 §302) is different: he remains silent w h e n he is maltreated;
it is not a silence in the c o u r t r o o m .
4 2
W . Z i m m e r l i and J. J e r e m i a s , The Servant of God ( L o n d o n , 1957), p . 99- F o r the
correction o f an attempt at criticism o f J e r e m i a s ' s view c p . J. Jeremias,y7%5/ n.s. 11
(i960), i4off.
4 3
Z i m m e r l i a n d Jeremias, Servant, n o t e 458 remark that the fact that n o scriptural
reference is given points in favour o f the historicity o f the silence. C p . D o d d ,
Tradition, \o${ and D a u e r , Passionsgeschichte, 128 (taken from a pre-Johannine
report).
^ S a l l u s t , Catilina 5 2 : 'magistratus d e confesso sumat s u p p l i c i u m ' ; c p . Blinzler,
Prozess, p . 282.
4 5
It is an a l m o s t J o h a n n i n e phrase w h i c h is used in M a r k 15:5.
4 6
T h i s is the m e a n i n g o f M a r k 14:62: G o d will give j u d g e m e n t different from that
p r o n o u n c e d b y his earthly representative and he himself will have to see the S o n o f
m a n o n the clouds; c p . T U 88 (1964), 24.
4 7
23: 34. C p . Ignatius's p r a y e r for the persecutors (Phil. 12: 3). F o r the interpretation
c p . J. J e r e m i a s , Neutestamentliche Theologie i (Giitersloh, 1971), 283 ( E T ( L o n d o n ,
 T h e trial before Pilate

4 8
what they d o ' , only gives expression to what had been practised by Jesus
49
before.
T h e Lukan report differs from this in many ways. T h e Jews are described
as those w h o start with accusations (iiQ^avxo . . . x a x T i y o Q E i v ) about
which details are given ( 2 3 : 2; c p . 2 3 : 5 ) . This could be taken as pointing to
a new trial rather than to a supplement to the preceding one. T h e Herodian
trial could function as a subsidiary piece o f evidence for this view: what
50
made it possible for Pilate to undertake a remissio was the circumstance o f
an open or relatively open question not tied too closely by the strings o f
previous transactions.
T h e fact that Jesus was a Galilaean stimulated Pilate, it is said, to enter
upon this course o f action ( 2 3 : 7 ) . raA.iA.aia is, however, a stock phrase in
51
the Lukan formulae characterising Jesus's activity and, owing to this,
inserted into the formula o f accusation. Its occurrence in 2 3 : 5 is therefore to
be taken as Luke's way o f accounting for Herod's involvement in Jesus's
trial and his way o f understanding the episode, whereas the scene itself has
its climax and clue in 2 3 : 1 2 . T h e 'friendship' which must have been
brought about by Pilate's giving away o f something - something that was
noticeable to the outsider - cannot have been caused by his considering
Herod Antipas as the forum domicilii. T h e jurisdiction o f the tetrarch in his
realm was never in doubt. What the Herodians were aiming at was
52
influence in Jerusalem, was a kind o f JiQOOtaaia xov eGvovg, was the
53
EJUjAeXeia xov I E Q O I ) - the former was claimed in a dramatic gesture
54 55
shortly after the trial o f j e s u s ; the latter was formally acquired in A . D . 4 4 .

1971), p p . 2981), a n d K . Bornhauser, Das Wirken des Christus durch Taten und Worte
(Gutersloh, 1921), p p . 224h".
4 8
F o r the interpretation see D . D a u b e , ' F o r they k n o w not w h a t they d o ' , T U 79
(i 6i), 8ff.
9 5

4 9
W e h a v e to think especially o f the enemies o f j e s u s in M a r k 10:45. It is this address
w h i c h is in keeping with the context.
5 0
C p . E . B i c k e r m a n n , 'Utilitas C r u c i s ' , RHR 112 (1935), 206.
5 1
A c t s 10: 37; 13:31; c p . L u k e 4: 31. Jesus's m o v e m e n t from there to J u d a e a as the
centre o f his activity likewise ( L u k e 4 : 4 4 ( T o v & a i a seems to b e the original
r e a d i n g ) ; 6:17; 7: 17; A c t s 10:37). C p . U . W i l c k e n s , Die Missionsreden der
Apostelgeschichte (Neukirchen, 1961).
5 2
AJ 20 §251; the term is here used in relation to the high priests, but the leadership
fell into the hands o f the H e r o d i a n s w h e n they were given the right to a p p o i n t and
d e p o s e high priests (AJ 20 § 15f).
53
AJ 20 §222; c p . 20 §15.
3 4
Philo, Legatio, 300.
5 5
J o s e p h u s speaks o f H e r o d o f Chalkis in AJ 20 § 15. But the right w a s in all likelihood
already exercised b y A g r i p p a I. O n e m a y w o n d e r whether the incident m e n t i o n e d
in L u k e 13: 1, w h e r e Pilate m i x e d the b l o o d o f s o m e Galilaean pilgrims with that o f
their sacrificial animals was the first o c c a s i o n for A n t i p a s to try to establish s o m e
sort o f sovereignty in the T e m p l e area - unsuccessfully and therefore resulting in
animosity. T h e G o s p e l o f Peter, w h e r e A n t i p a s presides over a consilium o f j u d g e s o f
424 E. BAMMEL

In sending Jesus (who was supposed to have offended against the T e m p l e )

to Herod Antipas Pilate asked for his judgement (or advice) in this matter
and thereby meets one o f the demands o f the Herodians or gives at least the
appearance o f doing so. Such an event could be taken as a demonstrative
5 6
gesture and be given the characterisation found in Luke 2 3 : 1 2 , at the end
o f a passage which otherwise had undergone a certain deterioration. T h e
scene gives rather the impression o f being another attempt to refer the case
to the Jewish side - this time to an authority not necessarily in agreement
57
with the Sanhedrin - than a delegatio as part o f a new trial.
O f overriding importance is the point o f disagreement with Mark/John,
58
the accusation o f the high priests. T h e form o f the Alexandrian texts,
59
which consists o f three elements, starts with an accusation based on Deut.
13 - that is to say, it summarises (hence £x3QCl[iev) the accusation before the
Jewish court and the findings o f the Sanhedrin, which were presupposed
60
only and not spelled out in the preceding section o f Luke's narration. It
adds two points which, one would think, had been sufficiently dealt with
61
long before: Jesus had admitted none o f these accusations. What,
however, made their repetition necessary was to give evidence for what was
the R o m a n representatives' opinion in this matter. T h e dvdxQioig - only
the main point, (3aoiA.8tjg, is mentioned, under which the tax question
62
seems to be subsumed - results in nothing that is incriminatory: ovdev

w h i c h Pilate is only a m e m b e r , p r e s u p p o s e s a j u d i c i a l situation o f this kind. T h e

e x e m p t i o n o f the T e m p l e courtyard from R o m a n jurisdiction - m o r e m a r k e d after
A . D . 44 than before - is well k n o w n from c o n t e m p o r a r y sources. T h e representative
o f the H e r o d i a n house acted as j u s t i c e o f the p e a c e within this area ( a n d as a
g u a r a n t o r vis-a-vis the R o m a n s ) . T h e a c c o u n t o f the G o s p e l o f Peter retrojects this
situation into the time o f the trial o f j e s u s .
5 6
T h e c u m b e r s o m e expression (piXoi ^ex' dXA.fiX.CDV, periphrastic construction JiQOg
a
abxovz, a n d the w o r d i n g kv EX0Q suggest a Semitic b a c k g r o u n d . T h e p e r i c o p e
itself, o n the other hand, is different in style. L u k a n are djiav TO JtXfjGog, Igcoxda),
etJiev JIQ05; d^iog and x<*iQEW> listed b y F. R e h k o p f (Die lukanische Sonderquelle
( T u b i n g e n , 1 9 5 9 ) , p p . 92ft) as pre-Lukan, are in fact not un-Lukan, as the usage in
A c t s shows.
5 7
T h u s B i c k e r m a n n , RHR 1 1 2 ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 205fT.
5 8
T h e W e s t e r n text, o n the other h a n d , turns it b y its additions and the o m i s s i o n o f
KcuociQi ( w h i c h is likely for M a r c i o n a n d w h i c h makes it, a c c o r d i n g to W . Bauer,
Das Leben Jesu ( T u b i n g e n , 1909), p . 197 refer to the T e m p l e tax) to a c o d e o f
Christian b e h a v i o u r w h i c h is very m u c h in line with what w e k n o w o f the ethical
standards in the M a r c i o n i t e c h u r c h .
5 9
Different G . Schneider, p . 407f in this v o l u m e . I f the x a i w e r e epexegetical, w e
w o u l d e q u a l l y expect a x a i in front o f d i d d a x c o v in verse 5.
60Cp. p . 4 1 7 .
6 1
It is i m p o r t a n t to note that Luke 20: 2off is - c o n t r a r y to M a r k - i n t r o d u c e d b y
reference to the political and j u r i d i c a l d i m e n s i o n o f the question. T h e koiyr\aav
a d d e d b y L u k e to the M a r k a n report makes it quite clear that Jesus w o n v i c t o r y in
this d i s p u t e .
6 2 2 : n a s n e 2 2 : a
at) AiyeiS ( 3 3) ^ 7 ° negative m e a n i n g for L u k e .
 T h e trial before Pilate

EUQiaxo) ai'xiov ( 2 3 : 4 ) . This statement forces the high priests to fall back to
the first point o f accusation. After the Herod scene, which must be seen as
being concerned with this point at issue, even the first accusation (and with
it the others as well) is denied: 2 3 : I 4 f , 20, 2 2 . Pilate repeats his opinion
63
three times before all sections of Jewish society and Luke underlines the
finality o f this ( 2 3 : 2 2 XQixov). H e even goes so far as to eliminate the
ridiculing PaoiXeug xcav Tou&aicov o f Mark's Barabbas scene ( 1 5 : 9 ) in his
own report.
T h e innocence o f j e s u s could have been stated without the outlining o f
the points o f accusation in detail. As they are mentioned prominently it
must have been done with a particular purpose. Jesus's o w n fate, the fact
that he was killed although innocent, cannot have been the reason. Can the
situation o f Christianity at a time nearer to Luke's own have given rise to
64
the detailed mentioning o f these points? Romans 1 3 : 5f is phrased in such
a way that it presupposes an inclination to make use o f the privilege o f the
65
heirs o f the kingdom, a certain resistance against the paying of taxes either
in the Christian community or in such circles as could be associated with it.
T o defeat such suggestions and, even more, to convince the Romans that
such ideas, which were likely to be put into their heads by the Jews, did not
exist among them, was o f vital importance for nascent Christianity - not
66
only in R o m e . 'Eauxov XQIOTOV (3aoiAia eivai is the only formulation o f
this kind in Luke, indicating in this way that something specific, the
Davidic pretension, is implied. Such a notion, in normal circumstances not
necessarily o f consequence, became dangerous in the years of the revolt and
after it when the Romans chased those persons, w h o by virtue o f their
67
descent might become focal points for subversive activities.

6 3
T h e A.ct6c; o f verse 13 is still present in verse 23. T h i s m a y b e a difference c o m p a r e d
with the p r e c e d i n g scene w h e r e the JtA.fj0og o r 6%Ko<; are the followers o f the
Sanhedrin.
6 4
C p . M a t t . 17:25. T h e w o r d xfjvoog indicates that the p r o b l e m o f the T e m p l e tax is
linked with that o f the tribute. It is o n l y for the latter that verse 25c is formulated
from the believer = 1)165. C p . also W . H o r b u r y , a b o v e , p . 265.
65
(p6Q0g is used as in L u k e 23:2; not xfjvoog as in M a r k 12:14.
6 6
F o r the R o m a n situation see p . 37of - L u k e ' s rephrasing o f the centurion's
confession: 6vxo)g . . . &ixcuog (23:47) - at first g l a n c e surprising b e c a u s e it a v o i d s
the christological confession w h i c h M a r k had p r o d u c e d - b e c o m e s meaningful in
the a s s u m e d c o n t e x t . It w a s o f vital i m p o r t a n c e t o b r i n g o u t clearly the i n n o c e n c e o f
Jesus at the end o f the a c c o u n t o f the passion.
6 7
BJ 6 § 114f. T h e r e m o v a l o f J o h n , the y v w o x o g xcp dQX^Qei (John 18: 15), to
P a t m o s m a y h a v e b e e n part o f the s a m e o p e r a t i o n . T h e relegatio w a s a
c o m p a r a t i v e l y m i l d p u n i s h m e n t , m a i n l y a c c o r d e d to honestiores. It is L u k e t o o w h o
rewrites the G e t h s e m a n e p e r i c o p e and p r o d u c e s a different version o f the arrest. Is
it p o s s i b l e to g o s o far as to a s s u m e that inclination to resistance is in his o p i n i o n a
form o f the JieiQaou.6g, the d a n g e r o f w h i c h is stressed so m u c h in his a c c o u n t
(22:40, 46)?
426 E. BAMMEL

It results from this that the accusation o f the jr,Qeo(3uT£Qiov xov Xaov is a
Lukan heading, under which umbrella are put together the findings o f the
Sanhedrin with other points which were sensitive spots in the evangelist's
own time. From this it may be deduced that the impression that Luke
68
follows a different scheme for the trial before Pilate is based only on
editorial material and is not, even on this level, carried through
69
systematically. T h e Barabbas episode agrees with the Markan/Johannine
70
scheme and the Herodian 'trial', whether historical or unhistorical, is,
taken by itself, capable o f being interpreted as a fact-finding mission with
the possible intention o f counteracting the Sanhedrin's claims. T h e final
decision o f Pilate is rendered in a way almost identical with that o f Mark.
T h e source analysis o f the Roman part o f the Lukan trial leads to a result
different from that o f the Sanhedrin trial: whereas the latter is based on a
71
source independent from and, perhaps, superior to Mark, it is in the trial
before Pilate that the main thread, interwoven with a few features o f
different provenance, is Markan.
72
T h e 'strange episode concerning B a r a b b a s ' is only a subsidiary feature
in the Fourth Gospel. It had invaded the pre-Lukan tradition at an early
73
stage and it is, although firmly embedded in the Markan text as we possess

6 8
Pace B i c k e r m a n n . T h e charges are L u k a n , but the evangelist has c h o s e n to d e s c r i b e
the w a y in w h i c h Pilate deals with them from the basis o f M a r k ( L u k e 23: 3). T h i s
w o u l d p o i n t against the existence o f a c o n t i n u o u s pre-Lukan narrative o n the
R o m a n trial. V e r s e s i f are to be v i e w e d together with verse 5 ( c p . the similar xai
plus p a r t i c i p l e f o r m u l a t i o n ) . P r o b a b l y it w a s originally o n e entity. L u k e m o v e d
w h a t is n o w verse 5 b / c in o r d e r to have a foothold for the A n t i p a s story and replaced
it b y verse 2c.
6 9
23: 14 refers o n l y to the first ' a c c u s a t i o n ' .
7 0
It has certainly not e v o l v e d from an interpretation o f Ps. 2: 1 (thus M . D i b e l i u s ,
' H e r o d e s u n d Pilatus' in Botschaft und Geschichte i ( T u b i n g e n , 1953), 278fl). In this
case w e w o u l d expect the PaoiXevg-trial to have been given a far greater
p r o m i n e n c e , an i m p o r t a n c e not dissimilar to that given in E v . Petr.
7 1
D . C a t c h p o l e , The Trial of Jesus ( L e i d e n , 1971), p p . i53ff. T h e question arises as to
w h a t w a s the e n d o f the pre-Lukan report cited b y the evangelist in c h . 22. S o m e
m e n t i o n o f the R o m a n trial is to b e p r e s u p p o s e d . It cannot b e ruled out that the
evangelist w h o cut o f f the b e g i n n i n g d i d the s a m e with the final section at the end
o f the s o u r c e . But there is o n e point in his a c c o u n t w h i c h is to b e explained neither
b y his o w n t e n d e n c y nor b y the influence o f M a r k : the role o f the c r o w d . W h e r e ­
as the c r o w d d o e s not c o m e in in M a r k before 15:8 and has to b e agitated b y
the high priests against Jesus, it is here the case - contrary to what is usual in the
m a i n b o d y a n d again in the crucifixion story (verse 35) o f the G o s p e l - that the
c r o w d s are present right from the beginning (verse 4) and take an active part. M i g h t
it b e that this feature stems from pre-Lukan tradition? R e m e m b e r i n g the deviating
traits in the B a r a b b a s scene o f that G o s p e l , it appears likely that the source w e n t o n
with verse 18 and c o n c l u d e d with verse 24. A short mention o f the crucifixion itself
m a y h a v e b e e n the c o n c l u d i n g remark o f the source.
7 2
S . G . F. B r a n d o n , Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p . 258.
7 3
L u k e 23:16 is identical with 23*.22d. T h e evangelist established a b r i d g e b y
inserting Xaog in 23: 13, a passage w h e r e the c r o w d s have nothing to d o ; o n the
 T h e trial before Pilate 427

it n o w , an insertion in the summarising £/r-account. This does not mean,

74
however, that it is just a 'legendary embellishment'. T h e state o f affairs
points to two streams o f tradition at an initial stage, comparable with the
75
two traditions o f Stephen's death one of which explained the action o f the
crowd by reference to the choice given to it (owing to this the OTOUQCoaov is
moved into the scene), whereas the other replaced the crowd by a smaller
76
segment o f the population.
T h e privilegium Paschale makes sense as a Jewish custom (thus J o h n
1 8 : 3 9 ) : one prisoner is released in remembrance o f Israel's salvation from
Egypt. In a similar way the Jews felt compelled to buy out, and were busy
buying out, fellow-countrymen w h o had fallen captive especially at this
77
time. T h e release is likely to have been a royal prerogative vis-a-vis the
78
Sanhedrin. T h e R o m a n prefects whose office was in the succession o f the
Hasmonaean kings carried on with this. If such a custom existed in
Jerusalem at that time, it is most likely that the demand was normally put
forward by the people (as is the case in Luke 2 3 : 1 8 ) . If, in answer to this, a
79
choice was given by the authorities - this is certainly a possibility - it had
to be a choice between persons w h o were 'in the same condemnation'. That
8 0
means, Jesus was in all likelihood in the situation of a condemned p e r s o n -

other h a n d , he m a y h a v e o m i t t e d the beginning o f the B a r a b b a s scene. T h e state o f

affairs s h o w s that L u k e selected pieces o f different p r o v e n a n c e for his a c c o u n t .
7 4
T h u s R . B u l t m a n n , Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition ( G o t t i n g e n , 1957), p . 293 ( E T
( O x f o r d , 1963) p . 272); M . Grant, Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1977), p . 165. E v e n F. H a h n ( ' D e r
Prozess J e s u nach d e m J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m ' , Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar.
Vorarbeiten, Heft 2 ( N e u k i r c h e n , 1970), p p . 13!!) considers the tradition as
'vorjohanneisch'.
7 5
C p . A c t s 6: 1 iff with 7:57f and c p . F. Spitta, Die Apostelgeschichte (Halle, 1891), p p .
g6ff a n d K . Bornhauser, Studien zur Apostelgeschichte ( G u t e r s l o h , 1934), p p . 7iff.
7 6
J o h n 19:6. T h i s is a standing feature in the Fourth G o s p e l . T h e last statements o n
the m u l t i t u d e are found in 10:41 a n d 12: 19.
7 7
Pes. v m . 6 refers to this, not - pace Blinzler, Prozess, p p . 37iff - to the Passover
amnesty.
7 8
A n d therefore not listed b y J o s e p h u s as a privilege a c c o r d e d to the J e w s b y the
R o m a n s (a different v i e w in B r a n d o n , Zealots, p . 259). T h e parallels a d d u c e d from
the G r a e c o - R o m a n w o r l d (see Blinzler, Prozess, p p . 3 0 3 ^ are relevant o n l y s o far as
they m a y h e l p to explain the R o m a n attitude o f carrying o n with the practice. T h e
role o f g r a c e in J e w i s h penal l a w d e m a n d s a special investigation.
7 9
It w o u l d point to a s o m e w h a t c i r c u m s c r i b i n g practice in the a p p r e h e n s i o n o f the
privilegium - a d e v e l o p m e n t not difficult to understand.
8 0
It w a s , nota bene, a verdict b y the Sanhedrin. B i c k e r m a n n , RHR 112 (1935), p . 239
tries to e s c a p e this c o n c l u s i o n b y assuming that an i n t r o d u c t o r y remark to the
scene, reporting the c o n d e m n a t i o n to death o f j e s u s b y Pilate, w a s suppressed b y
M a r k . T h e same w o u l d h a v e to b e s u p p o s e d to h a v e h a p p e n e d with the beginning o f
the L u k a n a c c o u n t - a m o s t unlikely c o i n c i d e n c e . R . W . H u s b a n d , The Prosecution of
Jesus (Princeton, 1916), p p . 268ff; idem, ' T h e P a r d o n i n g o f Prisoners b y Pilate', AJT
21 (1917), 11 off, o n the o t h e r h a n d , argues u n c o n v i n c i n g l y that B a r a b b a s w a s not
yet c o n v i c t e d . T h e a r g u m e n t s a s s e m b l e d b y C o h n , Trial, p p . i63ff carry weight, if
any, o n l y under the u n p r o v e n supposition that Jesus w a s not yet rite c o n d e m n e d .
428 E. BAMMEL

in the same way as Barabbas was awaiting execution. It is not less likely
that the choice given to the people was a real one: Jesus had been tried for a
81
crime different from that o f the Xnoxrjs Barabbas. T h e outcome could not
82
be seen as decided beforehand, as the peoole had not been involved so far.
A n d indeed, men like Josephus take great pains to give a picture in which
the attitude o f the main population is distinguished from the activities o f the
83
fanatics. So far the story is not untrustworthy and points strongly away
from any revolutionary behaviour on the part ofjesus himself. What is due
to the evangelist's redaction is the direct link between the choice o f
Barabbas and the orauQcaoov o f the people, whereas the latter is likely to
have happened at a later stage o f the proceedings (cp. John 19:6).
N o verdict pronounced by Pilate is cited in either the synoptic Gospels or
the Gospel o f J o h n . What is mentioned, however, is his intention and,
indeed, his c o m m a n d to scourge Jesus. Luke, w h o reports the intention
( 2 3 : 1 6 ) , fails to mention the execution o f the punishment. John speaks
about it at some length ( 1 9 : 1 ) , whereas Mark and Matthew briefly mention
the act in their summary o f the events. Luke's report suggests a scourging
before the Barabbas scene and John, on the other hand, places it
afterwards, whereas the first two evangelists give no clear indication as to
84 85
when it h a p p e n e d . It is not an ancillary punishment to the execution,
and must therefore be either an act o f cruelty to please the public or a
punishment for some minor offence. John, w h o links it closely with the
mocking, has moved in the first direction, whereas Luke, w h o ventilates the
question o f guilt in the same sentence, points to the other alternative. It is
more likely that a measure that was considered as an order o f punishment
could look like an act o f brutality than that the opposite happened. If we
have to take the punitive character o f the measure seriously, it is necessary
to trace the reason. Jesus's silence must have been taken as contempt o f
86
court b y Pilate and caused the reaction o f the enraged prefect.
T h e final verdict is supposed to be alluded to in John 1 9 : 1 3 : exdSioev
EJtl PrjiiaTog. This phrase is valued as the only clear witness for a R o m a n

8 1
W i n t e r , Trial, p p . g6ff tries unsuccessfully to dispute the linking o f B a r a b b a s with
insurrectionist activities.
8 2
J e s u s m u s t h a v e been a m a n o f a type different from that o f B a r a b b a s ; the story
m a k e s sense only u n d e r this supposition. T h i s points against O . C u l l m a n n ' s
interpretation: the s a m e c r i m e a n d the s a m e verdict (Der Staat im N.T. (2nd e d n .
T u b i n g e n , 1961), p . 34; E T L o n d o n 1957, p p . 47Q.
8 3
W a s the n o m i n a t i o n o f B a r a b b a s as eligible for amnesty a s c h e m e o f Pilate in o r d e r
to test the loyalty o f the J e w s ? In any case, the extension o f the amnesty to a case
w h i c h w a s o n l y p u n i s h a b l e a c c o r d i n g to R o m a n l a w m i g h t b e taken as a success o f
the J e w s .
8 4
M a r k seems to put the punitive measures together.
8 5
See p . 44of.
8 6
C p . J o h n 18: 22.
 T h e trial before Pilate

87
condemnation, and it is seen as the beginning o f the proceedings e superiori
88
which are concluded by the verdict pronounced from the same Pfjuxx. In
the Johannine scene it is, however, the mocking remark: I5e 6 PaoiXevg
l)fxd)V that follows, a remark that is raised to another level by the evangelist
as is indicated by the mentioning o f the hour. T h e situation is parallel to
verse 5 where he says: ibov 6 avSocojtog. T h e progression to PaoiXeijg in
verse 1 4 - and its emphasis in verse 1 5 - has meaning only if something had
been done with the person concerned in the meantime. Scourging and
mocking are actions that preceded verse 5 . A new act is, however, supplied
89
if exd6ioev is taken as a transitive form; it describes a final climax o f the
mocking scene, the culprit is placed on the judgement seat and, in keeping
with this, spoken o f as paoiAevg. Interpreted this way the pericope -
90
whether its position in the sequence o f events is correct or n o t - does not
91
provide the required information about the state o f the trial itself.
T h e word that comes nearest to a juridical description is used by Luke:
92
EJlEXQivev ( 2 3 : 3 4 ) . It does not describe the giving of sentence, but rather
93
a decision, rightly or w r o n g l y taken within a larger procedural context.
T h e other evangelists avoid even such a description and allude to the end o f
the scene before Pilate in the shortest possible wording.
W h i c h is the procedural form that satisfies these data? T h e evaluation o f
the facts has retreated into the background almost completely, and the
question whether a punishment, and if so which one, is advisable,
dominates the scene. This not only demands that the fact-finding,
summing-up and verdict o f another authority should have preceded, but
equally that the decision o f the former should have been o f such a kind that
it could not be overruled in substance. It appears that the case was not such
as to be dealt with by the coercitio o f the prefect or even by ordinary R o m a n
94 95
provincial trial. Neither the one trial nor a new trial seems to be the

8 7
J . Blinzler, ' D e r Entscheid des Pilatus - Exekutionsbefehl o d e r T o d e s u r t e i l ? ' ,
MThZ 5 (1954), 175; Prozess, p p . 346^.
88
B l i n z l e r , Prozess, p p . 34if.
8 9
A s the parallel in Ev. Petr. v. 7 suggests. C p . A . v. H a r n a c k , Bruchstucke des
Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus (Leipzig, 1893), PP- ^3^ and P. C o r s s e n ,
" E x & 0 i o e v £JU |3r|uxxTog\ ZNW 15 (1914), 339f. S o t o o in Ev. B a r n a b a e ( e d . L . and
L . R a g g ( O x f o r d , 1907), p . 479); the passage refers there to J u d a s in the guise o f
Jesus. But c p . J. A . T . R o b i n s o n b e l o w , n. 52 o n p . 469.
9 0
C p . W i n t e r , Trial, p p . i o i f , 106.
9 1
M o m m s e n already m a d e it likely that n o Vollverfahren took p l a c e . T h u s there w a s n o
need for Pilate to m o u n t the (3fju.a (Romisches Strafrecht ( L e i p z i g , 1899), p p . 240Q.
Differently Blinzler, Prozess, p . 356.
9 2
T h u s A . P l u m m e r , St Luke ( E d i n b u r g h , 1913), p . 527.
9 3
T h u s 2 M a c e . 4:47, w h e r e the w o r d is used.
9 4
W i n t e r , Trial, passim.
9 5
G . A i c h e r , Der Prozess Jesu ( B o n n , 1929); E. Stauffer, Jesus. Gestalt und Geschichte
(Bern, 1957; E T L o n d o n , i960).
43° E- BAMMEL

R o m a n trial but a procedure based and dependent on the Sanhedrin trial.

T h e possibilities to be taken into consideration in this case are a handing
over without any scrutiny and comment or a short examination and
decision guided by the principles o f R o m a n administration. T h e former
view may find support in the simple JiaQe5(DX£V by which the end o f the
96
R o m a n part of the narrative is described in all four G o s p e l s and the nearly
complete absence o f details o f a strictly judicial procedure. O n the other
hand it must be mentioned that whatever may be said about Christian
97
enlargements o f the story, certain dealings took place which would find
their natural conclusion in a formal decision taken by the prefect. T r u e ,
such a decision is nowhere reproduced in the passion accounts, but it is
9 8
presupposed in Acts 1 3 : 2 g , and the later tradition which attributes to
Pilate a formal XQl[ia" could hardly have arisen without any trace in its
100
nascent f o r m . T h e eJUXQioi£, found in the description o f Luke, is
therefore to be taken as the term which comes nearest to the essence o f the
judicial action in the Gospel account o f the R o m a n 'trial'. 'EJUXQIOIC; is a
decision based on such investigation as was necessary for the consideration
of imperial interests. O n the other hand, it was a scrutiny 'mit gebundener
101
Marschroute' that was carried out: the case itself was not re-examined,
only the political consequences o f whatever actions had been decided on.
One element has been disregarded so far, the role played by the people.
T h e evangelists unanimously emphasise that their intervention was
decisive. T h e Volksgericht had been in action in R o m e until the time o f
102
Augustus and was valued as an expression of liberty. Such an institution,
103
well known from the Jewish p a s t and still in force in the autonomous
104
communities of the E m p i r e , could not be met with disapproval a limine by

9 6
C p . p. 4i6f.
9 7
C p . B u l t m a n n , Synoptische Tradition, p p . 297ff ( E T p . 275ft).
9 8
T h e h a n d i n g o v e r takes p l a c e a l t h o u g h n o causa w a s found; this implies that a causa
was supplied b y Pilate. D , o n the o t h e r h a n d , supplies a reference to a xoiuxx given
b y the S a n h e d r i n .
9 9
E.g. Act. Pil. ix; c p . E. v o n D o b s c h i i t z , ' D e r Prozess Jesu nach d e n A c t a Pilati', ZNW
3 (1902), 89ff.
1 0 0
Certain details w h i c h g a v e s u p p o r t to the impression o f a R o m a n j u d g e m e n t c a m e
in later: the three l a n g u a g e s ( c p . p . 3541), the centurion and the interpretation o f
J o h n 19: 13 as referring to a formal action o f Pilate.
1 0 1
R . v o n M a y r , Archiv fur Kriminal-Anthropologic und Kriminalistik 20 (1905), 305. L .
W e n g e r (Die Quellen des romischen Rechts ( G r a z , 1953), p . 287) inserts this statement
into his a c o u n t o f the events a l t h o u g h it is substantially at v a r i a n c e with his o w n
v i e w o f the separate trials.
1 0 2
M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p . 1 7 1 .
1 0 3
L y n c h l a w , still c o m m o n l y practised in this period ( c p . A c t s 7: 58) w a s o n l y
a c c e p t a b l e to the legal m i n d as a w a y o f executing the p e o p l e ' s justice.
104
J . C o l i n , Les villes libres de VOrient greco-romain et Venvoi au supplice par acclamations
populaires, C o l l . L a t o m u s 82 (Brussels, 1965). C o l i n ' s theory w a s endorsed - with a
 T h e trial before Pilate 431

the R o m a n s . Indeed, the Barabbas scene shows that those assembled

105
before the pfj^ia were viewed as the representatives of the people qualified
to make a choice. T h e voices o f the people, although not regarded as
sufficient to decide the o u t c o m e o f a trial, were valued not just as vanae voces
populi but viewed with regard by the Romans when it came to the question
o f the political feasibility o f a verdict, and in fact the importance o f the
multitude in wider political issues became of decisive importance exactly at
the time of Pilate. There is a straight line from Mark 15: 15 (PouA,6|ievosTtp
ox^cp TO ixavov J i o i f j o a i ) to the report o f Eusebius on Attalus's execution:
1 0 6 107
T(p 6%\(0 xaQi^oiievoq 6 ^ y e M ^ - T h e impression the Gospel reports
convey, that it was this intervention that tipped the scales in Jesus's
disfavour and made the prefect arrive at the decision he issued, is
historically not at all unlikely. Examination o f this factor in the events
confirms the view that political considerations had their part in the R o m a n
108
side o f the proceedings. T h e care for the preservation of p e a c e is certainly
no sufficient reason for the condemnation o f j e s u s (not even under the
vinculum oicoercitio) but it is a satisfactory argument ifJesus was already rite
109
condemned.
Does this hypothesis find support in the information we receive outside
the trial proper about the execution ofjesus or does such evidence demand
a different solution? T h e summarising accounts in Acts and in the synoptic
Gospels, which g o back in substance to a period prior to the literary activity
110
o f the Christians have to be taken into consideration. T h e accounts o f the
events preceding and following the trial come in as subsidiary evidence.
T h e third prediction o f the passion (Mark io:32ff) contains a more
detailed description than the preceding ones (8: 3iff; 9: 3off) and mentions
the 60vr] to w h o m Jesus is to be handed over. Mark constructs the following
part o f the sentence in parataxis and thereby leaves it open whether the
Gentiles or - more likely - the high priests perform the subsequent actions

certain p r o v i s o - b y F. B o v o n , Les derniersjours de Jesus ( N e u e n b u r g , 1974), p . 68; c p .

