2013
Tell John what you hear and see A MULTIPLE WITNESS REQUIREMENT IN DOMINICAL STATEMENTS AND THE NT A.M. THOMAS
Preface How might you answer this question: Is Jesus the all-powerful rescuer for all people? That is, is Jesus the Messiah, God’s promised saviour for all nations? In this study we look at how Jesus answered that question – among friends, or with strangers, or challenged in hostile situations. It may surprise you that Jesus’s way of answering focused on the evidence, much as a good scientist of today might. As we will see, according to the New Testament Jesus appears to have been careful to observe and to explain the conditions for accurate knowledge. One of the reasons we study Jesus’s answers is to learn more about the standard of verification that the New Testament follows. We will review a lot of evidence in the NT that an Old Testament law that required multiple, confirming witnesses for a claim to have force, also functioned as a governing rule for the NT community. If such a rule was important, that would help to answer many questions that readers of the NT struggle with. Why do accounts of Jesus’s life and teachings sometimes vary? Why is Paul so quiet about Jesus’s biography? How did Jesus’s followers gather the material that became the Gospels? Please let me encourage you to join in evaluating whether testimony rules can help to answer these and other questions – and provide new appreciations of the New Testament texts. This study takes just a couple of the needed steps. We consider evidence available from already published studies. We search for new evidence by examining two sets of records of Jesus’s words, drawn from all four Gospels. Then we try to draw conclusions based on all the evidence we have found about an NT requirement for multiple witnesses, what could be termed an NT standard of verification.
Thanks and acknowledgements The LORD is my light and my salvation. (Ps 27:1) Thank you all who offered encouragement and prayer. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 A research problem and hypothesis .................................................................................................... 1 Existing research and evidence ........................................................................................................... 1 A test of the hypothesis ....................................................................................................................... 7 Sources and methods........................................................................................................................... 8 A component problem......................................................................................................................... 9 Outline of the study ........................................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 1 – Jesus’s words on his identity as Christ and King ................................................. 12 Jesus’s dialogue with Nathanael ....................................................................................................... 12 Jesus’s dialogue with a woman in Samaria ....................................................................................... 12 Jesus’s dialogue with disciples of John the Baptist .......................................................................... 13 Jesus’s dialogue with his disciples on his identity ............................................................................ 13 Jesus’s dialogue with people in Jerusalem ........................................................................................ 14 Jesus’s dialogue in Solomon’s Porch ................................................................................................ 15 Jesus’s dialogue on glorification ....................................................................................................... 15 Jesus’s dialogue with Pharisees on nearing Jerusalem ..................................................................... 16 Jesus’s dialogue with a crowd in Jerusalem...................................................................................... 16 Jesus’s lecture on authority ............................................................................................................... 17 Jesus’s lecture on kingdoms .............................................................................................................. 17 Jesus’s prayer for glorification .......................................................................................................... 18 Jesus’s dialogue with a crucified man............................................................................................... 18 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 2 – Understanding Jesus’s σὺ λέγεις-type answers .................................................... 20 Indirect answers ................................................................................................................................ 20 Chiastic response .............................................................................................................................. 21 Parallelism......................................................................................................................................... 22 Paradox ............................................................................................................................................. 23 Elenchus and aporia ......................................................................................................................... 24 Trap questions ................................................................................................................................... 26 Witnesses .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Jesus’s responses at interrogations on his identity as Christ and King ............................................. 28 Jesus’s dialogue with Caiaphas / the Sanhedrin ................................................................................ 29 The Markan readings with ἐγώ εἰμι .................................................................................................. 31 Pilate’s question on Jesus’s identity.................................................................................................. 32 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 3 - Results, discussion and conclusions ...................................................................... 34 Key results ........................................................................................................................................ 35 Conclusions for the hypothesis ......................................................................................................... 36 Implications for the study of the NT ................................................................................................. 38
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................... 42
List of tables Table 1: Indirect answers to challenges ................................................................................... 20 Table 2: Chiastic responses to challenges ................................................................................ 21 Table 3: Parallelism in Jesus's responses ................................................................................. 22 Table 4: Paradox in Jesus's responses ...................................................................................... 23 Table 5: Supporting witnesses.................................................................................................. 28 Table 6: Claims, witnesses and epistemological concern ........................................................ 34 Abbreviations AB
Anchor Bible
ACCS
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture
ANRW
Augstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms in Spiegel der neueren Forschung.
ANTC
Abingdon New Testament Commentaries
BETL
Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BNTC
Black’s New Testament Commentaries
BTB
Biblical Theology Bulletin
BZABR
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte
ConBNT
Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series
EncJud
Encyclopaedia Judaica
HSS
Harvard Semitic Series
HTCNT
Herder's Theological Commentary on the New Testament
ICC
International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
JSNTSup
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series
JSOTSup
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
LNTS
Library of New Testament Studies
NCB
New Century Bible Commentary
NICNT
New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIGTC
New International Greek Testament Commentary
NovT
Novum Testamentum
NovTSup
Supplements to Novum Testamentum
NTM
New Testament Message
NTS
New Testament Studies
OECT
Oxford Early Christian Texts
OED
Oxford English Dictionary
OTL
Old Testament Library
SNTSMS
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
Str-B
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch
WBC
Word Biblical Commentary
WUNT
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
1 Introduction A research problem and hypothesis What the New Testament community1 referred to as Scripture provided laws of testimony: for example, not to give false testimony (Exod 20:16; 23:1-2; Deut 5:20), and that testimony had legal force only with multiple, confirming witnesses (Deut 19:15; 17:6; Num 35:30). Then, did these laws of testimony work as governing rules for the historians2 and letter authors of the NT? Such a hypothesis could help to answer many questions about the NT. It could help to explain variations among NT accounts, and the relative silence of Paul’s letters about Jesus’s life. In fact, NT testimony rules could change how many of the most basic, vital questions about the New Testament are answered: questions of its historical authenticity, of relationships among its texts, about how people gathered and preserved what became the NT. This study focuses on the multiple witness requirement. This may shed light on how the false witness prohibition was adopted as a governing rule for the NT community – but that urgently requires its own study. Now, to examine the hypothesis that the NT community observed a multiple witness requirement, we begin with evidence from existing research.3 Existing research and evidence Hypotheses about multiple witness requirements in the NT have been raised in a few different ways. Hendrik Van Vliet focused his proefschrift (dissertation) on the NT’s relationship to the requirement for multiple witnesses: although it focuses on cultural sources for the rule (e.g. Hellenistic Judaism, “Palestinian” Judaism), it gives brief, dense catalogues of evidence of NT observance of a requirement for multiple witnesses4 or evidence,5 possible to summarise thus: 1. Clear references to a multiple-witness requirement at Matt 18:16 (for church discipline), John 8:17 (to establish Jesus’s identity), 2 Cor 13:1 (for church discipline6), 1 Tim 5:19 (for church discipline), 1 John 5:7 (to establish Jesus’s identity), Heb 10:28 (regarding discipline).7 2. Mutually supporting witnesses are found regularly in the Gospels. Van Vliet provides extensive examples to demonstrate this for Matthew, Mark and John, and refers to Morgenthaler’s work for Luke.8
1
I.e. the community of disciples, Gospel authors and editors, letter authors, hearers / audiences.