P- 43-
1 0 5
C o l i n , Villes, p p . 13fF makes a g o o d case for the variant dva(5of|oag.
1 0 6
Eusebius, H.E. v . 1.50; c p . C o l i n , Villes, p p . i26ff.
1 0 7
M a t t h e w alone a d d s the o m i n o u s T O al\ia avxov xzk. (27:25). It is a form o f oath
(Schwurformel), the m e a n i n g o f w h i c h is: his b l o o d b e o n us, if w e d o w r o n g with the
m a n w h o m y o u are a b o u t to h a n d o v e r (tiu.elg oipeoBe). F o r a n e w interpretation,
a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the phrase 'his b l o o d o n o u r h e a d s ' testified to the i n n o c e n c e o f
the person c o n c e r n e d , c p . G . B a u m , Die Juden und das Evangelium (Einsiedeln, 1963),
p p . iosf.
1 0 8
T h u s , in defence o f Pilate, J. F. Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity ( L o n d o n 1873;
n e w e d n . C a m b r i d g e , 1967), p . 87; c p . Innes, Trial, p p . i o i f f .
1 0 9
T h e theory suggested here finds its closest ally in the reconstruction o f the events
given b y S. Liberty, The Political Relations of Christ's Ministry ( O x f o r d , 1916).
, 1 0
C . H . D o d d , The Apostolic preaching and its developments ( L o n d o n , 1936). E. Stauffer,
Die Theologie des N.T. (Stuttgart, 1941), p p . 329ff; E T ( L o n d o n , 1955), p . 339.
432 E. BAMMEL

111
o f humiliation and the execution, whereas both Matthew and Luke refer
to misdeeds o f these e9vT). T h e plural formulation is, however, not handed
s 112
down unanimously: sy reads xri) tatco in Matt. 20: 1 9 , Mark 10: 3 3 , and 1
113
omits the object altogether. Obviously different traditions have c o m e
114
together and the attempt to integrate them has not been wholly
115
successful. It is surprising that no more definite reference to the R o m a n s
is given in this formula, that none o f the opprobrious terms for them is used,
and no mention is made of the judicial activity o f Pilate. This state of affairs
is explained more easily by an £0vr)-formulation into which other notions
crept than from the opposite starting point. T h e corresponding formula in
116
Luke 2 4 : 2 0 which lacks any reference to the R o m a n s and treats the
117
passion entirely within a Jewish h o r i z o n , confirms this view.
e
T h e formulae in Acts d o not seem to coincide with this. T h e X ^ Q 5
118
&v6|X(DV (2: 2 3 ) must allude to non-Jewish involvement, as the notion o f
the nefariousness o f the executioner is completely absent from the Jewish
mind. Acts 1 3 : 2 8 too takes this line and even names Pilate as the one w h o m
the Jews asked (f|xrjoavxo). It is, however, striking that the activity
attributed to the R o m a n prefect does not g o beyond the granting o f a
request - a remark that seems to refer to the popular demand at the
119 120
Barabbas s c e n e - and that in the probably superior part o f the textual
121
tradition, even the resulting event is described in such a way that it
122
indicates a Jewish rather than a R o m a n action. Pilate appears on the

1 , 1
E q u a l l y n in its rendering o f M a t t . 20: 19.
, , 2
B u r k i t t a d d s the plural in his translation.
1 . 3
I f not w e w o u l d expect the Syriac text form to b e the same in all three G o s p e l s .
1 . 4
See M e r x , Matthaeus, p . 288; Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas (Berlin, 1905),
p . 361.
1 . 5
T h e L u k a n formulation is interesting: ^aoTiywoavTeg djioxtevoiioiv - at v a r i a n c e
( e v e n t e r m i n o l o g i c a l l y ) with the L u k a n trial report b u t (rather) in a g r e e m e n t with
the R o m a n p r o c e d u r e o f crucifixion.
1 1 6
Pace Blinzler, Munchener TheoL Zeitschrift 5 (1954), 173f. Prozess, p p . 341-428.
1 1 7
JiaQe6a)xav has here the w i d e r m e a n i n g d r a w n attention to in n. 7, p . 415^ S o it
agrees with the following v e r b : b o t h terms describe different sides o f the s a m e
action.
1 , 8
O t h e r w i s e H . C o n z e l m a n n , Die Mitte der Zeit ( T u b i n g e n , 1954), p . 84 ( E T L o n d o n
1961, p p . 901), a l t h o u g h s o only for the level o f L u k e ' s r e d a c t i o n .
n9
a i x e t o 6 a t is used in the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the c h o i c e ( M a r k 15:8; M a t t . 27:20; L u k e
23: 23) a n d equally as a stock phrase in the parallel formula o f A c t s 3:14, w h e r e it
clearly refers to this incident. It is to b e kept in m i n d that the XdTOixovvreg ev
TeQOvaaXTin are seen as the principal actors.
1 2 0
C p . J . H . R o p e s in F . J . F . J a c k s o n a n d K . L a k e , Beginnings of Christianity iii
( L o n d o n , 1926), 262f.
1 2 1
Ut interficeretur.
1 2 2
T h e E g y p t i a n reading dvaifje6fjvai w a s , together with A c t s 5: 30; 10: 39, taken as
e v i d e n c e b y I. M . W i s e that Jesus w a s actually h a n g e d and not crucified (The Origin
of Christianity ( C i n c i n n a t i , 1868), p . 29).
 T h e trial before Pilate

123
stage just as a foil for the Jews whose deeds are qualified by terms
stronger than those used in the Gospels; they are called JtQo56xai ( 7 : 5 2 )
124
and almost stigmatised as e x 5 6 t a i . T h e very fact that the Romans are
passed over in silence in the rest o f the formulae ( 3 : 1 5 ; 4 : 1 0 ; 5: 30; 1 0 : 3 9 )
underlines this concentration. Their sketch o f events turns out to be
consistent with the passion prediction formulae, while the difference in
125
terminology shows them to be independent sources.
T h e Testimonium Flavianum presents a different picture: an ev5ei^ig is
126
performed by the JiQcbxoi av5geg, a fact that causes Pilate to ejriTi|idv
127 128
Jesus to the c r o s s . It is a denunciation or, as Rufinus puts it, accusatio
that had been discharged by the Jews. T h e phrase has been taken to
129 130
exclude a Jewish trial. But this is not necessarily the c a s e as not even
the formal verdict pronounced by Pilate is reported. Still, the text as it

1 2 3
T h e E g y p t i a n text o n l y implies Pilate's c h o i c e b e t w e e n B a r a b b a s and Jesus,
whereas the W e s t e r n text has Jesus h a n d e d o v e r to h i m and attributes a role to the
prefect that stretches even b e y o n d Jesus's death, m o r e in keeping with the G o s p e l
reports than the alternative text. E . J . E p p ' s evaluation o f the passage is hereby
to b e c o r r e c t e d (The theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts
( C a m b r i d g e , 1966), p . 58).
124 2:23 is to b e constructed this w a y : delivered o v e r through the hands o f lawless m e n
y o u nailed etc. In the W e s t e r n text AxxPovxeg has a very different m e a n i n g , for the
illumination o f w h i c h see E p p , Theological Tendency, p p . 6of. T . Z a h n , Apostelgeschichte
( L e i p z i g , 1919), p . 112 c o m e s o u t in favour o f the W e s t e r n text, w h i c h he interprets
differently.
1 2 5
D i b e l i u s put forward the hypothesis that the first literary p r o d u c t s o f the Christian
c o m m u n i t i e s were c o n c e r n e d with the description o f J e s u s ' s passion, that the
G o s p e l s as w e h a v e t h e m are passion narratives extended b a c k w a r d s . T h i s is
correct a n d yet not c o r r e c t . Certainly the description o f the L o r d ' s suffering was a
subject o f meditation and s o u r c e o f influence for every o n e o f his followers, the m o r e
so as s o o n as o p p r e s s i o n and persecution b e g a n and Jesus's e x a m p l e g a v e strength
to his disciples. T h a t m e a n s that G e t h s e m a n e , m o c k i n g , crucifixion and death will
have b e e n narrated early o n . Is this the case, h o w e v e r , also for the legal p r o c e d u r e s ?
T h e piety o f the individual w o u l d have been less affected b y this subject. A s far as
Christian a p o l o g e t i c s are c o n c e r n e d , they can o n l y have had a c h a n c e o f success in
the Palestinian area i f (a) they asserted the ascension and c o m i n g again o f the o n e
c o n d e m n e d , and ( b ) they w e r e in the position to make s o m e answer to the
accusations o f witchcraft, s e d u c t i o n o f the p e o p l e and b l a s p h e m y against the
T e m p l e , i.e. it was necessary for the description o f Jesus's life to play a certain role
from the b e g i n n i n g . T h e R o m a n part o f the trial, h o w e v e r , apart from the B a r a b b a s
scene, w a s left out as irrelevant. T h e result o f this is that the a c c o u n t o f the t w o trials
derives from a later stage in Christian d e v e l o p m e n t , a stage w h e n enlightenment
c o n c e r n i n g the R o m a n side was o f vital i m p o r t a n c e for the Christians. T h e a c c o u n t
o f the trial in the G o s p e l o f M a r k is therefore already a formation w h i c h goes b a c k to
the c o m m u n i t y outside Palestine.
1 2 6 O V T £
Eusebius, Theophany renders & Q X S instead.
AJ 18 §64.
1 2 1

1 2 8
J e r o m e a d d s the paraphrase: 'invidia n o s t r o r u m p r i n c i p u m ' (ex libr. vir. de Jos. c .
IS)-
1 2 9
T h . R e i n a c h , 'Josephe sur J e s u s ' , REJ 35 (1897), i6f.
1 3 0
C p . the a r g u m e n t o f Blinzler, Prozess, p p . 46f.
 E
434 - BAMMEL

stands attributes a greater measure o f activity to the Romans. It coincides

131
in this respect with Tacitus's reference to Jesus. Both statements seem to
reflect the state o f jurisdiction which had evolved at the turn o f the
132
century.
T h e examination o f the material from the different sources reveals a
surprising degree o f consonance about the nature o f the Roman
proceedings. T o transfer this to the juridical level is not easy, as our
133
knowledge o f the provincial trial is very scanty i n d e e d . Still, certain
points can be fixed. As the Jewish code o f law had been applied in the
examination and condemnation o f j e s u s and no independent enquiry had
been carried out by Pilate, it is likely that the delict (Tatbestand), as it had
been expressed by the Jewish court, was accepted by the R o m a n j u d g e .
This could be linked with the idea o f a R o m a n trial in such a way as to
assume that Pilate went into the matter so far as to find out whether the case
134
was a punishable delict according to R o m a n law as well or n o t . A
135
Delibationsverfahren (interrogatory proceedings) o f this description is,
however, not noticeable in the sources. T h e elements o f an investigation
carried out in accordance with principles which differed from those o f the
136
Sanhedrin are absent. T h e PaouXeug-theme is not given a new, a political
interpretation. If it had been, an investigation into the activities o f the
disciples would have been unavoidable. It therefore seems likely that not
only the case itself but the punishment according to Jewish law was
accepted as a presupposition by the R o m a n prefect, that what is called the
137
Sub sumptionsjrage was taken as having been settled by the Sanhedrin.
W h a t was left to Pilate was to decide whether the punishment applicable

131
Ann. x v . 44.
1 3 2
I n a similar vein T a c i t u s gives Pilate the title procurator w h i c h h a d b e c o m e c o m ­
m o n in the historiographer's o w n time; for the question see H . V o l k m a n n ,
' D i e Pilatusinschrift v o n Caesarea M a r i t i m a ' , Gymnasium 75 (1968), 130-2;
D . M . P i p p i d i , 'Discutii in J u r u l lui Pontiu Pilat', Studii Clasice 12 (1970), i82ff;
R . S z r a m k i e w i c z , Les Gouverneurs de province a Vepoque augusteenne (Paris, 1971); E.
Stauffer, Die Pilatusinschrift von- Caesarea (Erlangen, 1966). It w a s already in 1905
that O . Hirschfeld h a d a s s u m e d that the title o f Pilate had b e e n VJiaQXWv/praefectus
rather than £jt£TQOJCog/procurator o r f\ye\L<bv/praeses (Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungs-
beamten (2nd e d n . Berlin, 1905), p . 385). H i s thesis was c o n f i r m e d b y the first
inscription w h e r e Pilate w a s m e n t i o n e d , the inscription o f C a e s a r e a .
1 3 3
M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p . 356: ' D i e Ueberlieferung ist hinsichtlich d e r g e n a u e r e n
Feststellung ihrer (der statthalterlichen) K o m p e t e n z g r e n z e n , i n s b e s o n d e r e d e r
d e n s e l b e n beigelegten Strafgewalt sogut w i e s t u m m . '
1 3 4
v o n M a y r , ' U r s p r u n g ' , 299.
1 3 5
T h e term is used b y v o n M a y r . H e is misled b y the statements o f O r i g e n (ad
Africanum 14; In Rm. v i . 7) w h i c h he distorts a n d considers relevant already for the
time o f the trial o f j e s u s ( p p . 285^ 299).
1 3 6
E.g. n o q u e s t i o n i n g o f witnesses; different v o n M a y r , ' U r s p r u n g ' , 301.
1 3 7
E . Schiirer, Geschichte des jud. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi i ( L e i p z i g , 1901) 481 ( E T
( E d i n b u r g h , 1892), i. 2. 731).
 T h e trial before Pilate

according to Jewish law was politically expedient from the point of view o f
R o m a n administration. Distributing the weight in this way allows for the
138
reconciliation o f what is otherwise irreconcilable: Pilate's decision and
his repeated doubts about Jesus's guilt. It allows for the emphatic
139
statement o f his o w n - judicial - i n n o c e n c e , while he was morally ail the
more guilty. Such a reconstruction is in keeping with the general evidence
for the period. T h e judicial system was left intact by the Romans as far as
140
possible, at least in the time o f the early principate. Moreover, it was
certainly the local law that was applied ordinarily, apart from conditions in
which extraordinary measures had to be taken per coercitionem. Thus it is
concluded by no less an authority than T h e o d o r M o m m s e n that Jesus was
141
apprehended according to the old criminal code of the time o f the kings. A
convenient way to check the activity o f the local courts and to reverse the
worst decisions taken by them was the introduction o f a regulation that
142
required R o m a n permission for the execution o f death penalties. It seems
that Judaea had just arrived at this stage o f development in the time o f
143
Pilate. It is this impression o f the practice o f the R o m a n provincial
administration that favours the view that, if there was a verdict by the
Sanhedrin, it was only supplemented and put into force by a R o m a n
144
exsequatur.

1 3 8
A c o n d e m n a t i o n for an offence c o m m i t t e d against the lex Julia is irreconcilable with
the e m p h a s i s in Pilate's impression o f Jesus's i n n o c e n c e . H o w e v e r m u c h the R o m a n
representative was o b l i g e d to e x a m i n e possible sources o f unrest, he was n o t at all
c o m p e l l e d to c o n d e m n s o m e o n e w h o m he c o n s i d e r e d not guilty.
1 3 9
M o m m s e n stated that the confirmation o f a verdict b y a R o m a n representative
c o u l d not easily have b e e n given without a re-examination o f the p r e c e d i n g trial
(Strafrecht, p . 241; similarly v o n M a y r , ' U r s p r u n g ' 285). It is the almost c o m p l e t e
a b s e n c e o f revisionary features that makes h i m c u l p a b l e from a historian's point o f
v i e w . M o m m s e n o n c e a d d e d the qualification to his description o f the j u d i c i a l
situation: 'dass er (the R o m a n representative) dieses R e c h t (confirmation) nicht
ausubte, o h n e sich iiber die Schuldfrage selbstandig orientiert zu haben, versteht
sich v o n selbst' ( ' D i e Pilatusakten', ZNW 3 (1902), 199; c p . Strafrecht, p . 241;
similarly v o n M a y r , ' U r s p r u n g ' , p . 285) and expressed hereby w h a t was desirable
from the R o m a n p o i n t o f v i e w and b e c a m e the practice in the c o u r s e o f time. T h e
almost c o m p l e t e a b s e n c e o f this element is the characteristic feature o f the R o m a n
part o f the trial o f j e s u s . Pilate 'beschloss u n r o m i s c h ' - this statement o f K l o p s t o c k
(Der Messias, vii, 765) receives m e a n i n g in this context.
1 4 0
For the R o m a n intention to grant Ji&TQict tQr\, w h i c h i n c l u d e d the j u d i c i a l system,
c p . J o s . AJ 14 §194; 16 §35.
1 4 1
'das alte konigliche ( = j i i d i s c h e ) Strafrecht, nach w e l c h e m J e s u s gerichtet w o r d e n
ist' (Strafrecht, p . 120 n. 1).
1 4 2
T h i s inaugurated a d e v e l o p m e n t that resulted in the reservation o f capital cases
for the R o m a n courts.
1 4 3
See Studies in Jewish Legal History ( L o n d o n , 1974), p p . 35ff. C p . also C . H . D o d d ,
' T h e Historical P r o b l e m o f the Trial o f J e s u s ' in More N.T. Studies ( M a n c h e s t e r ,
1968), p . 92.
1 4 4
Similarly F. D o r r , Der Prozess Jesu in rechtsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (Berlin, 1920).
436 E. BAMMEL

The word used for Pilate's action is the same that had been used before
for the transition from the Sanhedrin to the R o m a n proceedings: JiaQe5(DX£V.
W e would therefore expect an act similar in nature and appearance.
Indeed, that is emphasised by the addition o f avxolq, which we find in the
whole manuscript tradition o f J o h n 1 9 : 1 6 , in a considerable part o f the
1 4 5
manuscripts o f Matt. 2 7 : 2 6 and in a substantial minority o f witnesses to
1 4 6
Mark 1 5 : 1 5 . T h e state in the Markan tradition can be explained as an
intrusion from Matthew, whereas the evidence o f the Matthaean
manuscripts points rather in favour o f the authenticity o f auxoig than
147
otherwise. In any case, the meaning o f the sentence in both Mark and
Matthew demands that those to w h o m Jesus is delivered are the same as
those o n whose behalf Barabbas is released. T h e same is true for Luke w h o
paraphrases: xcp 8eXfj(xaxi avxcbv. T h e following verses in Luke and J o h n
148
d o not disagree with this, whereas in Mark and Matthew the mocking
follows, which is performed by OTQaxicoTai in the JtQaiT(OQiov and
therefore supposed to point to R o m a n custody.
Attempts have been made to smooth out the divergency by giving
149
JiaQe5(oxev a metaphorical interpretation or by devaluing the Johannine
150
statement as due to a 'jiingerer Interpolator'. T h e matter is, however,
more difficult, as this tradition occurs already in the first reference to the
trial in early Christian literature, in 1 Thess. 2 : 1 4 f t TO)V Tov6cuo)V T(bv . . .
151
xov XVQIOV djioxxeivdvTCOV Tnooxrv. T h e same is maintained in the
152 153 154 155
Ascension o f Isaiah, the Gospel o f Peter, by Justin and Aristides,
156 157
in the Kerygma Petrou, the Syriac Didaskalia, the Apostolic
158 159 160
Constitutions, in the Epistle o f Barnabas, in Melito o f Sardis, in

1 4 5 1 s
8 D L N 0 fi 892.1010 al lat s y a r m (erased in K*AB).
146 p w ysphh g e o r g 54.282.c.
S

1 4 7
M e r x , Matthaeus, p p . 407f.
148 ' W i e j e t z t d e r V e r s 16. . . steht u n d lautet, w i r d Jesus d e n J u d e n zur H i n r i c h t u n g
u b e r g e b e n ' ( W e l l h a u s e n , Johannes, p . 86).
1 4 9
Blinzler, Prozess, p . 340.
1 5 0
E . S c h w a r t z , ' A p o r i e n i m vierten E v a n g e l i u m ' , Nachr. v.d. Kgl. Ges. d. Wiss. Gottingen
l
( 9°7), P- 356. F. Spitta e m e n d s aiJTOig in the s a m e verse o u t o f existence (Das
Johannes-Evangelium ( G o t t i n g e n , 1910), p . 378).
1 5 1
F o r a n interpretation c p . ZThK 56 (1959), 259ff.
1 5 2
T h e y d e l i v e r e d h i m to the king a n d crucified h i m ( x i . 19).
1 5 3
v . 5: x a i Jiaoe&toxev avxov xcp taxcp. T h e first editor h a d o m i t t e d these w o r d s .
W i t h o u t k n o w i n g this H a r n a c k already expressed his d o u b t s w h e t h e r verses 5f refer
to soldiers o r n o t (Bruchstucke, p . v i ) .
1 5 4
Apol. 1. 35.38; Dial. 97, 104; c p . i6f, 32, 72, 85, 133.
155
i>ji6 xtov ' I o v & a i c o v JiQOcrr]Xa)9T) (Apology, A r m e n i a n a n d Syriac version, c h . 2).
1 5 6
C p . E . P r e u s c h e n , Antilegomena (Giessen, 1905), p . 91.
157
C h . 13.21.
1 5 8
T h e G r e e k text c l a i m s that the J e w s acted likewise as xoriVyoQOi x a i uxxoxugeg x a i
XQixai x a i xfjg djioqxtoetoc; l^ovotaoxai (5.14.12) a n d a d d s that the execution w a s
 T h e trial before Pilate

161 162
Tertullian, in part o f the Acta Pilati literature, in the Slavonic
163 164 165
Josephus, and in many other p l a c e s . ' A generalising interpretation
166
is, at least in a number o f cases, impossible. T h e relevance o f these
statements is strengthened by their conformity with the claims made in
167 168
Jewish sources. T h e alternative view is o f course widely h e l d , but
169
usually expressed with certain qualifications.
T h e apparent divergency raises a difficult problem. T h e remission of the
culprit to the local court after the confirmation o f the sentence by the
R o m a n governor seems to be the obvious thing to d o . 'L'execution du con-
d a m n e devrait revenir, logiquement, aux Juifs' - as E. Bickermann puts
170
it. Examples from the same period support this view. T h e jurisdiction o f
H e r o d the Great over his sons was checked by Augustus. T h e execution,
171
however, was left to him after a court in the R o m a n colony of Berytus had
investigated the case on the emperor's instruction. Attention has been
172
drawn to this fact in recent discussion. T w o somewhat dissimilar cases
are not less telling. W h e n a R o m a n soldier had performed an action that
could be taken as an offence against the T e m p l e privilege, his tribune, Celer

carried o u t b y 6rjinoi (5.14.14). T h e part p l a y e d b y Pilate in his a v a v d g i a is linked

with this in a w a y w h i c h is not absolutely clear.
159
Barn. 5:2.12; 6:6f; 7:5.9.
m
Homily §92 ( T h e Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri VIII ( L o n d o n , 1941) fol. 20 v . ) .
161
Apol. 21; Adv. Judaeos 10.
1 6 2
Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 202.
1 6 3
W . Bienert, Die alteste nichtchristliche Jesusbericht. Josephus uber Jesus ( H a l l e , 1936),
p . 129. C p . the c l a i m m a d e b y the J e w o f Celsus (ii.4): £xoX.a£o[iev.
1 6 4
C p . B a u e r , Leben Jesu, p p . i99ff.
1 6 5
A n o t h e r piece o f e v i d e n c e m a y b e found in the parable o f the vineyard. T h e story,
w h i c h s o o n was taken as s y m b o l i s i n g the fate o f j e s u s , runs in M a r k djiexxeivav
avx6v x a i £|£(5aXov (12:8), whereas b o t h M a t t h e w and L u k e transpose
££e|5aXov/£xPaX.6vxeg . . . &Ji6xxeivav (the W e s t e r n M S S . in M a t t h e w follow
M a r k ) . T h e former reading m a y p o i n t to a J e w i s h execution. T h e latter m a y b e
taken to refer to an Ix&ooig and a subsequent execution, the organs o f w h i c h are not
clearly i n d i c a t e d . It is, h o w e v e r , q u e s t i o n a b l e whether such a far-reaching
interpretation o f the minutiae is admissible.
1 6 6 1 6 7
Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 202. C p . p . 36off.
1 6 8
T h e M e s s i a h Sutra describes the T r i a l as c o n d u c t e d entirely in a R o m a n court; but,
it is true, o n the instigation o f the J e w i s h scribes and after unsuccessful attempts o n
their side to get rid o f j e s u s in other w a y s ( v . i82ff; Saeki, Nestorian Documents, p p .
i43ff). T h e Samaritan c h r o n i c l e , w h i c h makes detailed m e n t i o n o f j e s u s , d o e s not
p r o d u c e a formal Sanhedrin trial (eds. J. M a c d o n a l d and A . J . B . H i g g i n s , NTSt 18
(1971/72), 62, verses 630°, although the aVs' ( i e t h i m b e crucified') suggests a
J e w i s h execution.
1 6 9
E x c e p t i o n s : Const. Apost. 7.23.2 and Syriac Didaskalia 5.19.5 (here together with
Herod).
170
' U t i l i t a s crucis', RHR 112 (1935), 222.
" ' C p . ZDPV84 (1968), 73ff.
1 7 2
B i c k e r m a n n , 'Utilitas', 222; P.J. V e r d a m , 'Sanhedrin and G a b a t h a ' , Free University
Quarterly 7 (1961), i3ff.
43^ E . BAMMEL

by name, was handed over to the Jews for execution by special order o f the
emperor: JiaQa5o8fjvai 'Iov5aioig Jigog aixiav exeXeuoev xai
173

jreQiauQevxa xf|v Ji6X.1v oiha) xfiv xecpahf)v arcoxojifjvai. A Roman soldier

who had torn a holy scroll was led - obviously a compromise solution - to
174
execution 5 i a [xeacov o f his Jewish accusers. T h e cases show that in
certain circumstances the Romans were not unwilling to expose a R o m a n
soldier to the hostility o f the Jewish crowd or even to hand over a R o m a n
officer to Jewish punishment and execution. T h e execution was not
considered a sovereign act (Hoheitsakt) which had to be reserved to the
Romans at all costs. M o m m s e n was aware o f the general situation and felt
compelled to give special reasons for a Roman execution o f j e s u s : the
cruelty and untrustworthiness o f the local personnel and the Jewish
inclination to lynch law. H e thought that Roman intervention could not be
considered as strange especially in the situation o f the Jewish
175
commonwealth. His arguments show a certain degree o f uneasiness
about giving the execution o f j e s u s its proper place within the larger
horizon o f what appears to have been the case in the R o m a n provinces.
This may be sufficient reason for a re-examination of the data in the case o f
Jesus.
It is here that the first impression seems to point in quite a different
direction. A centurion is mentioned as having taken up his position near
to the cross; soldiers are present. These features and, most importantly,
the cross as a means o f execution seem to point to a R o m a n participa­
tion, an involvement o f the overlord to a degree which it is difficult to
reconcile with the results reached from the scrutiny of the trial. It is in all
176
probability due to these telling details that scholars felt stimulated to
engage in, so to speak, a revision o f the trial working backwards from its
sequel, and to look for features in the accounts o f the trial which could be
brought into line with this. T h e results o f these attempts to prove a greater

1 7 3
BJ 2 §246; AJ 20 § 136. ZtJQeiv/jieQtauQeiv is used in these passages. T h e s a m e term
is used in BJ 7 § 1 5 4 : S i m o n b . G i o r a was in R o m e and executed subsequently. T h e
w o r d seems to indicate the R o m a n m o d e o f execution, where the display o f the
culprit before the e x e c u t i o n is the p u b l i c event in the majority o f cases, whereas the
e x e c u t i o n itself is the p u b l i c o c c a s i o n in the realm o f Jewish law. T h e term is used in
E v . Petr. v . 6 a n d J u s t i n , Apol. 1. 35 for the description o f the execution o f j e s u s
p e r f o r m e d b y J e w s (the story m e n t i o n e d b y E p h r a e m (eds. A u c h e r and M o s i n g e r
( V e n i c e , 1 8 2 8 ) , p . 1 6 5 ) seems to b e a distant reflex o f this c a s e ) . Z V Q E I V o c c u r s in
A c t s 14: 1 9 , in the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the applications o f lynch law against Paul. Similar
w o r d s are used in the T o l e d o t h - J e s h u tradition. Another parallel m a y possibly b e
found in the a c c o u n t o f the passion o f j e s u s w h i c h is given in the M a r t y r d o m o f
Eustathius; c p . J . N . Birdsall, ' T h e M a r t y r d o m o f St Eustathius o f M z k e t h a ' and
the Diatesseron: A n Investigation', NTSt 18 ( 1 9 7 1 / 7 2 ) , 454.
1 7 4
BJ 2 § 2 3 1 : d i d u i o c o v xd)v c u x i w u i v c o v & J i a x 6 f j v a i .
™ZNW$ (1902), i f . 9 9

1 7 6
C p . p. 356.
 T h e trial before Pilate

measure o f R o m a n participation were unsatisfactory. Another way to link

the picture o f the execution directly with the findings about the trial would
be to assume that the Sanhedrin, responsible for the execution, borrowed
Pilate's officers and soldiers to perform the execution, since the Romans
177
had in any case two others to execute. This theory could be given support
178
by certain statements in apocryphal literature. Before adopting this view
it might, however, be advisable to scrutinise the given data about the
execution more closely while keeping in mind that these details, vivid as
they are, d o not necessarily represent the oldest stratum o f tradition in
integrity but are particularly likely to have been exposed to embellishment,
and that therefore the evidence drawn from individual features has to be
supplemented as far as possible.
T h e event that sets the pace is the arrest. It cannot therefore be ignored.
T h e only verse from which R o m a n participation can be deduced is J o h n
179
1 8 : 3 . It mentions a OJteiQa that is said to have been 'taken' by J u d a s and
o l t s e e m s t o
a xiMoiqx S; point to a R o m a n unit consisting o f at least 600
servicemen and commanded by a xikiagxo^, which was preceded and
followed by some Jewish auxiliaries. 180
Z j t e i o a and xikiaQ%o^ are,
however, terms which are used for Jewish as well as R o m a n units or
181
ranks. In the latter case OJteiQa may even be used for a detachment
consisting o f more (2 M a c e . 8: 2 3 ) or less (Judith 1 4 : 1 1 ) than 1,000 men,
l s
while the term xiM<*QX°£ employed with the precise meaning indicated
by the w o r d , or it may point in a more loose sense to leaders in Israel. A
detachment o f the magnitude o f a R o m a n OJieiQa was hardly appropriate
for the task to be performed at Gethsemane. T h e taking o f a prisoner into
n o n - R o m a n custody would be unlikely if the arrest was carried out by a
182
R o m a n officer. T h e terms o f the R o m a n a r m y were, however, taken up by
their satellites. At the s a m e t i m e t h e y were u s e d m o r e vaguely, g i v i n g
expression to the v a i n pretension o f their bearers. So, the v i e w may be taken
(although w i t h a certain caveat) that the OJieiQa was the Temple-guard o f
Jerusalem, while the %ikiaQXO^ (John 1 8 : 1 2 ) was the deputy o f the
OTQaXTiYog xov IEQOV (or even identical w i t h that person; Luke 2 2 : 5 2 ) .
i c Q ) 1 S t o D e s e e n a s a
Likewise the 5ovX,oc; & q x q £ S person o f s u c h calibre

1 7 7
T h i s idea w a s suggested b y an a n o n y m o u s specialist w h o read the m a n u s c r i p t for
C a m b r i d g e University Press.
1 7 8
T h e J e w s had requested (f|Trjoavxo) a custodia from Pilate a c c o r d i n g to Act. Pit. x m .
1 (rec. A ) .
1 7 9
A . M e r x (Das Evangelium des Johannes (Berlin, 1911), p . 427) rightly asks: ' w i e kann
J u d a s eine K o h o r t e n e h m e n ? ' .
1 8 0
F o r the latter c p . J. Pickl, Messiaskonig Jesus in der Auffassung seiner Zeitgenossen (2nd
e d n . M i i n c h e n , 1935), p p . 88f.
1 8 1
C a t c h p o l e , Trial, p . 149 with reference especially to AJ 17 §215.
1 8 2
H . H . C o h n ' s a r g u m e n t to the contrary (Trial, p p . 71 £T) is very forced.
440 E- BAMMEL

that offending him could be taken as dishonouring the high priest him­
183
self.
The use o f such a detachment would be in keeping with the T e m p l e
charge which had been raised against Jesus. T h e carrying out o f the arrest
in daylight was impossible because o f the support Jesus and his followers
drew from the crowds. Jesus himself gives vigorous expression to this theme
o f the night arrest (Luke 2 2 : 5 3 ) , and his answer is only meaningful if
addressed to Jewish persons. Apart from this, the interpretation the scene
receives in J o h n 1 8 : 3 6 points against R o m a n participation in the arrest.
Jesus is mocked by the axQaticaxai - Matthew rightly adds xov
r)y£\iovo<;. There is little doubt that it was the R o m a n force that made fun o f
184
him. Is its mention, however, original in the context? T h e text runs
smoothly from verse 1 5 to verse 2 0 b . T h e suggestion may be ventured that
originally there was only the remark xai ote evejtai^av atJTtp e ^ d y o D O i v
XTA. and that this was supplemented later in order to assimilate it to J o h n
1 9 : 2f. There, it had its proper location, in the context o f a disciplinary
procedure (\iaoxiyoa)). In Luke we find it in 2 3 : 36: Jesus is hanging on the
evO1
cross and the soldiers are described as JtQO0£QX°M' (from the two other
crosses?) - might this be the original location for the scene?
Scourging is part o f the crucifixion in R o m a n Law. It is the secondary
punishment (Nebenstrafe), administered concurrently with crucifixion. This
185
is the reason why exegetes tend to link Mark 1 5 : 1 5 ((pQaveM.O)oag) with
186
the main punishment (Hauptstrafe), the crucifixion, and use this in turn
as a pointer for a R o m a n execution. This interpretation contradicts the
meaning o f the sentence and does not lead to the envisaged result, as the
scourging ought to take place when the delinquent is already fixed to the

* F o r an interpretation o f the action see D . D a u b e , ' T h r e e Notes H a v i n g T o D o with

J o h a n a n b e n ZakkaV, JThSt n.s. 11 (i960), 594. B y the violation o f his i m m a c u l a t e
p h y s i c a l a p p e a r a n c e a person c o u l d b e i m p e d e d from executing his priestly
functions: 4 / 1 4 §366: djiOTe^ivei aiixov ( H y r c a n u s 11) T & drax . . . eig . . .
XeXo)Pfjo6ai; P r o l o g u s M o n a r c h i a n o r u m : amputasse sibi . . . p o l l i c e m dicitur, ut
s a c e r d o t i o r e p r o b u s haberetur ( M a r k ) . S o the 6oOA.og was in all likelihood a priest
w h o h a d special duties with regard to serving the high priest. T h e parallel from L i v y
29-9 ( P l e m i n i u s has his n o s e and ears cut off b y soldiers) a d d u c e d b y J. L e n g l e ,
(Rbmisches Strafrecht bet Cicero und den Historikern (Leipzig, 1935), p p . 8f) is less
stringent. A different v i e w o n the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the arrest party is taken b y J. A . T
R o b i n s o n in this v o l u m e , p . 47of. See also G . W . H . Lampe, a b o v e p p . 344-5.
1
A different v i e w is taken b y A . M e r x , Das Evangelium Matthaeus (Berlin, 1902), p p .
4o6ff.
> O m i t t e d b y B , the scribe o f w h i c h very often tries to avoid difficulties. G . Strecker,
' T h e Passion - a n d Resurrection Predictions in M a r k ' s G o s p e l ' , Interpretation 22
(1968), 434f v i e w s the m o c k i n g as a M a r k a n c o m p o s i t i o n ; there is little to b e said for
this t h e o r y .
e
O . Z o c k l e r , Das Kreuz Christi (Gutersloh, 1875, PP- 433^ E T L o n d o n , 1877, p . 410);
Bauer, Leben Jesu, p . 207.
 T h e trial before Pilate 441

187
cross, whereas Mark, after 1 5 : 1 5 , goes on to narrate Jesus's way to
188
Calvary.
T h e scourging therefore has to be taken separately. A n d , indeed,
189
scourging can take place independently, as a special form of punishment.
T h a t such a punitive measure was the intention o f Pilate is evidenced by
Luke 2 3 : 1 6 . Luke does not mention a scourging in verse 2 , the passage
parallel to Mark 1 5 : 1 5 . Mark, whose report on the scene before Pilate is
1 9 0
very short, seems to have summarised the incident in verse 1 5 .
Putting to death by way o f crucifixion is, o f course, taken as the main
pointer to an execution performed under R o m a n supervision. Crucifixion is
considered as a way o f execution that is characteristic o f the empire. It is
this presupposition that directed the minds o f scholars: 'daraus ist mit
Sicherheit zu schliessen, dass er nicht von der judischen Obrigkeit, son-
191
dern von den Romern zu T o d e gebracht worden ist'. From a Jewish
point o f view, however, the matter was different: it was the beheading that
192
appeared as the execution more Romanorum ( SWW JVD^tfW *]T7D). Sur­
prisingly, even this m o d e o f execution was adopted by the Jewish courts
193
as one o f the possible ways o f implementing the death penalty.
Crucifixion, on the other hand, was a mode o f execution that was not at all
194
unknown in Hasmonaean J u d a e a . A new piece o f evidence has recently
195
emerged from Q u m r a n . T h e T e m p l e scroll gives the ruling that a man
196
w h o informed against his people ( V o l ) and delivered up (D^tPB) his
people to a foreign nation and did evil to his people, is to be hung on a tree
197
'and he shall d i e ' ; likewise the man who committed a crime punishable by

1 8 7
M o m m s e n , Strafrecht, p . 920; c p . L i v y 1. 26.
1 8 8
Act. Pil. i x . 5 describes the action in such a fashion that it is m o r e in agreement with
the R o m a n practice o f execution. Is the same also true for Pet. 2:24 w h e r e the text
c o u l d b e taken to i m p l y a s c o u r g i n g to death o n the cross?
1 8 9
S u c h a p u n i s h m e n t is envisaged in Dig. 48.2.6: 'levia crimina audire et discutere d e
p i a n o p r o c o n s u l e m o p o r t e t et vel liberare e o s , q u i b u s o b i c i u n t u r , vel fustibus
castigare vel flagellis servos verberare' ( U l p i a n ) . Equally L e g . 13.6: ' . . .
c a s t i g a n d u m dimittere'. C p . the case o f A n a n o s - in s o m e w a y s not dissimilar to
that o f Jesus - w h o is s c o u r g e d b y the prefect (BJ 6 §304) but dismissed
subsequently. Is BJ 2 §306 (uxi<ml=iv jirjoaixiodjiEvog dveoxaiJQCDoev) an
indication for t w o separate acts?
1 9 0
D o b s c h i i t z , ZNW 3 (1902), 104 equals this with the ' v e r b e r a t u m crucifigi' o f L i v y
33.36, 'das iiber d i e zeitliche F o l g e beider A k t e nichts aussagt'.
1 9 1
W . Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte (Leipzig, 1893), p . 147.
l 9 2 , 9 3
S a n h . vii. 3; c p . K e t h . 30a. S a n h . vii. 1.
, 9 4
C p . Festschrift C.F.D. Moule (2nd e d n . 1971), p . i62ff.
1 9 5
T h e text is r e p r o d u c e d and c o m m e n t e d u p o n b y Y . Y a d i n , 'Pesher N a h u m
(4QpNahum) R e c o n s i d e r e d ' , IEJ 21 (1971), iff. C p . M . W i l c o x ' " U p o n the T r e e "
Dt 2i:22f. in the N e w T e s t a m e n t ' , JBL 96 (1977), 850°.
1 9 6
T h e m e a n i n g is identical with that o f -ioi» ; c p . note 20.
1 9 7
A parallel to this p r o c e d u r e (as o p p o s e d to w h a t b e c a m e the M i s h n a i c rule) is to b e
found in T a r g . Jer. 1 to N u m . 25:4; c p . M . H e n g e l , Nachfolge und Charisma (Berlin,
442 E. BAMMEL

death and w h o has run away into the midst o f the gentiles and has cursed
198
his p e o p l e . T h e specifications show that the regulation is not just a
199 200
sectarian rule but a code that enjoyed wider recognition. T h e related
document o f 4 Q N a h 6ff indicates a tendency to apply this m o d e o f
execution, which, according to the most likely restoration o f the text, is a
201
time-honoured procedure, especially to those who are 'seekers after
smooth things', that means to those who favour an objectionable T o r a h
202
interpretation or have contact with outlandish ideas or institutions.
Conversely, the administration o f this death penalty does not seem to be
203
impossible in the case o f j e s u s ; its actual choice could even give an
204
indication o f the kind o f accusation raised against h i m .
205
Mark does not give details about those w h o crucified Jesus. Mark
1 5 : 2 3 mentions that Jesus is offered myrrh - it is a Jewish custom to give a
206
person w h o is about to be executed an intoxicating drink. This detail,
therefore, rather points to a Jewish execution than to a R o m a n one.