2
This term (and theorised editors can be included in it) is cautious, neutral and respectful. It corresponds to the self-description of the Gospel texts and NT letters that continually indicate their intention to be believed as true. 3
It is not practicable to review the research that takes a negative view of the hypothesis, given that it is constituted by perhaps entire subfields of NT studies: e.g. form criticism, redaction criticism. Instead, key interactions of the hypothesis with these fields are discussed in “Implications for the study of the NT” in chapter 3. 4
Hendrik Van Vliet, No single testimony: a study on the adoption of the law of Deut. 19: 15 par. into the New Testament (Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon, 1958), 2-5, 87-92. The definition of witness is not limited to human witnesses either in the NT, (e.g. “works” are a witness in John 5:36), or in the OT, where witnesses can be things such as a stone (Josh 24:27), a song (Deut 31:19, 21), or a book (Deut 31:26). The Hebrew term for witness and testimony, ʿēd, may be equivalent to “evidence” in Gen 21:30; 31:44, 47, 52; Exod 22:13; Deut 31:19, 26; Josh 24:27. Van Vliet, No single testimony, 48 and note 482 5
Although the object of the application (the Corinthians, or Paul) is disputed, cf. Laurence L. Welborn, “‘By the mouth of two or three witnesses’: Paul's invocation of a Deuteronomic statute,” NovT 52 (2010): 207-220. 6
7 8
Van Vliet, No single testimony, 2, 5.
Robert Morgenthaler, Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnis. Gestalt und Gehalt der Kunst des Lukas (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 14, 15; 2 vols.; Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1949).
2 In Matthew, some examples are: the baby Jesus’s identity as saviour is witnessed by an angel to Joseph, the three wise men, and Scripture. Testimony at Jesus’s baptism is given by John, the Spirit and the Father. The message of the Kingdom of Heaven is confirmed by Jesus’s many healings, and Jesus’s divine status is also confirmed by deeds of power. Jesus’s promise of the performance of prayers joined by two or more disciples is related to legitimate testimony acceptable to the Father (Matt 18:19-20). Further, “Threefold is the sign of his coming [Matt 24:8, 9, 11], twofold the sign saying that he gave his life for us [Matt 26:26-29].”9 In Mark, some examples are: “Jesus sent out his twelve in pairs [6:7], as witnesses ought to be.10 … [T]he Lord as a witness said ‘Amen’ to the preaching of his Apostles by the signs that were following [16:20].”11 In John, some examples are: Jesus points to the supporting testimony of John the Baptist, deeds of power, and Scripture (5:33f.). “Abraham, [Moses] and [Isaiah] are the three Old Testament witnesses testifying about Jesus [5:45-47; 8:56; 12:3741]”; “The Spirit and the Apostles must be Jesus’s witnesses [15:26-27].”12 3. Explicit specification of multiple confirming witnesses in NT epistles and Revelation: 1 Cor 1:6; Rom 2:15; 3:21; 8:16; 9:1; Tit 3:10; Heb 2:4; 6:17-18; 10:15; 10:29; 3 John 12; Rev 11:3; also with the epistolary formula “Paul and …” at 1 Cor 1:1, 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1: 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1.13, 14 Joachim Jeremias studied the regular appearance of pairs of messengers throughout the NT and in rabbinic texts, and provides extensive NT evidence.15 Jesus, for example, sends disciples out in pairs, as representatives (Mark 6:7), to collect a donkey (Mark 11:1 // Matt 21:1 // Luke 19:29), and to prepare for Passover (Mark 14:13 // Luke 22:8). Jesus’s disciples are even listed pairwise (Matt 10:2-4, Acts 1:13). So also John the Baptist does not send just one disciple to Jesus (Luke 7:18 // Matt 11:2). From the Jerusalem church, Peter and John are sent together to Samaria (Acts 8:14), and beforehand “they appear together and bear witness to Christ, and Peter is the spokesman”16 (Acts 3:1, 4, 6, 12; 4:8). Judas Barsabbas and Silas are sent to Antioch along with the “Antiochian messenger pair” Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:22, 27, 32). From the Antioch church, Paul and Barnabas are sent to Jerusalem (Acts 11:30; Gal 2:1; Acts 15:1-2, 12) and the Gentile world (Acts 13:2). The missionary “chief speaker” (ὁ ἡγούμενος τοῦ λόγου) Paul is accompanied by Barnabas (Acts 14:12).17 Later, Antioch sends Mark and Barnabas (Acts 15:39), Paul with Silas (Acts 15:40, confirmed by the salutations at 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1), and Paul with Timothy (2 Cor 1:1.; Phil 1:1, Col 1:1; Philem. 1).
9
Van Vliet, No single testimony, 4.
10
Van Vliet cites m. Roš Haš. 1:6, 7; 2:6.
11
Van Vliet, No single testimony, 4.
12
Van Vliet, No single testimony, 4-5.
13
Van Vliet, No single testimony, 5, 88.
14
Van Vliet also lists pre-1958 research on the witness requirement: work by L. Brun, Goetz, and M. Albertz on the resurrections stories; by Th. Lohmann on church discipline rules; connected to the practice of going in pairs, by Hauck (on disciples) and M. van Rhijn (on disciples and apostles). Van Vliet, No single testimony, 2-3. J. Jeremias, “Paarweise sendung im Neuen Testament,” in New Testament essays. Studies in memory of Thomas Walter Manson (ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), 136-143. 15
16
Jeremias, “Paarweise sendung im Neuen Testament,” 139.
17
Jeremias, “Paarweise sendung im Neuen Testament,” 138.
3 The Pauline churches send messengers in multiples (e.g. 2 Cor. 8:23: ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν), sometimes listed per region in pairs (Acts 20:4). So also Paul sends pairs – Timothy and Erastus (Acts. 19:22), Titus and “our brother” (2 Cor. 12:18), Tychicus and Onesimus (Col. 4:7-9), Zenas and Apollos (Titus 3:13). Finally, God’s own messengers appear in pairs – Elijah and Moses (Mark 9:4 // Matt 17:3), angels by Jesus’s empty tomb (Luke 24:4), angels who from within Jesus’s empty tomb address Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-13), angels at Jesus’s Ascension (Acts 1:10), and two “preachers of repentance in the Endtimes”18 (Rev 11:3-12). To explain the pattern of messenger pairs, Jeremias gives the most prominent place to the OT requirement for multiple witnesses.19 Explicit support for this is found among rabbinic texts: Nach Sanh 6.I hat ein zur Steinigung Verurteilter das Recht, sich vom Weg zur Richtstätte nochmals zum Gerichtsaal zurückführen zu lassen, selbst vier, ja fünf Mal, wenn er etwas Erhebliches zu seiner Entlastung vorzubringen hat. ,,Aber woher weiß man das (daß seine Vorbringungen erheblich sind)?“ Der eben erwähnte Abbaje [280-338/9 CE] schlägt vor: ,,Man gebe ihm (dem Delinquenten) ein Schriftgelehrtenpaar (zugha dherabbanan) mit (auf den Weg zur Richtstätte).“20
The cited Talmudic text (Sanh. 6.1) provides a link between judicial procedure and the rabbinic terminus technicus for the pair: zugh (derived from ζεῦγος, e.g. a pair), with variants such as zugh eḥadh šel talmidhe ḥakhamim (e.g. Schülerpaar, disciple-pair) and zugha dherabbanan (e.g. Schriftgelehrtenpaar, scribal pair).21 This is of crucial importance, as it points to the potential to integrate the findings and methods of research on rabbinic disciples’ practices of conservation of authoritative material (itself a kind of witnessing). Were those conservation practices performed by pluralities of witnesses (e.g. disciple pairs)? If so, can rabbinic texts reveal ways to identify such practices also in NT texts? Birger Gerhardsson’s work linking rabbinic sources with the NT on such issues is key.22 Allison Trites’s dissertation-monograph, The New Testament concept of witness, gives limited but productive attention to the multiple witness issue.23 A plurality of witnesses is viewed as necessary not only for disciplinary purposes, but also generally to establish truth.24 Thus, Trites discusses NT examples where “eye-witness testimony is regarded as making the testimony of the ‘prophetic word’ (i.e. the Old Testament scriptures) ‘more sure’.”25 But Trites also finds that “the whole of John’s Gospel conforms to the principle that everything must be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”27 And for Luke-Acts, Trites concludes,
18
Jeremias, “Paarweise sendung im Neuen Testament,” 142.
Jeremias raises just one other possible reason (without confirmation): “the uncertainty of the travel conditions: the message was better protected by two messengers.” Jeremias, “Paarweise sendung im Neuen Testament,” 138. 19
20
Jeremias, “Paarweise sendung im Neuen Testament,” 137.
21
Jeremias, “Paarweise sendung im Neuen Testament,” 136.
22
Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and manuscript: oral tradition and written transmission in rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity; with, Tradition and transmission in early Christianity. (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Livonia, Mich.: Eerdmans; Dove Booksellers, 1998). While these are reprinted editions of the groundbreaking work published in the early 1960s, Gerhardsson provides an updated overview of the research in a new preface, ix-xxii. 23
Allison. A. Trites, The New Testament concept of witness (SNTSMS 31; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). 24
E.g. Acts 5:32; Heb 2:3f.; Rev 11:3. Trites, The NT concept of witness, 121.
25
1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:16-19; Acts 10:38-43; 13:26-41; Trites, The NT concept of witness, 215.
27
Trites, The NT concept of witness, 121.
4 [Luke] accepts the Old Testament principle that everything must be established at the mouth of two or three witnesses, and formulates his historical material in accordance with it.... [T]he only testimony Luke means to offer is that which would satisfy a court of law, and this demands twofold or threefold testimony….28
Four types of confirming witnesses emerge from Trites’s investigation: (i) disciples/apostles; (ii) works / deeds of power / miracles / signs / wonders; (iii) OT Scripture; (iv) the Holy Spirit (via signs and via speech given to people). A pertinent application of this is that “for both John and Luke the two key witnesses after the resurrection are the apostles and the Holy Spirit.”29 G.B. Caird discusses the multiple witness requirement’s origins and applications in the OT and the NT.33 Caird explains why the application of the rule requiring multiple witnesses was not restricted in Israelite life to legal proceedings: it was part of a judicial frame of reference widely applied for many reasons, such as the importance of concepts of justice and righteousness, and for its relevance to the concept of truth-seeking.34 The reason for this frequent recourse [in the Old Testament] to forensic metaphor was not that the Israelites were excessively litigious, nor that law was their religion, but simply that the law-court was the only context in which they experienced a systematic quest for truth governed by rules of procedure…. It was natural for them, therefore, to see through the lens of legal metaphor any attempt to arrive at religious truth. …. [M]ost of the truths that Israel was interested in had to rest on the testimony of witnesses; and the law laid down that ‘a charge must be established on the evidence of two or three witnesses’ (Deut. 19:15). When the early Christians began to argue the case for their new faith, they took the law of dual witness very seriously.35
Caird focuses on John: his attention to testimony rules is explainable via his orientation to “the Old Testament theme of God’s lawsuit: [John] presents to us the case of God v. the world.”36 The Baptist is the first witness (1:6-7), followed inter alia by Jesus (3:31), the works of the Father through Jesus (5:31-37), Scripture’s witness (5:39-45), and the Advocate’s (15:26-27). Gerhardsson has apparently37 published the most recent work that, even as a side concern, evaluates whether a requirement of multiple witnesses formed part of the practice of an NT historian (Mark).38 Gerhardsson demonstrates that Mark appears concerned to provide multiple names of witnesses for three events of the Passion: the crucifixion, burial, and discovery of the empty tomb of Jesus (15:40-41, 47; 16:1). All the other Gospels also specify multiple witnesses, sometimes unnamed, for these events (with one possible exception39). While exegetes often note the Deut 19:15 (multiple witness requirement) background when a text specifies multiple 28
Trites, The NT concept of witness, 133, 135.
29
Citing John 15:26f.; Acts 5:32; cf. 1:8; Trites finds two reasons: to encourage in the face of unbelief and persecution; as a living advocate after apostolic eyewitnesses died. Trites, The NT concept of witness, 121-122. 33
G. B. Caird, The language and imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980), 157-159.
34
Caird, The language and imagery of the Bible, 157-158.
35
Caird, The language and imagery of the Bible, 158. Caird cites Acts 5:32; Heb 2:3-4; Rev 11:3-12; 2 Cor 13:1; John 5:31-37; 8:17-18. 36
Caird, The language and imagery of the Bible, 159.
37
A conclusion based on database searches and confirmed by checking recent monographs on the topic of NT eyewitnesses: Samuel Byrskog, Story as history - history as story: the Gospel tradition in the context of ancient oral history (WUNT 123; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the eyewitnesses: the Gospels as eyewitness testimony (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006). Birger Gerhardsson, “Mark and the Female Witnesses,” in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: studies in honor of Åke W. Sjöberg (ed. Hermann Behrens, et al.; Kramer Fund 11; Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1989), 217-226. 38
39
In John, Mary Magdalene is alone but for two angels when she meets the resurrected Jesus (20:11-17).
5 witnesses, Gerhardsson relates it to a framework of analysis that Gospel authors were careful preservers of traditions, among which were eyewitness reports: “the most natural explanation is that Mark is here rather close to the eye-witnesses. There is not a long chain of traditionists between him and the course of events; even less does he recount anonymous stories circulating in Christian communities.”40 In summary, we see that a multiple witness requirement was important in the NT in various ways. Gerhardsson’s question is most similar to our present one: he focuses on the method of an NT historian (Mark), where care is conspicuous to provide names of (multiple) witnesses, very possibly to strengthen the reliability of the report to its first hearers. This form of research could be expanded: checking for pluralities of eyewitnesses in the NT.41 Such a task is immediately expedited by Jeremias’s evidence that pairwise mission was a norm in the NT community, widely attested, the best explanation for which is a requirement for multiple (confirming) witnesses. Jeremias’s observation of technical terms for rabbinic disciple-pairs and scribal pairs, also used in legal settings, provides a strong lead for searching for parallel practices in the NT community. Van Vliet, Trites and Caird provide a lot of evidence that multiple testimony was part of the ethic of verification for the NT. Further, they show that this multiple-testimony ethic was not limited to disciplinary/legal settings, nor to multiple human witnesses, but appears to have been a fundamental standard for verification widely, across many types of questions, and many types of witnesses/evidence. Indeed, it is by no means clear that 1st-century Mediterraneans were credulous people whose median everyday epistemological premises were much different than today’s. Mark records that people “laughed” (κατεγέλων) at Jesus when he questioned the biology of apparent death (5:40). A review of the surprisingly sparse scholarship on epistemology in the NT finds no indication of a relaxation of requirements for verifying evidence among Jesus followers. Instead, the focus is on obstacles that prevent the perception and understanding of evidence. Howard Clark Kee, examining the Johannine texts, finds that “truth is not merely a matter of intellectual concepts but involves also a mode of behaviour and relationship toward God and within the new community.”42 He notes the stipulations of new birth through “water and the Spirit” (John 3:5), and the receipt of the Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-17; 16:13), for a person’s ability to perceive truth and to be led by truth. William J. Abraham investigates epistemology in Mark and also finds various pre-conditions for knowledge. Like the healing of the blind by Jesus, the “cognitive malfunction in Peter and the disciples is so deep that it cannot
40
Gerhardsson, “Mark and the Female Witnesses,” 217.