1968), p p . 64c It is p r o b a b l y the s a m e practice that is alluded to in the p a r a b l e o f

M e i r cited in Sanh. 46b. ^ f
l m 9

1 9 9
Pace Y a d i n . T h i s is all the m o r e true if Y a d i n should b e right with his interpretation
that the pesher a i m e d at defending A l e x a n d e r J a n n a e u s ' s crucifixion o f 800 J e w s .
'Sectarians' had n o reason for establishing such a rule for their particular g r o u p .
R u n n i n g a w a y from them w a s likely to take p l a c e in the direction o f the m a i n b o d y
o f J u d a i s m . T h e rule, if n o t taken o v e r from p r e - Q u m r a n J u d a i s m , must h a v e b e e n
formulated with the intention o f b e i n g i m p l e m e n t e d in the w h o l e land o f Israel.
200 W i n t e r ' s c l a i m s (Trial, p p . 90ft) a p p e a r to be outdated.
201 F o r a discussion o f the p r o p o s a l o f Y a d i n and the reasons for his o w n agreement
with it, c p . J . A . Fitzmyer, ' C r u c i f i x i o n in A n c i e n t Palestine, Q u m r a n Literature
a n d the N . T . ' , CBQ 40 (1978), 499!! F o r further discussion, c p . J . M . F o r d ,
' " C r u c i f y h i m , crucify h i m " a n d the T e m p l e Scroll', ExpTSy (1975/76), 2756°.
2 0 2
T h e 80 witches w h o w e r e h a n g e d / c r u c i f i e d b y S i m o n b . Shetach (Sanh. v i . 4) c o u l d
b e e n u m e r a t e d under this h e a d i n g .
2 0 3
It may even give a hint o f the reason w h y Jesus w a s crucified. T h e first c r i m e listed in
the T e m p l e scroll ( ' i n f o r m e d against his p e o p l e ' etc.) c a n n o t h a v e b e e n relevant. It
m a y h o w e v e r b e different with the s e c o n d ( ' c o m m i t t e d a c r i m e punishable b y
death, fled into the midst o f the G e n t i l e s ' e t c . ) . J o h n 11:47ff describes the o c c a s i o n
o f such a v e r d i c t (albeit f r o m a Christian point o f v i e w ) and carries o n with a c r y p t i c
reference to the w i t h d r a w a l o f j e s u s to a territory that was not u n d e r the j u r i s d i c t i o n
o f the Sanhedrin, and that his status w a s therefore that o f a £r|TOi>u£Vog (11: 56).
T h i s w o u l d d o j u s t i c e to the first t w o qualifications in this paragraph, whereas the
third ('cursed his p e o p l e ' ) m a y b e taken to b e i m p l i e d b y the c o n t e m p t o f court,
w h i c h is expressed b y the w i t h d r a w a l .
2 0 4
I f it w a s n o t the general f o r m u l a t i o n (;isn nansn.) that was a d d u c e d against Jesus,
it is likely that his w i t h d r a w a l w a s taken as an offence against the Sanhedrin.
2 0 5 a
A n indication might p o s s i b l y b e given b y verse 28 ( a v o u x n ) , verse w h i c h ,
h o w e v e r , is o m i t t e d in the best m s s . In L u k e 23:36 OTQaxiwxai are m e n t i o n e d , w h o
evOL
present 6^05. But they are d e s c r i b e d as J i Q O o e Q X O M ' T h i s d o e s not really point
to their acting as e x e c u t i o n e r s o f j e s u s . C o h n , Trial, p . 204, raises the question
w h e t h e r the m e n o f the escort o n the w a y to C a l v a r y were identical with the
executioners in a t t e n d a n c e at the p l a c e o f crucifixion.
2
< * C p . S - B i, 1037.
 T h e trial before Pilate 443

Another indication might be found in the presence o f the two other

persons w h o are crucified. They are only mentioned subsequently in Mark
- not in the description o f the road to Calvary, whereas Luke adds them in
this earlier section. Already the Markan report is stylised; the intention is to
bring out the innocence o f the one, to whose right and left very different
persons were crucified. It is therefore not a foregone conclusion that they
207
were the only ones to suffer crucifixion that d a y . They are described as
Xflorai, as political insurgents, like Barabbas (Mark 1 5 : 7 ) , probably taken
captive together with him after the oxdoig. Barabbas had been held in
R o m a n custody, in all probability the Xflorai too. Their execution was
208
entirely a R o m a n matter. A R o m a n officer must have been in c o m m a n d
o f the procedure. T h e Jews had no title to the persons while still alive, or to
the bodies. O n the other hand it is only natural that the Jews were
concerned about their fate and interested in carrying out the prescriptions
o f the Torah about the burial o f the bodies, and in doing so before the
beginning o f Sabbath. T h e remark in J o h n 1 9 : 3 1 6 ° may therefore be
historical. It may be that it is this feature that caused the confusion we find
in J o h n , where we get the impression that the dQaxitiYcai who cast lots for
Jesus's garment are under Pilate's orders.
T h e Jews' concern for Jesus's b o d y had to g o so far as to demand a burial
and to ensure that it would take place before Sabbath. T h e Gospel
accounts, whatever they say in detail, emphasise that it was a disgraceful
209
burial Jesus was in danger o f encountering. T h e story o f Joseph o f

2 0 7
R a t h e r the o p p o s i t e is likely. Executions tended to b e p o s t p o n e d for the rare
o c c a s i o n s w h e n the prefect was present in J e r u s a l e m , o c c a s i o n s w h i c h c o i n c i d e d
with the J e w i s h feasts. A c o n s i d e r a b l e n u m b e r o f delinquents must have awaited
death. T h e term p o p u l a r execution (Volksfesthinrichtung) receives a special m e a n i n g
in this c o n t e x t .
2 0 8
Schurer, Geschichte, i, p p . 47of ( E T i.2, p . 61) mentions that the civic executioners were
replaced b y military o n e s in the time o f the principate; this m a y a c c o u n t for changes
in the tradition underlying the G o s p e l reports. P. W i n t e r (in W . K o c h , Zum Prozess
Jesu ( K o l n , 1967), p . 44) assumes that p a g a n soldiers o f the auxilia from Sebaste o r
C a e s a r e a w e r e in c h a r g e o f the execution and rules out definitely the possibility that
other persons w e r e i n v o l v e d . F o r the auxilia a n d their role c p . G . L . C h e e s m a n , The
Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army ( O x f o r d , 1914). Later forms o f the tradition
deviate from this. W h i l e a stray J e w i s h source - c p . p . 204f- takes the malefactors as
followers o f j e s u s a n d lets them b e executed b y the R o m a n s together with Jesus, it is
the a p p e n d i x o f the Marienklage w h i c h indicates that the t w o persons had b e e n killed
b y the J e w s (xi. 38; c p . ii. 55; vii. 36, e d . M . A . v . d . O u d e n r i j n (Freiburg, 1959));
equally Const. Apost. 15.14.
2 0 9
Several devices w e r e w o r k e d o u t in o r d e r to c o u n t e r such an impression. T h e story
o f the anointing at Bethany implies that, whatever h a p p e n e d to the c o r p s e o f j e s u s ,
d u e h o n o u r had already been given to the b o d y in a d v a n c e (for an interpretation o f
the story see D . D a u b e , NT and Rabbinic Judaism ( L o n d o n , 1956), p . 301). T h e scene
w o u l d receive additional i m p o r t a n c e , if the B . W e i s s theory c o u l d b e maintained,
a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the Q d o c u m e n t c o n c l u d e d its report o n Jesus with a version o f
the anointing story; for criticism see Festschrift G. Stahlin, eds. O . B o c h e r and K .
 E
444 - BAMMEL

Arimathaea asking for Jesus's b o d y presupposes that special measures had

to be taken to spare his b o d y such maltreatment. Thus his case was
different from that o f the two \r\oxai who, from a Jewish point o f view, were
210
not criminals tried by an indigenous c o u r t . Special burial places for
criminals found guilty by Jewish courts are known from Sanh. vi. 7. T h e
Christian antipolemics are therefore more in keeping with a Jewish
execution and a subsequent burial o f disgrace either attempted or carried
out than with a different m o d e o f execution. T h e petitioning for the b o d y to
211
the R o m a n authority after the carrying out o f the execution is to be
considered slightly irregular. M o r e in accordance with the supposed state
o f affairs would be the narrative o f the Gospel o f Peter according to which
Joseph o f Arimathaea's request to Pilate was made before the execution
212
was enacted. T h e Gospel reports about a subsequent petition either
reflect the influence o f a different view about the legal situation or are due to
a certain degree o f confusion.
T h e centurion, whose statement is cited in Mark 1 5 : 3 9 , was in all
probability the person w h o had been in c o m m a n d o f the execution o f the
213
Xfloxai. Whether he had been in direct control o f the crucifixion o f j e s u s ,
or had just been asked to keep an eye on Jesus as well, or even had no
function with regard to Jesus, is not stated in the sources. T h e passage,
although in some ways the climax o f the Markan passion account, does not
contain information o f such precision that it could be used as a basis for the
reconstruction o f the events.

H a a c k e r ( W u p p e r t a l , 1970), p p . 4of. M a r k 15:420°, o n the o t h e r h a n d , c l a i m s that

J e s u s d i d receive an h o n o u r a b l e burial a n d J o h n 19:40 a d d s that e v e n the a n o i n t i n g
o f the b o d y c o u l d b e carried out before the b e g i n n i n g o f S a b b a t h . W h i l e it is i m p l i e d
in these passages that the followers o f j e s u s s u c c e e d e d in d o i n g w h a t they d i d
against the wishes o f the J e w s , w e hear in the G o s p e l o f Peter that H e r o d h i m s e l f h a d
intended to give Jesus an h o n o u r a b l e burial. T h i s latter c l a i m is o b v i o u s l y a
c o m p r o m i s e solution w h i c h aims at o u t - m a n o e u v r i n g c o m p l e t e l y s u c h traditions
w h i c h c l a i m e d that the enemies o f j e s u s actually s u c c e e d e d in g i v i n g J e s u s a burial
o f disgrace.
2 , 0
I n E b e l R a b b a t i 11. 8 it is stated that nothing is to b e d e n i e d to those w h o w e r e
c o n d e m n e d b y the g o v e r n m e n t . In the case o f j e s u s o n the o t h e r h a n d s o m e J e w s , it
is said ( L u k e 23: 35), felt at liberty to deride h i m .
2 1 1
T o take the exexe o f M a t t . 27:65 as indicative formulation a n d t o interpret it as a
refusal (similar to J o h n 19: 22), w o u l d b e in c o n s e q u e n c e o f this. A J e w i s h custodia at
the grave is a s s u m e d in the version o f the T o l e d o t h r e p r o d u c e d b y A g o b a r d ( c p .
H . L . Strack, Jesus, die Hdretiker und die Christen nach den altesten judischen Angaben
( L e i p z i g , 1910) p . 15*).
2 1 2
E v . Petr. 2: 3ff. T h e verse is also preserved in the s e c o n d text o f the G o s p e l w h i c h
w a s p u b l i s h e d recently b y R . A . C o l e s (The OxyrhynchusPapyriXLI ( L o n d o n , 1972),
p . 15 (fr. line I2f)).
2 1 3
T h a t is the M a t t h a e a n interpretation o f the M a r k a n r e p o r t . W . S c h e n k , Der
Passionsbericht nach Markus (Giitersloh, 1974), p p . 22f, assumes that the c e n t u r i o n
h a d b e e n i n t r o d u c e d in the underlying tradition as standing vis-a-vis the T e m p l e .
 T h e trial before Pilate

A scrutiny yields the result that the main traits o f the pieces o f evidence
point rather to a Jewish execution than to a R o m a n one. T h e view advanced
here was taken as obvious in the Jewish world and held by Jewish scholars
214
up to the middle o f the nineteenth century and even later. Among
215
Christian scholars it was established by G. M o b i u s , taken up here and
216
there and renewed with great vigour by A . M e r x .
It must, however, be added that the sources are by no means uniform and
they are heavily overlaid with legendary colouring. It is not at all certain
that critical investigation has succeeded in removing those tinges o f colour
which were added later and in uncovering the oldest stratum o f the
tradition, let alone in tracing the facts themselves. What is said is said with
a caveat. It is possible to arrive at a different solution, while it is, however,
hardly admissible to make such a view the starting-point for a
reinterpretation o f the examination before Pilate.
O n the other hand, the course of events suggested here agrees with and ren­
ders support, albeit slight, to the interpretation of the trial before Pilate given
above. This view too had been taken for granted by Jewish scholars for a long
time. J. Salvador held that the Sanhedrin only needed the countersignature
217
o f the R o m a n authority. H . Gratz described Pilate's action as 'die Bestati-
218
gung des Todesurteils oder vielmehr die Erlaubnis zur Hinrichtung'.
T h e characterisation of the R o m a n side as endorsement of the verdict of the
Sanhedrin or, even less, as the permission for execution, is an approach that
219
has been favoured among legal historians since the days of J. Steller.
Significant is the almost complete absence o f political motifs in the trial
before Pilate. Neither is there any investigation into a laesa majestas
220
accusation, nor is Jesus styled a revolutionary. True, such motifs come in
in the Lukan account, but only in order to be refuted, to be rejected, in a
passion story which otherwise does not disagree with the report o f the

2 1 4
S. K r a u s s , Das Leben Jesu nach jud. Quellen (Berlin, 1902); C a t c h p o l e , Trial, W .
H o r b u r y in Festschrift C.F.D Moule, p p . I03ff.
2 , 5
Dissertatio de crucis supplicio (in Thesaurus theologico-philologicus sive sylloge dissertationum
2,6
adN.T. loca ( A m s t e r d a m , 1702), p p . 234ft). Matthaeus, p . 4020°.
2 , 7
Histoire des Institutions de Moise et dupeuple Hebreu ii (Paris, 1828), 28flf; c p . C a t c h p o l e ,
Trial, p p . i6ff.
2 1 8
Geschichte der Juden iii (4th e d n . Leipzig, 1888), 306. T h e statement ( p . 307), that
Pilate dealt with h i m a c c o r d i n g to R o m a n l a w 'as the s c o u r g i n g s n o w s ' , is not
entirely in a g r e e m e n t with this. H i s treatment evinces the t e n d e n c y to m o v e away
from a position firmly held in the earlier editions o f his w o r k (he h a d maintained in
the 2nd e d n . that Jesus w a s stoned in a c c o r d a n c e with the D e u t e r o n o m i c law (iii
(2nd e d n . Leipzig, 1863), p . 245).
2l9
Defensum Pilatum exponit J. Steller ( D r e s d e n , 1674).
2 2 0
T h e G o s p e l s w o u l d hardly have called those w h o were crucified o n the s a m e d a y
Xflcrcai, if there h a d been any inclination in the tradition to give Jesus a similar
appellation. A n y c o n n e c t i o n with the insurrectionists is denied with irony in M a r k
i4:43/Matt. 26:55.
446 E. BAMMEL

Second Gospel and which thereby indicates that, in the opinion of Luke, the
Markan narration was o f an unpolitical nature.
W h a t may be taken to be political elements come in in part o f the
apocryphal tradition. It so happens that the fragment of the Gospel o f Peter
which was found in Egypt starts with the climax o f the proceedings against
Jesus. T h e point at issue, which must have been mentioned in an earlier
part, can still be traced. A s the disciples have to g o into hiding because they
221
are under suspicion o f having attempted to burn the T e m p l e , it is to be
assumed that a similar accusation had been raised against Jesus as well.
This cannot have been in a preceding Sanhedrin trial - the trial, the end o f
222
which is preserved in the fragment, is the one and only trial. T h e first
j u d g e is H e r o d w h o stands for his family, for the ambition to gain, and
223
indeed the achievement o f gaining, control over the T e m p l e . In this
capacity he is the foremost j u d g e o f j e s u s w h o must have been accused o f
having offended against the T e m p l e - a point o f accusation from which
Pilate dissociates himself.
T h e accusation referring to the T e m p l e saying is mentioned briefly in the
224
Acts o f Pilate. T h e reason is the same as in the Gospel o f Peter: the
proceedings before the R o m a n j u d g e are the only action mounted against
225
Jesus. T h e T e m p l e logion used as a point o f accusation before Herod's or
Pilate's court was bound to receive an additional political flavour. But it is
significant that the motif is to be found only in these sources and that even
226
here it does not g o so far as to change the narrative completely.
O n e last question has to be tackled: the position o f Pilate in Christian
227
tradition. T h e evidence - it is c l a i m e d - seems to point in favour o f a
gradual exculpation o f Pilate and a corresponding incrimination o f the
Jews. T h e o n e tendency seems to call for the other. This again could be
taken as an indication that the original tradition was completely different
from what is n o w found in the New Testament reports. It is this considera-
2 2 1
E v . Petr. v . 26.
2 2 2
H e r o d gives o r d e r that Jesus should b e a p p r e h e n d e d . T h a t m e a n s he had b e e n left
unfettered s o far. T h i s leaves n o r o o m for a Sanhedrin trial a n d verdict.
2 2 3
Cp. 2 f.
4 3

2 2 4
Act. Pit. i v (in the w o r d i n g o f M a t t h e w ) .
2 2 5
T h e c o m p i l e r o f the A p o s t o l i c Constitutions w h o p r o d u c e s t w o court scenes
b l u n d e r s in giving the accusation ' e n e m y to the R o m a n s , adversary o f C a e s a r ' its
setting in the J e w i s h o n e ( v . 14).
2 2 6
It w a s R o m a n p o l i c y to give protection to indigenous cults w h e r e v e r possible. A n
a c c u s a t i o n o f sacrilege c o m m i t t e d against the T e m p l e w o u l d , if established, h a v e
h a d the m o s t serious c o n s e q u e n c e s for the a c c u s e d . It w o u l d h a v e settled the matter
w i t h o u t m o r e a d o . It must b e c o n c l u d e d therefore that the point w a s not raised in
the trial before Pilate; p r o b a b l y because it had been impossible beforehand to find
c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t such an accusation.
2 2 7
W i n t e r , Trial, p p . 5iff; B r a n d o n , 'Pontius Pilate in History a n d L e g e n d ' , History
Today 18 (1968), 523ff.
 T h e trial before Pilate 447

tion that is taken to invalidate the relevance o f features discussed above.

T h e oldest datable reference to the trial, 1 Thess. 2 : 1 5 , does not mention
Pilate. Only one o f the summaries o f Acts gives his name, as that o f a man
who performs a subsidiary activity (Acts 1 3 : 2 8 ) . But Pilate figures
prominently already in Acts 4 : 2 7 , in 1 T i m . 6: 1 3 to the exclusion o f anyone
else. T h e Apostles' Creed follows the same pattern. T h e Gospel reports
228
highlight the part played by Pilate up to the disposal o f the b o d y . The
corresponding figure o f the centurion forms the climax o f Mark's
229
account. T h e trial before Pilate is, at least in post-Markan tradition,
fuller and certainly more colourfully presented than the Sanhedrin trial.
T h e development is not, however, exclusively in the direction o f the
supposed tendency. True, there are indications - for example, the wife o f
2 3 0 231
Pilate (Matt. 2 7 : 1 9 ) and the washing o f h a n d s - which could be taken
as pointing this way. But are they meant to exonerate Pilate? D o they not, in
fact, involve him in a greater measure o f guilt? T h e verse is part o f the
Barabbas scene, which comes nearer than anything else in the passion story
to the presumed tendency - but this is part o f the early stratum o f tradition
232
and, as is evidenced by J o h n , is abbreviated in its later development. If
exculpation can be found, it is rather the tendency to exculpate Antipas
233
than Pilate. The presumed tendency did not even later become
dominant. T h e Syriac Didaskalia (5.14.3) and the early Christian
234
literature composed in L a t i n are not at all well-disposed towards

2 2 8
T h e detail M a r k 15:44 seems to b e stray tradition like that found in M a t t . 27:19.
2 2 9
T h e centurion's statement c o u l d b e taken as the final admission o f those w h o were
responsible for the death o f j e s u s .
2 3 0
For an interpretation o f the tradition c p . E. Fascher, Das Weib des Pilatus ( H a l l e ,
1951). F o r the stressing o f the responsibility o f the J e w s in M a t t h e w ' s a c c o u n t , c p .
D . P. Senior, The Passion Narrative according to St. Matthew ( L e u w e n , 1975), p . 338.
For an e x a m i n a t i o n o f the formula r e p r o d u c e d in M a t t . 27:25, c p . H . v. R e v e n t l o w ,
'Sein Blut k o m m e u b e r sein H a u p t ' , Vetus Testamentum (i960), 31 iff.
2 3 1
T h e e m e r g e n c e o f such a tradition is o n l y intelligible o n the supposition o f an
interacting o f t w o j u d i c i a l systems. M a t t h e w , w h o r e p r o d u c e s it (27: 24), takes it
o n l y as a pointer to J e s u s ' s o w n i n n o c e n c e . T h e gesture is turned against the J e w s in
Ev. Petr., the g o s p e l w h i c h makes Pilate leave the j u d i c i a l c o u n c i l .
2 3 2
' T h e statement, w h i c h is often m a d e , that the J o h a n n i n e a c c o u n t is influenced b y
the m o t i v e o f incriminating the J e w s c a n n o t b e substantiated, w h e n it is c o m p a r e d
with the other g o s p e l s ' ( D o d d , Tradition, p . 107).
2 3 3
T h e m e d i a e v a l excerpt said to derive from the g o s p e l o f the Nazarenes w h i c h was
d i s c o v e r e d b y B . Bischoff ( c p . H e n n e c k e - S c h n e e m e l c h e r i. 100 N r . 34), attributes
the death o f j e s u s solely to the machinations o f s o m e J e w s w h o bribe ( R o m a n )
soldiers to s c o u r g e and crucify Jesus.
2 3 4
C p . A . Ehrhardt, 'Pontius Pilatus in der fruhchristlichen M y t h o l o g i e ' , EvTh 9
(1949/50), 443. T h a t m e a n s , w e e n c o u n t e r this unfavourable portrait o f Pilate in an
e n v i r o n m e n t w h e r e such an e x c u l p a t i o n should have been m o s t necessary, whereas
in fact w e meet the tradition a b o u t the d o m i n a n c e o f the J e w i s h p r o c e e d i n g s in the
East, in a climate, w h e r e political considerations and attempts to influence the
R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t are less likely to have played a role.
448 E. BAMMEL

235
Pilate. It was not until the post-Constantinian era, a period when the
principle o f heredity in rulership was stressed, strict observance o f the rules
on the part o f civil servants was enforced to the exclusion o f any
independent action, and the idea of Roma aeterna was given official sanction,
that the Emperors felt responsible for the reputation o f their forebear
236
Tiberius and his servant Pilate, and it was left to the Germanic king
Chlodwig to wonder what he himself would have done if he had lived at the
time o f the Gospel events.
In the times o f the early principate it was easier to cope with undesirable
measures taken by R o m a n provincial governors. Everyone knew o f g o o d
and bad administrators, and the political bell-wethers knew o f those w h o
had fallen into disgrace. It was therefore the task o f the shrewd
propagandist to associate certain measures with such a person, if he wanted
to bring about a reaction or even to stir up the public conscience.
Masterminds in this respect were the Jewish historiographers. Thus Philo,
after having dealt in a book now lost with the anti-Jewish activities o f
Sejanus, that example o f a disobedient servant and would-be impostor,
heaps all the blame for the Alexandrian disturbances on Flaccus, w h o came
237
to a cruel e n d . Josephus selects three incidents in the time o f Pilate in
238
order to show the R o m a n superbia in the first half o f the R o m a n rule. He
was able to d o so because Pilate was deposed and probably forced to
239
commit s u i c i d e . Such a procedure, which, for domestic consumption,
could easily be linked with the topic o f the mors persecutorum, was readily at
hand for a Christian apologist. T h e Christian community was not unaware
o f the delicate position o f Pilate as a protege o f Sejanus, as the reference
240
John 1 9 : 1 5 indicates. That such an association proved to be a mark o f
Cain was experienced by n o less a figure than Herod Antipas, w h o in A.D.
3 7 was deposed under the pretext that he had plotted with Sejanus - a
241
reason which was still found adequate by Josephus two generations later.
This is an approach that was not far from the mind o f Christian apologists

2 3 5
A . Ehrhardt, 'Pontius Pilate', 442f. C p . G . A . M u l l e r , Pontius Pilatus (Stuttgart,
1888), p p . 52f. T h e fundamental w o r k o n the tradition is still W . C r e i z e n a c h ,
Pilatus-Legenden (Halle, 1874).
2 3 6
T h e Acts of Pilate ( c p . c h . XII: JtEQiTEUVOfievoc; xjj xctQ&ir/) a n d especially the
a p p e n d i x r e p r o d u c e d b y C . v o n T i s c h e n d o r f (Evangelia Apocrypha (Leipzig, 1876),
p p . 449ft) received the i m p a c t o f this situation. It is similar with A u g u s t i n e , w h o
claims that Pilate b e c a m e only guilty in a small measure (Sermo, 44.3.7; c p . B .
B l u m e n k r a n z , Die Judenpredigt Augustins (Basel, 1945), p p . 1921).
2 3 7
F o r an analysis o f Philo's design c p . Schurer, Geschichte, iii, 677 ( E T iii 2, 4391).
2 3 8
AJ 18 §55ff, 85ff. T h e s a m e t e c h n i q u e is e m p l o y e d b y J o s e p h u s w h e n he deals with
the J e w s in E g y p t d u r i n g the P t o l e m a i c p e r i o d : all the b l a m e is h e a p e d o n C l e o ­
patra, the p e r s o n w h o s e m e m o r y w a s stigmatised b y A u g u s t u s (c. Ap. 2.60).
2 3 9
E u s e b i u s , H.E. ii. 7.
2 4 0 2 4 1 2
For an interpretation c p . ThLZ 77 (1952), 205ff. 4/ § 5°-
 T h e trial before Pilate 449

242
w h o claimed that only certain emperors acted against Christianity. In
this case it was expedient to call them ill-advised, whereas a criticism o f a
governor could be expressed more openly.
T r u e , it is an unsympathetic picture o f Pilate the Gospels give. This is
especially true for the Fourth Gospel, which characterises him as yielding
to pressure to such a degree that he acts contrary to what he knows is his
duty. But surprisingly n o attempt is made to explain the trial before Pilate
in this way. T h e guilt o f association - association with Sejanus — could
easily have opened the way for a picture of the trial ofjesus that would have
appealed to the enlightened elements o f R o m a n society and might even
have resulted in a re-opening o f the trial. In fact this was not even done in
243
Christian times. Pilate is made witness o f the resurrection in certain
244
apocryphal sources, but he is never said to have pointed to the sacrificial
meaning o f Christ's stripes.
A n anti-Jewish bias certainly existed in the early church. But was this
already the case in N e w Testament times? T h e very fact that Nicodemus
and Joseph o f Arimathaea and indeed Gamaliel are singled out as
respectable persons; that Mark boasts o f the following Jesus had among the
245
scribes o f the Pharisees and points to the scribe w h o is not far from the
246
kingdom at the end of the description ofjesus's ministry; that John knows
247
o f certain Pharisees w h o were favourably disposed towards Jesus, while
Toi)5alog as an opprobrious term seems to be used only for the leading men
248
in J e w r y ; that the oldest Christian chronicle refers to a multitude o f
249
priests who turned to the faith, d o not support the thesis. Even Caiaphas
is described as a man with prophetic gifts (John 1 1 : 5 1 ) - h o w easy it would
have been to blacken his portrait, to picture the high priest as an antitype to
a whitewashed prefect.

2 4 2
F o r the frank Christian criticism o f N e r o and D o m i t i a n c p . R . K l e i n , Tertullian und
das romische Reich ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1968), p p . 58ff. Tertullian b o l d l y c l a i m e d that to b e
c o n d e m n e d b y N e r o w a s to b e c o n d e m n e d in g o o d c o m p a n y .
2 4 3
Instead he is m a d e to repent his decision (especially in the letter to C l a u d i u s ) ; that
m e a n s , a theological m o t i f directs the i m a g i n a t i o n .
2 4 4
Pilate's letter to C l a u d i u s (Tischendorf, Apocrypha, p p . 4 i 3 f f ) ; the s a m e m o t i f is
inserted b y A g o b a r d into his s u m m a r y o f the J e w i s h T o l e d o t h Jeshu ( c p . Strack,
Jesus, p . 15*).
2 4 5
M a r k 2: I5f. T h e K B reading seems to represent the original text.
2 4 6
H e stands for a w h o l e b r a n c h in J u d a i s m . T h e N i c o d e m u s scene in the fourth gospel
is p r o b a b l y a d e v e l o p e d form o f the s a m e story. F o r the t e n d e n c y to give n a m e s to
the nameless c p . B . M e t z g e r , Festschrift J. Quasten ( M u n s t e r , 1970), p p . 7gff.
2 4 7
E.g. 9:16. C p . Miracles ( e d . C . F. D . M o u l e ) , p . 197 and J. B o w k e r , ' T h e O r i g i n and
P u r p o s e o f St J o h n ' s G o s p e l ' , NTSt (1964/65), 4oof.
2 4 8
W . Liitgert, ' D i e J u d e n i m J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m ' , Festschrift G. Heinrici ( L e i p z i g ,
1914), p p . i47ff.
2 4 9
A c t s 6: 7; for an analysis o f the source r e p r o d u c e d at this p l a c e c p . J. J e r e m i a s ,
' U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u m Q u e l l e n p r o b l e m der A p o s t e l g e s c h i c h t e ' , ZNW 36 (1937),
205ff.
450 E. BAMMEL

Caiaphas is a prophet because he is endowed with the O l d Testament

gifts. A n d it is this heritage that causes the bitterness on the side o f the
Christians. T h e Jews are seen as those w h o , in pestering Pilate, a sceptic, a
man o f this world, have forfeited the promise given to them. T h e passion
predictions, which are dotted with references to Isa. 5 3 , are meant to drive
home this point. This type o f presentation was familiar in the world o f the
Bible. It results from this that these references are made in the context o f a
struggle 'within', and not in order to denounce the Jews to the R o m a n
authorities.
In fact, the tendency o f the Gospels is very different in kind. This
tendency is indicated by the change from Mark 8 : 3 1 (l)Jtd xd)V
JlQeoPvTEQCDV XOU TCOV &QXl£QE(DV X(XL TCOV YQCWOT&W) to 9 : 3 1 (elg
250
XEiQOtS dvOQCOJiov). It is the w o r l d that becomes involved in the
proceedings. T h e same is intended, although less clearly achieved, by
the phrase xoig e6veoiv, a phrase which is probably based on D^ttV or
D^a^ and is therefore a circumscribing interpretation. 251
It is in keeping
with this that Acts 4: 2 5 - 7 places E6VT) and taxoi 'IooarjA. side by side, as
those w h o brought about the death ofjesus. Later tradition seizes upon the
executioners at the cross, gives them names and makes them representa­
tives o f the principal nations. So it happened with Pilate w h o in this
252 253
context, with an emphasis differing from that o f the C r e e d , is directly
charged with the crucifixion:

T h e s a m e t e n d e n c y to include the heathen w o r l d as equally c u l p a b l e is to b e found

in the D fF form o f M a r k 13:9/. L u k e 24: 7 describes Jesus as having b e e n delivered
etc; X£iQ«S &V9QU)JICDV in the D it form. T h i s text form is not likely to b e original, as
w a s o b s e r v e d b y A . M e r x (Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas (Berlin, 1905), p p .
5 i8f). It is, h o w e v e r , indicative o f the generalising tendency.
O n e o f the reasons for the p r o m i n e n c e given to the Gentiles is found in Ps. 22, w h i c h
served as a proof-text for the passion o f j e s u s . T h e list o f the enemies o f the p s a l m ­
ist is i n t r o d u c e d b y d o g s ' (verse 17). A s the equation o f d o g s with Gentiles w a s
standard a l r e a d y in the time o f Early C h r i s t e n d o m ( M a t t . 7:6; M a r k 7:28; R e v .
22: 15; c p . Phil. 3: 2), it w a s inviting to elaborate o n the part heathen p o w e r s h a d
p l a y e d in the p r o c e e d i n g s against J e s u s .
1
T h e early Christian confessions d o not g o further than claiming that Jesus w a s
crucified s u b / e m Pontius Pilate (the e x c e p t i o n being Const. Apost. 7.23.2: IJJIO is a
p a r a p h r a s t i c f o r m u l a t i o n ) . F o r the m e a n i n g o f the mentioning o f Pilate - the n a m e
is o c c a s i o n a l l y omitted - c p . T . H . Bindley, 'Pontius Pilate in the C r e e d ' , JThSt 6
(1905), 1 i2f: it was b r o u g h t a b o u t b y c h r o n o l o g i c a l , not primarily b y theological
interests (therefore the addition x a i 'HQW&OU in Const. Apost. 6.30.8). T h e
p r e s u m e d c h r o n o l o g y w a s c h a l l e n g e d recently b y E. Powell, Wrestling with the Angel
( L o n d o n , 1977), p p . n8ff.
* It is at this p o i n t that the traditions o n J u d a s and Pilate b e c o m e assimilated; c p . F.
O h l y , Der Verfluchte und der Erwdhlte. Vom Leben mit der Schuld ( O p l a d e n , 1976), p p .
22f.
 T h e trial before Pilate 451

. . . Pontius ille Pilatus

Teutonicae gentis,
254
Crucifixor cunctipotentis.

E v e r y o n e b e c a m e g u i l t y - t h e r e f o r e av8Q0)Jioi d|xaQTO)Xoi ( L u k e 24: 7) -

so t h a t e v e r y o n e m i g h t h a v e a s h a r e in the fruits o f C h r i s t ' s d e a t h .
H i s t o r i c a l , g e n e a l o g i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n is o n e w a y o f e x p r e s s i n g t h e m e a n i n g
o f t h e c r o s s . T h e d i r e c t e q u a t i o n a n d b l u n t c o n f e s s i o n is a n o t h e r f o r m . I t is
found in P a u l G e r h a r d ' s lines:

ich, ich und meine Siinden. . .

die haben dir erreget
255
das Elend, das dich schlaget.