41
One issue to address here is that the NT records things that, at least on first glance, only a single person could testify to: e.g., “Peter remembered the word that Jesus said to him” (Mark 14:72), the individual meetings of Zechariah and Mary with angels (Luke 1:8-22, 26-38), Mary Magdalene’s lone meeting with angels and the resurrected Lord (John 20:11-17). These might be significant exceptions to a rule otherwise followed, or they might show that the rule was satisfied by supporting evidence just as well as by supporting witnesses. Indeed, for each of the examples above, the individual witness has supporting evidence: Peter wept, Zechariah became mute, Mary became pregnant, and Mary Magdalene was confirmed when Jesus appeared to others. This is consistent with Van Vliet’s findings, where often it is a matter of the “going together of word and display of power,” i.e. not only pluralities of human witnesses. Van Vliet, No single testimony, 4. Howard Clark Kee, “Knowing the Truth: Epistemology and Community in the Fourth Gospel,” in Neotestamentica et Philonica: studies in honor of Peder Borgen (NovTSup 106; ed. David E. Aune, et al.; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003), 254-280, esp. 255. 42
6 be cured without significant divine assistance.”43 That is only one of the requirements: others are repentance, metanoia, a virtuous life (indicated by the Parable of the Sower), and sustained efforts “to hear” (cf. Mark 4:24), and to believe.44 Once these conditions are met, however, the evidence becomes important, e.g. “appropriate data as represented by divine testimony, the parables of Jesus, various miracles, exorcisms…. So it is not as if relevant evidence is not germane. However, the evidence is not coercive.”45 Thomas E. Boomershine’s examination begins with J. Louis Martyn’s work on how Paul, writing to the Corinthians, understands the epistemology of knowing Christ: Paul rejects the choice of either kata sarka, the old age way of knowing, or kata pneuma, “the ‘new age’ knowing of those who had been given the gift of the spirit,” and prioritises kata stauron, the way of knowing, through the Cross, that a new reality is breaking down an old one.46 There is therefore an “epistemological dualism,” a dialectic of old and new realities, which Boomershine finds also in the parables. Its hearers are to be disturbed out of self-complacency by seeing their present ways of life from a point of view of the future apocalyptic reversal of the present order: e.g. the parable of the rich “fool” (Luke 12:16-21). Boomershine concludes therefore that there is a continuity of Jesus’s and Paul’s apocalyptic and dualistic epistemology with OT prophetic tradition whose “primary intent… was to shock Israel and its leaders into reflection about its assumptions that God would protect and comfort them.”47 Boomershine and Martyn help us to see why for Paul and Jesus there is actually no question of discounting the role of evidence (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-8) but rather a vital requirement to sift and prioritise evidence in the midst of a collision of realities and worldviews. Existing research also informs the relevant issue of whether those who could first preserve histories of Jesus lived under OT testimony laws. This requires accepting that Jesus really existed in history,48 and that people followed him as a teacher and/or leader49 and would therefore have at least a minimal motive for preserving histories of him to the extent we find. According to the NT record, many of these people lived in Judea, where OT laws were likeliest to be in force, during the key period for the formation of Gospel texts.50 Indications that the OT testimony laws remained in force during the 1st century can be found in the NT (John 8:17) and in rabbinic texts: Van Vliet concludes that “Mishna, Gemara, Tosefta, Midrash and Targum are full” of direct and indirect references to a multiple witness requirement.51 William J. Abraham, “The Epistemology of Jesus: An initial investigation,” in Jesus and philosophy: new essays (ed. Paul K. Moser; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 149-168, esp. 152. 43
44
Abraham, “The Epistemology of Jesus: An initial investigation,” 155, 158.
45
Abraham, “The Epistemology of Jesus: An initial investigation,” 158-159.
Thomas E. Boomershine, “Epistemology at the turn of the ages in Paul, Jesus, and Mark: rhetoric and dialectic in apocalyptic and the New Testament,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament (ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards; JSNTSup 24; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 147-167, esp. 147-148. Quotation from J. Louis Martyn, “Epistemology at the turn of the ages: 2 Corinthians 5.16,” in Christian history and interpretation: studies presented to John Knox (ed. William R. Farmer, et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 269-287, esp. 286. 46
47
Boomershine, “Epistemology at the turn of the ages in Paul, Jesus, and Mark,” 164.
Cf. Samuel Byrskog, “The historicity of Jesus: how do we know that Jesus existed?,” in Handbook for the study of the historical Jesus (ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter; 4 vols; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), 2183-2212. 48
Cf. Samuel Byrskog, “The Transmission of the Jesus Tradition: Old and New Insights,” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 441-468, esp. 443-444. 49
50
e.g. Gal 1:18-19; 2:1-10; Acts 1; 21:17-20.
51
Van Vliet, No single testimony, 60-62.
7 Furthermore, while in NT studies the multiple-witness law is often presented as focused on capital crimes,52 Bruce Wells argues, on the basis of usage in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic-history texts, that the terms used in Deut 19:15, ʿāwô n, ḥaṭṭāʾt, ḥēṭʾ (e.g. “crimes,” “sins,” “offenses”), indicate a wide range of wrongdoing: The combination of these terms serves to indicate that this text is calling for the use of the twowitness minimum in more cases than just those having to do with apostasy or other religious sins. It is putting the requirement into effect for all acts of wrongdoing, whether cultic or secular. The use of ḥaṭṭāʾt in these texts is primarily cultic, while the other two terms cover a broader range of misdeeds.53
This is also the conclusion of Cohn and Elon, partly based on Deut 19:17, which refers to standing before “the priests and the judges.”54 This means that the multiple witness law would be highly relevant as Jesus’s followers testified about him, in Judea at least. Indeed, when Peter and John are arrested for testifying about Christ, at their hearing they refer to supporting evidence and this is the explicitly given reason for the success of their defence: “Seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, [the court] had nothing to reply” (Acts 4:14).55 However, precisely what counted as multiple witnesses in the 1st century is uncertain. Van Vliet shows that the intertestamental record has little data other than the trial of Susanna (Sus 1-62).56 He argues that the law may have been satisfied by “an accuser and a witness or two witnesses, or an accuser and sufficient circumstantial evidence,” citing Hellenistic judicial influences57 and that the Hebrew term for witness and testimony,ʿēd, can also mean evidence.58 This is a key point of uncertainty for our investigation. It reduces the possible precision in framing questions about the multiple witness requirement in the NT. Research is thus required to be open to finding different combinations, like those proposed by Van Vliet, or ones specific to the NT. A test of the hypothesis The hypothesis that NT historians and letter authors were governed by a multiple witness requirement gets a lot of support from evidence available in existing research. That evidence also indicates fruitful directions for new research aimed at evaluating the hypothesis: for example, researching early rabbinic literature for the signs of the use of scribal and disciple pairs, which can then be sought in the NT, or researching early Church disciplinary structures to learn more about its well attested adoption of the multiple witness rule. This study takes up one task that qualifies as an attempt to falsify the hypothesis – to evaluate whether relevant dominical statements show observance of the multiple witness requirement. This is valuable whether Jesus’s words are regarded as historically authentic or not: on either E.g. “…das aus der alttestamentlichen Vorschrift zu erschließen ist, daß, vor allem bei Kapitalverfahren…” Jeremias, “Paarweise sendung im Neuen Testament,” 138. 52
53
Bruce Wells, The law of testimony in the Pentateuchal codes (BZABR 4; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004), 103.
54
Haim Hermann Cohn and Menachem Elon, “Evidence,” EncJud 6:577-584, esp. 577.
55
τόν τε ἄνθρωπον βλέποντες σὺν αὐτοῖς ἑστῶτα τὸν τεθεραπευμένον οὐδὲν εἶχον ἀντειπεῖν (Acts 4:14).
56
Van Vliet, No single testimony, 43-50.
“Conviction only on good evidence, and not by means of oracle, oath or ordeal or torture nor on hear-say evidence is a sign of high ideals of justice. The Greek influence… will have worked in that direction.” Van Vliet, No single testimony, 48. 57
58
Van Vliet, No single testimony, 48.
8 view, the standards for valid testimony that the Gospels record for its primary, even exclusive authority, come into view. Also, if there is little evidence that Jesus observes the testimony requirement, it is less likely that his followers did. Sources and methods Just one set of dominical statements is studied here: words where Jesus is responding to the question of his identity as the Messiah. This is motivated not only by the need, given time and other limitations, to select from among all NT dominical statements, but additional criteria: (1) These statements regard factual truth claims where criteria for valid testimony should be easier to see – than in for example ethical teaching. (2) These statements concern the central claim of the NT: the identity of Jesus as the Christ. Testimony practices found in these statements are likely to have been influential for the NT community. If these statements display a hesitancy to affirm Jesus’s messianic identity, that would be conspicuous, even problematic, and would be likelier to cause reflection in the NT community, and therefore to influence the community’s testimony practices. (3) For these statements there is a clear prediction that can be tested. This is because some of the necessary evidence of Jesus’s identity as Messiah may not have been available during much of the duration of the Gospel history: the hymnic verses at Phil 2:8-11 indicate that only with Jesus’s death was Jesus “highly exalted” (v.9) by God to become “Lord” (v.11), the definition of the Messiah given by key texts like Dan 7:1-27. Acts 2:36 has a similar implication,59 along with John 12:32; Rom 1:31; 1 Pet 3:21-2 at least. If such evidence was necessary, and if there were concern about multiple witnesses (i.e. supporting testimony), then dominical statements would show a hesitancy to affirm Jesus’s identity as the Christ – at least until key events had produced necessary evidence (e.g. his death sentence). The entire set of Jesus’s statements on messianic identity is, however, too large and complex for this study. A limited subset, across all four Gospels, is generated by choosing only a few messianic terms: Christ (Χριστός), Messiah (Μεσσίας), King (βασιλεύς), and your Kingdom (ἡ βασιλεία σου).60 These allow a test without requiring us to take on the large set of Son of Man sayings along with the scholarly uncertainty over their meaning.61 We also leave aside texts where Son of God is the only potentially messianic reference, to limit the number of texts, and also because it appears sometimes as an inclusive, non-messianic term.62 We study only texts describing Jesus’s responses to these terms before the Easter resurrection. And we make two exclusions due to weak manuscript support for the inclusion of the messianic term: Mark 9:41,
“God made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.” καὶ κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ χριστὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε. 59
“Israel's prophets had promised a final king and/or dynasty descended from David [e.g., Isa 9:7; Jer 23:5], a theme that continued in early Judaism [e.g., Pss. Sol. 17:21]. Because the king was the ‘anointed one,’ or ‘the Messiah,’ people often labeled this ultimate king ‘the anointed one,’ or ‘the Messiah,’ which the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible regularly renders ‘the Christ.’ Craig S. Keener, A commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 61. 60
61
An excellent though dated overview of the scholarship is provided by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide (London: SCM, 1998), 541-553; and the debate continues, cf. Maurice Casey, The solution to the ‘son of man’ problem (LNTS 343; London: T & T Clark, 2009). 62
Theissen and Merz, The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide, 521 citing Matt 5:9, 45.
9 given extensive manuscript support for the reading “my name” without the use of the messianic term; and John 6:69-70 for lack of manuscript agreement.63 This provides the following texts (in Gospel-chronological order64): John 1:49-51; 4:25-26; Matt 11:2-6 // Luke 7:18-23; Matt 16:13-20 // Mark 8:29-30 // Luke 9:18-22; John 7:26-29; John 10:24-38; Matt 20:20-23; Luke 19:37-40; John 12:27-36; Matt 23:8-10; Luke 22:28-30; John 17:1-5; Matt 26:63-64 // Mark 14:53-65 // Luke 22:66-71; Matt 27:11-14 // Mark 15:1-5 // Luke 23:1-3 // John 18:28-38; Luke 23:42-43. The method of analysis is to look at three aspects of Jesus’s responses: 1. Claims about Jesus’s identity as “Christ,” “Messiah,” or “king”. Claims are distinguished between direct (explicit) and indirect (implicit). 2. Witnesses are distinguished between those cited explicitly in the dominical statements, and relevant witnesses / evidence present in the narrative account. 3. Epistemological concern is distinguished between explicit and implicit concern, and to what extent it is a theme of the dominical statement or dialogue. Looking at all three aspects rather than just the one aspect of witnesses helps with the difficult problem of intentionality: whether the mention or presence of supporting witnesses is intentional or merely coincidental. Confirmation among the variables is a valuable type of data. If Jesus refrains from making a direct claim, or if he raises epistemological concerns in his response, that tends to suggest that the attention to witnesses/evidence is intentional, not coincidental. The question we will aim to answer is therefore: Do dominical statements with reference to messianic terms show intentional observance of a multiple testimony rule – based on the pattern of claims, witnesses (cited or present), and epistemological concern? A component problem The selection of this task and the material for it is also motivated by the opportunity to address a key problem: the σὺ εἶπας / ὑμεῖς λέγετε / σὺ λέγεις answers that Jesus provides to messianicidentity questions at the interrogations by the Sanhedrin and by Pilate (John 18:37; Luke 22:70; 23:3; Matt 26:64; 27:11; Mark 14:6265; 15:2). Elsewhere there are almost no parallels for this way of answering a question: either in Jesus’s sayings – with one exception (Matt 26:25); or in the entire OT and NT; or in Jewish culture in antiquity generally – only one instance has been found.66 Parallels in antique Greco-Roman texts are not plentiful or clearly applicable either.67 63
Eberhard Nestle et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece (27 rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1993), ad loc. 64
Following Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, A harmony of the Gospels, with explanations and essays: using the text of the New American Standard Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), 7-14. 65
According to a significant minority of manuscripts (θ f 13 565. 700. 2542s pc; Or). Cf. an evaluation of the different readings in Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 (WBC 34b; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 450. Str-B 1:990. The fact of a single Aramaic parallel is not to be confused with its proposed translation: “Du hast recht, so ist es!” (“You are right, so it is!”). C.H. Dodd objects: “That ‘You say’ is either in Greek or in Aramaic a recognised form of expression for an affirmative reply to a question is a theory for which I have been able to find no sufficient support in actual examples. The phrase seems to have been felt to have an appropriately enigmatic or even mysterious tone, and as such was preserved in the tradition.” C. H. Dodd, Historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 99 note 1. 66
67
Keener cites the parallel Soph. Antig. (576-77) to raise the possibility that the answer to Caiaphas (in Matthew) is ironic. Keener, A commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 649.