2 5 4
Chytraeus (cited b y W a l t h e r , Bericht, p . 112); for the tradition o n a G e r m a n p l a c e o f
origin o f Pilate c p . M u l l e r , Pontius Pilatus, p p . 5of and especially K . H a u c k , 'Pontius
Pilatus in F o r c h h e i m ' in Medium Aevum Vivum. Festschrift W. Bulst (Frankfurt, i960,
p p . I04ff).
2 5 5
In the h y m n : ' O W e l t , sieh hier dein L e b e n ' . For the latest examination o f the
literature o n the trial c p . W . G . K i i m m e l , 'Jesusforschung seit 1965. D e r Prozess
und d e r K r e u z e s t o d J e s u ' , ThR n.s. 45 (1980), 295ff and A . Strobel, Die Stunde der
Wahrheit ( T u b i n g e n , 1980).
 JOHN A. T. ROBINSON

'His witness is true': A test of the

Johannine claim

In any study o f the Jesus o f history the place o f the Fourth Gospel and the
use to be made o f its evidence is problematic. A n d nowhere is this issue
more acute than in the events leading up to his conviction and death. For
J o h n has an extensive and detailed narrative o f these events which differs at
a number o f vital points - not least in its chronology - and yet where the
degree o f overlap with the other accounts is greater than anywhere else.
1
C . H . D o d d has observed how extensive and detailed this parallelism is -
so much so that one o f two conclusions is inevitable. Either John's account
evinces literary dependence on that o f the synoptists or it embodies an
independent tradition with serious claims to take us back to the facts and
interpretation that created and controlled the common Christian
preaching. With now the growing weight o f contemporary scholarship, I
cannot find the former a credible explanation, and Dodd's own
examination o f the passion narrative, from which he begins his massive
2 3
exposition, is a sufficient statement o f the case. But if John's is an
independent voice, how are we to assess how he stands to the truth o f the

1
Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel ( C a m b r i d g e , 1963), p p . 291*.
2
I b i d , p p . 21-136.
3
C p . the c o n c l u s i o n o f R . E . B r o w n , The Gospel according to John ( N e w Y o r k , 1966-70),
ii, 791: ' T h e J o h a n n i n e Passion Narrative is b a s e d o n an i n d e p e n d e n t tradition that
has similarities to the S y n o p t i c sources. W h e r e the various p r e - G o s p e l sources
agree, w e are in the p r e s e n c e o f a tradition that had w i d e a c c e p t a n c e at a v e r y early
stage in the history o f the Christian C h u r c h a n d , therefore, a tradition that is very
i m p o r t a n t in questions o f historicity.' H e goes o n : ' T h e a c c e p t a n c e o f the thesis o f an
i n d e p e n d e n t , early tradition underlying J o h n should m a k e us cautious a b o u t
a s s u m i n g t o o q u i c k l y that the d o c t r i n e , apologetics, and d r a m a created the raw
material b a s i c to the scenes i n v o l v e d . In o u r o p i n i o n , J o h n ' s genius here as
elsewhere consisted in re-interpreting rather than in inventing.' F. H a h n , ' D e r
Prozess J e s u nach d e m J o h a n n e s v a n g e l i u m - E i n e redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter-
s u c h u n g ' , EKK, ii ( Z u r i c h , 1970), 23-96, a n d A . D a u e r , Die Passionsgeschichte im
Johannesevangelium ( M i i n c h e n , 1972), b o t h s u p p o r t the fundamental i n d e p e n d e n c e
o f the J o h a n n i n e tradition but give m o r e weight to redactional motifs. I d o not
m y s e l f share the p r e s u p p o s i t i o n , c o m m o n to D o d d and the form- and redaction-
critics, that this evangelist stood in an external relationship to his tradition a n d that
o n e c a n separate o u t pre-Johannine material; c p . m y Redating the New Testament
( L o n d o n , 1976), c h a p t e r 9. But that d o e s not affect the value o f their contributions,
as D o d d himself, Historical Tradition, p . 17, recognised that it w o u l d not u n d e r m i n e
his case if the o p p o s i t e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n were m a d e .

453
454 J. A. T. ROBINSON

matter? For the claim o f the Johannine community is that 'his witness is
true' (John 2 1 : 2 4 ) , which in turn is based on the personal testimony o f
1 9 : 3 5 : 'This is vouched for by an eyewitness, whose evidence is to be
trusted. H e knows that he speaks the truth, so that you too may believe.'
While it is the truth o f faith that he is primarily concerned with, this is
not to be dissociated from the truth of fact. For to him the faith is the truth
of the history, what really happened, from the inside.
How may we test his claim? It can only be a posteriori, by asking whether,
in the light o f all the evidence, his account yields a credible picture o f
the total situation, explaining not only what he gives us but what others
independently tell us. This does not involve saying that J o h n states the
whole truth or nothing but the truth. But he does claim that in the essential
relation o f the W o r d to the flesh he is giving us the truth. T h e purpose of this
chapter is to test that claim with specific reference to the theme of this book,
the relationship o f the spiritual to the political in the life, teaching and
death o f j e s u s .
W e may begin by noting two tributes in recent writing on this subject to
the testimony o f J o h n . In the course o f his balanced discussion o f the
political question in Jesus and the Revolutionaries, Oscar Cullmann writes:

A c c o r d i n g to J o h n 18: 36 Jesus replies to the political question o f Pilate

(the only one which interested him), 'Are you the King o f the Jews?' with
the decisive answer, which I could have used as the mottofor this presentation: ' M y
4
kingdom is not o f this w o r l d . '

In other words, Cullmann believes that John has got it right - that his
interpretation provides the correct clue to the essential understanding o f
the matter.
Equally, Alan Richardson punctuates his treatment o f the Gospel
evidence in his b o o k The Political Christ with reluctant tributes to the
testimony o f J o h n . For he is one o f those w h o start with a very low
5
expectation at this point. Indeed, in his own earlier commentary he
committed himself to the position that not only is J o h n historically
worthless as an independent source but that he had no concern for
historical or chronological accuracy. Yet time and again in Richardson's
later book we have such concessions as:

Here again J o h n (19: 13) brings out the truth o f history, even if he
6
c o m p o s e d the trial speeches himself.
Does J o h n in 6: 15 in his characteristically allusive way hint that this [viz.,

4
Jesus und die Revolutiondren seiner Zeit (Tubingen, 1970), p. 61 ( E T L o n d o n , 1973), p.
42. Italics m i n e .
5
The Gospel according to St John ( L o n d o n , 1959).
6
The Political Christ ( L o n d o n , 1973), p. 28.
 'His witness is true' 455

being taken for the leader o f a nationalist m o v e m e n t ] was a serious danger

7
to Jesus during his ministry?
J o h n with his usual penetrating eye for the real issue brings out the truth o f
the matter when he makes the J e w s (the Jews!) protest to Pilate, 'Everyone
8
w h o makes himself a king is an enemy o f Caesar' (19: 1 2 ) .
J o h n repeatedly shows that he is very well informed about Jewish affairs in
9
the period before the Jewish W a r .

At this stage we merely note these as impressions that, whether for reasons
of theological insight or historical information (or both), the Johannine
picture is not as far removed from reality as it has been customary to
assume. But we can only convert impressions into something more
substantial by working through the evidence in greater detail. This we may
do by fastening upon the incidents, in the order John records them, that
bring into focus the relationship between the spiritual and the political,
between the kingship o f Christ and the kingdoms o f this world.
The first, that o f the cleansing o f the T e m p l e as recorded in John
2: 1 3 - 2 2 , is chiefly significant for what is does not say. It constitutes the first
and most dramatic challenge to the synoptic picture. Not only in its
placing, at the very beginning rather than at the very end o f j e s u s ' s
ministry, but in its significance, it stands in striking contrast to the Markan
tradition. Few have thought that J o h n is nearer to the truth in this regard.
10
D o d d himself believed that the synoptists were here to be preferred.
In J o h n the cleansing o f the T e m p l e has nothing to d o with the challenge
that culminated in the arrest ofjesus. According to Mark ( 1 1 : 18) it served
as the trigger for the final determination of the chief priests and scribes to d o
away with Jesus. It is interesting that there is no sign o f this link in
Matthew, and in Luke ( 1 9 : 4 7 ) it is the teaching ofjesus in the T e m p l e that
decides them to act. Indeed, in all four Gospels it is his teaching that is
given as the real ground o f their fear and opposition (Mark 1 1 : 1 8 ; 1 2 : 1 2
and pars.; 1 4 : 6 4 and pars.; Luke 1 9 : 4 7 ; 20: 1; John 1 8 : 1 9 - 2 1 ; 1 9 : 7 ) . It
looks as though we have here a purely Markan piece o f editorial
interpretation. For if the cleansing o f the T e m p l e had really provided the
occasion o f the arrest, it is remarkable that it should receive no mention at
all in the subsequent proceedings. It was the threat to destroy the T e m p l e
that was brought up against Jesus (Mark 1 4 : 5 7 f = Matt. 2 6 : 6 o f ; c p . Mark
1 5 : 2 9 = Matt. 2 7 : 39f; Luke refers to it only, indirectly, in Acts 6: 1 4 ) , and
this in the synoptists is not associated with the cleansing o f the T e m p l e . If
the cleansing had occurred in the highly-charged context in which the
synoptists place it, it could not but have assumed, whatever its motivation,

7 8 9
I b i d , p . 28. I b i d , p . 38. I b i d , p . 41.
10
Historical Tradition, p p . 162, 2 1 1 .
45^ J. A. T. ROBINSON

a political significance. Indeed the dilemma is, W h y was Jesus not

apprehended on the spot? S. G. F. Brandon, who sees it as a political c o u p
not merely in consequence but in intention, is acutely aware o f this, and
he can explain it only by the totally unsupported hypothesis that Jesus must
have been accompanied by an armed force powerful enough to have
11
prevented his arrest. It is at least worth asking whether the Johannine
version may not be correct in saying that it was political neither in intention
nor in consequence, and was not followed by arrest or prosecution because
it occurred in a totally different context.
For J o h n the cleansing o f the T e m p l e has nothing to d o with the political
scene. It is an act o f religious zeal for the purity o f the holy place, a
prophetic protest by Jesus against turning his Father's house into a market
(cp. Z e c h . 1 4 : 2 1 ; 1 M a c e . 2: 2 4 - 6 ; 2 M a c e . 10: 1 - 8 ; Mark 1 1 : 1 6 ) , that is,
against trying to serve G o d and money ( c p . Matt. 6: 2 4 = Luke 1 6 : 1 3 ) . It is
explained by a different scripture (Ps. 6 9 : 9 ) from those adduced in the
synoptists (Isa. 5 6 : 7; Jer. 7: 1 1 ) , and this scripture is introduced not as
Jesus's motive at the time (as in Mark 1 1 : 1 7 and pars.) but as the disciples'
subsequent reflection that such zeal for G o d would be the death o f him
(John 2: i 7 ; c p . 1 2 : 1 6 ) . T o the evangelist himself the incident would appear
to be a sign o f the spiritual truth that in order to give life the temple o f
Jesus's o w n body must be consumed (xaxcupaYexai) and die ( c p . 2: 1 7 , 2 1 ;
6 : 5 1 - 8 ; 1 2 : 2 4 ; and 2 : 1 8 - 2 1 with 6 : 3 0 - 5 ) . Despite assertions to the
contrary, it is not presented as an act offorce majeure. T h e 'whip o f cords'
(2: 1 5 ) was, it seems, 'something like (cbg - supported now by p66and75) a

whip' made up on the spot (jioirjoag) from the rushes (axoivicov) used for
12
the animals' b e d d i n g and (if the phrase x d xe JiQo(3axa xai xovg poag is
1 3
taken in apposition to J l d v x a g ) confined in its application to the sheep and
oxen. But, whatever precisely happened, the act is presented as one o f
religious enthusiasm, not to say spiritual fanaticism, with no perceptible
politcal overtones. In this it differs from the purging o f the T e m p l e de­
scribed in Josephus (AJ xvii. 1 4 9 - 6 3 ) by two men with good Maccabaean
names, Judas and Matthias, o f the image o f the golden eagle set over the
great gate by Herod, which was clearly political in motivation and
immediately provoked military reprisals.
Jesus's words in J o h n , 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise

11
The Fall ofJerusalem and the Christian Church ( L o n d o n , 1951, 2nd e d n . 1957), p p . i03f;
Jesus and the Zealots ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1967), p p . 332-4; The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth
r
( L o n d o n , 1968), p p . 83 .
1 2
S o B r o w n , John, i, 115.
1 3
S o R V ; E. H o s k y n s and F. N . D a v e y , The Fourth Gospel i ( L o n d o n , 1940), 203; a n d
D o d d , Historical Tradition, p . 157, w h o c o m p a r e s M a t t . 22: 10 and defends the use o f
the m a s c u l i n e Jt&vxag w h e r e n o u n s o f different genders are c o m p r e h e n d e d u n d e r a
collective term.
 'His witness is true' 457

it again' are not, as in the 'false witness' reported by the synoptists, a threat
that he would destroy the T e m p l e (those who will d o this are the Romans,
14
1 1 : 4 8 ) , but a statement that t/this T e m p l e is demolished, Jesus will raise
up another, 'in a trice'. T h e nearest parallel is the saying connected with the
cursing o f the fig-tree, which is closely associated in the synoptists with the
cleansing o f the Temple: ' I f you say to this mountain, " B e removed and
thrown into the sea", it will happen' (Matt. 2 1 : 2 1 ) , where 'this mountain'
(cp. 'this temple' in John 2 : 19) probably has the overtones o f the holy
mount o f Zion, as in Isa. 2 5 : 6 f , etc. In other words, the debate in J o h n
2: 1 3 - 2 2 , as in 4 : 2 o f (where 'this mountain' for the Samaritan w o m a n
means Gerizim), concerns the offering o f worship in spirit and in truth in
contrast with its materialistic corruption. T h e saying 2 : 1 9 is not throwing
d o w n a political gauntlet but challenging to purity of faith ( c p . again Mark
1 1 : 2 2 1 ) . There follows (John 2 : 2 0 ) the same crude misunderstanding
between Jesus and 'the Jews' as there is later between Jesus and
Nicodemus. For Jesus is not talking o f rebuilding Herod's T e m p l e , any
more than spiritual rebirth has to d o with entering the w o m b a second time
( 3 : 4 ) : 'the temple he was speaking o f was his b o d y ' (2: 2 1 ) . T h e political
dimension is at this point far removed. Later it will be very relevant, but not
now.
R. E. Brown, while siding with the majority o f commentators in
15
preferring the synoptic dating o f the cleansing, agrees that the saying
about the T e m p l e ' s destruction could scarcely have left such a dim and
divisive memory at the trial ( c p . Mark 1 4 : 5 9 ) had it only been uttered
shortly beforehand. H e therefore allows that this points to an earlier
16
context for the saying. But I have long been convinced that John's setting
of the entire complex makes much better sense - quite apart from removing
the very real difficulty to which Brandon's hypothesis o f a force majeure
represents such a desperate solution.
It has often been observed that the synoptists' placing o f the cleansing
was forced upon them. It is one o f the few incidents outside the passion
narrative which they had no option but to locate in Jerusalem, and their
outline included only one visit to Jerusalem. John, on the other hand, could
have put it at the beginning, middle or end of the ministry. That he puts it at
the beginning is, I believe, due to the fact that it belongs, as J. Armitage

1 4
F o r the imperative for the c o n d i t i o n a l , c p . D o d d , The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel
( C a m b r i d g e , 1953), p . 302, w h o argues that the J o h a n n i n e form o f the saying is
m o r e primitive than the M a r k a n .
1 5
O n e o f the exceptions, ironically, is V . T a y l o r , The Gospel according to St Mark
( L o n d o n , 1952, 2nd e d n . 1966), p p . 46if, w h o prefers J o h n t o M a r k . Similarly J.
Blinzler, Johannes und die Synoptiker (Stuttgart, 1965), p . 84f.
1 6
C p . m y 'Elijah, J o h n a n d J e s u s ' , in Twelve New Testament Studies ( L o n d o n , 1962),
especially p p . 4of. I r e p r o d u c e s o m e sentences from that article here.
458 J. A. T. ROBINSON

Robinson observed a long time ago in his book, The Historical Character of St
17
John's Gospel, to that period in Jesus's ministry when the understanding o f
his role was dominated by the figure of'the coming one' designated for him
18
by John the Baptist. As M . Goguel put it, ' W h e n Jesus preached and
baptized in Peraea, it was as a disciple o f John the Baptist that he did it.'
W h e n therefore he first went up to Jerusalem it was deliberately to set in
motion the opening act o f the programme o f Malachi that had inspired
John's preaching, the promise o f the messenger o f the Lord coming
suddenly to his T e m p l e like a refiner's fire to 'purify the sons o f Levi and
refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the L o r d '
19
(Mai. 3: 1 - 3 , 8 f ) .
That there was a connection between this action ofjesus and the mission
of John is borne out by the association o f the two in the Synoptic account.
Jesus, challenged for the authority by which he purges the Temple, refers
a n c
his questioners to the baptism of John (Mark 1 1 : 2 7 - 3 3 * pars.). In the
position which it occupies in the synoptists it appears to be a trick question
parried by a clever riposte. T h e Baptist has been off the stage for a long time
and the source o f his activity seems to have nothing to d o with the case. A s
H. E. Edwards put it, 'Is it likely that if John the Baptist had disappeared
from public view two years before this incident it would still have been
dangerous for any member of the Jerusalem aristocracy to disavow belief in
20
h i m ? ' But if the Johannine placing is correct, the connection is at once
apparent. Jesus's right to act can be accepted only if the source o f the
Baptist's mission is acknowledged. For the authority behind the one is the
authority behind the other: if John's activity was 'from G o d ' , then so was
Jesus's. It was a complete answer. W e r e the Markan question in John or the
Johannine placing in Mark, I suggest that no one would doubt that the
cleansing o f the T e m p l e occurred during the period when the people were
still, 'all wondering about John, whether perhaps he was the Messiah'
(Luke 3: 1 5 ) .
Moreover the dating o f the incident in the Fourth Gospel fits with the
external evidence in so far as we can reconstruct it. In John 2: 20 the Jews
say, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple.' Now Josephus tells us
in AJ xv. 380 that the reconstruction o f the Temple by Herod began in the

1 7
L o n d o n , 1908, 2nd edn. 1929, p p . 27-31.
l6
Jean-Baptiste (Paris, 1928), p p . 25of.
1 9
F o r the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the cleansing o f the T e m p l e and the religious ideal o f
zeal for the purity o f Israel that inspired both the Baptist and Q u m r a n , c p . E.
Stauffer, 'Historische Elemente i m vierten E v a n g e l i u m ' , in E. H . A m b e r g a n d U .
K i i h n ( e d s . ) , Bekenntnis zur Kirche: Festgabe fur E. Sommerlath (Berlin, i960), p p .
31-51 (especially p . 48). H e accepts the J o h a n n i n e placing o f the story in the
'Baptist' p e r i o d o f Jesus's ministry ( p p . 38, 41, 49O.
2 0
The Disciple who Wrote these Things ( L o n d o n , 1953), p . 191.
 'His witness is true' 459

21
eighteenth year o f his reign - that is, in the year 2 0 - 1 9 B.C. T h e forty-
sixth year would then be A.D. 2 7 - 2 8 on inclusive counting. It is impossible
to arrive at certainty for the absolute dating o f j e s u s ' s ministry but on
balance it seems most probable that Jesus was baptised towards the end o f
22
27 and crucified in 3 0 . T h e Passover referred to in J o h n 2 would then be
that o f 2 8 , with the final Passover, at which the synoptists place the
cleansing, in 3 0 . T h e forty-six years would therefore fit the earlier occasion
with remarkable precision, but not the latter. N o w , according to the
Mishnah (Shekalim 1 . 3 ) , the tables o f the money-changers for converting
into the T e m p l e currency the annual half-shekel tax enjoined by Exod.
30: 1 3 were set up in the T e m p l e from the 2 5 t h day o f Adar, that is, three
23
weeks before Passover. This comports with the statement in J o h n 2: 1 3
that Passover was 'near' when Jesus went up to Jerusalem, which is then
followed in 2: 2 3 , after the cleansing, by the time-reference 'at the Passover,
during the feast'. R. Schnackenburg, w h o rejects the Johannine placing,
nevertheless concedes that this looks like 'a precise detail which seems to
support the date given by the evangelist for the cleansing o f the temple, the
24
beginning o f the public ministry of Jesus'. T h e only way to set aside the
otherwise irrelevant and apparently motiveless reference to forty-six years
25
(a number for which no convincing symbolic reason has been f o u n d ) is to
26
insist, with C . K . Barrett, that the aorist must mean that J o h n was

2 1
C p . J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton, 1964), p p . 276-80.
J o s e p h u s has another statement in BJ i. 401, putting it in H e r o d ' s fifteenth year, but
it is generally agreed that this is less reliable. In any case this w o u l d m a k e the
date earlier still a n d even less c o m p a t i b l e with the s y n o p t i c p l a c i n g o f the cleans­
ing.
2 2
C p . the j u d i c i o u s article b y G . B. C a i r d , ' T h e C h r o n o l o g y o f the N T ' , Interpreter's
Dictionary of the Bible i ( N e w Y o r k , 1962), 601-3.
2 3
T h a t the cleansing o f the T e m p l e o c c u r r e d at Passover-time is the o n e c o m m o n
factor in the divergent datings, and the b u r d e n o f p r o o f must lie heavily o n those
w h o w o u l d wish to put it at any other season. F. C . Burkitt, ' W and 0 : Studies in
the W e s t e r n T e x t o f M a r k ' , JThSt 17 (1916), 139-50, argued for the feast o f the
D e d i c a t i o n , and T . W . M a n s o n , ' T h e Cleansing o f the T e m p l e ' , BJRL 33 (1951),
276-80, for T a b e r n a c l e s . But the specific provision for the m o n e y - c h a n g e r s ' tables
to b e set u p prior to Passover makes this very arbitrary. M a n s o n ' s attempt to get
r o u n d this b y saying 'there w o u l d p r o b a b l y always b e s o m e tables in the T e m p l e
p r e c i n c t s ' is u n c o n v i n c i n g . A n d unless, with h i m , w e gratuitously excise M a r k
11: 13b ('for it w a s not the season o f figs') in the interests o f a naturalistic easing o f
the offence o f the story, the closely-attached cursing o f the fig-tree precisely fits the
Passover season - o n e o f leaves without fruit - in a w a y that T a b e r n a c l e s ( a u t u m n )
o r the D e d i c a t i o n (winter) does not.
2
*Das Johannesevangelium i (Freiburg, 1965), p . 366 ( E T The Gospel according to St John i
( L o n d o n , 1968), p . 352).
2 5
A u g u s t i n e , for instance, In Joh. 10, noting that in Greek letters ' A d a m ' h a d the
n u m e r i c a l value o f 46, a p p l i e d it to Jesus's o w n age ( c p . J o h n 8: 57, 'not yet fifty
years o l d ' ) . But this bears n o relation to the quite explicit statements o f the text.
2 6
The Gospel according to St John ( L o n d o n , 1955), p . 167.
460 J. A . T. ROBINSON

mistaken, supposing that the construction o f the T e m p l e had by then

stopped, whereas we know that it went on till 6 3 (Josephus, AJxx. 2 1 9 ) . But
27
Brown cites what he calls the 'perfect parallel' from Ezra 5 : 1 6 ( L X X ) :
'From that time until now [the T e m p l e ] has been in building ((bxo6o|Ar|8r])
and is not yet finished'. It is surely easier to believe that the evangelist knew
what he was talking about and got the date right.
T h o u g h it is peripheral to our purpose here, I would venture the
suggestion that other material associated with the Jerusalem ministry and
placed, unavoidably, by the synoptists in the final visit, may also properly
belong to the period when Jesus is still acting out the Baptist's programme.
W e have seen h o w the cursing o f the fig-tree, symbolising the d o o m of Israel
(cp. H o s . 9 : 10, i 6 f ) , which is intertwined by Mark with the cleansing o f the
T e m p l e , supplies the closest parallel to the saying in John, 'Destroy this
temple. . . .' T h e cursing might almost be designed as an act o f prophetic
symbolism to spell out the Baptist's warning: 'Bring forth fruit worthy o f
repentance. . . . Every tree that fails to produce g o o d fruit is cut d o w n and
thrown o n the fire' (Matt. 3 : 8 - 1 0 = Luke 3 : 8 f ) . T h e parable o f the fig-tree in
Luke 1 3 : 6 - 9 , instead o f being, as is often supposed, a variant tradition o f
the same incident, could then be Jesus's reflection upon his o w n action two
years previously (counting inclusively in the Jewish manner) and thus bear
out its early dating.

A man had a fig-tree growing in his vineyard; and he c a m e looking for fruit
o n it, but found none. So he said to the vine-dresser, ' L o o k here! For the
last three years (or, this is n o w the third year) I have c o m e looking for fruit
o n this fig-tree without finding any. Cut it d o w n . W h y should it g o o n
using u p the soil?' But he replied, 'Leave it, sir, this one year while I dig
round it and manure it. A n d if it bears next season, well and g o o d ; if not,
y o u shall have it d o w n . '

I f then the cursing, like the cleansing, belongs to Jesus's early Judaean
ministry, this could explain why the withering attack on the Jewish leaders
which follows in Matthew contains two further echoes o f the Baptist - the
accusation o f not believing him when even tax-gatherers and prostitutes did
( 2 1 : 3 2 ) and the adoption by Jesus o f his description o f them as a 'viper's
b r o o d ' ( 2 3 : 3 3 ; c p . 3: 7 ) . Perhaps therefore what seems to us so harsh was a
deliberate part o f that ministry o f the mightier one to winnow and to burn

2 1
John, i, 116. It had already been cited b y J . H . Bernard, St. John ( E d i n b u r g h ,
1928), ad l o c ; C . H . T u r n e r , ' C h r o n o l o g y o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t ' , in Hastings
Dictionary of the Bible i ( E d i n b u r g h , 1898), 405; and earlier b y J. B . Lightfoot,
w h o m little escaped, in an unpublished section o f his lectures at C a m b r i d g e in
1873 (see the reference in m y Redating the NT, p . 277). J o h n 2: 20, he said, 'speaks
v o l u m e s for the authenticity o f the g o s p e l ' . C p . also his Biblical Essays ( L o n d o n ,
1893), PP- 3of-
 'His witness is true' 461

(Matt. 3 : 1 i f = Luke 3: i 6 f ) which at that time Jesus was content to accept

28
from J o h n .
After John's arrest (Mark 1: 14) Jesus is presented as coming into Galilee
with an understanding o f his mission very different from that o f this Elijah
figure drawn from M a i . 3 and 4 . Luke (4: 1 6 - 1 9 ) makes Jesus introduce it in
terms o f Isa. 6 1 , and according to the Q tradition Jesus justifies his activity
to J o h n ' s emissaries by referring them to Isa. 3 5 and 6 1 (Matt, n : 2 - 6 =
Luke 7: 1 8 - 2 3 ) . T h e role is no longer that o f the mighty one sent to purge
and to j u d g e but o f the gracious one anointed to seek and to save and to heal.
Between the J o r d a n and Galilee the synoptists set the story o f a spiritual
crisis which is depicted in Q as three successive temptations that Jesus faces
and rejects. Doubtless this is a schematised account o f temptations born o f
real-life situations over a longer period ( c p . Luke 2 2 : 2 8 ) , though the news
o f J o h n ' s arrest (Matt. 4 : 1 2 ) could well have forced reappraisal o f the role
that his preaching had sanctioned. For was the confrontation and violence
to which it led really the way o f the kingdom? T h e path o f precipitate action
in the T e m p l e (Matt. 4 : 5 - 7 ; Luke 4 : 9 - 1 2 ) began to look less compelling.
Rejection o f it could perhaps have stemmed from the incident described in
2 9
John 2: 1 3 - 2 2 . For on reflection the evangelist sees it as suicidal, the action
o f a religious enthusiast whose zeal is self-consuming. In itself it was a
spiritual rather than a political act, motivated by purity o f passion for his
Father's house rather than the quest for popular support or temporal
power. But the Q narrative sees it as linked with two other highly political
temptations, whose origin in life could well be associated with the next
incident in J o h n to be considered. It is interesting that Matthew relates the
incident to the news, this time, o f the Baptist's death and to another
withdrawal to the wilderness (8QT)UX)V TOJtov) which that provoked
(14: 13).
If it is John w h o enables us to understand the religious rather than the

2 8
F o r further such c o n n e c t i o n s , lying b e h i n d J o h n 3:5 and L u k e 9:52-56, c p . again
m y Twelve New Testament Studies, p p . 4if.
2 9
R . E. B r o w n , ' I n c i d e n t s that are U n i t s in the S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s but dispersed in St
J o h n ' , CBQ23 (1961), 152-5, while agreeing with w h a t I g o o n t o say b e l o w a b o u t the
o t h e r t w o temptations, parallels this o n e with the urging o f j e s u s ' s brothers in 7 : 1 - 4
to h i m to g o u p to J e r u s a l e m a n d s h o w himself to the w o r l d . T h i s c a n n o t b e
e x c l u d e d , b u t the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s are not great. In an earlier attempt at the s a m e
exercise ( w h i c h B r o w n d o e s not m e n t i o n ) H . Preisker, ' Z u m Charakter des
J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m s ' , in F. W . S c h m i d t , R . W i n k l e r and W . M e y e r ( e d s . ) , Luther,
Kant, Schleiermacher in ihrer Bedeutung fur den Protestantismus: Festschrift fur G.
Wobbermin (Berlin, 1939), p p . 379-93, parallels L u k e 4:2-4 ( i m p r o b a b l y ) with
J o h n 4:31-34; L u k e 4:5-8 w i t h J o h n 6: i4f; and L u k e 4:9-12 w i t h J o h n 7:4-6. H e
argues that the temptations are lifted o u t o f the ' m y t h i c a l settings' given to t h e m b y
the synoptists and later supplied with historical o n e s b y J o h n . But again, if the
' m y t h i c a l ' settings h a d o c c u r r e d in J o h n and the 'historical' in the synoptists, n o
o n e w o u l d h a v e d r e a m t o f m a k i n g such a j u d g e m e n t o f priority.
462 J. A . T . ROBINSON

political significance of the T e m p l e cleansing (and there is in fact nothing in

the synoptic accounts themselves as opposed to their context to suggest
otherwise), it is John in 6: 1 - 1 5 who enables us to appreciate the political as
30
well as the religious meaning o f the desert feeding. This meaning could not
be deduced from the Markan narrative, yet when introduced makes
startling sense o f it. T h e clue lies in the Johannine conclusion, 'Perceiving
that they were about to c o m e and take him by force to make him king, Jesus
withdrew again to the hills by himself ( 6 : 1 5 ) . There is indeed good
31
manuscript support here for the reading 'fled' (q)Etjyei) - which is scarcely
likely to have been invented. Jesus's hand is forced and he finds himself
compelled to rapid evasive action. Suddenly the political and paramilitary
overtones o f this messianic meal become evident. From Mark we could, if
we were looking for it, sense the manic excitement o f the crowds and their
lost and dangerous condition o f lacking and looking for a leader (Mark
6: 33f; for the political background o f ' s h e e p without a shepherd', c p . N u m .
27: 1 7 ; 1 Kings 2 2 : 1 7 ; Ezek. 34: 5 ) . T h e n there is the significance, again if
we were looking for it, o f the fact that they were all men (av5Q£g). J o h n
(6: 10) agrees with Mark ( 6 : 4 4 ) and Luke ( 9 : 14) in so describing the five
thousand. Matthew appears to miss the point in order to heighten the
miraculous by adding 'besides women and children' ( 1 4 : 2 1 ; and also in
3 2
1 5 : 38) , For the context o f this desert assembly is evidently the same as
that described in Acts 2 1 : 38: 'Then you are not the Egyptian w h o started a
revolt some time ago and led a force o f four thousand terrorists (av5Qag
xcbv aixaQicov) out into the wilds?' T h e wilderness was the natural place
from which false prophets and messianic pretenders might be expected
(Matt. 24: 2 4 - 6 ) and Josephus testifies later (AJxx. 9 7 - 9 , 1 6 7 - 7 2 , 188) to
several such abortive risings by individuals promising signs and giving
33
themselves out to be a 'prophet' (John 6: 1 4 ; c p . Mark 1 3 : 6; Acts 5: 3 6 1 ) .
O f the same Egyptian that Acts mentions Josephus writes:

A charlatan, who had gained for himself the reputation o f a prophet, this
man appeared in the country, collected a following o f about thirty
thousand dupes, and led them by a circuitous route from the desert to the

3 0
O n this, c p . D o d d , Historical Tradition, p p . 212-17; idem, The Founder of Christianity
( L o n d o n , 1971), p p . 131—9; T . W . M a n s o n , The Servant Messiah ( C a m b r i d g e , 1953),
p p . 69-71; H . W . M o n t e f i o r e , ' R e v o l t in the Desert?', NTSt 8 (1962), 135-41; and
earlier, as s o often, Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p p . 151-3.
3 1
I n c l u d i n g K*, the o l d Latin, Tertullian and Augustine. It is a d o p t e d b y B r o w n .
3 2
U n l e s s X(OQi$ c o u l d here m e a n ' w i t h o u t any a d m i x t u r e o f w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n ' , as
D o d d suggested to M o n t e f i o r e (NTSt 8 (1962), 137). But he d i d not repeat this in his
o w n discussion o f the passage.
3 3
C p . P. W . Barnett, ' T h e J e w i s h Sign Prophets - A . D . 40-70 - T h e i r Intentions a n d
Origin', NTSt 27 (1981), 679-97.
 'His witness is true' 463

m o u n t called the m o u n t o f Olives. F r o m there he proposed to force an

entrance into Jerusalem and, after overpowering the R o m a n garrison, to
set himself u p as tyrant o f the people, employing those w h o poured in with
34
him as his b o d y g u a r d .

Such, no doubt, was the kind of programme that many o f the crowd were
expecting from Jesus in the wilderness. If, as J o h n says, they proposed to
make him 'king', it could for them have meant no more than when Josephus
uses the same word to describe how, 'as the several companies o f the
seditious lighted upon anyone to head them, he was immediately created a
3 5
king (PaaiXetjg)' (4J xvii. 2 8 5 ) . Yet a bid for national power was a serious
possibility, for with 'the country . . . a prey to disorder . . . the opportunity
induced numbers o f persons to aspire to sovereignty ( p a o i X e i a v ) ' (BJ ii.
5 5 ) . Indeed of J o h n 6: 1 5 William Sanday wrote: 'There is no stronger proof
both o f the genuineness and o f the authenticity o f the Fourth Gospel than
36
the way in which it reflects the current Messianic idea.'
This clue explains also the sudden and otherwise unaccountable ending
to the story in Mark ( 6 : 4 5 ) : 'As soon as it was over he made (f|V&Yxaoev,
forced) his disciples embark and cross to Bethsaida ahead o f him, while he
himself sent the people away.' Evidently Jesus could not trust his associates
not to share the surge o f the crowd and constitute themselves his
bodyguard. Then, we read, 'after taking leave o f them (djtoxa^d^ievog
autoic;), he went away eig TO ogog by himself alone' ( 6 : 1 5 ) . Here perhaps
we may have the setting in life for the temptations to a populist programme
which the synoptists represent him as rejecting in principle from the
beginning (Matt. 4 : 1 - 4 , 8 - 1 0 ; Luke 4 : 1 - 8 ) but which could well have
taken their particular form from the loaves and the mountain (cp. Matt.
4: 8, etc; 6 9 0 5 ) o f this desert crisis. If so, they will belong not so much to the
first transition in Jesus's self-understanding, from the prophet o f d o o m to
the charismatic liberator, but to the second critical turning in his m i n i s t r y -
though, as we have said, if Matthew is right, this too may have been
triggered off by reflection upon the fate o f John (with Matt. 1 4 : 13 c p . also
1 1 : 1 2 - 1 4 and 1 7 : 9 - 1 3 ) . This time it was the shift arising from the
dangerous misunderstanding to which the title o f Messiah, or anointed one,
lay exposed. For it was open to be interpreted not only in religious but in
political terms, as the equivalence o f 'Christ' and 'king' in popular usage
makes clear (Mark 1 5 : 3 2 ; Luke 2 3 : 2 , 3 5 , 3 7 ; c p . Acts 1 7 : 7, 'They . . . assert

^ BJ ii. 26if. T r . H . St J. T h a c k e r a y ( L o e b Classical L i b r a r y ) .