10 Without explicit parallels, a wide range of readings arise. 68 Are these answers affirmative, negative, indirect, or non-answers? As long as their meanings are uncertain, answers to questions about the testimony ethics of dominical statements (and so the NT) will be uncertain. Can other types of parallels than explicit (word-for-word) parallels be found? One possibility is that these answers have parallels in other texts where Jesus responds to hostile questioning or challenge, and it is this possibility we investigate here. The Gospels record 13 challenge situations (where Jesus responds) during the final pre-Easter visit to Jerusalem: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii.
The question of messianic proclamation as Jesus neared Jerusalem (Luke 19:37-40) The question of abuse of the Temple (Matt 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46) The question of messianic proclamation in the Temple (Matt 21:15-16) The question of Jesus’s authority (Matt 21:23-22:14; Mark 11:27-12:11; Luke 20:1-18) The question of taxes to Caesar (Matt 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26) The question of marriage and resurrection (Matt 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40) The question of the greatest commandment (Matt 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34) The question of the Messiah and David (Matt 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44) The arrest of Jesus at Gethsemane (Matt 26:45-56; Mark 14:41-50; Luke 22:47-53) The interrogation led by Annas69 (John 18:12-24) The interrogation led by Caiaphas (Matt 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:66-71) The interrogation led by Pilate (Matt 27:11-14; Mark 15:1-5; Luke 23:1-3; John 18:28-38) The mocking of Jesus during his crucifixion (Matt 27:39-49; Mark 15:29-36; Luke 23:35-49)
The method for such an investigation needs to identify recurring features in Jesus’s responses to challenges, to show meaningful parallels to the σὺ λέγεις-type answers, for example parallels in logic or communication structures. What kinds of methods are possible to use? Rhetorical criticism is one possibility: checking Jesus’s responses for rhetorical structures from Greco-Roman rhetorical theory or modern rhetorical theory, the two most commonly used sources. Similarly, one could analyse Jesus’s responses to challenge using classical or modern theories of argumentation. One problem with these approaches is that (a) each theory of argument or rhetoric requires an individual evaluation for its fit to a text;
English-language Bible translations show a range of readings, e.g. of Matt 26:64: “Thou hast said” (KJV); “You have said so” (NAB, NRSV, NIV); “The words are your own” (CJB); “The words are yours” (NEB); “It is as you said” (NKJV); “You have said it yourself” (NET); “You yourself said it” (MSG); “Yes, that’s right” (ERV), etc. The same range is found in commentaries (ad loc.), e.g.: Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21-28: a commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005); Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28 (WBC 33b; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1995); John P. Meier, Matthew (NTM 3; Wilmington, Delaware: M. Glazier, 1980); C. S. Mann, Mark (AB 27; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV: introduction, translation, and notes (AB 28a; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985); Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1972); Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John: vol. 3, commentary on chapters 13-21 (HTCNT; London: Seabury, 1982); Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: a commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003). The main study to date is David R. Catchpole, “The answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt XXVI.64),” NTS 17 (1971): 213-226. 68
69
There is disagreement among manuscripts and in scholarship over whether this is an interrogation led by Annas, or, transposing a verse (18:24 to follow 18:13), by Caiaphas. A discussion is provided by Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John (BNTC 4, London: Continuum, 2005), 449-450.
11 (b) it is not clear what theory should be tested on a set of Jesus sayings drawn from all four Gospels, i.e. that would have a sufficient fit to be able to discover parallels to the σὺ λέγεις-type answers.
An extensive survey of both rhetorical criticism of the NT and the study of Biblical argumentation finds almost nothing in the way of accepted theories of the rhetoric of dominical sayings or their argumentation,70 let alone many attempts at such, at least since the rise of form criticism.71 Neither is it clear that any modern theory of argumentation can be used. Lauri Thurén, while making a case for the use of modern/contemporary argumentation theory in analysis of the Bible, makes the important point that “Religious argumentation, or any ideological argumentation, is not identical with, for example, juridical or modern political reasoning, and this imposes also some methodological requirements”; he makes the proposal that religious argumentation “can be conveniently approached with any good descriptive method,” rather than a “normative” approach (i.e. modern argumentation theory) that evaluates the “validity” of an argument.72 That provides the starting point for the method here: to describe recurring features of Jesus’s responses to challenge in Jerusalem. This is an inductive approach, working from observations to generate a theory (or view, hypothesis) of how Jesus may be responding to challenge in any of the Jerusalem scenes – most importantly, the interrogations – such that the σὺ λέγεις-type answers can be ascribed a clear function and meaning. Outline of the study In Chapter 1, all the study texts except the accounts of the interrogations are analysed. In Chapter 2, the problem of the σὺ λέγεις-type answers is addressed through analysis of Jesus’s responses to challenge in Jerusalem, and then the interrogation answers are analysed. In Chapter 3, the combined results of analyses are presented for additional consideration and analysis before conclusions are drawn. Finally, a set of implications for NT studies are considered.
70
Confirming the negative results of scholarly database searches are (1) personal communication with a leading scholar of Biblical argumentation, Prof. Lauri Thurén; (2) the absence of accepted theories in relevant literature, such as: (i) Craig A. Evans, “Jesus' rhetoric of criticism: the parables against his friends and critics,” in Rhetorical criticism and the Bible (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps; JSNTSup 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 256-279; (ii) a brief overview of scholarship’s “relative neglect” of the aphoristic Jesus sayings in Ronald A. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-tradition: the aphoristic teaching of Jesus (SNTSMS 61; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 1-2; (iii) Vernon K. Robbins, “Rhetorical composition & the Beelzebul Controversy,” in Patterns of persuasion in the Gospels (ed. Burton L. Mack and Vernon K. Robbins; Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1989), 161-193. Form criticism’s impact seems to have been to split the view of dominical sayings into multiple different theories of original setting, authorship, purpose and form. With a split and continually shifting view, generating theories of dominical sayings is very difficult. This is confirmed in seeing how Perrin, using form-critical assumptions, explains the “new” problem of studying the teaching of the historical Jesus: “The early Church made no attempt to distinguish between the words the earthly Jesus had spoken and those spoken by the risen Lord through a prophet in the community, nor between the original teaching of Jesus and the new understanding and reformulation of that teaching reached in the catechesis or parenesis of the Church under the guidance of the Lord of the Church.” Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the teaching of Jesus (London: S.C.M. Press, 1967), 15. 71
Lauri Thurén, “Is there Biblical argumentation?,” in Rhetorical argumentation in biblical texts: essays from the Lund 2000 conference (ed. A. Eriksson, et al.; Emory Studies in Early Christianity 8; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2002), 77-92, esp. 90-91. 72
12 Chapter 1 – Jesus’s words on his identity as Christ and King Here we study all the selected texts other than those with σὺ λέγεις-type phrases. Three dimensions are checked for each text: claims, witnesses, and epistemological concern. The purpose of looking at three aspects is to be able to evaluate the likelihood that a requirement for multiple witnesses is observed intentionally in the formulation of Jesus’s words on his identity as Christ and King. The combined results of the analyses are presented in Chapter 3. Jesus’s dialogue with Nathanael Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God. You are the King of Israel.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, you believe?73 You will see greater things.” And he said to him, “In truth, I tell you, you will see Heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” (John 1:49-51)
Claims. Jesus’s claim concerns the future and “the Son of Man.” That future claim is potentially but not necessarily an indirect affirmation of Nathanael’s claims about Jesus. Witnesses. Jesus cites future supporting witnesses (or evidence): “Heaven opened,” “the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” Jesus’s answer also includes a phrase recognisable from Gen 28:12 (“the angels of God ascending and descending”), and this is possibly an additional supporting witness, i.e. Scriptural fulfilment. Jesus may be citing also his own deed of power (omniscient insight into Nathanael’s actions). Epistemological concern. Jesus’s response to Nathanael is entirely concerned with conditions for accurate knowledge of messianic claims. He questions the adequacy of a single deed of power as evidence (on some readings), pointing to future evidence that accords with Scripture. Jesus’s dialogue with a woman in Samaria The woman said to him: “I know that Messiah is coming (the one called Christ). When he comes, he will proclaim all to us.” Jesus said to her: “I AM the one speaking to you.” (John 4:16-26)
Claims. Jesus’s answer is ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ λαλῶν σοι. Most of the evidence indicates that this is a reference to the divine name (cf. Exod 3:14): the extensive Johannine parallels, backed by LXX parallels.74 That reading gains strength, possibly, from the fact that when the woman makes a report of her meeting (4:28, 39), she does not state that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah; rather, she asks whether he is, based on the evidence of his omniscience. Thus the text appears to allow or imply her to hear Jesus say, “I am the one speaking to you,” i.e. an indirect or even mundane reply. Yet the Sychar residents do come to explicitly messianic belief in Jesus (4:39-42), and that implies that Jesus may, at least later, explicitly affirm his identity. In sum, evidence mainly supports Jesus making an implicit, indirect answer here, but it is not fully certain. Witnesses. For any claim read in Jesus’s answer, the supporting witnesses would be (i) Jesus’s deed of power – omniscient insight into the woman’s life (4:17-18); (ii) the woman herself, who confirms that Jesus’s insight is true (4:19) and proposes to the Sychar residents that Jesus may be the Messiah on that basis of evidence (4:28, 39). The woman’s testimony is later It is not certain that this should be read as a question rather than a statement – Barrett points to Johannine parallels 9:35; 16:31; 20:29 where Jesus addresses others’ belief; but neither there is it always clearly a question or a statement. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John: an introduction with commentary and notes on the Greek text (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978), 186. The results of the analysis are not affected much. 73
74
John 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8; Deut 32:39; Isa 41:4; 43:10, 25; 45:18-19; 46:4; 51:12; 52:6. Lincoln, Saint John, 178. Dissenting are Nestle Aland’s critical edition (placing a comma after ἐγώ εἰμι) and commentary such as Barrett, St John, 239.
13 described as a sufficient basis for people coming “to believe in” Jesus (ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν, 4:39), and it seems possible but not entirely certain that this belief is messianic even before they heard Jesus for themselves (4:42). Epistemological concern. The dialogue’s various turns (4:16-26) all centre on true knowledge. That is how the terms Messiah and Christ come up: the woman looks forward to the Messiah teaching the true way to worship God. That question, in turn, came up because of the woman’s hope that a prophet (i.e. Jesus) might clarify the question of the right place to worship. And that question came up because Jesus demonstrated supernatural knowledge of the woman’s life history. That, for her, constituted the witness of God, leading her to call him a prophet. So it is fair to say that epistemological concern – the required conditions for knowledge – is a major, if not primary, theme of the dialogue. Jesus’s dialogue with disciples of John the Baptist When John heard in prison of the works of the Christ, he sent through his disciples and said to him, “Are you the one who is coming, or shall we await another?” And answering, Jesus said to them, “Go tell John what you hear and see: blind see again and lame walk, lepers are cleansed and deaf hear, and dead are raised and poor receive good news. And blessed is anyone not scandalised by me.” (Matt 11:2-6 // Luke 7:18-23)
Claims. Jesus’s answer makes no direct (explicit) claim, only an indirect (implicit) affirmation, via the command to John’s disciples to witness evidence. Matthew and Luke each emphasise the lack of direct affirmation in their own way. In Matthew, John has already heard of “the works of the Christ,” so it is not certain that Jesus adds any information; in Luke, Jesus tells John’s disciples to report to him what they (already) “have seen and heard” (in aorist). Yet Jesus may give a more comprehensive list, and thereby add the witness of Scripture, i.e. three or four lists of signs of the messianic time of salvation in Isaiah (Isa 26:19; 29:18ff.; 35:5ff.; 61:1f.).75 Witnesses. Jesus cites his deeds of power, asks John’s disciples to become witnesses of them, and possibly cites Scriptural descriptions of miraculous deeds at the messianic time of salvation. Epistemological concern. The composition of Jesus’s answer indicates epistemological concern in that it (a) lacks a direct answer; (b) refers to evidence; (c) asks the questioners to witness for themselves. In Jesus’s immediately subsequent words about John’s identity (Matt 11:7-18 // Luke 7:24-35), epistemological concern becomes even more explicit. Jesus’s dialogue with his disciples on his identity Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he questioned his disciples, saying, “Who do people say the Son of Man to be?” And they said, “Some, John the Baptist. And others, Elijah. And still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “And you, who do you say me to be?” And answering, Simon Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And answering, Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven. And I say to you that you are Rock [“Peter”], and on this rock I will build my church and Hades’s gates will not prevail against it. I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” Then he commanded the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Matt 16:13-20)
75
Joachim Jeremias, New Testament theology: part 1, the proclamation of Jesus (trans. J. Bowden; London: S. C. M., 1971; repr., London: Xpress Reprints, 1996), 103-106.
14 And he asked them, “And you, who do you say me to be?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he warned them to tell no one about him. (Mark 8:29-30) He said to them, “And you, who do you say me to be?” And Peter, answering, said, “The Christ of God.” And warning them, he commanded they tell no one this, saying that it is necessary for the Son of Man to suffer much and to be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. (Luke 9:20-22)
Claims. There is no direct claim about his identity as the Christ. Even the Matthean account of Jesus’s answer, though affirmative, is implicit/indirect: (a) it lacks an explicit, direct statement of affirmation; (b) its affirmation is via a divine warrant; (c) it is oriented to the future. In all three accounts, Jesus’s answer most certainly involves an indirect claim in affirmation of Peter’s answer as there is nothing else apparent that could Jesus be commanding his disciples “to tell no one”; the possibility that Jesus is saying to tell no one because Peter’s answer is incorrect has no support in (even) the (Markan) text.76 Jesus’s following statement about suffering (Matt 16:21 // Mark 8:31 // Luke 9:22) may be read as an explanation for the need for silence, i.e. why a mass-popular messianic movement needs to be prevented. Witnesses. The first witness is Simon (Peter). Furthermore, by this point in all three histories, Jesus’s disciples have witnessed his deeds of power corresponding to a messianic time of salvation (Isa 26:19; 29:18ff.; 35:5ff.; 61:1f.) – these could be counted as additional witnesses.77 In Matthew, Jesus refers to his Father in Heaven as the (necessary) supporting witness for Peter, and possibly cites future supporting evidence (quite akin to that cited to Nathanael): Hades’s gates never prevail against his church; divine confirmation of his church’s binding and loosing. Epistemological concern. In the Matthean account the conditions for knowing and stating truth are greatly emphasised. It is implicit in Jesus’s answer that he holds that the knowledge of his identity as the Christ is impossible without divine revelation, and it is this epistemological condition that forms the first criterion for the establishment of the church. In the Markan and Lukan accounts, epistemological concern is possibly present as a major theme: (a) Jesus refrains from giving a direct affirmation of Peter’s answer; (b) Jesus commands silence about it. Jesus’s dialogue with people in Jerusalem Therefore some of the people of Jerusalem were saying, “Is not this the one they are seeking to kill? And look – he is speaking publically and they say nothing to him. Can it be that the rulers have actually perceived that this is the Christ? Yet we know where this one is from. And when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from.” Then Jesus cried out, as he was teaching in the temple, saying, “And you both know me and you know where I am from. And I have not come of myself, but the one who sent me, whom you do not know, is true. I know Him, for I am from Him, and He sent me.” (John 7:25-29)
Claims. Jesus makes no direct, explicit claim about his identity as Messiah. A strongly possible inference of Jesus’s answer – conspicuously without direct references – is that he is making an affirmation, indirectly.