35
1 have followed here the translation o f A . N . S h e r w i n - W h i t e , Roman Society and
Roman Law in the New Testament ( O x f o r d , 1963), p . 25. R. M a r c u s in the L o e b edition
takes JtQoioTCt^ievog to mean ' m a d e himself king', w h i c h seems less likely in the
context.
3 6
The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel ( L o n d o n , 1872), p . 124.
4 6 4
J. A . T . ROBINSON

there is a rival king, Jesus'). W h e n therefore, as John 6: 1 5 records, this

equation became explicit, Jesus was compelled to a corrective, beginning
with the Twelve. For the reply elicited from Peter in Mark 8: 2 9 , ' Y o u are
the Christ', is followed not, as in Matthew's addition ( 1 6 : 1 7 - 1 9 ) , by
acclamation, but by rebuke, the verb eJlixijido) recurring three times in
8: 3 0 , 3 2 , 3 3 . Thenceforward Jesus must insist with uncompromising
abruptness on spelling out his mission in terms rather o f a Son o f man
vindicated only out o f suffering and death, for which the models were this
time to be found in Dan. 7 and Isa. 5 3 . (For the same contrast between
Christ on the lips o f others and the Son o f man on Jesus's own, c p . Matt.
2 6 : 6 3 ^ Luke 2 2 : 6 7 - 9 . ) This testing o f the terms on which he could count on
the disciples' loyalty is presented by the synoptists without occasion or
motive as the climax o f the Galilaean ministry (Mark 8: 2 7 - 3 0 and pars.).
But in J o h n it is explained by the desert crisis. It is this last which was the
real turning point, o f which the testing o f the disciples' faith (6: 6 6 - 9 ) and
the need for withdrawal ( 7 : 1 ) were the consequences. Thereafter care to
avoid a premature denouement, which this crisis so nearly provoked,
becomes decisive ( 7 : 2 - 9 ) .
Yet J o h n makes it clear that the real truth o f what it is to be the messiah
or king o f Israel (both o f which titles he uses more than any o f the
synoptists) is not to be denied or repudiated o f j e s u s . Indeed they are
introduced in the opening chapter ( 1 : 4 1 , 4 9 ) as essential ingredients o f
what it means to confess him as the Son o f G o d ( 1 : 4 9 ) . But after chapter 6
the debate about h o w , and in what sense, Jesus can be the messiah becomes
more subtle and more ironic ( 7 : 2 5 - 5 2 ) . Then in chapter 1 0 the argument
focusses upon the category o f the shepherd, which, as Walter Grundmann
37
has rightly stressed, is intimately associated with that o f divine kingship.
In Ezek. 3 4 , a chapter which underlies the whole o f John 1 0 (and c p . again
Ezek. 3 4 : 5 with Mark 6: 3 4 - the sheep without a shepherd), the shepherd is
linked with the hope o f a Davidic messiah: 'Therefore I will save my flock,
and they shall be ravaged no more . . . I will set over them one shepherd to
take care o f them, my servant David; he shall care for them and become
their shepherd. I, the Lord, will become their G o d , and my servant David
shall be a prince among them' (34: 2 2 - 4 ) . It is understandable therefore
that the claim by Jesus to be the true shepherd o f Israel provokes the
question, ' H o w long must you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah
say so plainly' ( 1 0 : 2 4 ) . It is the same question that in Luke ( 2 2 : 6 7 ) is later
thrown at Jesus by the Sanhedrin. A n d the answer, though superficially
different, is in fact the same: ' I f I tell y o u ' , he says in Luke, 'you will not
believe.' 'I have told y o u ' , he says in John, 'but you d o not believe' ( 1 0 : 2 5 ;

3 7
P p . 295-318 a b o v e .
 'His witness is true' 465

cp. 8: 2 5 , ' W h o are you?' . . . 'What I have told you all along' (NEB
margin)). For in J o h n the messianic secret is not that Jesus says nothing,
but that he says everything openly to the world ( 1 8 : 20) - yet only his own
sheep can hear and believe ( 1 0 : 26f).
Throughout this tenth chapter Jesus is at pains to distinguish himself as
38
the g o o d from the worthless shepherds o f Israel, echoing in 1 0 : 1 2 the
words o f the prophet Zechariah: 'Alas for the worthless shepherd w h o
abandons the sheep' (Zech. 1 1 : 1 7 ) . In particular he dissociates himself
from the pretenders claiming to enter and control the sheep-fold o f Israel.
The contrast is not with those who have gone before him, as the JIQO k\iov o f
10: 8 has inevitably suggested. But this is very doubtfully part o f the true
39
text. T h e contrast is with those w h o come without authorisation and
'climb in some other way' ( 1 0 : 1 ) . Jesus does not come 'of his own accord',
but with the authority o f him w h o sent him ( 7 : 28f; 8: 4 2 1 ) : they c o m e in
their o w n name, saying ty(b ei\ll, and claiming to be the Christ (Mark 1 3 : 6
and pars.; 1 3 : 2 1 - 3 and pars.; Luke 1 7 : 2 3 ) . T h e purposes for which the two
c o m e are diametrically opposed: for Jesus it is to give life, for them it is to
take life ( 1 0 : 1 0 ) . A n d whereas he voluntarily and o f his o w n accord lays
d o w n his life for the sheep ( 1 0 : n , 1 5 , 1 7 1 ) , they by their resort to violence
have their lives taken from them ( 1 0 : 1 8 ) . So far from being the nationalists
they claim, true Israelites ( c p . 1 : 4 7 ) , they are aXXoiQioi ( 1 0 : 5 ) , foreigners
to G o d ' s people ( c p . Matt. 1 7 : 2 5 1 ) . T h e y are burglars and bandits ( 1 0 : 1,
8 ) , XrjoraC, the word that is to be used subsequently for the political
insurrectionary Barabbas, w h o is contrasted with the true 'king o f the
Jews', Jesus ( 1 8 : 4 0 ) . It is the term too that Josephus uses for the Zealots,
and he gives vivid examples o f these terrorists and their methods (AJ xvii.
269-85, xx. 1 6 0 - 7 2 ; BJ ii. 5 5 - 6 5 , 2 6 4 ^ 4 3 3 - 4 0 ; iv. 5 0 3 - 1 3 ) . O n e in
particular (AJ xvii. 2 7 8 - 8 4 ; BJ ii. 6 0 - 5 ) offers an ironic commentary on
J o h n 1 0 . After speaking o f ' t h e great madness that settled upon the nation
because they had no king o f their o w n to restrain the populace by his moral
example (aQEtfj), Josephus goes on to tell o f an unknown shepherd
Athronges, w h o 'had the temerity to aspire to the kingship, thinking that if
he obtained it he would enjoy freedom to act more outrageously; as for
meeting death, he did not attach m u c h importance to the loss o f his life'
(very different from voluntarily laying it d o w n ) . H e 'donned the diadem'
and took the title o f 'king', and with his marauding bands slaughtered
R o m a n s and compatriots alike, killing, as Josephus puts it, 'sometimes in

3 8
F o r the setting in life o f this p a r a b l e in the c o n c l u d i n g c h a l l e n g e to the J e w i s h
leadership, see further ' T h e Parable o f the S h e p h e r d ' (John 10: 1-5)' in m y Twelve
New Testament Studies p p . 67-75.
3 9 s P
It is omitted inter alia b y p 4 5 75, , N * , R , al, lat, s y , sa - a powerful c o m b i n a t i o n .
It is b r a c k e t e d in the U n i t e d Bible Society's text.
4 66 J. A . T. R O B I N S O N

hope o f gain and at other times from the habit of killing'. T h e contrast with
the ' g o o d ' shepherd, especially as it is drawn out in J o h n 10: 1 0 , could
scarcely be more striking.
It is the determination to present Jesus as the true messiah or king o f
Israel and yet to make clear that he repudiated the overtones o f political
violence with which it was bound to be associated that dominates the tragic
irony o f the Johannine passion story. Before moving to this, however, we
should note the build-up to the arrest and trial o f j e s u s which J o h n is
careful to record. In Mark there is an early reference to a plot of Jewish
factions to make away with Jesus (3: 6 ) , but then no plans or procedures are
mentioned until the very end ( 1 1 : 1 8 ; 1 2 : 1 2 ; 1 4 : i f ) , when things are rushed
through in hugger-mugger fashion ( 1 4 : 5 5 - 6 4 ; 1 5 : 1 - 1 5 ) . In J o h n there are
a series o f abortive attempts at arrest or violence to Jesus's person (7: 3 0 , 3 2 ,
4 4 ; 8: 2 0 , 5 9 ; 1 0 : 3 1 , 3 9 ) , leading to a formal meeting and resolution o f the
Sanhedrin when a warrant is issued for his arrest and he is publicly
40
declared a wanted man ( 1 1 : 4 6 - 5 7 ) . B a m m e l has subjected this passage to
close analysis and concluded that its parallels with Jewish usage and
tradition afford good confidence that it represents reliable historical
material. H e summarises its main points as follows:
(a) a picture o f the prosecution o f j e s u s which makes the legal
proceedings begin a considerable time before the crucifixion;
(b) the fact that the legal processes are started and carried out
solely by the Jews;
(c) the part played by Caiaphas and the arguments presented by
him;
(d) the withdrawal of Jesus.
He goes on: 'Each o f these elements looks strange, but together they give a
picture which is thoroughly consistent, and is paralleled in more than one
41
detail by traditions which d o not merely reproduce the Fourth G o s p e l . '
Indeed the meeting and resolution o f the Sanhedrin and the part played by
Caiaphas seem to be reflected independently in Matt. 2 6 : 3 f . There
however this tradition is combined with Markan material which sets it a
bare two days before Passover and with a dating o f the crucifixion which
contradicts the clear determination that 'it must not be during the festival
. . . or there may be rioting among the people' (Matt. 2 6 : 2 , 5 ) . T h e
42
Johannine chronology is altogether more intelligible.

4 0
'Ex ilia itaque die consilium fecerun? in E. B a m m e l ( e d . ) , The Trial of Jesus ( L o n d o n ,
1970), especially p p . 29-35. C p . B r o w n , John, i, 44if; ii, 799; D o d d , Historical
4 1
Tradition, p p . 27f. Trial, p . 35.
4 2
It w o u l d take us w i d e o f our p u r p o s e to enter in detail into the w h o l e question o f the
dating o f the crucifixion, b u t it is o n e where (in contrast with the cleansing o f the
T e m p l e ) there is substantial critical support for the J o h a n n i n e c h r o n o l o g y .
 'His witness is true' 467

In J o h n Jesus goes into hiding after the warrant for his arrest until six
days before Passover ( 1 1 : 5 4 ; 1 2 : 1 ) . Then 'the next day the great body o f
pilgrims w h o had come to the festival, hearing that Jesus was on the way to
Jerusalem, took palm branches and went out to meet him' ( 1 2 : 1 2 1 ) . In all
43
the records o f the triumphal entry there is the same tense mixture o f the
spiritual and the political. T h e distinctive emphasis of J o h n is to present
Jesus's action as the conscious corrective of a planned political ovation. In the
synoptists it is Jesus himself w h o stage-manages his entry on a donkey
(Mark u : 1 - 7 and pars.) and the crowd which spontaneously cuts
brushwood from the fields (Mark 1 1 : 8 ) or branches from the trees (Matt.
2 1 : 8 ) . In John it is the crowd which takes the initiative, coming out from
Jerusalem to greet him with a reception calculated to evoke the spirit o f
4 4
M a c c a b a e a n nationalism ( 1 2 : 1 3 ) . It is Jesus w h o counters this by an
apparently spontaneous action: 'But (5e) Jesus found a donkey and
45
mounted it' ( 1 2 : 1 4 ) . T h e 'but' is omitted in the N E B . J . N . Sanders
however is surely right in interpreting it as 'a prompt repudiation o f the
crowd's acclamations'. T h e purpose o f the act o f prophetic symbolism is
clear. It is to say ' K i n g o f Israel' ( 1 2 : 1 3 ) , yes: but not that sort o f king
4 6
(12: 15). There is no suggestion in John, as in Luke ( 1 9 : 3 7 ) , that the
disciples had any part in the demonstration, or even in finding and
preparing the donkey (Mark 1 1 : 1 - 7 and pars.). They are merely recorded
as not understanding. For, as the evangelist stresses, the true significance o f
what happened could only be understood later in the light of the distinctive
and paradoxical manner in which Jesus was in fact to enter upon his glory
( 1 2 : 1 6 ) . Like all the history in the Fourth Gospel it is written 'from the end'
and its telling has been moulded by that 'calling to mind' which must wait
upon the gift o f the Spirit ( 1 4 : 2 6 ) . Yet what is 'remembered' is not only

4 3
C p . E . D . Freed, ' T h e Entry into J e r u s a l e m in the G o s p e l o f J o h n ' , yi?Z, 80 (1961),
329-38 (for d e p e n d e n c e u p o n the synoptists), and D . M . S m i t h , Jr, 'John 12: i2ff
and the Q u e s t i o n o f J o h n ' s U s e o f the S y n o p t i c s ' , JBL 82 (1963), 58-64 (against
dependence).
4 4
C p . W R . Farmer, ' T h e P a l m B r a n c h e s in J o h n 12.13', JTkSt n.s. 3 (1952), 62-3;
and R . H . Lightfoot, St John's Gospel ( O x f o r d , 1956), p . 238. C p . in particular
1 M a c e . 13:51 (the o n l y other o c c u r r e n c e o f (3atg in the biblical writings) and
2 M a c e . 10: 7 (cppivixctg). T h e fact, if it were a fact ( w h i c h it is n o t ) , that p a l m s d i d
not g r o w in J e r u s a l e m (e.g. R . B u l t m a n n , Das Evangelium des Johannes ( G o t t i n g e n ,
1941), p . 319 ( E T The Gospelofjohn ( O x f o r d , 1971), p . 418); to the contrary, H . StJ.
H a r t , ' T h e C r o w n o f T h o r n s in J o h n 19.2-5', JThSt n.s. 3 (1952), 72), w o u l d not
necessarily indicate that J o h n d i d not k n o w his t o p o g r a p h y b u t that they had been
b r o u g h t in earlier (for liturgical purposes; c p . N e h . 8: 15) and were used with
p r e m e d i t a t e d p u r p o s e ; c p . B r o w n , John, i, 456f.
4 5
J . N . Sanders a n d B . A . M a s t i n , The Gospel according to St John ( L o n d o n , 1968), p .
288.
4 6
T h e p o i n t o f the q u o t a t i o n s from Z e c h . 9:9 a n d (as he argues) Z e p h . 3: 16 is well
b r o u g h t o u t b y B r o w n , John, i, 462f.
468 J. A. T. ROBINSON

'that this had been written about him' but 'that this had happened to him':
not merely interpretation but event. Sanders's comment at this point is
again apposite:

So far from being 'hardly possible as history' (Barrett, p. 347), his [John's]
account may well reveal a better understanding than the other evangelists'
ofjesus's dilemma, as 'Son of David' by right, and conscious of a mission
to save Israel, yet refusing to adopt the only policy that the majority of his
47
people would understand or accept.

For J o h n the entry into Jerusalem, with its tragic-comic ' G o d bless the
king o f Israel!', presents the reader in advance with the clue by which the
trial o f j e s u s is to be interpreted: its proceedings turn more insistently
than in any other gospel upon the question, 'Are you the king o f the Jews?'
48
( 1 8 : 33)-
Indeed the whole of the latter part of John's Gospel is presented as a kind
of cosmic political trial, o f which it is the function o f the last discourses to
supply the heavenly dimension or spiritual interpretation. This was
brought out in a most original but neglected article by T h e o Preiss,
'Justification in Johannine T h o u g h t ' , originally submitted to the Festschrift
for Barth's sixtieth birthday in 1 9 4 6 and translated in the posthumous
collection o f his essays, Life in Christ** As far as I know, it has received no
50
mention in any subsequent commentary on J o h n . Preiss drew attention to
the markedly juridical emphasis in J o h n ' s Gospel (and Epistles), in such
categories as legal agent, witness, j u d g e , judgement, accuse, convict,
51
advocate. T h e whole action is viewed as a 'gigantic juridical contest'
between Jesus as the authorised persona o f G o d and 'the Prince o f this
world', culminating in a great reversal of judgement, when it will be seen
that it is the latter w h o is c o n d e m n e d and Jesus w h o has won the case by
his exaltation to the Father. T h i s will become apparent only in the light o f
the work o f the Paraclete; for he, as both defending and prosecuting coun­
sel, will call the victorious lives o f Christians to witness in the court o f
heaven to clinch the great demonstration o f how matters really lie.
Meanwhile in the earthly events, for those w h o have the eyes to see it, 'the
47
John, p p . 288f.
4 8
I n J o h n ' s passion narrative there are 12 o c c u r r e n c e s o f paoiXeiig (plus 3 o f
PaoiXeia), c o m p a r e d with 4 in M a t t h e w , 6 in M a r k a n d 4 in L u k e . T h i s is the m o r e
n o t a b l e in v i e w o f only 2 o c c u r r e n c e s in J o h n o f f| PaoiXeia TOV 9 e o \ ) .
4 9
E T ( L o n d o n , 1954), p p . 9 - 3 1 .
5 0
It is o n e o f the merits o f H a h n ' s article, ' D e r Prozess J e s u nach d e m
J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m ' , EKK ii, 95, that he c o m m e n d s it, albeit briefly.
Surprisingly, it d o e s not e v e n receive mention in A . E. H a r v e y ' s Jesus on Trial. A
Study in the Fourth Gospel ( L o n d o n , 1976), w h i c h c a m e o u t t o o late to b e taken into
a c c o u n t here, but w h i c h e x p a n d s the s a m e thesis in a most suggestive m a n n e r .
51
Key passages for these t e r m s are J o h n 5:22-47; 7:45-52; 8:13-18, 28, 45f;
t o l
12:31-3, 44-50; 14:30^ 15:22-7; 1 6 : 7 - 1 1 , 3 3 ; 18:29 9-16.
 'His witness is true' 469

judgement o f this world' ( 1 2 : 3 1 ) is about to be played out with all its

ambiguities and double meanings. It is the world that supposes it is doing
the judging. Pilate, as the unwitting representative o f the higher power, not
merely o f Caesar but o f G o d , exercises the royal t^ovoia granted to him
( 1 9 : 1 1 ) . H e takes his seat on the tribunal as j u d g e ( 1 9 : 1 3 ) . Yet the
exdSloev could be deliberately ironical, carrying the overtones also o f the
transitive sense of'setting' upon the judgement-throne the M a n to w h o m
the right to pass judgement has been committed ( c p . 5: 2 7 ) . T h e transitive
52
sense cannot be the primary o n e , though echoes o f this way o f thinking in
the early church are to be found in the Gospel o f Peter 3: 7, ' T h e y put upon
him a purple robe and set him on the judgement-seat and said "Judge
righteously, O King o f Israel!" ' , and in Justin, Apol. i. 3 5 . 6 , 'They
tormented him, and set him on the judgement-seat, and said, "Judge us".'
In both these cases it is the Jews w h o d o this; but in John it would be part of
the irony o f Pilate's action. For, in contrast with the synoptists, J o h n has
Pilate himself bring out the prisoner in his purple cloak and mock radiate
53
crown and publicly present him to the Jews as their king ( 1 9 : 1 4 ) . A n d the
political implications o f the scene are drawn out to the full: ' I f you let this
54
man g o , you are no friend to Caesar; any man who claims to be a king is
defying Caesar' ( 1 9 : 1 2 ) ; ' "Crucify your king?" said Pilate. " W e have no
king but Caesar", the Jews replied' ( 1 9 : 1 5 ) .
O f course the story is written up to bring out the theological dimensions
o f the drama that is being enacted. But once again J o h n appears to be
giving the truth, as he sees it, of the history, rather than creating ex nihilo. As
55
Brown says,

T h e Synoptic Gospels never adequately explain why Pilate yielded to the

importunings o f the crowd and the priests. . . . John's picture o f Pilate
worried about what might be said at R o m e has a very good chance o f being
historical. According to Philo, Ad Gaium xxxviii. 30if, Pilate was naturally

5 2
Despite H a r n a c k , L o i s y , M a c g r e g o r , and most recently I. d e la Potterie, 'Jesus, roi
et j u g e d ' a p r e s J n . 19:13: £xd6ioev ini fir\\iaxo<;\ Bb 41 (i960), 217-47. F o r a full
survey, c p . D a u e r , Passionsgeschickte, p p . 269-74, w h o c o m e s d o w n against. A s
B u l t m a n n observes, John, p . 664, 'an ctvxov w o u l d b e indispensible'. D o d d ,
Historical Tradition, p . 119, and H a h n , EKK ii, 48-50, are also decisive for the in­
transitive. ( F o r striking parallels for the p r o c u r a t o r taking his seat o n the (Jfjutt c p .
J o s e p h u s , BJ ii, 172, 301.) Y e t other c o m m e n t a t o r s are surprisingly o p e n to a
s e c o n d a r y m e a n i n g : e.g. Barrett, R . H . Lightfoot, B r o w n , a n d L i n d a r s , a d l o c .
5 3
C p . H a r t , JThSt n.s. 3 (1952), 66-75. Even i f his theory is not substantiated the
irony remains.
5 4
For ' C a e s a r ' s friend' as a title o f h o n o u r , c p . E . B a m m e l , '<I>iXog xoiJ xaioctoog',
ThLZ 77 (1952), 205-10; E. Stauffer, Jesus. Gestalt und Geschichte (Bern, 1957), p p .
11 of, E T Jesus and his Story ( L o n d o n , i960), p p . iogf; S h e r w i n - W h i t e , Roman Society,
p . 47.
55
John, ii, 89of.
470 J. A. T. ROBINSON

inflexible a n d stubbornly resisted w h e n the J e w s c l a m o r e d against h i m

until they m e n t i o n e d that the E m p e r o r Tiberius w o u l d n o t a p p r o v e his
violating their customs. 'It was this final point that particularly struck
h o m e , for he feared that if they actually sent an embassy, they w o u l d also
e x p o s e the rest o f his c o n d u c t as g o v e r n o r ' . . . . A shrewd ecclesiastical
politician like Caiaphas w o u l d have been quite aware o f the prefect's
56
vulnerability and p r o m p t to p r o b e it.

Yet in all this the non-political and non-violent nature o f Jesus's

kingship is m a d e explicit in J o h n 1 8 : 36ft

' M y k i n g d o m does not b e l o n g to this w o r l d . I f it d i d , m y followers w o u l d

b e fighting to save m e from arrest b y the J e w s . M y kingly authority c o m e s
from elsewhere.' ' Y o u are a king, then?' said Pilate. Jesus answered,
' " K i n g " is y o u r w o r d . M y task is to bear witness to the truth. F o r this was
I b o r n ; for this I c a m e into the w o r l d , and all w h o are n o t d e a f to truth
57
listen to m y v o i c e . '

T a k i n g u p , as the passage d o e s , the previous injunctions at the arrest, ' L e t

these others g o ' ( 1 8 : 8 ) and 'Sheathe y o u r s w o r d ' ( 1 8 : 1 1 ) , there c o u l d not
be a clearer disavowal o f power-politics. Y e t , equally, the manner in w h i c h
the religious charge against Jesus, which for the J e w s is the real gravamen
in all the Gospels ( M a r k 1 4 : 6 3 f and pars.; J o h n 1 9 : 7 ) , was capable o f being
twisted into the political is nowhere m o r e fatefully evident than in J o h n .
H e stresses that the two aspects were inseparable. In this G o s p e l the
arrest o f j e s u s is already the work o f R o m a n soldiers, as well as o f the
5 8
constables o f the Jewish court ( 1 8 : 3 , 1 2 ) . T h i s R o m a n involvement has
59
been m u c h questioned, and even d e n i e d . But if one's first reaction is to

5 6
It w a s precisely this sort o f d e n u n c i a t i o n to R o m e b y his subjects that led to Pilate
eventually losing his post in 36-37 (Josephus, AJ xviii. 88f).
5 7
C p . the e c h o in the last w o r d s o f the test o f messiahship in 10: 27: ' M y o w n sheep
listen t o m y v o i c e . '
5 8
T h e VJiTjoexai, a w o r d w h i c h J o h n always uses in its technical sense, w e r e n o t
' t e m p l e p o l i c e ' ( N E B ) b u t constables o f the court o f the Sanhedrin acting in its
j u d i c i a l c a p a c i t y . C p . M a t t . 5: 25; M a r k 14:65; J o h n 18: 22; A c t s 5: 2 if; a n d note the
i r o n y o f J o h n 18:36: 'my tJJiT]Qexai'.
5 9
E.g. b y Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (4th edn. R e g e n s b u r g , 1969), p p . 90-9; E T o f 2nd
e d n . 1959: The Trial of Jesus Westminster, M a r y l a n d , 1959), p p . 63-70; a n d
B a m m e l , p . 439 a b o v e . It seems to m e m o s t i m p r o b a b l e that J o h n d i d not intend to
use OJteiQa a n d xi\ia.QXOq, like the rest o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t writers, as the
equivalents o f the R o m a n cohors a n d tribunus. ( S o in revised E T o f E . Schiirer,
History of the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus i ( E d i n b u r g h , 1973), p . 372, n. 86.) O f
c o u r s e the L X X d o e s n o t d o s o b e c a u s e it is not talking a b o u t the R o m a n s ; b u t its
parallels certainly d o n o t bear o u t the desired m e a n i n g o f OJieiQa as a small
d e t a c h m e n t ( e . g . 2. M a c e . 12:20!). Such resort b e c o m e s plausible only if R o m a n
participation is utterly i m p r o b a b l e - b u t see b e l o w . M . G o g u e l , La Vie de Jesus
(Paris, 1932), p . 315 ( E T The Life of Jesus ( L o n d o n , 1933) p p . 468O, a n d P. W i n t e r ,
On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p p . 44-9, m a k e the point that R o m a n
 'His witness is true' 471

find it strange and historically improbable, it may on reflection again bear

out, and indeed explain, the synoptic account. All the synoptists concur -
and it is the only point in the story at which Luke agrees verbatim with
Matthew and Mark - that Jesus asked the question of his captors, ' D o you
take me for a bandit, that you have come out with swords and cudgels to
arrest me?' (Mark 1 4 : 4 8 and pars.) N o w if we stop to ask w h o would arrest
a Xflorrjs, and h o w , the answer is obvious. It was certainly not the Jews who
apprehended Barabbas (John 1 8 : 4 0 ) or the two Xflorai crucified with Jesus
(Matt. 27: 38; Mark 1 5 : 2 7 ) . It was the Romans; and they would take the
proper military precaution of doing it in force. What is distinctive about the
arrest o f Jesus is that the Jewish authorities took the initiative and
collaborated. T h e y did so because the informer was in their pay and was
answering the call of the Sanhedrin, which John alone reports, 'that anyone
who knew where he was should give information, so that they might arrest
him' ( 1 1 : 5 7 ) . T h e words ofjesus to Pilate in 1 8 : 3 6 ('my followers would be
60
fighting to save me from arrest by the Jews') presuppose again that it was
the Jews, not the Romans, who were out to seize him ( c p . 1 9 : n ) . Their
reasons for wanting him were religious ( 1 1 : 4 7 1 ) , though doubtless the
Jewish establishment was able easily enough to obtain R o m a n assistance
by representing him, then as later, as a danger to the peace. But in the first
instance he was a wanted man on the Jewish list, for w h o m a summons was
out from a properly convened Jewish court. So it is to this court that he was
handed over - by the Romans.
So far from this being irregular or improbable there are close parallels in
61
the story of Acts 21 to 2 3 . There too 'the officer' (xikiaQXOq) commanding
62
'the cohort' (xfjg OJteiQT)g) took a force o f soldiers to keep the peace
( 2 1 : 3 1 1 ) , and he too supposes he has gone out against a Xflaxrjg: 'Then you
are not the Egyptian that started a revolt some time ago and led a force o f
four thousand terrorists out into the wilds? ( 2 1 : 38). W e are not told how

participation in the arrest goes against J o h n ' s tendency (as they see it) to place
responsibility for the death o f j e s u s o n the J e w s while exonerating Pilate, and
c a n n o t therefore b e regarded as his invention. H . - W . Bartsch, ' W e r verurteilte
Jesus z u m T o d e ? ' , Nov Test 7 (1964/65), d o e s n o t think W i n t e r establishes this. But I
w o u l d regard R o m a n participation as in any case entirely natural u n d e r the
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n d in n o w a y 'astonishing' ( C . K . Barrett, The Gospel of John and
Judaism ( L o n d o n , 1975), p . 71; t h o u g h he is w r o n g in saying that in J o h n 'the
R o m a n s rather than the J e w s arrest J e s u s ' (italics m i n e ) ) .
60
1 o w e this p o i n t to H a h n , EKK ii, 40.
6 1
O n the legal aspects o f this, c p . S h e r w i n - W h i t e , Roman Society, p p . 48-70.
6 2
A s has often been o b s e r v e d (e.g., Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p p . i6of), J o h n ' s similar
use o f 'the c o h o r t ' in 18: 3, 12 m a y reflect k n o w l e d g e o f the fact ( c p . J o s e p h u s , BJ ii.
224; v . 244) that prior to the J e w i s h w a r a R o m a n c o h o r t was regularly quartered in
the T u r r i s A n t o n i a a n d always m o u n t e d guard to prevent disorders at the feasts.
After 70 a radical c h a n g e took p l a c e in the garrisoning o f Palestine; c p . Schiirer,
History, i, 366f.
472 J. A. T. ROBINSON

many troops he took - obviously not the whole cohort o f six hundred men
(later he detached two hundred to convoy Paul to Caesarea ( 2 3 : 2 3 ) ) . As
6 3
Bernard comments on John 1 8 : 3 :

It is n o t . . . to be supposed that John means that the whole strength of the

regiment (cf. Mark 15: 16) was turned out to aid in the arrest ofjesus; the
words A.a|3(bv xf|v ajieioav indicate no more than that Judas had got the
5
help of'the cohort , i.e. a detachment, with whom the commanding officer
of the garrison came (verse 12), in view of possible developments.

Moreover, there is no difficulty about the fact that the Romans deliver the
prisoner bound to the Jewish authorities. For in Acts, even though Paul is a
declared R o m a n citizen ( 2 2 : 25—9) and is in Roman protective custody, he
is on a charge before the Jewish high court (22: 30; 2 3 : 28f), and it remains
within the power o f the Sanhedrin to apply to the commandant to bring him
before them ( 2 3 : 1 5 ) . Subsequently Lysias reports: 'I found that the
accusation had to d o with the controversial matters in their own law, but
there was no charge against him meriting death or imprisonment'
64
( 2 3 : 2 9 ) . That would have been the end o f it as far as the Romans were
concerned, were it not that, thanks to information received (|!Tivv8eioTi5,
the same technical term as in John 1 1 : 5 7 ) , a plot against Paul's life had
been uncovered ( 2 3 : 3 0 ) .
With Jesus too, since the threat o f civil violence turned out to be equally
unfounded, that would have been the end o f it for the Romans - had not the
Jews been able to represent their religious charge of blasphemy as at the same time the
political one of high treason. A n d this is really the nub o f the whole affair. T h e
strength o f the Johannine account is that it gives, I believe, a better
explanation o f the relationship o f the two than any other.
All the Gospels agree that Jesus went to his death on a political charge
and yet that the participants in the drama, the Jewish leaders, Pilate, and
Jesus himself, all knew in their hearts that this was a false charge. T h e real
accusation lay elsewhere, yet it was the political one that could, and must,
be made to stick. A s D o d d succinctly sums up the situation,

MJohn, p . 584.
6 4
T h i s had not prevented the c o m m a n d a n t , like the magistrates at Philippi (16: 22),
o r d e r i n g a preliminary flogging (22: 241"), and it is interesting that it c o m e s at the
s a m e stage a n d is d e s c r i b e d b y the s a m e term ((Aaori^eiv) as in J o h n ' s a c c o u n t o f
the trial o f j e s u s (19: 1). Y e t it is regularly asserted (e.g. b y B. A . M a s t i n in Sanders
a n d M a s t i n , John, p p . 399^ and B. Lindars, The Gospel of John ( L o n d o n , 1972), p p .
363O that J o h n has deliberately o r ignorantly turned upside d o w n the
M a r k a n - M a t t h a e a n order, where, quite properly, the (severer) jiagellatio o c c u r s
after the sentence ( M a t t . 27: 26; M a r k 15: 15) as a regular part o f the preliminaries
to crucifixion ( c p . J o s e p h u s , BJ ii. 306; v. 449; L i v y xxxiii. 36; S h e r w i n - W h i t e ,
Roman Law, p p . 27O. L u k e (23: 16, 22) also mentions the threat o f a preliminary
beating in the s a m e p l a c e as J o h n , but w e are not told whether it w a s carried o u t .
 'His witness is true' 473

The priests had a double aim in view: Jesus must be removed by death; he
must also be discredited. The death sentence therefore must be legally and
formally pronounced by the governor. T h e surest w a y to secure such a
sentence would be to cite the Defendant on a charge o f political
disaffection. But such a charge would b y n o means discredit him in the
eyes o f the Jewish public; quite the contrary. It was for the Sanhedrin to
65
show that he was guilty o f an offence against religion.

T h e one charge that met both requirements was that o f claiming to be the
Christ, which could be interpreted from the religious point o f view as the
66
blasphemous one o f making himself Son o f God (John 10: 3 3 ~ 6 ; c p . 5: 18;
1 9 : 7 ) and from the political point of view as the seditious one of pretending
to the throne. A n d the Gospels agree on the fatal way in which these three
terms, Christ, Son o f G o d and King, could slide, or be made to slide, into
one another (Matt. 2 6 : 6 3 ; 2 7 : 4 2 ^ Mark 1 4 : 6 1 ; 1 5 : 3 2 ; Luke 2 2 : 6 7 - 7 0 ;
2 3 - 2 , 35> 3 7 ; John 1 : 4 1 , 4 9 ; 1 8 : 3 3 ; 1 9 : 7)-
T h e first requirement o f any satisfactory account o f the trial is that it
should be able to show how the political charge, though recognised to be
disingenuous, could still have seemed plausible. T h e strength o f an
interpretation like Brandon's is that Jesus's position must have been patient
of the construction put upon it in Luke 2 3 : 2 , ' W e found this man subverting
our nation, opposing the payment o f taxes to Caesar and claiming to be
Messiah, a king.' T h e weakness o f such an interpretation is that it does not
do justice to the knowledge that this construction was fundamentally a lie.
This is nowhere made clearer than in John. Not only is the reader appraised
unequivocally o f the inner truth, but the disingenuousness o f the Jewish
leadership over their real charge against Jesus is subtly conveyed. They
begin their dealings with Pilate by trying to get away without being specific
at all: 'Pilate went out to them and asked, " W h a t charge d o you bring
against this m a n ? " " I f he were not a criminal", they replied, " w e should
not have brought him before y o u " . ' ( 1 8 : 291) W h e n that fails, as it must,
they g o for the capital charge o f treason ( 1 8 : 3 3 to 1 9 : 6 ) . W h e n Pilate finds
no case on that one, they fall back on the real offence (for the Jews) o f his
blasphemous claim to be Son o f God ( 1 9 : 7 ) - though taking the trouble to
6 7
dress up their charge in the pagan terms of being a son of God (vibv 0eou)

6 5
Founder, p . 156. F o r the interrelation o f the religious and political c h a r g e s , c p . also
Brown, John, ii, p p . 798-802.
6 6
C p . the |3Xao(pT]uia here with that in M a r k 14:64 = M a t t . 26:65. It appears to
attach to the theological implications o f ' S o n o f G o d ' rather than o f ' C h r i s t ' ( c p . L u k e
22:66-71).
6 7
D o d d , Historical Tradition, p p . 113f, rightly d r a w s attention to the a b s e n c e o f articles
here - t h o u g h I w o u l d h o l d that they should b e o m i t t e d , w i t h strong m a n u s c r i p t
s u p p o r t , in 10: 36, w h e r e , for different ( a n d this time J e w i s h ) reasons, the logic o f
the a r g u m e n t e q u a l l y requires it ( c p . m y The Human Face of God ( L o n d o n , 1972), p .
474 J. A . T. R O B I N S O N

or a 6eiog a v 6 Q 0 ) J i o g and thus play on the R o m a n prefect's fear o f the

6 8
supernatural ( 1 9 : 8f, c p . Matt. 2 7 : 1 9 ) . Finally, with that getting them
nowhere, they return to the political tack and out-manoeuvre Pilate
with the utterly cynical claim o f being more loyal to Caesar than he
(19: 1 2 - 1 6 ) .
O f the three charges in the Lukan indictment - that Jesus was a disturber
o f the peace, a rebel against R o m e , and a claimant to the throne of Israel - it
is the last which stands out, and upon which alone Pilate seizes (Luke 2 3 : 3;
though c p . 23: 1 4 ) . T h e trial turns on his supposed claim to kingship ( M a r k
15:2 and pars.; J o h n 1 8 : 3 3 ) : it is not simply that he is one more
insurrectionary like Barabbas (Mark 1 5 : 7; Luke 2 3 : 1 9 ; John 1 8 : 4 0 ) or the
two others crucified with him (Matt. 27: 38; Mark 1 5 : 2 7 ) . T h e Gospels are
unanimous that he was condemned to execution as messianic pretender to
the throne o f Israel, 'the king o f the J e w s ' (Mark 1 5 : 2 6 and pars.; J o h n
1 9 : 1 9 ) . T h e y all agree too that he did not express it in this way himself, but
threw the question back when it was put to him with ' T h e words are yours'
(Mark 1 5 : 2 and pars.; John 1 8 . 3 7 ) . Pilate's refusal therefore, according to
J o h n ( 1 9 : 2 if), to alter the titulus at the request o f the Jews to ' H e said, I am
king of the J e w s ' was entirely correct. It was not he w h o said it but they - as
Mark also makes Pilate insist: 'the manjoa call the king of the Jews' ( 1 5 : 1 2 ) .
Yet, for J o h n , in the deepest and truest sense he was 'the king o f the J e w s ' .
69
So Pilate is made to testify to it. As D o d d put it earlier, with a true sense o f
the juridical context in which the whole drama is being played, ' H e is thus,
as it were, subpoenaed as an unwilling witness to Christ's authority, as Son
o f M a n , to j u d g e the world (as Caiaphas was subpoenaed to testify that H e
died to gather the scattered children o f G o d ( 1 1 : 5 0 - 2 ) ) . '
N o one is arguing that the Johannine account o f the trial or o f anything
else is to be assessed primarily by the canons o f factual accuracy. T h a t
indeed is to j u d g e things 'as the eyes see' (7: 2 4 ) , 'by worldly standards'
(8: 1 5 ) , rather than with true discernment, and inevitably to misunder­
stand and misrepresent. John is concerned primarily with theological verity
70
rather than with historical verisimilitude. Yet, once again, it is the truth o f

189). T h e a b s e n c e o f articles in 1: 14 a n d 5:27 s h o w s that J o h n ' s usage in this regard

is far from accidental ( c p . also M a r k 15:39 = M a t t . 27:54).
6 8
C p . D o d d , Historical Tradition, p . 114: ' T h e w h o l e episode therefore is entirely in
character, a n d to all a p p e a r a n c e s it o w e s nothing to theological motives. T h u s in
the o n e p l a c e where the course o f the narrative directly invites theological
exploitation, it remains o n a strictly matter-of-fact level. T h i s is surely a very
r e m a r k a b l e feature in a w o r k so d o m i n a t e d b y theological interests.'
6 9
Interpretation, p . 436.
7 0
F o r the elaboration o f this, c p . m y ' T h e U s e o f the Fourth G o s p e l for C h r i s t o l o g y
T o d a y ' in B . L i n d a r s and S. S. Smalley ( e d s . ) , Christ and Spirit in the New Testament:
Studies in Honour of C.F.D. Moule ( C a m b r i d g e , 1973), p p . 61-78.
 'His witness is true' 475

the history that he claims to present, not of a fictitious tale. So we may end
with D o d d ' s concluding assessment o f the Johannine trial scene:

Here w e have for the first time an account which, though it leaves some
gaps, is coherent and consistent, with a high degree o f verisimilitude. . . .
It is pervaded with a lively sense for the situation as it was in the last
half-century before the extinction o f Jewish local a u t o n o m y . It is aware o f
the delicate relations between the native and the imperial authorities. It
reflects a time w h e n the d r e a m o f an independent J u d a e a under its o w n
king had not yet sunk to the level o f a chimera, and w h e n the messianic
ideal was not a theologumenon but impinged on practical politics, and the
bare mention o f a 'king o f the J e w s ' stirred violent emotions; a time,
moreover, when the constant preoccupation o f the priestly holders o f
p o w e r under R o m e was to d a m p d o w n any first s y m p t o m s o f such
emotions. T h e s e conditions were present in J u d a e a before A.D. 70, and not
later, and not elsewhere. This, I submit, is the true Sitz im Leben o f the
71
essential elements in the J o h a n n i n e trial narrative.

T h e case we have been arguing does not depend on claiming that John
alone gives us the truth, or that his account is distinctively different. Indeed
the argument has at most points been that it is he who enables us to make
full sense o f the synoptists, even when he diverges from them. Yet it is not
primarily in additional information, however valuable and illuminating, that
his contribution lies, but in the interpretation that he allows us to see in,
rather than imposes upon, the c o m m o n story. In particular he draws out
the fascinating and fateful ambiguities, religious and political, inherent in
the categories in which the person and work o f Christ were compassed. I
believe therefore that Cullmann was correct in saying that his reconstruc­
tion in Jesus and the Revolutionaries, based as it is on material supplied by the
synoptists, receives its most succinct and profound expression in John.
Whether John has got it right (if he has) from theological insight or from

71
Historical Tradition, p . 120. C p . C . H . T u r n e r , Studies in Early Church History ( O x f o r d ,
1912), p . 191: 'I should feel m i n d e d to urge every student w h o wants to understand
the m e a n i n g o f the R o m a n e m p i r e in history to master t w o b r i e f passages in the
B i b l e , the story o f the o p e n i n g o f relations b y J u d a s M a c c a b a e u s with R o m e in
1 M a c e . 8, and the fourth evangelist's a c c o u n t o f the trial before Pilate.'
S h e r w i n - W h i t e , Roman Society, p . 47, c o n c l u d e s : 'After the survey o f the legal and
administrative b a c k g r o u n d it is a p p a r e n t that there is n o historical i m p r o b a b i l i t y in
the J o h a n n i n e variations o f this sort from the s y n o p t i c version.' H e strongly defends
( p p . 32-43) the historicity o f J o h n 18:31, ' w e are not allowed to put any m a n to
d e a t h ' , w h i c h is crucial also to the credibility o f the s y n o p t i c a c c o u n t s . S o t o o
D a u e r , Passsionsgeschichte, p p . 143-5.
Since c o m p l e t i n g this study I have seen an unpublished paper, ' T h e Trial o f
J e s u s ' , b y Fergus G . B . M i l l a r , editor o f the Journal of Roman Studies, from w h i c h he
kindly allows m e to q u o t e . In it he says, 'I wish to suggest that the most c o n v i n c i n g
a c c o u n t w e have o f the events leading u p to the Crucifixion is that o f J o h n . . . . It
is J o h n w h o allows us to see what really h a p p e n e d . '
476 J. A . T . R O B I N S O N

inside historical knowledge, or both, depends upon judgements about his

tradition that involve far wider considerations. But that 'his witness is true'
on the fundamental issue o f the relationship of the spiritual to the political is
a claim which must be j u d g e d to have stood the test.
 Index of authors

A b r a h a m s , I., 26011, 27711 Bauer, W . , u o n , i85n, i8gn, ig5n, 207n,

A b r a m z i k , G . , 12411 234n, 285n, 2g8n, 30m, 303^ 323n,
A h a r o n i , Y . , 25611 35gn, 362n, 37 m , 4 2 4 ^ 437n, 44on
A l a n d , B . , 268, 276n B a u m , G . , 43 m
A l a n d , K . , i84n-i85n, 268, 276n, 367n, B a u m a n n , E. A . , 37on
379 n
B a u m b a c h , G . , 45n, 5on, ii3n, 2g5n,
A l b e c k , C , 278n 3i3n, 396n
Albertz, M . , 266n Baur, F. C , i7n, 25n, g i , g2, g3
Alexander, G., n n , i2n B e a , A . , 45n
Alfaric, P., i g n Beare, F. W . , 2gin
Alfoldi, A . , 209n Beasley-Murray, G . R . , i62n
Allegro, J. M . , 27gn, 293n, 397n Beaverbrook, Lord, 3m
A i m , R . v . d . , i5n, ig8n Becker, J., i43n
Alt, A . , 1 i o n Beer, M . , 27gn
A l v e s , R . , 66n Beilner, W . , 1 3 m
A n d e r m a n n , F., 37n, 47n, 54n, i i 5 n Bell, H . J . , 2 n 9

A n o n , ( ' A . D . ' ) , 21 ben-David, A . , u o n , I24n, 25 n 9

A r c h e r , G . , 42gn Benoit, P., 78n

A r n o l d , C . F., ig8n Berendts, A . , 32n
A s c h , S., 47n Berger, K . , 56n, 13m, i4on
A s s m a n n , H . , 65n Bergmeier, R . , 366n
Berlinger, R . , 38 m
B a c h , J. S. ( C a n t a t a 119), 383 Bernard, J. H . , i26n, 46on, 472
Bacher, W . , i85n, 22on, 28on Bernhardt, J., 377n
Bacon, B. W . , 37m Bertram, G . , 3 i o n
B a c o n t h o r p e , J., 265n Betz, O . , 2g2-3, 328n, 3g2n
B a m m e l , E., 11-68, 109-28, ig7, 2og, Beyschlag, W . , i3on
1
211-40, 353-64> 365-83^ 4 I 5 - 5 ; 95**, Bickermann, E., u o n , 2i5n, 278n, 373n,
n ! n ! i n l n l 8 n 1
i33 > 39 > 4 > 43 > 9 > "9 * 423n, 424n, 426n, 427n, 437
n n 2 o 6 n 2
*93 > *95 > > 98n, 30on, 30m, Biehl, I., 372n
302n, 303n, 305n, 306, 3o8n, 466, 46g; Bienert, W . , 33n, 35n, 363n
references to articles in other Bigelmair, A . , 382n
publications, 43n, ii2n, ii4n, n8n, Billerbeck, F., 267n, 278n
n g n , 23m, 232n, 236n, 36on, 36m, Bindley, T . H . , 45on
378n, 4i5n, 435n, 436n, 437n, 44m Bingham, J., 286n
Banks, R . , 267n Birdsall, J. N . , 438n
Barker, M . , 3ogn Bischoff, B . , 447n
Barnes, T . D . , i88n Black, M . , 2 8 7 ^ 4 ; 86n, i2on, 266n, 283n,
Barnett, P. W . , 462n 287n
Barnikol, E., 22n, 366 Blass, F., 266n, 268, 303n, 304n, 3 1 4 ^
Barrett, C . K . , 86n, g8n, ig2~3, 45g-6o, 4o8n, 41 i n
468, 47 m Blatezky, A . , 64n
Barth, K . , 365n Blenkinsopp, J., 324n
Barthelemy, D . , 3g7n Blinzler, J., s o n , 2g8n, 357n, 400, 4o6n
Bartsch, H . - W . , 47n, 38gn, 402n, 4 7 m 4i4n, 417n, 4i8n, 422n, 4 2 7 ^ 42gn,
Bauer, B . , 22 n 6n
432n, 433 > 4 3 > 457 > 47<> n n

Bauer, I., 62n Bloch, E., 6 i n , 63, 365n

Bauer, J. B., ig8n B l o c h , M . , 23n

477
478 Index o f authors

B l u m e n k r a n t z , B . , 1 9 m , 19211, 44811 C a d b u r y , H . J., 3 m

B l u m h a r d t , C . F., 5611 C a d o u x , C . J., 33n
B o l d , W . , 37911 C a i r d , G. B . , 459n
Boll, L . , 6411 Calvert, D . G. A . , i34n
BonhofTer, D . , 64 C a m p e n h a u s e n , H . v o n , i42n, 38m
B o o b y e r , G. H . , 22 m C a m u s , A . , 56
B o r g , M . , 511, 94n, 36611 C a r m i c h a e l , J., 47-8, 54
B o r n h a u s e r , K . , 367, 423, 427 C a r r , B . , 57n
B o r n k a m m , G., 12 m , i3on, i36n, i4on, n n
C a t c h p o l e , D . , 3i9"345 37 > 43 > 4 ^ ,
14m, 14211 96n, 1 3 m , 284n, 39m, 426n, 439n,
Bousset, W . , 26n, H 7 n - n 8 n , 130, 355, 445"
356 C h a m b e r l a i n , H . C , 31
B o v o n , F., 46n, 43 m C h a r l t o n , I., 5gn
B o w k e r , J., 449n C h e e s m a n , G. L . , 443n
B r a n d o n , S. G. F., 1, 2-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, C h o r i n , S. b . , 45n, i29n
37-43, 52n, 53, 59, 64, 79-80, 93-5, 99, C h u b b , T . , i2n
101, 102-7, i29n, i36n, 138, 143, 144, C h w o l s o n , D . , i25n
i48n, 204n, 2i7n, 259, 266n, 284, 290, Clark, K . W . , i 3 n 5

322-3, 332n, 335, 338n, 350, 3 5 7 ^ 364n, C l e a g e , A . B . , 57n, 60-1, 67n

296n, 398, 399n, 406, 426n, 427n, 446n, C l e m e n , C , 1 i2n
456, 473 C o h e n , G. D . , ig2n
Brandt, W . , i33n, 4 4 m C o h e n , S . J . D . , i86n
B r a u m a n n , G., 46n, 39on C o h n , H . , 6, 49-51, 399n, 427n, 4 3 9 ^
Braun, H . , i3on, i34n, i38n, i39n, i4on, 442n
i44n, 29 m , 356n C o l a n i , T . , 13
Braunert, H . , 37n C o l e r i d g e , S. T . , 1 i n
B r e n t a n o , L . , 57n C o l e s , R . A . , 444n
Brock, S. P., i87n, 267n C o l i n , J., 43on
Brocker, W . , 26n C o l p e , C , i36n, 39m, 395n
B r o d , M . , 37n C o m b l i n , J., 62n, 63n
B r o m m e , E., n 5 4
C o n e , J. H . , 57n, s8n, 67
B r o w n , R . E., 322n, 453, 456n, 457, 460, C o n n o l l y , R . H . , 2i8n
461m, 466n, 467n, 469-70, 473n C o n w a y , J. S., 36n
Bruce, F. F., 69-89, 249-63; 94n, 98n, 99n, C o n z e l m a n n , H . , 74n, i33n, 337, 407n,
24m 409n, 4i3n, 432n
B u c h a n a n , G. W., 53, iisn C o r s s o n , P., 29n, 429n
Buchheit, G., 5on C o w l e y , A . , 278n
B u c h n e r , E., 376n C r a m e r , J. A . , 348n
BuchneT, K . , 29n C r e e d , J. M . , i64n, 2i3n, 405n
B u c k o w , W . D . , 67n C r e i z e n a c h , W . , 448n
Buehler, W . W . , 11 o n C u l l m a n n , O . , 46n, 64, i2on, i33n, i43n,
Buhr, H . , 26n 232n, 26m, 288n, 290-1, 3 1 2 - 3 1 3 ^
Bultmann, R . , 3 m , 32n, 67, i2on, I29n, 379n, 428n, 454, 475
I 2
i3°> 3 - 3 *35> 2i6n, 222n, 224n, 234n,
> C u m o n t , F., 29n
25on, 270, 291-2, 294, 297n, 301, 302n,
304n, 305n, 307, 3 0 9 ^ 3 i o n , 3i5n, D a m m a n n , E., 5gn
3i7n, 325, 328n, 33on, 356, 405n, 427n, D a n b y , H . , 43n
43on, 467n, 469n D a n i e l o u , J., 4on
B u r c h a r d , C . , i33n D a u b e , D . , i35n, I39n, 14m, 209n, 23m,
B u r c k h a r d t , J., 235 235n, 274n, 3o6n, 344n, 366n, 4i6n,
Burkitt, F. C . , 7on-7in, ii2n, i i 7 n , 232n, 4i8n, 423n, 44on, 443n
275n, 285n, 40on, 432n, 459n Dauer, A . , 354n, 36on, 4i6n, 42on, 42 m ,
Burney, C . F., 287n n
453 > 4 ^ 9 475" n
5

B u s c h , E., 67n, 36511 D a v e y , F. N . , 456n

Buse, I., 21 i n D a v i d s o n , A . B . , 154
Bussmann, W . , 2i4n, 224n D a v i e s , J. G., 66n, 67n
 Index o f authors 479

D a v i e s , J . L . , 5611 Eisler, R . , 32-7, 4 m , 47, 5 m , 53, 57n, 64,

D a v i e s , W . D . , 13411, 2 7 m u 6 n , i29n, 183, 185, i87n, i88n, 190-1,
Debrunner, A . , 266n, 268, 30311, 31411, 193-4, i95n, 204n, 2o8n, 223n, 26m,
40811, 41 i n 267n, 2 7 m , 272n, 273n, 274n, 290, 339,
D e i n i n g e r , J., 37on n 6 n 6 n 6 8 n 0n
349, 35°, 354 > 3 <> , 3 3 > 3 > 37 >
D e i s s m a n n , A . , I7n, i i 5 n 382n
DehT, H . K . H . , 16-17 Eissfeldt, O . , n 8 n
D e l i t z s c h , F., 366n Eitrein, S., 234n
Delling, G . , 294n, 377n Ellis, E. E . , 294n
D e r e s c h , W . , 28n E l l u l J . , 67n
Derrett, J . D . M . , 22 m , 243n, 258-9, 260, Engels, F., 22, 23n, 62n
267n, 274, 282n, 284n, 323n, 324, 4ign E p p , E. J., 433n
D e u t s c h , E . , 154-5 Eppstein, V . , 332n, 333n, 334n
D i b e l i u s , M . , 3 m , 75n, H 2 n , n 6 n , i2on, Erbt, W . , 3 m , 21 i n
12in, i32n, i35n, 296n, 365n, 366, Ernst, J., 405n
367n, 426n, 433n
D i b e l i u s , O . , 366n Fabricius, J. A . , 187
D i e m , H . , 32n Farmer, W . R . , 42n, 76n, 233n, 467n
D i l l o n , J., 20on Farner, K . , 2 i n , 6in-62n
Dinkier, E . , 356n Farrer, A . M . , 268n
Dinter, A . , 3 m Fascher, E., i95n, 233n, 447n
D i t t e n b e r g e r , W . , 258n Feil, E., 62n
Dobschiitz, E. v o n , i i 7 n , 132, 1 4 m , i42n, Field, F., 273
167, 179, 207n, 2o8n, 3 2 3 ^ 367n, 368n, Fierro, A . , 65
0n
379", 4 3 > 441° Finegan, J., 301, 363, 405, 459n
D o d d , C . H . , 71, 72, 75n, 78n, 79n, i35n, Finkelstein, L . , 282n
i43n, i63n, i9on, 22m, 222n, 266n, Finlayson, S. K . , 349
267n, 269n, 272n, 273n, 284n, 293, 301, Fitzmyer, J . A . , 442n
305, 3o6n, 307n, 3o8n, 309, 38 m , 42on, Flusser, D . , i29n, 267n, 2 7 m , 272-3, 284,
422n, 43 m , 435n, 447n, 453, 455, 456n, 285, 396n, 399
457n, 462n, 466n, 469n, 472-3, 474, F o r d , J. M . , 6n, 442n
475 Foerster, E . , 29211
D o l l i n g e r , I. v o n , 365n Fortna, R . T . , 2i5n
D o n a h u e , J. R . , 356n F o w l e r , R . M . , 21 i n
D o r n e r , I. A . , 23on F r a n k e m o l l e , H . , i2on
D o r r , F., 435n Freed, E . D . , 467n
D o r r i e , H . , 22m Frend, W . H . C . , ii3n, i97n
D o w d a , R . E., i25n Freudenberger, R . , I98n, 382n
D r a s e k e , J., 2i6n Frey, J., 32n
D r e w s , A . , 22, 28 Frey, J. B . , 36gn
D u n k m a n n , K . , 28n Freyne, S., 28 m
D u p o n t - S o m m e r , A . , I29n, i3on Frick, H . , 56n
Dussel, E . , 64n Friedlander, M . , i i 5 n
D u t h e i l , M . , 64 F r i e d m a n n , M . , 234n
Friedrich, G . , 1 i g n
Easton, B . S., 72n, 73n, 25on, Friedrich, J., 3 7 m
Ech, O . , 374n, 38on F u c h s , A . , 268n
Eckhel, J., 243n F u c h s , H . , i98n
E d e r s h e i m , A . , 277n F u l d a , H . , 353n
E d w a r d s , H . E., 458 Fuller, R . H . , 329n
E g g e n b e r g e r , C . , 366n Funk, R . W . , 266n, 268, 303n, 3i4n
E h r e n b e r g , V . , 243n
Ehrhardt, A . , 447n, 448n G a r a u d y , R . , 6 i n , 62
E h r h a r d t , A . A . T . , 276n, 36511 Gartner, B . , 115n
E i n e m , H . v o n , 265n G a s t o n , L . H . , i66n
Eisenstein, J. D . , 202n Geflcken, J., i88n, i89n, ig9n, 202n
480 Index o f authors

G e i b , L . K . G . , 35311 H a r t , J. H . A., 41-8, 229n

G e l z e r , M . 37511
5 H a r t m a n n , E. v o n ( F . A. M u l l e r ) , i6n
Gerassi, J., 2n, 6 i n H a r v e y , A. E., 468n
G e r h a r d , P., 451 H a r v e y , W . W . , 78n
Gerhardsson, B., 13411, 23411, 23511 H a s e , K . , 13
Gibellini, R . , 6411 H a s t i n g s , A., 57n, 6on
Giessen, G . T., 56n Hauck, K., 45m
Ginzberg, L., 202n, 203n, 204, 2o8n, 36m H a y w a r d , C . T. R . , ig^n
G o e t h e , J. W . v o n , i3n H e a d l a m , S., 56n~57n, 58n
G o g u e l , M . , 33n, 36n, i3on, 2i2n, 227n, H e b b e l , F., 239n
228n, 232n, 238n, 23gn-24on, 458, 47on H e i c h e l h e i m , F. M . , 244n
Goldschmidt, H . L., 5 m H e i n r i c i , A. F. G . , 372n
Goldschmidt, L., u 6 n Heitmiiller, W . , i3on, 132
G o l l w i t z e r , H . , 65n H e l m b o l d , H . , 2i4n, 349
G o m p e r z , H . , 422n H e n g e l , M . , in, 2n, 65, 67n, 94n, 95n,
G o p p e l t , L . , 112n ii3n, ii4n, i29n, i3on, 13m, i33n,
G o r i o n , J. b . , 28n i34n, i37n, i38n, i42n, i43n, i44n,
G o u l d e r , M . D . , 2 6 7 ^ 273n i85n, 254n, 3i3n, 333n, 396n, 44m
G r a b a r , A., 2i8n Hennecke, E., 358n, 447n
G r a n o v s k y , A., iocjn H e n s m a n , C . R . , 1-2
G r a n t , F. C . , n i n , 254n, 26m H e r d e r , J. G . , 227n, 240
G r a n t , M . , 243-4, 4 7 2 n
H e r r m a n n , W . , 27-8
Grasser, E., 24n, 2g8n H e u v e r , F. D . , 56n
G r a t z , H . , 445 H i g g i n s , A. J. B . , 437n
G r e e v e n , H . , 75n Hirsch, E., 3 m , 2i3n, 267n, 27m, 274,
Gressmann, H . , 237n, 368n 276, 297n, 301, 304n, 3 5 6 ^ 4isn
Gretser, J., 354n Hirschfeld, O . , 434n
G r i m m , B . , 115n Hitler, A., 22n
Groenbech, W . , 3m H o d g s o n , F. C . , 9 m , 93n
G r o t i u s , H . , 275n H o e h n e r , H . , logn
G r u b e , G . M . A., 2oon H o f m a n n , M . , 64n
G r u n d m a n n , W . , 295-318; 31, I28n, i33n, H o l l , A., 385
i66n, 225n, 2g5n, 299n, 301, 309n, H o l s c h e r , G . , 304n
3i6n, 3i7n, 405, 4o8n, 4 1 3 ^ 4i9n, 464 H o m m e l , H . , ig8n
G u i l k a , J., 39on H o o k e r , M . , 85n, 86n
G u t b r o d , S. W . , I38n, 298n H o r b u r y , W . , 183-95, 265-86; 95n, 96n,
G u t i e r r e z , G . , 63n, 64, 232n 19m, 203n, 204n, 2o6n, 30on, 445n
H o r n s c h u h , M . , 265n
H a a r b r i i c k e r , T., i2on Horovitz, H . S., 28on, 283n
Haenchen, E., i3on, I37n, i38n, i4on, H o s k y n s , E., 456n
14m, i43n, 326n, 355n, 405n Hubner, H . , I39n, i4on
H a h n , F., i37n, 324n, 326n, 3 2 7 ^ 33on, H u c k , A., 75n
33 m, 389n, 399n, 404^ 427n, 453n, Huldreich, J. J., i9on, 19m, 202n, 203n,
468n, 47 m 362n
H a h n , L . , 354n H u l t s c h , F., 252n
Hall, S. G . , 343-4 H u m m e l , R . , i36n, I39n, 14m, I42n,
Hamilton, N . G . , 332n, 333n 2g8n
Hanell, K . , 376n H u s b a n d , R . W . , 427n
H a n s e , H . , 379n
H a r k a v y , A., 205n Iersel, B . v o n , 22 m
H a r n a c k , A. v o n , 27, 28n, U 2 n , i i 5 n , Ilgenstein, W . , 24n
12in, i36n, i38n, i86n, i99n-20on, I n g h o l l , H . , iisn
224n, 234n, 274n, 38m, 429n, Innes, A. T., 4i5n
6n
4 3 I r m s c h e r , J. 22n
Harris, J. R . , 5on, i i 5 n , 126 Isaac, J., i29n
Hart, H . St J., 297, 4 6 7 ^ ^6gn Issel, E., 13
 Index o f authors 481

J a c k , J. W . , 3311 Klein, R . , 44gn

J a c k s o n , F. J. F., 432n K l e m m , H . G . , i33n, I34n, i36n, 137
n
J a c o b s , J., 44, 4 5 Klijn, A . F . J . , g n 7

Jasper, G . , 37n, i2gn K l o p s t o c k , J. G . , 422n, 435n

Jaubert, A . , 30on K l o s t e r m a n n , E., 28n, 1 2 m , 2ign, 235n,
J e n s , W . , 5on 244n, 284, 33gn, 373n
J e r e m i a s , A . , 28n K n o x , W . L . , 268, 26g
J e r e m i a s , J., 43n, 83n, 86n, i o g n , u o n , K o c h , C . , 376n
i27n, i3on, 1 3 m , i33n, i34n, i35n, K o c h , W . , 4ign
i36n, 137, i38n, 139, i42n, i44n, 224n, K o c s i s , E., 358n
275n, 27gn, 282n, 283^ 284n, 2g5n, Kofler, L . , 62n
305n, 3i3n, 332n, 338-g, 422n, 44gn K o h l e r , H . , 24n
J o c h a n a n , Y . b . , 6on K o s m a l a , H . , 45n
J o c h m a n n , W . , 22n Kosnetter, J., 375n
Joel, M . , 2gn, 4 m , ig8n Koster, H . , i22n
J o h n s o n , H . , i i 5 n , 2gon K o v a l e v , S. I., 23
J o n e s , A . H . M . , i88n, 243n Kraeling, C . H . , 226n
J o n e s , M . J., 6on Kraeling, E. G . , 278n
Jost, J., 3i3n Krauss, S., i87n, i8gn, i g m , 20m, 202n,
Juel, D . , i26n 204n, 2o6n, 28on, 445n
Jiilicher, A . , 131, 132, 4i6n Kreissig, H . , i o g n , u o n , i i 3 n
Juster, J., i83n, 2ogn K r e m e r , J., 3gin
K r e t s c h m e r , G . , 28
Kabak, A . A., 5m K r e y e n b u h l , J., 272n
K a d m a n , L . , 24m, 244n, 245, 248 K u h n , H . W . , i43n, 323n
K a h l , J., 28n K u i n o e l , C . T . , 273n
Kahler, C . , i2on K i i m m e l , W . G . , 17.11, 38n, g i n , g2n, i2on,
K a h l e r , M . , 83-4 13m, i4on, 14m, i43n, 374n, 4 5 m
Kallas, J., 366n Kupisch, K., ign
KalthoflF, A . , 17—19, 22, u o n K u r s c h , E . , 30on
K a r s , H . W . , 33n
K a s e m a n n , E., 58n, 133, i37n, i3gn, i4on, la Plata, G . , 368n
366n, 367 Labriolle, P. d e , ig4n
Kasting, H . , i37n Lake, K . , 432n
K a t z , J., 372n L a m p e , G . W . H . , 153-82, 335-51; 1 8 3 ^
Kautsky, K . , i g - 2 1 , 22, 23n, 25, 3on, 357n 294"
K a w a s h i m a , S., i4on L a n d a u , H . , 5in-52n, 55n
K e c k , L . E., i26n L a n g , D . M . , 223n-224n
K e e , A . , 67n L a n g e , C . , 6in
K e i m , T . , i3on L a p i d e , P. E., 47n
Keller, P., 233n Lee, G . M . , 273n
K e l l e r m a n n , B . , i8n L e e u w e n , A . T . v a n , 62n
K e l l n e r , E., 63n L e h m a n n , J., 53-4, 54-5
Kellner, H . , 202n L e h m a n n , K . , 6$n
Kendall, R . E., 5 n 9
L e h m a n n , M . , i33n
K e n n a r d , J. S., 245, 248 L e h m a n n , P. L . , 66n
K e n n e d y , R . S., 52n Leipoldt, J., i s n , 26n, 31, 57n, ig7n
Kiefer, O . , I24n Lengle, J., 44on
Kierdorf, W . , 368n Leszynsky, R . , 23gn
Kilpatrick, G . D . , 117n, 266n, 2 6 7 ^ 268, Levi, I., i g m , 204n, 205n, 207n
270, 2 7 m , 273n, 407n, 4i6n Levison, W . , 2o8n
K i m b r o u g h , S. T . , Jr, I38n-i3gn Lewis, J., 24n, 2gon
K i n g d o n , H . P., 35n~36n, 235n L e w y , H . , 33n
K i n g s l e y , C . , 56n Liberty, S., 235n, 4 3 m
Kippenberg, H. G., u o n , i n n Liepert, A . , 62n
K l a u s n e r , J., 44-5, 47, 2 3 7 ^ 2go, 4 2 m Lietzmann, H . , 36, 45, 52n, 38gn
482 Index o f authors
Lightfoot, J., 27m
Lightfoot, J. B., 92, 98, 37511, 46011, 46211,
47m
L i g h t f o o t , R . H . , 8411, 46711
Limbeck, M . , 5m
L i n d a r s , B., 47211
Lindeskog, G . , 12911, 13m
L i n d o , E. H . , 27811
Link, K . , 2911
L i n n e m a n n , E., 296n, 329^ 356n, 39on
Liver, J., 278n, 27911
L o d s , M . , 191, i92n
Loesche, G . , i89n, 202n
L o e w e , H . , 242n, 26on, 266n, 267n, 27m,
284
L o h m e y e r , E., 73, ii3n, 224n, 272, 33311,
3 4 3 , 344, 3 7 9 "
Lohse, E., 54n, i33n, i38n, i39n, 14m,
i43n, 302n, 3 2 5 ^ 329^ 390, 392n,
399n, 40on
Loisy, A . , 267n, 336n
Losch, S., 29n, ig8n
L u c o c k , H . E., 56n
L u n d s t e r n , A . C . , i2n
L i i n i n g , H . , 6in
Lutgert, W . , 449n
L u t h e r , M . , 375
Luthi, K . , 385-6
L u z , U . , i36n
M c C a b e , H . , 66n
M a c c o b y , H . , 48-9, 5m
M a c D o n a l d , J., 437n
M a c D o n n e l l , J. C . , 387n
Machovec, M., 23-4
M a c M u l l e n , R . , i22n, i83n, i85n, i87n
M a c m u r r a y , J., 24n, 35n
M a d d e n , F. W . , 242n
Maier, H., 63n
M a n d e l b a u m , B . , 28on
M a n e k , J., 97n
M a n g o l d , W . , 3 7 m , 374n
M a n s o n , T . W . , 7 m , 77, 78, 8$n,
87-8, 265^ 269, 288-9, 29m, 294n,
459n, 462n
Margalioth, M . , 393n
M a r g o l i o u t h , D . S., 19m
M a r g u l l , H . J., 58n
M a r q u a r d , F. W . , 36511
M a r s c h , H . ( B . Saklatvala), 55n
M a r s h , J., 2g2n
M a r s h a l l , P., 59n
M a r t i n , R . P., 83n
Martindale, J. R . , i88n
M a r x s e n , W . , 73, 74, 79
Mastin, B. A . , 322n, 467^ 472n
M a t h e w s , S., 56n
Mattingley, H . , 243, 247, 376n, 377n
Maurenbrecher, M . , 26, 227n
M a u r e r , C . , 33 m
M a u r i c e , F. D . , 57n
M a u s e r , U . , 74n
M a y b a u m , I., 44n
M a y r , R . v o n , 42 m , 43on, 434n, 435n
M e a l a n d , D . L., 1 i3n
M e c k s , W . A . , 22on
M e h r i n g , F., 21
M e i n h o l d , P., i3n
Meinertz, M . , 336n
M e n d n e r , S., 2i5n, 2i6n, 2i7n
M e n z i e s , A . , 71, 72
Merkel, H . , 129-44; 33n, 96n, i35n, i36n,
140
M e r x , A . , ii2n, u 6 n , i23n, i27n,
2i3n, 2i9n, 22m, 226n, 227n, 276n,
2 6
3 5 5 " , 4 3 " , 4 3 " , 4 3 9 " , 44<>", 4 4 5 " ,
45°"
M e s h o r e r , Y . , 248
M e t z , J. B., 62n, 63
Metzger, B . , 449n
M e y e r , A . , 1 i2n, 113n
M e y e r , E., 2i3n, 237n, 239n, 42m
M e y e r , R . , ii9n, i29n, 23on, 2 3 3 ^ 273n,
2g8n
M e y e r , W . , 375n
M e y e r s , E. M . , 1 i o n
Michaelis, C . , i2on
Michaelis, J. D . , 266n, 278n, 286n
Michaelis, W . , 84n
M i c h e l , O . , ii4n, i29n, 13m, 234n, 324,
366n, 37 m
M i g u e z B o n i n o , J., 64, 65n, 66n
Milik, J. T . , 397n
Miller, F. G . B., 475n
M i l n e , J. G . , 247
M i l t o n , J., 11
Minear, P. S., 340, 345n
M i r a n d a , J. P., 66n
86n, M o b i u s , G . , 445
M o f f a t t , J . , 154
M o h l e r , A . , 3on
M o l t m a n n , J., 63, 67n
M o m m s e n , T . , 176, 179, 354n, 357n, 358n,
359n, 363n, 373n, 4i5n, 42911, ^on,
4 3 4 " , 435, 441"
M o n a t , P., i88n, 190
Montefiore, C . G . , 267n, 270, 284
M o n t e f i o r e , H . W . , 22 m , 270, 273, 276,
462n
M o n t e i r o , M . , 2i8n
M o o r e , A . F., 45n
Morris, C . , 1, 59-60

M o r r i s , J., i88n
M o r r i s o n , C . D . , 263n
M o u l e , C . F. D . , 91-100; 43n, 85n, 2iyn,
266n, 267n, 2 6 9 ^ 275n
M i i l l e r , G . A . , 448n, 4 5 m
M u n c k , J., 4 m , 88n, 37gn
M i i n t z e r , T . , 365
M u r a w s k i , F., 36n, 54n
N a p i e r , T . M . , 335, 349
N a u m a n n , F., 27, 29n
N a u m a n n , G . , 24n
N e e l y , A . P., 64n
Neill, S., 292n
Nestle, C . W . , 20on
Nestle, E., 268, 276n
N e u m a n , A . A . , 204n, 205n, 207n
N e u s n e r , J., 28on
N i c k e l s b u r g , G . W . E., 329n
N i e b u h r , R . , 64
N i e t z s c h e , F. W . , 30, 56, i i 2 n
N i n e h a m , D . E . , 43n, 7 1 - 2 , 77
N o c k , A . D . , 88
N o e l , C . , 57n, 235n, 2gon
N o r m a n , E. R . , 57n
N o t o w i t s c h , N . , 5on
O ' C a l l a g h a n , J., 78n
O e p k e , A . , I34n
O e r t e l , F., 374n
O h l y , F., 45on
O ' N e i l l , J. C . , 5 m , i45n, 366n
O p e l t , I., i85n, 372n
O p p e n h e i m e r , A . , 11 i n
O r d n u n g , C , 62n
O s s a , L . , 66n
O t t o , R . , 4ign
O t t o , W . , 2 5 m , 252n
Pallis, A . , 366
P a n n e n b e r g , W . ; 63n
Parker, P., 30m
Pascher, W . , I39n, I40n
Paulus, H . E. G . , 13, 273n
P e a b o d y , F. G . , 56n
Pedersen, S., i66n
Perrin, N . , 133, I36n, i4on
Pesch, R . , i35n, i37n, 138
Peters, C . , i2on
Peterson, E., 2g6n, 322n
Petsch, H . , i3n
Peukert, H . , 62n, 63n
Index o f authors
Pfeiffer, A . , 28n
Pfleiderer, O . , 21, 237n
Pickl, J., 36n-37n, 439n
Pike, D . K . , 52n
Pike, J. A . , 52, 54n
Pippidi, D . M . , 434n
Plummer, A . , 227n, 42gn
P o b e e , J. S., 6on
P o h l m a n n , R . v o n , 29-30, 34
P o h l m a n n , W . , 20m, 3 7 m
Pole ( P o o l e ) , M . , 275n
Poterie, I. d e la, 46911
Powell, E.,45on
Preisker, H . , 367, 4 6 m
Preiss, T . , 468
Pzillas, F., 36n
Rabin, I. A . , 28on, 283n
R a g a z , L . , 56n, 6$n
R a h n e r , K . , 62n
R a n o w i t s c h , A . B . , 23n
R a s c h k e , H . , 25n, 28n, 38n
R a w l i n s o n , A . E . J., 71
R e g a r d , P. F., 355n
R e g n a u l t , H . , 349
R e g n e r , F., 26n
R e g u l , J., 75n
Rehkopf, F., 424n
R e i c h m u t h , J. A . , isn
Reicke, B . , 145-52; 147", H9*> 37<™
Reifenberg, A . , i28n, 4i6n
R e i m a r u s , H . S., 1 1 - 1 2 , 28, 34, 52, 53,
6in, 129, 232n, 289, 322
R e i n a c h , S., 29n, 35n
R e i n a c h , T . , 433n
R e i n c k e , G . , 353n
R e i n h a r d , F. V . , 13
Reitzenstein, R . , 228n
R e m b e , A . , 14
R e n a n , E., 23 m
Rengstorf, K . H . , 165
R e v e n t l o w , H . v o n , 447n
R i c h , A . , 67n
R i c h a r d s o n , A . , 72n, 454-5
Rieger, P., 368n
R i e p l , W . , 353n, 3 6 m
Riesenfeld, H . , 74-5, i34n, 307n
Rivkes, M . , 372n
R o b b e , M . , 2on, 22n, 23n
R o b e r t s o n , A . , 24-6
R o b e r t s o n , J. M . , 28n
R o b i n s o n , J. A r m i t a g e , 457-8
R o b i n s o n , J. A . T . , 453-76; 42, i54n,
440n, 453n, 457n, 46on, 465n, 473n,
474"
R o d r i g u e s , H . , 37
484 Index o f authors

n
Roloflf, J., 1 3 5 " ' '37n> *39 S c h i i r m a n n , H . , 134, 296n, 336, 337, 339,
R o p e s , J. H . , 43211 340, 385, 407, 4 1 m
Rorforf, W . , 13811, 13911 Schwartz, E., 2i3n, 2i6n, 226n, 436n
Rosenberg, A . , 3m S c h w a r z , G . , 338n
R o s e n t h a l , J., 1 9 m S c h w e g l e r , A . , 91
Rostovtzeff, M . , 344 S c h w e i t z e r , A . , n n , 26, 28n, 29, 34, 53,
R o t h , C , 5 m , 54n, 333n, 334n 66n, i29n, 227n, 2&gn
R o u b i c z e k , P., 24n Schweizer, E., I36n, 328n, 333n
Rowley, H . H., 25m S e e b e r g , E., 3 m , 373n
R z a c h , A . , 1 i8n Seeley, J. R . , 26n
S e g u n d o , J. L . , 63n
Saalschiitz, J. L., 277n, 278n Seibert, I., 3i3n
Saeki, P. Y . , u 8 n , 422n, 437n Senior, D . P., 447n
Sahlin, H . , 1 1 2 n S e v e r i n o C r o a t t a , J., 65n
Salin, E . , i24n, 26m Shaffer, E., 1 i n
S a l v a d o r , J., 44, 445 Shalit, A . , 3 9 m
S a m u e l , R . , 279n Shaull, R . , 62n, 6511
S a n d a y , W . , 463 S h a w , G . B . , 35n, 5on
Sanders, J. N . , 467 Sherwin-White, A . N . , 244n, 262n, 27m,
S a n d m e l , S., 43n 41311, 469n, 47m, 472n, 475n
Sattler, W . , 1 i5n, i28n Siebeneichler, F., 64n
Sauler, F., 377n Sieveking, H . , 1 i n
Schalit, A . , 252n, 4i8n S i m k h o v i t c h , V . G . , 31, 235n
Schaller, B . , 1 4 m S i m o n , M . , 4, 154
S c h a u m b u r g - L i p p e , F. C . z u , 2n, 3 m Smalley, B . , 26sn
Scheftelowitz, I., 368n S m a l l w o o d , E . M . , 96n
Schelkle, K . H . , 3 6 5 ^ 367n Smith, B . T . D . , 223n
Schenk, W . , 356n, 444n Smith, D . M . , Jr, 467n
Schille, G . , 22 m , 228n S m i t h , H a r o l d , 265n
Schirmer, D . , iisn, 4i6n S m i t h , M o r t o n , 5n, 88, 92n, 94n, i5on,
Schlatter, A . , i2on, i87n, 24on, i86n, 286n
266n-267n, 283, 302n, 304n, 305n, 3o6n, S m i t h , R . F., 66n, 67
n n
3!5 > 349, 405 , 4 3 » 4 9 I n J n
S m i t h , W . , s o n , 58n
S c h l u m b e r g e r , E., 209n S o b r i n o , J., 65
S c h m i d , J., 1 4 m , 2i4n, 405 Soden, H . von, 12in
S c h m i d t , K . L . , 71 S o d e r , R . , i87n, iSgn
S c h m i d t h a l s , W . , 367n S o w e r s , S., 4n, 4111
S c h m o l l e r , O . , 13 S p e n g l e r , O . , 30-1
S c h n a c k e n b u r g , R . , 459 Spitta, F., i2on, 137, 2i4n, 227n, 232n,
S c h n e e m e l c h e r , W . , 447n 359n, 427n, 436n
Schneider, G . , 403-14; 39m, 399n, 409n, Stahli, M . J., 56n
413n, 424n Stanton, G . N . , i93n
S c h n e i d w e i l e r , F., 35n, ngn Stapel, W . , 33n
S c h o l e m , G . , 32n Stasiewski, B . , 22n, 23n
Schonfield, H . J., 49, 52n, 202n Stauffer, E., 39n, 56n, i o g n , i i 4 n , i i 7 n ,
S c h r e i b e r , B . J., 356n ii9n, i2on, i3on, i33n, i34n, i35n,
S c h r e i b e r , J., 38n i36n, i38n, i4on, i42n, 211, 2i8n,
S c h r o t e r , M . , 62n 228n, 23 m , 266n, 283n, 36on, 368n,
Schubert, K . , 385-402; 393n, 396n, 397n, 373n, 41711, 429n, 43m, 434n, 458n,
40m 4^9n
Schulthess, F., 1 isn Steck, R . , i8n
Schultz, H . , 367n Stegemann, H . , 14m
S c h u t z , O . T . , 377n Steller, J., 445
S c h u l z , P., 23on S t e p h e n , J. F., 4 3 m
Schurer, E., 26, I94n, 244n, 368n, 369^ Sternberger, G . , 378n
4i6n, 434n, 443n, 448n, 47on, 4 7 m Stevenson, J., 2i8n
 Index o f authors 485

Stier, H . E., 37611 V i t u c c i , G . , 368n

Strack, H . L . , 19211, 25m, 26711, 27811, Vogelstein, H . , 368n
44 n 4 V o g t , J., 338n
S t r a t h m a n n , W . , 29911 V o l k m a n n , H . , 434n
Straub, J., 20911, 35411 V o l k m a r , G . , 13
Strauss, D . F., 93, 130, 27211, 27411 Volterra, E., 363n
Strecker, G . , 4 m , 1 3 m , 13611, 26711, 36611,
44011 Wagenseil, J. C . , 202n, 2i8n
Streeter, B . H . , 21911, 40511, 41311 W a g n e r , R . , 15, 16, 232n
Strobel, A . , 2i6n, 22011, 3 7 m , 4 5 m W a g n e r , S., 12911
Strugnell, J., 27911 Walker, R., 14m, 27m
S t u h l m a c h e r , P., 1 3 i n , I 3 3 n - i 3 4 n , 3 7 m W a l t h e r , 45 m
Stumpff, A . , 1 i6n Walther, A . B . v o n , 354n, 3 5 9 ^ 363n
Styger, P., I 9 7 n W a r r e n , M . , 58n
Styler, G . M . , 101-7; 2i4n W a r s c h a u e r , J., 35n
Sutherland, C . H . V . , 243n, 244n, 245, W a s h i n g t o n , I. R . , 6on
248, 376n, 377n W e b e r , J. C . , T r , 12911
S w e e t , J., 1-9 W e b e r , M . , 115n
S y d e n h a m , E. A . , 376n W e b e r , W . , 239n
Szramkiewicz, R . , 434n W e e d e n , T . J., 83n, 326n
W e i d e l , K . , 28n, 24on
T a l b e r t , C . H . , n n , i2n W e i f f e n b a c h , W . , 13
Tasker, R. V . G., 6gn Weinel, H., n8n
T a u b e s , J., 36n W e i n e r , H . , 27n
T a y l o r , R . O . P., 75n Weinert, F. D . , 279n
T a y l o r , V . , 86n, 336, 339, 34m, 405^ W e i n s t o c k , S., 376n
457" Weiss, B., i3on, 1 4 m , 378n, 379, 443n
Tcherikover, V . , 272n, 278n W e i s s , F., 45n
Telford, W . R . , i25n Weiss, H . F., i29n, 298n
T h a c k e r a y , H . St J., 372n W e i s s , J., 13, i4n, 28n, i22n, 273, 275n,
T h e i s s e n , G . , 11 i n 355"
T h i e l , R . , 356n Weitling, W . , 14-15, 16, 17
T h o m p s o n , S., i87n W e l l h a u s e n , ) . , 27, 28, 115, i23n, i27n,
Thiising, W . , 3ion i36n, 1 4 m , 2i3n, 2i5n, 2i6n, 222n,
Till, W . , i2on, 2i8n 223n, 224n, 225n, 227n, 235n, 238n,
Tischendorf, C . v o n , 378n, 4i6n, 448n, 24on, 266n, 271, 274n, 276n, 283n,
449" 304n, 356, 417n, 42on, 436n
T o d t , R . , i6n W e l l s , G . A . , 28n
T o r r e s , C . , 2, 61 W e n d l i n g , P., 224n, 238n
Torrey, C. C., i i s n W e n g e r , L . , 43on
T o y n b e e , J. M . C . , 2 o g n Werfel, F., s 6 n
Trilling, W . , i38n, i66n W e r n e r , M . , 25
T r o c m e , E., 46n, 83n, 334n W e r n l e , P., i3on, i37n, i39n
T r o l t s c h , E., i8n, 2 i n , 27n W e s t , L . C . , 244n
T u r n e r , C . H . , 76, 77n, 78, 46on, 475n W e s t e r n , W . , 348
W e t h , R . , 62n
U n n i k , W . C . v o n , 366n, 382n W h e r r y , E . M . , 2i8n
W i d e r g r e n , G . , 22 m
v a n d e r H o r s t , P. W . , 74n W i d g e r y , A . G . , 27n
v a n d e r K w a a k , H . , 407, 4i3n W i e d e n h o f e r , S., 64n
van d e r L o o s , H . , 2 6 7 ^ 273n Wiefel, W . , 374n
v a n d e r Steinen, U . , 56n Wifstrand, A . , i99n
Vannutelli, P., 355n Wikenhauser, A . , 14m
V e r d a m , P. J., 437n Wilckens, U . , 423n
Vermes, G., 5 m W i l c o x , M . , 44m
V i n c e n t , H . , 357n W i l e s , M . F., i83n
486 Index o f authors

Wilkens, W . , 2i6n, 21911, 30411, 30511 W o o d , H . G . , 232n, 29on

W i l l i a m s , A . L . , 35611 W r e d e , W . , 81
W i n d i s c h , H . , 21-2, 28n, 33n, 36n, 4on, Wiinsche, A . , 267n
357n, 38m Wyclif, J., 265n
W i n k , W . , 38n, 43n
W i n k e l , M . E., 3 m Y a d i n , Y . , 1, 228n, 44m, 442n
Winter, P., 45-7, 48, son, ii3n, i29n, Y o d e r , J. H . , 233n
298n, 329n, 356, 357n, 364n, 389n, 406,
415n, 417n, 42on, 428n, 4 2 9 ^ 442n, Z a h n , T . , 433n
443n, 446n, 47on, 47 m Zeitlin, S., 45n
Zerwick, M . , 2i4n
W i s e , I. M . , 432n Zimmerli, W . , 86n, 422n
W i s e , S., 43n Z i m m e r m a n n , H . , 385
W o h l e b , L . , 2i4n Zockler, O . , 353n, 44on
W o h l e n b e r g , G . , 11 in Zsifkovits, V . , 375n
 Index of references

OLD TESTAMENT 13 244

13 : 7-12 293
Genesis 13 : 13-18 184
8 : 16 26011 H :: 3ff '39n
:
49 8-12 169 14 :: 22ff 254"
49 : io 401 18 : 15 :
217, 393"
49 -n 32411 18 :: 18 393"
19 :: 15 347
Exodus
21 : 3 324
5 2 25611 21 : 20f 136
17 30 291
23 : 9ff 139"
18 28311 141
24 : iff
18 : 25 221
27 : 26 171
19 : 1 27111
32 : 35 164
20 : 18 22011
22 : 26-7 337 Judges
25 : if 27811 6 : 5 288n
28 : f 27911 9 • 37
3 5
28811
30 • 13 27811, 279, 281, 459 1 1
: 34 32211
30 : i3f 277 10 : 10 28811
30 15 27211
30 27-9 293 / Samuel
38 : 2f 5 27811 6 : 7
38 : 26 280 324
8ff 22911
Leviticus 8 : 12 221
6 : 4 258 9f 230
8 : 23-4 345 9 : It 22911
1 if 139" 10 : 2 i f 23211
14 : 14, 17, 25, 28, 345 16 : 7 249"
i39n
2 Samuel
15 :2 22011
19 = 4 259" 7 : 4-5 170
24 : 16 146 7 12, 14 400
25 : 23 259" 7 12-14, 16 170
27 : 21, 28 281 10 1 to 11 : 1 165
10 : 4 344
Numbers 20 306
3 : 46f 26511
7 22011 / Kings
18 : 8, 14 281 1 : 32-40 319
18 : 2iff 254" 1 • 35 321
19,: 2 324 13 : 13 324
24 : 17 401 22 : 17 220, 462
25 : 7 - i 3 398
27 : 17 211, 462 2 Kings
2 : 17 181
Deuteronomy 3 21 :
291
1
: 15 221 9 : 13 325
487
 488 Index o f References

2 Kings - contd.
10 : 16 288n Isaiah
12 : 4 - 1 6 278n 1 : 3ff 169
1 : 7 155
/ Chronicles 1 : 7ff 170
17 : 1 1 - 1 4 400 2 : 2 173
2 : 15 155
2 Chronicles 3 : 3 221
24 : 4 - 1 4 278n 6 : 8-10 160
24 : 5 278 6 : 9f 82
9/: 1 401
Ezra 11 : 12 309
5 • 16 460 25 : 6f 457
6 :9 278n 29 : 3-4 163
6 : 10 372n 29 : 13 2 4 9 n
7 : 21-3 278n 29 : 18 117
29 : 19 i2on
Nehemiah 33 • i7f 170
25611 35 461
5 : i4*f
8 : 15 467n 42 : 6 401
10 : 32f 278 49 • 6 401
52 : 13 86
13 : 8 332
52 : 13 to 53 : 12 86, 394> 3 9 6

Job 53 450, 464

1 and2 3ion 53 : 5 309
53 : 7 422
24 : 5 112n
26 : 14 53 : 8 348
87
53 : 10, 11 86
Psalms 53 : 12 86, 339, 342, 343:
345ri, 346, 347,
2 :1 426n
348, 349
2 :7 400
56 33<>> 33i, 333, 456
8 :2 322
58 173
22 173 461
45on 61
22 : 17
61 1 i8n, 401
40 : 7 344 61 374
57 356 401
66
69 : 9 456 167
66 : 16
i25n
69 : 10
168
69 : 25 jeremian
no : 1 389, 390, 4 ° o
HA 6 : 14 375
118 : 22 04 7 ::
'-'5 39 6

118 : 2 f 5 325, 330 7 : 191, 33i, 333, 456

132 : 9 374n 7 :: H - I 5 161
22 :: 5 164
Proverbs
23 : 5
:
400
7 : 15 322n 26 :: 18 161
24 : 21 26on 27 :: 4ff 255"
29 : 7 372n
Ecclesiastes
33 : 15 400
8 :2 260 288n
37 : 18
38 : i ff
7 255"
Song of Solomon 50 : 3 155
u8n
1 : 8 280 Ezekiel
4 :7 n8n 18 : 10 188, 191
 Index o f References 489

21 : 250° 255" 12 : 3 164

24 : 21 161 14 : 21 333, 334, 456
28 : 25 309
34 2I2I1, 213, 217, 220, Malachi
464 1 :8 25611
34 • 5 462, 464 3-4 461
34 : 22-4 464 3 : i-3, 8f 458
3 : 23f 393"
Daniel 373 289
4 : 5f
1 :2 373n
2 : 37"" 373" APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
4 : 30 291
5 : 18 373" Apocalypse of Baruch(2 Baruch)
6 : 5,6 29m
464 3 : 5 169
7 7 : 1
85, 389, 39°, 400 155
7 : 13 70 : 4 11311
7 : i3f 86
7 : 21 80 : 1-3 155
85
7 : 28 291 Apocalypse of Elijah
8 : n-14 81
33 : iff u8n
9 : 24-7 81
9 : 27 162 Apocalypse of Zephaniah 125
11 : 14 191
11 : 31 162 Ascension of Isaiah
11 : iff 3
81 4 :6 12311
12 : 11 162 5 : 13 42m
11 : 19 436
Hosea
: 1 0 460 Assumption of Moses
9
1 : 12 112
Amos
Baruch
:
3 13- 1 8
396
1 : 1 if 372n
7 : 10-17 396
/ Enoch (Ethiopic)
Jonah
37-71 401
1 306
48 : 4 401
48 : 41T 8511
Micah
52 : 4 401
3 : 12 161
69 : 3 22m
5 • i-3 169
89 : 56, 66 170
7 :6 287, 288, 292-3
90 : 28f 396-7
100 : 2 292
Zephaniah
1091T 112
3 : 1 6
36711
Epistle ofJeremiah n8n
Haggai
2 : 2off 255" 2 Esdras
1-2 ( = '5Ezra') 11711,
Zechariah 6 : 26 393"
3 :8 400 11 : 1 to 12 : 3 155
4 :7 255" 13 : 61, 14 : 35 235"
6 : 12 400 14 : 50 234"
9 49
9 :9 319, 321, 322, 324, Jubilees 278
46711 1 : 27 397
11 : 17 465 23 : 16, 19 28811
49° Index o f References

Judith Sibylline Oracles

7 : 15 32211 1 : 35iff 11711
14 : 11 439 1 : 356ff 21811
3 : 6 ff
3
n8n
Letter of Aristeas 278 3 : 66 11711
373" 4 : 27-30, " 5 -•27 155
i87ff 36611, 371 8 : 205fT 11711, 1 i8n

/ Maccabees Sirach
1 : 54 162 13 : 9 11 i n
2 : 24-6 456 13 : 15 112
2 : 28 163 13 : i ff
7 111
4 : 19-25, 33 320 13 : 24 11 i n
4 : 46 393" 15 : 2 322n
4 : 55, 5 : 45~54 320
7 : 33 37211 Testamentum Adae
7 : 37 33"> 3 : aff 11711, 1 i8n
8 475"
9 = 39 32211 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
10 : 39 27811 24 401
10 : 86 320
11.2 322 Tobit
11.60 320 1 : 6-8 278
13 • 37 322 7 : 1 322n
13 : 4i 25611
13 : 43-8, 49-51 320 Wisdom of Solomon 322n, 329
13 : 5i 322, 325, 46711
H 377
14 : 7 320
NEW TESTAMENT
14 : 41 393"
2 Maccabees Matthew

3 •3 27811 1 : 18-25 268n

4 : 2if 320 2 268n
4 : 47 429" 2 : 2, 4-6 329
5 : 27 22911 3 : 2 226
6 :2 162 3 : 7 2g8n
8 : 23 439 3 : 8-10 460
9 : 1 6
27811 3 : 11 294
10 : 1-8 456 3 : 1 if 461
10 :7 46711 3• 14, 15 236n
12 : 20 47011 3 : '5 235, 236
14 :4 322 4 : 1-4 .463
4 : 3 234
2 and 4 Maccabees 42 m 4 : 5-7 461
4 : 6 234
3 Maccabees 4• 8-10 463
2.10 33i" 4 : 9 235
4 : 10 84n
Odes of Solomon 4 : 11 235"
28 : 10 12611 4 : 12 461
4 : 13 269
Psalms of Solomon 112 4 : 17 226
8.18 375, 377 4 : 25 i84n
17, 18 400-1 5 : 3 10411, 121
i7-5ff 25611 5 : 9 i04n
 Index o f References

17 292 14 5 215
25 47011 14 12 213, 21411
26 258 214, 227, 461, 463
14 13
32 142 14 15, 17, 19 214
39-40 10711 14 21 214, 462
40 337 15 11 398
41 8, 12611 15 24 13711, 283
44 8, 10711 15 29, 3° 219
46 13611 15 3of 119, 120
i6ff 135 38 462
*5
24 456 16 1 29811
6 45011 16 222
5
5ff 137 16 6, 1 if 29811
1 if 276, 283 16 13-20 268
2lf 138 16 13-23 393
22 16 5, 26011
134 14
34 21711 16 16 6911
I 269 16 464
17-19
"9 16 22 410
3 116 1-8 268
17
5f 137, 283 17 17 410
6 21711 26m, 265, 266-86
17 24-7
8 119 17 25 425"
8-10 272 17 25f 465
9 116 17 26 37i
9-10 336 18 1 260
16-23 7211 18 6 283
17 168 18 12 21711, 21911
17-25 146 18 160
i5ff
25 288 18 13611
17
32f 395 18 i8f 268
33 289 18 2 ff
3 137
34 8, 338 18 34 258
34ff 387-94 18 40 465
218 19 9 142
2 23m 411
19
2-6 461 19 '7 97
3 12011, 2 3 m 20 432
19
5 334 20 20-3 395
6 120 21 2 410
7 11311 21 5 322
12 1411, 4611, 26011, 292 21 8 467
12-14 463 21 9, 1 6
322
i8f 135" 36 21 18-22 295"
25 127 21 20-2 4011
28 127, 128 21 21 457
29 21211 21 13611
i» 7 139" 21 32 13611, 23 m, 460
9-H 393" 21 33-41 164
10 345 21 4iff 166
22-37 392 21 43 164
24 397 22 7 165
29 292 22 10 45611
i6f 334 22 15-22 249"
211, 218 22 17 257"
3-5 21411 22 19 241, 248, 25811
492 Index o f References

Matthew - contd. Mark

22 21 25811 1:1 69, 8311
23 97, 289 I 1-13 70
23 7-12 160 1
5 11311
23 21 284 11 69, 326, 328
23 33 460 I 13 11911
23 35f 165 I H 8311, 41511, 461
23 37f 170 I 14 to 8 : 26 74
23 37-9 164 I i 4 t p 9 • 50 70
24 if 397 I *5 83"
24 2 161, 170 I i6f, 20 138
24 3 81 I 22 33i
24 9 337 I 23 23411, 23611
24 9-22 146 I 24 6911, 81, 291, 328
24 15 162 I 27 328
24 i6ff 145 I 2f
7 324
24 20 14m, 163 I 31 128
24 24-6 462 I 34 81
25 6in I 44 22711
25 25 127 2 1 to 3 : 6 72, 84, 250
25 32ff 137 2 7 324
26 2 466 2 10 86
26 3 304 2 i3f
6
13 "
26 3f> 5 466 2 14 115, 13611
26 4<>, 43 410 2 15 13611
26 50-4 347 2 I5f 449"
26 5i-4 335 2 15-17 135"
26 52 126 2 i8f 135
26 52-3 293 2 20 84
26 52-4 10411 2 2lfT 28811
26 55 445" 2 23 to 3 • 5 83
26 57 299, 304 2 25f 139"
26 59-68 299 2 27 139
26 6of 455 2 2f
7
86
26 61 126, 158, 390, 397 3 1 345
26 63 391, 464, 473 3 if 139
26 64 389 3 1-6 393"
26 65 473" 3 2 410
26 6 ff5 145 3 4 139
27 if 299 3 6 228, 250, 30011, 331,
27 19 447, 474 466
27 20 43211 3 7 18411
27 24 447" 3 11 326, 428
27 25 165, 43 m, 44711 3 12 81
27 26 436, 472n 3 14 21211
27 37 355n 3 i6ff 13611
27 37ff 145 3 16-19 84
27 38 47i, 474 3 17 1 i6n
27 38ff 146 3 18 3, 5, 8on, 94
27 39 359 3 20 21211
27 39*" 390, 455 3 22 223, 24011, 397
27 40 158 3 23-30 392
27 42f 473 3 3i-5 28811
27 54 474" 4 i-34 70, 72, 86
27 60 324 4 nf 82
27 65 44411 4 26ff 143
 Index o f References 493

4 : 26-9 82 8 : 22 227
4 = 28 7811 8 : 22f 82n
4 : 35 to 6 : 44 72, 73 8 : 22-6 319
4 : 4 1
324, 328 8 : 27 227
5 : iff 4011 8 : 27-9 • 326-7
5 : 1-20 73 8 : 27-3O 319, 326, 328, 330, 464
5 : 3-5 324 8 : 27-33 223, 393
5 : 7 69 8 : 27 to 10 : 52 74
5 : 21, 25 22m 8 : 27 to 13 : 37 74
5 : 26 8 : 29 6
97 6911, 4 4
5 • 28f 4011 8 : 30 81, 464
6 211 8 : 3i 84, 239n, 450
6 : 2 328 8 : iff
3 43i
6 : 7 212, 21311 8 : 3i-3 326-7
6 : 8-9 336 8 : 31 to 10-45 319
6 : 13 21311 8 : 32 190, 24on
6 : 14-16 327 8 : 32-4 84
6 : 14-18 226 8 : 33 235, 236, 394, 464
6 : 15 290, 463 8 : 34 84n, 126, 232
6 : 16 22611 8 : 35 83n
6 : 17-29 84 8 : 36 239 n

6 : 26 21411 8 : 38 87, 88n, 128, 3i4n

6 29 411 9 : 1 82n, 87, i28n
6 30 213 9 : 7 69
6 3off 227 0 : 9 82
6 3«> 33 212, 213 9 * 12, 13 84
6 33f 462 9 14 24on
6 34 213, 214, 219, 464 9 22 84
6 37 21511 9 28 4on
6 44 22in, 462 9 30 2i3n
6 45 222, 227, 232n", 463 9 off
3 43i
6 45 : 10
t 0 8
72 9 30-2 319
6 52f 78n 9 3i 84, 4i5n-4i6n, 450
6 53 227n 9 33 2i3n, 269, 270
6 54f 238n 9 42 283
6 55 227n 10 1 7°, 227
7 . 1 223, 24cm 10 : 1-31 116
7 : iff 140 10 : 1-52 70
7 : 1-23 73 10 : 5 284
7 : 6 10 : 6-8 141
n
249
7 : 14-19 83 10 : 9 141
7 • 15
!
139, 4°» 398 10 • 14 127, 411
7 : i8f 211 10 : 18 97
7 : 24 227 10 : 29 8 n 3

7 : 24ff 137 10 : 32f 43i

7 : 27 283 10 : 32-4 319
7 : 28 4 5 on 10 : 33 432
7 : 3i 227 10 : 3 3 f 432
7 : 3i-7 211 10 : 3 3 f 84
7 : 37 119 10 ' 35-40 395
8 : 9 224 10 : 35-45 85, 89
8 : 10 222 10 ' 45 86, 307n, 423n
8 : 11-13 24on 10 : 46 89, 319
8 : 13 236n 10 : 46-52 295, 3*9, 323
8 : i4ff 223, 233 10 : 47, 50 3i9
8 ' 15 io6n, 222, 24on 10 : 52 3*9, 322
494 Index o f References

Mark - contd. 13 • 9-13 337

I I : iff 12511 13 : 10 79, 8311, 12611
II : 467 13 : 14 161
n : I-IO 319,323,324,325>326, 13 : i f 4
4011, 48, 73, 80
328, 330 13 : 18 163
11 1 to 13 : 37 70, 75 13 : 21-3 463
II 2-5 275 13 • 26 74, 85, 86
11 7f 3i9 13 • 32ff 12611
11 8 3i9, 467 14 • I 295", 297
n 9, 1 0
3i9 14 : if 466
II 1 of 295" 14 • 1 to 15 47 70
11 12 292 14 : 2 408
11 I2ff 12511 14 : 7 127
II 12-14 295" 14 : 9 83"
II 13 459" 14 : 12-16 275, 325
11 15, 124 14 • 21 85
11 15-19 323, 33i, 332, 333, 14 : 22 4i9"
334, 396 14 : 28 44", 73
n l6 124", I25n, 456 14 43 445"
n 17 191, 284, 40911 14 47 335, 342, 343
II i7f 39", 456 14 48 4611, 346, 471
11 18 408, 455, 466 14 49 4611, 85, 40911
11 f
i9 > 20-5 295" 14 53 29811, 299
n 22f 457 14 55ff 4611
11 23 126 14 55-64 4611, 385-402, 466
11 27 12411 14 55-65 29811, 299
11 27ff 113" 14 57 8on
n 27-33 448 14 57f 455
11 : 27 to 12 : 34 32 14 57-9 8on
n 32 408 14 58 158, 170, 284, 329,
12 • i - 5 344 404
12 • i - 9 164 14 59 457
12 : 8 37n 14 60 389
12 • 9 276, 283 14 61 328, 329, 473
12 : 12 408, 455 14 6if 69, 87, 409, 4 1 1 - 1 2
12 : i f
3
142 14 6iff 404
12 : i3ff 250 14 62 42211
12 : 13-17 8, 249, 265, 408 14 6 f 3 470
12 : 13-27 72 14 64 473"
12 14 241, 26m, 40911, 411, 14 6 ff 4 485
425n 14 65 42 m , 47011
12 • 15 125, 241 14 : 69 340
12 : 16 241, 24411 14 : 70 343, 42 m
12 : 17 242, 284 15 : 1 299, 388, 415
12 : 22 242 15 : i-5 405, 407
12 • 35 40911 15 : 1-15 466
12 : 42 127 15 : 2 328,329,356,404,409,
13 : i f 397 412,474
13 : 2 80, 81, 161, 398 15 2fT 4611
13 : 3-37 70, 72 15 2-5 4611, 389, 403, 406
13 : 4 81 15 2-20 328
13 : 5-6 157 15 3 418, 420
13 : 6 462, 465 15 3f 404
13 ' 7 12611 15 3-5 356
13 • 9 79 15 4 389
13 : g f 45°" 15 5 403, 420, 42211
 Index o f References 495

15 7 3611, 146, 25711, 443 3 20 22511

J
5 8 43211 4 1-8 463
15 9 425 4 2-4, 5-8 46m
15 9, 10, 11 403 4 6 342
15 12 474 4 9-12 46111
15 14 403, 404 4 10 235"
15 15 431, 436, 441, 47211 4 16 5611
'5 15-19 330 4 16-19 461
15 15-20 440 4 i ff7
11911
*5 i6ff 42 m 4 18 12011
15 16-20 329 4 19 175
15 18 403 4 20 258
*5 i9f 36011 4 21 409
15 23 442 4 3i, 44 42311
*5 26 328, 329, 330, 403, 5 1-11 275
404, 474 5 4 28611
*5 27 366, 471, 474 5 21 409, 4*o
15 27-39 329 5 36 40811, 411
15 28 44211 5 37 40811
*5 29 158, 28411, 329, 359, 6 5 12711, 13911
455 6 6 345
30 329 6 6-11 393"
15 32 328,329,354,358,403, 6 7 410
40911,411,463,473 6 13 21211
15 35 343 6 "5 93
15 36 12511 6 17 12011, 18411, 192, 42311
*5 37 329 6 i7f 121
15 38 8on, 87 6 19 120, 121
15 38f 4011 6 20-6 121
15 39 69, 87, 328, 329, 444, 6 2 f 7
144
47411 6 27-9 10711
15 42fT 44411 6 29 337
15 43 115 6 32 13611
15 : 44 447" 6 32ff 144
16 : 1-8 70 7 11911
16 : 7 73, 74 7 I 12011
16 : 8 74" 7 if 219, 22111, 23411
°7 5 410
Luke 7 : 17 42311
1 112 7 • i8ff 22611
1 3f 99 7 : 18-23 117, 461
1 «5 411 7 : 19 23m
1 33 412 7 : 21 1 ign, 12011, 219, 22111
1 53 11211 7 : 22 117, 22111, 334
1 68 237" 7 : 23 12011
1 68ff 11211 7 : 24 214
2 25 115 7 : 33^ 23111
2 38 237" 7 : 42 258
2 46 411 7 : 49 409
3 1 175, 23611 8 : 3 115, 27411
3 2 207, 304 8 : 43 97
3 7 21411, 22511 9 211, 218
3 8f 460 9 : 1 119
3 10-15 113 9 : 3-4 336
3 15 458 9 : 9 22711
3 i6f 461 9 : 10 214
496 Index o f References

Luke - contd. 14 : 33 14
9 11 214, 22311 '5 • 4 21911
9 12, 13 214 ' 5 : 1 iff 137
9 • 14 214, 462 15 • 17 411
9 • 16 214 15 : 24 409
9 : 18-22 393 16 : 13 456
9 • 23, 25 411 16 : 16 26011, 292
9 •• 26 128 16 : I9-3I 317
9 • 4i 410 17 : 2 283
9 • 49, 50 411 17 : 5 21211
9 • 2ff
5 137 17 : 11 137
9 : 52-6 10411, 46111 17 : 21 126
9 • 54 1 i6n 17 : 23 465
9 = 58 128 17 : 25 84
9 : 59-62 28811 17 : 3 i - 7 388
10 : 3t 5-8 336 17 • 37 34i
10 : 7 340 18 : 9-"4 135"
10 : 9 "9 18 : 11, 14 411
10 : 13 219 18 : 28 34i
10 : 17-18 336 18 : 29 14
10 18 31011 18 : 33 412
10 23 . 137, 219 18 . 43 322
10 . 23f 334 19 • 2-10 135"
10 29 411 19 3 412
10 301T 136 19 4 40911
10 3o-5 137 19 8 258
10 35 258 19 11 414
11 H-23 392 19 253"
11 15 397 19 30 410
11 18 411 19 37 322, 409, 467
11 20 143 19 37f 416
11 2 ff 9 137 19 38 10411, 322
11 52 411 19 4iff 26011
11 53 409 19 : 4 1 - 4 165
12 8 88n 19 : 42 10411
12 8f 400 19 : 43-4 163
12 22 116 19 : 45** 410
12 32 26011 19 : 45-8 396
12 43 410 19 : 47 455
12 49 20, 294 19 : 48 408
12 49/-53 287 20 : 1 409", 455
12 511T 287-94, 338 20 : 6 408
12 59 258 20 : 9 409
13 1 95, 96, 423" 20 : 9-16 164
13 i-3 10411 20 • 19 406
13 : ~9 l
32 20 : igff 25m
13 : 6-9 29511, 460 20 : 20 25 m, 409
13 : 28f 137, 276, 283 20 : 20ff 42411
13 : 3 1 228, 24011 20 : 20-6 24911, 408, 413, 414
13 • 33 128 20 : 21 40911
13 : 34-5 164 20 : 22 25711, 411
20 : 24 25811
14 : 11 411
14 : 13 127 20 : 25 25811, 409
H : 16-24 166 20 : 26 242, 408, 409
H : 18 409 21 : 5f 397
14 : 26 13411, 28811 21 : 6 161
 Index o f References 497

21 17 337 407-14,423,
21 18-28 338 42511, 463, 473
21 20 162 23 3 405, 406, 409, 42411,
21 22 163 42611, 474
21 37 128, 40911 23 • 4 405, 409, 412, 414,
22 if 4i5" 425
22 2 406 23 4-5 406
22 3 23711 23 • 5 194, 408, 412, 423,
22 4 346 42611
22 6 237", 346 23 : 6f 413
22 14 21211 23 : 6ff 42111
22 i f
4 405 23 : 6-12 40911
22 I7-I9 340 23 : 7 250, 423
22 21 346 23 : 9 420
22 21-2 340 23 : 12 423, 424
22 21-34 336 23 • 13 42611
22 22 346, 348 23 : i f 4 4 H , 425
22 23 409 23 : 16 414, 42611, 428, 441
22 2 ff
5 34i 23 : 18 427
22 24-30 414 23 : i8f 40811, 414
22 25-38 190 23 • 19 474
22 27 414 23 : 20 414
22 28 461 23 : 22 405, 4 H , 425
22 29 340 23 : 23 432n
22 29f 412 23 ' 25 40811, 414
22 3if 3ion 23 : 27-31 164
22 33 411 23 : 28 361
22 35-8 190, 290, 335-51 23 : 33 417
22 36 33" 23 : 34 10411, 42211, 429
22 36ff 44" 23 • 35 411, 414, 44411, 473
22 37 H5 23 : 36 442n, 443
22 38ff 20 23 : 37 34611, 35511, 358, 414,
22 40 425" 473
22 45 410 23 : 38 356
22 46 42511 23 • 39 358, 4 H
22 48 346 23 : 40 190, 346
22 49 190 23 : 42 23811, 412
22 49-51 335, 336, 342 23 : 43 356
22 5i 10411 23 : 48 164
22 52 439 23 • 53 324
22 53 237", 343, 348, 440 24 238
22 56-62 39i 24 : 7 45°", 4 51

22 61 392 24 ' J
9 195, 231
22 63 39i 24 : 20 432
22 6 ff
3
42m 24 : 21 231
22 66-71 299, 389, 39i, 473" 24 • 53 276
22 67-9 464
22 67-70 409, 473
22 70 42911 John
22 7i 4i5" 1 : 12 310
23 1 412 1 : 14 316, 47411
23 if 42611 1 : 18 144
23 i-3 406 1 : 19 223
23 i-5 407 1 : 19 to 3 : 36 305"
23 2 14311, 145, 194, 26211 1 : 24 223, 298
355,404,406, 1 : 29 1 i6n 29611
498 Index o f References

John - contd. 5 : 35 22611

I 4i 464, 473 6 211, 217, 23611
I 47 465 6 : 1-14 66-71
I 49 22211, 464, 473 6 : 1-15 462
2 1 29611 6 • 1 to 7 : 13 299m
2 4 296 6 : 2 317
2 11 317 6 : 4 216, 219, 221, 30511
2 13-22 296n, 453 6 : 11 23011
2 15 450 6 : i3f 215
2 17 456, 457, 461 6 : 14 229, 231, 462
2 18-20 12411 6 : i f4
216,223,23211,
2 18-21 456
I I
233,3 2,3 7,46
2 19 28411, 397, 457 6 i fT
4 215
2 19-21 390 6 15 216, 463, 464
2 20 ^ 8 , 457, 458, 46011 6 i6f 222
2 21 456, 457 6 231* 216
2 23 302 6 24ff 23811
2 2 ff3
23m 6 26 215, 22211
2 23-5 30211, 317 6 26-35 317
2 24 22211 6 30-5 456
3 I 29811 6 33, 37, 39 3"
3 I-IO 3" 6 46 224
3 1-2 I 30211 6 51-8 456
3 2 249", 317 6 60 23211, 312
3 4 457 6 63 316
3 5 46m 6 64 41611
3 i f 4 29611 6 65 3"
3 16 307, 3 i i 6 66 232, 24011
3 26 4i5" 6 66-9 464
3 34 316 6 66 to 7 : 10 312
3 36 22511 6 69 293
4 if 22611 6 7i 41611
4 iff 225 7 1 464
4 1-6 30211 7 1-4 46m
4 3 22511 7 2 305"
4 4-42 225 7 2-9 464
4 7-42 30211 7 3ff 21311
4 21-3 158 7 4-6 46111
4 22 26511 7 6-8 296
4 3i-4 46m 7 10-13 302, 312
4 35 305" 7 12 3°o, 3*3°
4 42 22211, 311 7 13, 15 305"
4 43^ 225 7 15-24 299, 30211 312
4 43-5 29911, 30211 7 i6f 316
4 46-53 317 7 17 305n
4 46-54 30211 7 • 24 474
5 2f 299 7 : 25 299 n

5 2-47 29911, 30211, 30511, 312 7 : 25-52 464

5 5-18 299 7 : 28f 465
5 18 299, 313, 3i7, 473 7 : 29 3i3
5 19 300, 30511 7 : 30 296, 29911, 465
5 19-47 299 7 : 32 298, 299, 301, 465
5 22-47 468n 7 : 37 3ion
5 25-9 316 7 : 39 296, 29911, 31011
5 27 469, 474" 7 : 44 46811
5 28f 316 7 : 45 298, 299, 301
 Index o f References 499

7 45-52 312, 36811 10 36 473"

7 49 128 10 39 217, 466
8 2, 5 41611 10 40-2 30211
8 13-18 46811 10 40 to 12 50 305
8 15 474 10 4i 42711
8 20 416 11 i-45 30211
8 25 465 11 2 302
8 28 46011 11 3 29711, 316
8 30-6 312 11 3ff 21311
8 44 160, 276 11 4 296, 31 o n
8 45** 46811 11 5 297n, 316
8 57 459n 11 11 297n
8 59 217, 312, 466 11 16 24on
9 i-39 312 11 21 4i6n
9 13 301 11 25f, 28 3i6n
9 13-16 298 11 35 316
9 22 157, 3 i 5 11 36 297n
9 33 314 11 40 3i6n
9 34 3*4. 3 i 5 11 42 2i5n
9 35-8 3Hn 11 43f 316
9 39 315 11 45ff 415"
9 40 29811 11 46f 298
9 41 to 10 : 1 3H 11 4&-57 466
10 464-5 11 47 3i7n
10 1 313" 11 47f 195, 47i
10 i-5 315 11 471T 442n
10 1-21 312 11 47-57
1
295-3 8
10 2 47011 11 48 166, 363, 457
10 3 316 11 50 6, 363
10 6, 7f 315 11 50-2 474
10 7-18 3H 11 5i 449
10 8 123, 3 1 3 " 11 54 192, 467
10 10-18 3i3 11 56 442n
IO nff 123 11 57 47i, 472
10 11-13 3^3" 12 1 467
10 12 22211 12 1-19 3i2n
10 i r
4 317 12 4 4i6n
10 14-16 315 12 6 123
10 15 309 12 9-i9 312
10 16 309, 3!2 12 1 of 296, 317
10 17 309 12 I2f 467
10 19-21 314 12 12-19 321
10 22 297, 305" 12 13, 14 467
10 22-39 315 12 "5 322, 467
10 24, 25-30 • 314 12 16 456, 467
IO 27 317" 12 i7f 296
10 2 f
7 307, 3*6 12 19 427n
10 28 3^7" 12 20-3 310
10 29 3i7 12 23 296, 31 o n
IO 2gf 3^7" 12 24 456
IO 30 317 12 24-6 310
10 30-3 00
3 > 3*7 12 26 3ii
IO 31 312, 466 12 3i 31 o n , 469
10 32-3 178 12 3if 310
IO 33 3i3 12 3i-3 44-50, 468n
IO 33-6 473 12 32f . 312
500 Index o f References

John - contd. 18 28 300

12 : 42 29811 18 28 to 19 21 312
12 : 2 f 4
312 18 29 to 19 16 468n
12 : 49 305" 18 2gf 473
12 : 316 18 30 i84n, 417
13 : 1 31011 18 31 416, 419, 475n
13 : 1 to 16 : 33 18 417, 468, 473
n
299 33
13 : 2 41611 18 33-5 308
13 • 3ff 3ion 18 33 to 19 6 473
13 • 9 27411 18 35 416
13 : 23 29711 18 36 15, 348, 420, 440, 470,
13 : 29 274 47i
13 : 3i 296 18 36-7 i04n
13 : 34f 144 18 37 420, 474
14 ' 2f, 12 3ii 18 39 427
14 : 26 467 18 40 47i, 474
14 3of 31011, 468 19 30m
15 18-21 337 19 1 428, 472n
15 22-7 46811 19 2 440
16 if 127 19 2-5 247
16 1-4 337 19 5 429
16 7-11 46811 19 6 4i9n, 427n, 428
16 20-2 3ii 19 7 195, 300, 313, 317,
16 32 3i3 4 i n
9

17 1 31011 19 8 455, 470, 473, 474

17 if 296 19 9 420
17 4, 5 3ion 19 11 415, 469, 47i
17 6 3ii 19 12 412, 415, 420
17 12 307 19 12-16 474
17 18 3*5" 19 13 173, 415, 428, 43on,
17 20 310 469
17 20-3 3" 19 : 14 415, 429, 469
17 21-3 310 19 : 5 J
415, 448, 469
17 24 31on, 311 19 : 16 177, 426
18 1 to 19 : 16 299 19 : 9 l
3", 474
18 1 to 19 : 30 312 19 : igf 3i2n
18 3 298, 299, 301, 307, 19 : 2of 362
349, 439, 470, 472 19 : 21 358, 474
18 6 360 19 : 22 444"
18 8 42on, 470 19 : 23 177
18 10 1i6n, 190 19 : 26 297"
18 . IO-I1 335, 348 19 ' 3i 300
18 11 470 19 : 3 iff 443
18 12 415, 439, 470 19 : 32, 34 177
18 : 12-14 299 19 • 35 454
18 : 12-28 307 19 : 40 444"
18 * 13 304 19 • 4i 324
18 : '4 303 20 : 1 3i6n
18 : 5 J
115, 297n, 425n 20 : 2 297"
18 : igff 363 20 : 11-18 3i6n
18 : 19-21 458 20 : 21 315"
18 : 19-24 299 20 : 28 87n
18 : 20 360, 420, 465 20 : 30 301
18 : 21 360 20 • 3i 99
18 : 22 428n, 47on 21 : iff 215"
18 : 24 304, 415 21 : 3 348
 Index o f References 501

21 5ff 21511 12 2, 3 14811

21 7, 20 29711 12 2-4 147
21 24 454 12 7 103
13 8, 10 410
Acts 9'» 98 13 28 432, 447
I 13 93 290
? 13 29 430
2 4 409 13 3i 42311
2 23 159' 432, 433" 13 50 40811, 414
2 36 23011 14 19 40811, 414, 43811
2 46 276 15 2 145
3 14 23011, 43211 15 5 39i
3 14-15 167 15 19-29 148
4 !, 2 146 15 3i 199
4 if 149 16 6, 27 411
4 6 304 17 3' 4 412
4 IO 433 17 5-8 40811, 414
4 13 11511 17 7 412, 413, 463
4 14-16 146 17 13 40811, 414
4 25-7 450 17 28 149
4 27 447 18 2 94' 148
5 181 18 12 197
5 17 147' 304" 18 I2ff 79
5 21 47011 18 12-17 40811, 414
5 28 147 18 25 151
5 30 432n, 433 18 26 6
3 9 n

5 31 23011 18 3 3 * 222
5 36 161, 411 19 31 411
5 36f 462 20 29 338
5 36-9 147 20 29-31 337
5 37 161 20 30 410
6 1 147 20 33 340
6 7 391, 449" 21 98
6 9 147 21 t o 23 47i
6 1 iff 42711 21 18 145, 149, 151
6 11-14 149 21 : 20, 23f 151
6 i3f 390 21 27 414
6 14 146, 158, 455 21 27f 40811
7 1 149 21 27-32 151
7 2-53 160 21 28 146, 149, 151
7 42 433 21 30-3 332
7 48 4i 21 3 i f 47i
7 5i 153 21 38 161, 332, 462, 471
7 52 159' 167 22 1-21 160
7- 58 43on 22 3 151
8 4-"» 30 H7 22 4 2 f 47211
8 36 411 22 25-9' 3° 472
9 1 H9 23 3-5 345
10 3, 37 42311 23 6 149, 160
10 37-40 75 23 7 98
IO 38 127 23 12 151
IO 39 432n, 433 23 15 472
IO 47 411 23 i6ff 42
11 17 411 23 23, 28f, 29 472
11 28-30 148 24 2 410
12 7, 181 24 2-5 4i3
12 1 149 24 5 188
502 Index o f References

Acts - contd. 2 10511

24 : 6 146, 149 3 : 16-17 158
24 : 10-21 413 6 : 11 381
24 : H 199" 6 : 18 41811, 4 2 m
24 : 17 410 6 : 19 158
24 : 23 411 10 : 33 to 11 192
25 : 3 151 11 : 1 10511
25 : 4 411 11 : 7f 134"
25 : 7f 413 11 : 26 70
25 • 9 99 13 10511
25 : 11 H9 13 : 2 10511
25 : 20 99 H : 33 370"
26 : 2-23 160, 413 14 : 34* 134"
26 • 4 410 16 : 9 10511
27 • 43 411
28 : i ff 7
96 2 Corinthians
28 • 19 410 6 : 16 158
28 : 21 36211 10 : 1 10511, 192
28 : 24 160
28 : 26-8 160
Galatians 9*. 98, 157
28 : 30 149 1 : 14 151, 370
2 : 3-5 99
Romans 159 2 : 7 149
1 : 7 375" 2 : 9 148
10 : 3 144 2 : 11-14 151
10 • 4 157 2 : 12 15^ 52 J

11 : f f 7 83" 2 : i8f 151

11 : 1 1 - 1 2 , 25-6 168 4 : 17 151
11 : 25 79" 4= 21-31 160
11 : 28f 276 4 : 25-6 158
12 : 14-21 10511 4 : 29 370"
12 : 16 374 4 : 30 276
12 • *9 144 5= 3 170
13 28611, 365-83 6 :: 16 375"
13 : 1 10511, 151
13 : i~7 161 Ephesians
13 : 4 149 2 :: 12 19911
13 : 5 36611 2 :: 19 160
13 : 5f 425 2 :: 21 158
13 : 5-7 386 4 : 2, 2off
; 10511
13 7 258, 26m
13 : 8 61 Philippians
1
13 • 13 '5 1 : *3 :
149
14 370 1 : 27 374
14 : 2-6 83 • /
2 : iff 10511
15 370 2 : 410
*5
15 : if 10511 3 : 2 450"
15 : 3 192
3 : 2, 6, 19 15 1

15 : 20 77 3 : 2f 276
15 : 26 145 a : 20 158, 378-9
16 •• n 367, 370 0 : 22
149
4
/ Corinthians Colossians
1 : 12 151 3 : 12-15 1051-1
1 : J
5 22811 4 : 10 77
 Index o f References 503

/ Thessalonians / John
2 : 14 J
»45> 4 9 "J 5
3 : 23 144
436
2 : i f 4
37011 Jude
2 :: 14-16 148, 159 16 249"
2 : 6, 447
2 : 276 Revelation
2 :: 16 i59 3 ° 8 1 : 16 293
5

3 :: 4 37011 2 : 9 12511, 160, 276

4 :: 11 382 2 :: 12, 16 293
29611, 32211 12511, 276
4 = n
: 3 : 9
5 380 3 =: 12 158
112n
5 :• 3 375' 377 3 : n
:
5 :: 4! 381 6 :: 10 144
7 :: 9 322
2 Thessalonians 12 :: 7 f 2511
2 380 12 :: 7 - 1 2 310"
2 : 3^ 379 H :: iff 134"
2 : 3-12 162 H :: 20 2511
2 : 6ff 17 :: 9 f 2511
379
19 : 15-21 293
20 :• 9 158
/ Timothy
21 :: 2 158
2 : 5f 30711
22 : 15 45°"
2 : 1 if 134"
338
3 : i-9
340 NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA
5 : 7
356, 447
6 : 13
Acts of John 178, 218
Philemon
: 24 77
Acts of Paul i88n, 21811
Hebrews 154' 157
2 : 16 160 Acts of Pilate 33' 173-82, 184, 185,
3 • * 23011 208
7 : 22 160 I n8n
8 : 6-13 160 1.1,2 178
10 : 20 87 4 440
>58 4-3 179
4-3f 419"
9 43011
James
9-i 179
4 : 2 •52
9-2 178
9-5 44m
/ Peter 161, 3 7 ' IO.I 355
2 : 5 •58 10.13 354"
2 i ff 3 26311, 366 11 355
2 13-15 266ll, 286 12.1 177' 178
2 '5 373"
13-' 439"
2 17 37i 44811
14
2 24 in
4 4

3 : 13 152, 373" Acts of Thomas 47, 27511

5 : 13 76
Egerton Papyrus 2 23411, 249, 265, 267, 41511
2 Peter
3 : 3^ 338 Epist. Apost. 5 21811
504 Index o f References

Gospel of Barnabas 276, 42911 JEWISH WRITINGS

Gospel to the Hebrews 12711 Philo 305, 448

Gospel of the Nazarenes 4011, 447 De Decal. 159 22gn

Gospel of Nicodemus 12011,174 De Migr. Abr. 8 g f i4on

Gospel of Peter 42311-42411, 44411 De Spec. Leg. 1.77 28 m , 282

2. ff
3 444"
3 173 Legatio
3-7 469 H3f 372n
4.11 355 i6of 6
3 9"
5-6 43811 276-93 96
5-7 429" 280 - 372n
5.26 42 m , 446 299-305 96
10 354 3°o 423"
25 164, 167
26 34 Vit. Mosis 11.6 23on

Gospel of Thomas 250 Pseudo-Philo

Mani's Gospel 35511, 35811 Biblical Antiquities 27 : 3-5,

Marienklage 44311 Josephus

Martyrium Petri 20511 2,3,7,33,48", 103, 1 1 3 , I 2 2 n ,

Passio Petri et Pauli 37 371 n Ant. Jud.

5.138 324
Pistis Sophia 11811,12311 5-332 302n
6.301 324
Preaching of Peter 167 7.40 325
7-72, 76 329"
7-109 254"
ACTA MARTYRUM 11 325-39 319
11-342-5 319-20
Acta Catharinae 6 37311 12.140 278n
I2.l6off 25611
Acta Cypriani 18411, 35311 12.312, 349 320
12.406 372n
Acta Pionii 35911 13299 230, 3°5
13.304-6 320
Acta SS. Tarachi, Probi, et Andronici 18411 14.13.10 345
14-15 4i6n
Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs 3 and 5 178 1436 328n
14.41 i28n
Apollonius xxxvi-xli i83n, 187 14.74 x i v . 74 25m
14.159 256n
Martyrium Cononis iv.6 i84n 14.163-84 303
14.194 435"
Martyrdom of Eustathius 223n, 438n 14.202, 2051",
14219* 25211
Martyrdom of Polycarp 14.366 44on
8.1 324 I44I5 334
15-6 303
9.2 178
 Index o f References

15.105-36 148 Bell.Jud.

15.160-72 150 1.68 23on, 3°5
15305 252n i-73f 320
15346 334 1.81 36811
15365 252n 1.154 25111
i5-373f 328 1.204 25611
15409 328 1.282 328
16.12-15 321 1.401 459"
16.35 435" 1-457 30211
16.291 328 1-570 321
17-155-63 332 1.651-3 332
17.146 25211 1-673 325
17-155-63 332 23 253"
17-173-7 332 2.10-13 332
17.190 25211 2.25 36811
17.194-239 321 2-55 463
17.204 25211 2.56 25611
17.213-18. 332 2-57 113
17.269-85 465 2-57-9 332
17.271 25611 2.60-5 465
17.278-84 332 2.8off 253"
17.285 463 2.81 36811
i7.3ooff 253" 2.97 25211, 25311
I7-3I9. 320 25211, 253 2.I0I-I0 321
17-324* 36811 2.104f 36811
17.324-8 321 2.11 I 253"
17-342*1; 355 253" 2.Il8 255"
i8.if 253" 2.I4O 36611
18.55* 179 2.164 462-3
18.4 25011, 25511, 25611 2.169-77 9611
i8.6ff 257" 2.172 469"
18.9 25411, 25511 2.203 41811
18.23 147, 25511 2.223-46 148
18.35, 55-9 9611 2.224 47m
18.64 9611, 43311 2.231 43811
18.84 369" 2.246 43811
18.851T 44811 2 253 i87n
i8.88f 47on 2.254-65 150, 19411
18.100 37on 2.258 37011
18.118 22611 2.26l 462-3
18.250, 255ff 44811 2.261-3 332
19-293-302, 327, 2.264f 151
330-4 147 2.301 46911
19352 25211 2.306 44m, 47211
19-356-9 H7 2.351 373"
20.15 423" 2.385 20011
20.97 23011, 23 m 2.404 37i"
20.97-9 23011, 332, 462 2.405 254"
20.102 255" 2.578 22m
20.136^ 43811 4.323 165
20.167-72 195, 23011, 332, 462 5244 47m
20.185-214 152 5-449 47211
20.188 462 6.316 162
20.192 151 6.1 i4f 42511
20.200 146, 149, 168, 41611 6.125 359"
20.219 460 6.250 165
506 Index o f References

Bell. Jud. - contd. Sanhedrin

6.302 422n 5.1 i84n
6.304 44m 6.1 361
7.1481T 8on 6.4 442n
7-154 8n
4 3 6.7 444
7.161, 162 8on 7.1,3 44m
7-253 H7 9-6 398
7-4I5 4i6n
7438 23on Shekalim
i.i 280
C. Apion. i-3 282, 459
2.11 169 i.4 279n, 280
2.68 20on i.7 272n, 282
2-75, 77, 196 372n ii.i 269n
ii.3 28on
Slavonic 32, 33,
34, 35, 37, 7 , I I n I J n
8, H 9 , ii.6 279
193, 2o8n, 22m, 363, 437 iii. 1-4 280
iii.3 281
Vita 9-12 150 iv.i 277
vi.5 282
Josippon 37, 191, 192, 202n, 204-5
Sotah 9, 15 288

Q u m r a n texts 11 i n , 282, 293, 401 Taanith 4.8 157

CD x.14 to xi.18 i 8n
3 Tamid 7.3 156-7
i Q p H a b . ix 2ff 256n
i Q p H a b . 6.3-5 162 Tehoroth 3 : 7 324
i Q H 5.7-19 1 i2n
i Q S 4.2, 6.11 22m Yadayim 4 : 8 256n
0 0
4Q 159 279, 4
4QpNahum 44 m , 442
7 Q 5, 7 Q 6.1 78n Tosefta

Berakhoth 4 : 8 i27n

Tar gum
Hullin ii.22f 393
Is l l n
-53 •• 9 3
J e r . 1 to N u m b . 25 : 4 441" Ned. i.6 281
Ps. J o n a t h a n to E x o d . 30 : 13 28on
Parah iii. 8 345
Mishnah
Babylonian T a l m u d
Aboth
' :5 i27n Abodah Zarah
3 :2 25m, 382n 2.18a 382n

Baba Bathra 5 : 2 324 Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 4 3g8n

Bekhoroth viii.7 247 Baba Metzia 28b 157

Maaser Sheni 254n Berakhoth 58a 373n

Nedarim ii.4 280 Chag.

14a 221
Rosh ha-Shanah 1 : 9 324 16a 382n
 Index o f References 507

Ebel Rabbati ii.8 44411 Yithro, Amalek i 28311

Yithro, Bahodesh i 27111, 28011
Gittin
55D-57* 1 i6n Pesikta Rabbathi
56ab 39 8 n
R.7 n8n
56b 25m R.36 234

Kethubhoth 106a 27911 Pirqe Mashiah 23511

Makkoth 24a 37811 Song of Solomon Rabbah 4 : 7, 1. 1 i8n

Megillah 13b 37211 Tanchuma

B-7 1i9 n

Pesachim N o a h 10 26011
87b 169
104a 259" Prayers

Eighteen Benedictions 157, 29811, 309

Sanh.
43* 33>46i
T o l e d o t h Jeshu 33, 49, 189, 191, 194,
3<
46b 44211 20211, 206, 208, 20911, 361, 43811
89 B a r 36211
Huldreich version 21811, 36211
97a 292
105a 37211
106b 12611 Summary by Agobard 44411, 44911

Shabbath Maimonides
88b 22011
Mishneh Torah III.vii.2 26911
116a 12711
119b 169
Sepher ha-Miswoth ii 27711

Yoma
9b 168 MANDAEAN TEXTS
39b 25m.
Ginza R 1 : 201 11711
Palestinian T a l m u d 2 : 1,136 11711

Abodah Zarah 3-i 25911

Johannesbuch ygf, 243 11711
Sanh.
j 4.6 36111
TJ42 27911 KORAN
j 23c 36m Sur. 5 218

Shabb. x i v . 14c! 39311

DIATESSARON
Terumah 8.10 37211
Arabic 12011

Midrash
Persian 12011, 46211
Lamentations Rabbathi i.244-90 39811

Leviticus Rabbah 18 : 4 n8n, n 911 APOSTOLIC FATHERS

Mekilta / Clement
Pis'cha 1 1 o o f 42211 5:1 to 6:4 151
508 Index o f References

/ Clement - contd. Aquinas

II i : 167 Catena Aurea 27511
16 : 13 339 Summa Theologiae 26511, 27411
31 : 2 160
37 161 Aristides ( A p o l o g i s t )
37 •: 3 221 Apol. 2 436
37:5 37611
60-1 161
Aristides ( O r a t o r )
61 374 Orat. 26, 100 376

Didache 8.1 135

Aristobulus Afi{ 42 m
Epistle of Barnabas
2 :6 170 Arnobius
4 : 14 167
:
5 2.12 436 Adversus nationes i.63, ii.i 1 18311
5 :9 436
5 : " 166 Arrian
6 : 61 436 Disc. Epict. iii, iv, v . 17 24211
7 : 59 436 Augustine
8 :9 191 De Civ. Dei 4.4 18511
13 : 1 276
18.46 169
13, 14 160
16 : 1 170 18.54 «75
16 : 4 19.25 18411
153
Injoh. 10 45911
In Psalmos 26511
Ignatius of Antioch
Sermo 44.3.7 44811
Phil. 12 : 3 42211

Basilides
Polycarp Phil. 2 : 3 121, I22n
Hipp. Ref. vii. 25 : 5c! 12311

Cassius Dio
OTHER GREEK AND LATIN Rom. Hist. 54.3.7 329
WRITINGS 60.6 36911

Acta Alexandrinorum 148, 42 m Cena Cypriani 188

Acta Silvestri 208 Chrysostom 12011, 218, 23811, 27511, 348,

353", 367
Altercatio Simonis et Theophili 191 Jud. 4.6 171
Horn, in Matth. 67.1 13311, 26511
Ambrose 28611
In Hexaemeron v . vi 26511 Cicero
In Luc. iv. 73-5 26511 Pro Flacco 28 169
Pro Murena 39 18511
Apostolic Constitutions Prov. Cons. 10 25211
5.14 41711,44611
5.14.12 436
Clement of Alexandria 187-8, 26511, 28611
6.25 170-1
letter attributed to 88, 99
6.30.8 45011
Strom. 1.21.146 174, 175
7.23.2 43711, 45011
15.H 443"
Clementine Homilies
Apuleius Horn. 1, 6, 4 U 7 n , "811
Metamorph. xi. 17 37211 3.42 12611
 I n d e x o f References 509

Clementine Recognitions 9-5-1, 9-7-1 175

1.61 12211 C. Hieroclem 1 i88n
1.64 170 Chron. A . D . 135 170
Theophany 43 3 n
Cod. Theod. 2.9.3 178 V. Const. 3.33 169

Cyprian Gaius iii.222 34411

Testimonia, 1.6, 1.15 170
Herodianus Historicus 1.9.7 24211
Cyril of Alexandria 26511, 28211
Luc. 22.34ff 350
Hegesippus 33, 40, 4 1 , 146, 156, 163, 168,
27711, 38011, 42 m
Didaskalia 36511

Hervaeus Natalis
Didaskalia, Syriac
De Paupertate Christi et Apostolorum 27411
13.21 436
5-H-3 447
Hierocles 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 19911,
5195 437"
20211
Ephraem Syrus 43811
Horn, de Antichristo 9 1 i8n Hilary of Poitiers 7211, 27411, 27511
In Evang. Matth.XVll 26511
Epiphanius 2511, 4111 In Ps. 58.7 169
Haer. 29.7, 30.2 156
50.1 174, 175 Hippolytus 362 n
Mens. 15.2-5 156 Comm. on Daniel 174, 186, 20711
Panarion 29.4 27711 Dem. adv. Jud. 6-7 168
Euergetes 168
Eusebius 2511, 4111, 35311 Refutatio omnium haeresium 12311 241, 259
D.E. 8.2.i24f 170
9.11 18311 Honorius [ E l u c i d a r i u m ] 11711
H.E. 1.1.2 169
1.5.1 41611 Irenaeus
1.9, 18511
Adversus haereses 89, 207
1.11.9 20811
i.255 89
1.12 18911
2.6.8 ii. 22.5 20711
169
2.23 277"
iii. 17.1 7811
2.23.4 146, 156
2.23.4-18 168
2.23.1 iff 380 Isidore of Seville 356

353 74, H 6 , 152, 156, 163

3.6.28 169 Isocrates
3.12 42 m De pace 17 37611
320.5 358n Jerome 4 m , 26511, 27411, 275, 285-6, 43311
331 27711 Comm. in Ezek. 36.i6ff 169
3-39-15 n
7 5 , 99"
451-4 156 Justin 183
4-6.3,4 155 Apol. i . i 2 f 18311
4.26.7-11 161, 20811 1.26 36811
5-i-5<> 43^ 30 18311
51434 329 31 157
5 16, 18 i86n
35 173-4, 36211, 436, 43811
518 18711
35-6 469
524 277"
6.41 18711 38 36211, 436
47 167, 169
5io Index o f References

Justin - 183 - contd.

Dial. c. Tryph. 9.4 184
12 n8n 10 169
16 157/167 29.2 i84n
16, 1 7 . 1 - 4 22 155
35 18311 Oppian
40, 46 170 Halieutika 2.41 3720
52 169
69 362 Origen 266n
81 159 C. Cels. 1.1 i86n
88 23411 1.28 177
97 436 1.30 18911
108 362 1-32, 3 8
177
110 167 1.47 167-8
1.62 193, 234n
Juvenal 14.960° 37211 1.68 2i8n
1.71 i83n
Juvencus 27411 24 20on, 4370
25 i84n
Lactantius 189 29 30cm
Div. Inst. 4.10.18 174 2.12 i89n, i g g n , 20on
4.24f 18311 2.13f i8 n 3

5-3, 4 184, 188 2.28 192

Mort. Persec. 2 174 2.44 187
5.2.12 199 2.46 1840, i89n
34 20011 2.48-53,2.70 177
2.59 20on
Lampridius 0.36, c.51 35411 3-5, 7, 13, H '99n
3.10 i84n
Leo Ep.xcv.2 18511 3-44f 20on
3-55f i86n
Libanius 4-22, 4-73 168
Oratio 30 20011 4-23 20on
5-25 200-1 a n d 20on
Livy 5-41 i 8n
9

1.26 44m 6.80 160

29-9 44011 7.18 iggn
3336 4 4 i n , 472n 8.8 20on
8.14 189n, 99n
Lucian 193 8.17 i86n
Per. X I I i86n 8.55,65,6720m
XIII 183, 184 8-73, 75 382n
Ep. ad Africanum 14 26gn, 434n
Maximus of Tyre Horn. 9.10 156
Diss. 3 422n 12.2 265n
Injoh.1%.5 i83n In Matth. 13.10 26$n
Melito of Sardis 161, 270 13.14 268n
Horn. 92 436 121 i83n
Peri Pascha 86 265n In Rom. 6.7 434n
9.30 26sn
Minucius Felix i86n
Origo Gentis Romanae
a n d

Octavius 8.3 i84n Epit. 3, 4; 5 7 209n

8.4 i86n
Papias, 75-6, 99
9.if i86n
Persius 5.180 368n
 Index of References

Philostratus IV.34 350n

Vita Apollonii 8.2 42211 IV.70, V I . 1 8 35711
8.7.13 22611 X I I . 6 0 , XIII.13V50, 3 7 m
X V . 4 4 2gn, 78} 198, 434
Plato 20011 Hist. V . 5 . 1 ig8n

Pliny 19811 Tatian i64n, 225n

\
Porphyry fr 63 42011 Tebtunis Papyrus I I I . 793 344

Pseudo-Aristides, Orat. 37 37611

Tertullian 12 m , 1 60, 183, 449n, 462n
Ad. Nat. 1.10 20on
Pseudo-Hippolytus, 23, 106.14 11711-118n
Ad. Scap. 2 201 n
Adv. Judaeos
Pseudo-Lucian
3-6 168
Philopatris 25.26 20m 170
8.i 7

10 437
Rufinus 433
10.15 168
version o f Eusebius's H.E. 175, 18/
132.3. 170
i3.24ff 169
Adv. Marc.
Sallust
323 168
Catilina 52 422n
Apol.
2.20 353"
Suetonius 187
Claudius 25 148, 197, 36gn 5 174
521 362
Caligula 32 329, 353n
16 i62n
Domitian 10 329, 353n
21 171, 174, 36on, 431
15.1 20m
21.7 i8 n
3
Julius 84 368n
21.18 i84n
Tiberius 58, 61 357n
35 362
38 362
Sulpicius Severus
39 i84n, 376
Chron. 2.30 169
42 37m
Symmachus
Relatio I I I . 10 i97n Ulpian Dig. 48.2.6 44m

Tacitus Velleius Paterculus

Ann. II.42.6 254n Hist. Rom. II.80 376
II.43 I 0
9 n
II.89 377n