76
This is different from the speculative theories of e.g. Wrede and Dinkler, cf. Theissen and Merz, The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide, 6, 515, 517. 77
Blind see again: Matt 9:27-29; Mark 8:22-25; Luke 7:21. Lame walk: Matt 15:29-31; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:1726. Lepers are cleansed: Matt 8:2-4; Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16. Deaf hear: Matt 15:29-31 (possibly implied); Mark 7:31-37; Luke 7:21 (possibly implied). Dead are raised: Matt 9:18-25; Mark 5:35-43; Luke 8:49-56. Poor receive good news: at least the food miracles at Matt 14:13-21; Mark 6:35-44; Luke 9:12-17.
15 Witnesses. The one who sent Jesus. (Jesus is also a witness for him, that he is true.) Epistemological concern. An epistemological problem explicitly provides the central structuring theme of Jesus’s response. He focuses on the barrier to knowledge of Jesus’s identity and the cause of Jesus’s knowledge. Jesus’s dialogue in Solomon’s Porch Then the Judeans gathered around him and said to him, “How long do you hold us in suspense! If you are the Christ, say to us plainly!” Jesus answered them, “I said to you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in the name of my Father – these testify about me. But you do not believe, for you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice. And I know them and they follow me. And I give to them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” Again the Judeans took up stones to stone him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from the Father. For which of these works do you stone me?” The Judeans answered him, “For a good work we are not stoning you but for blasphemy and because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “Gods you are”’? If He called gods those to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be negated, [of] the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world you say, ‘You are blaspheming’, because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me. But if I do, though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:24-38)
Claims. Jesus’s response lacks a direct, explicit claim of being the Messiah. Instead, Jesus’s claims all focus on related issues, a step removed from a direct claim: (a) the testimony of the works he does; (b) the flock that hears his voice; (c) Jesus’s identity with his father; (d) the implications of Scripture about divine identity. It is however quite clear that Jesus’s answer affirms his messianic identity indirectly, given its focus on the basis of evidence. Witnesses. Evidence in the form of plural witnesses (“works”) is the basis of Jesus’s answers at both turns of the dialogue: “The works that I do in the name of my Father….”; “If I am not doing the works of my Father.…” Epistemological concern. Required conditions for knowledge of the Messiah is a major theme of Jesus’s answer: (a) the requirement of the Father’s testimony through works; (b) the requirement of belonging to Jesus’s flock in order to hear his voice. Jesus’s dialogue on glorification Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons. And she knelt before him and requested something of him. And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine will sit one at your right and one at your left in your Kingdom.” But answering, Jesus said, “You do not know what you are requesting. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” He said to them, “You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” (Matt 20:20-2378)
Claims. Jesus here gives only an indirect affirmation that he has or will have a Kingdom. Furthermore, Jesus’s answer contains conditionality about the future (what the Father decides). 78
The Markan parallel, 10:35-40, does not use the term your Kingdom, rather your glory.
16 Thirdly, the text is not discussing the truth of the present but only a future condition, and speech about the future can be a special case (where only the future will validate the prediction). Witnesses. At this point in the Matthean account, the sons of Zebedee (James and John) have both been witnesses at the Transfiguration to multiple evidence of Jesus’s identity (Matt 17:19): (i) the testimony of Jesus’s transfiguration itself; (ii) the appearance of Moses and Elijah to talk with Jesus: (iii) the testimony of God the Father about Jesus as beloved Son. Epistemological concern. Jesus’s answer points to epistemological problems of various kinds: (a) the prerequisite for glorification in the Kingdom – suffering – is not known to those who request it; (b) the requirements for sitting to Jesus’s right and left are apparently known only to the Father. Jesus’s dialogue with Pharisees on nearing Jerusalem As he was now drawing near to the descent from the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began joyfully to praise God with loud voice for all the deeds of power they had seen, saying “Blessed is the one coming, the King, in the name of the Lord! In heaven peace, and glory in the highest!” And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!” And answering, he said, “I say to you, if these were silent, the stones would cry out.” (Luke 19:37-40)
Claims. Jesus’s answer does not directly claim that he is the King of whom the disciples speak. Jesus’s answer indirectly affirms their testimony. Witnesses. Jesus apparently cites “the stones” that “would cry out” as a supporting witness (at least for his position), and Scripture (Hab 2:11) that is qualified to function as a supporting witness because it is part of a text that contains both judgement (e.g. Hab 2:9-13) and messianic promise (Hab 2:14 cf. Isa 11:9b).79 Present at the scene are other witnesses, i.e. the “whole multitude of disciples” who in turn cite evidence, “all the deeds of power they had seen.” Epistemological concern. Jesus implies that there is messianic knowledge that, if it is not spoken out, the stones will cry out. That is the supporting testimony for the disciples’ speech that Jesus points to: a miraculous testimony that the disciples are right in what they say. However, according to the narrative, the Pharisees have already heard two forms of supporting witness: God’s deeds of power and the citation of Scripture, Ps 118:26 (at Luke 20:38). This points to an epistemological problem in justifying the disciples’ speech to the Pharisees. Jesus’s dialogue with a crowd in Jerusalem “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, because of this I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” Then came a voice from Heaven, “And I glorified, and again I will glorify.” Then the crowd standing there, having heard, said, “That was thunder.” Others said, “An angel spoke to him.” Jesus answered and said, “Not for me was this voice but for you. Now is this world’s judgement, now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” This he said to signal what kind of death he was to die. Then the crowd answered him, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever, and how do you say that the Son of Man must be
79
It is not always certain that a Scriptural citation refers to the context of the citation, but this can often be demonstrated in the NT; cf. the methodological discussion and demonstrations for the Matthean account of Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem in W. Weren, “Jesus' entry into Jerusalem: Mt 21,1-17 in the light of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint,” in The Scriptures in the Gospels (ed. C. M. Tuckett; BETL 131; Leuven: Leuven University Press; Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997), 117-141.
17 lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?” Then Jesus said to them, “For a little time yet the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, so that darkness may not overtake you. The one walking in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the light so that you may be sons of light.” (John 12:27-36)
Claims. Jesus makes no direct claim about his identity as Messiah. He makes other claims that indirectly affirm that he is the Messiah. Witnesses. God the Father’s voice from Heaven. Epistemological concern. The dialogue turns on epistemological problems: God’s voice is heard from Heaven, and it is dismissed; Jesus then focuses his answer on what is quite certainly an epistemological theme – walking in light vs. darkness, not seeing (in darkness) vs. believing in light. Jesus’s lecture on authority But you are not to be called rabbi. For one is your teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no one your father on the earth. For one is your Heavenly Father. Nor shall you be called instructors. For one is your instructor, the Christ. (Matt 23:8-10)
Claims. Jesus makes no direct claim that he is the Messiah. His words support an inferable, indirect claim that he is, because it is the likely but not necessary implication of his instructing the disciples that they have but one instructor; but it could instead be a future person (i.e. the exalted Christ). Witnesses. Three of Jesus’s disciples who are present (Peter, James and John) are qualified as supporting witnesses because they have witnessed multiple evidence at the Transfiguration (Matt 17:1-9) that Jesus is the unique, divinely authorised instructor: e.g. (i) Jesus’s transfiguration; (ii) Moses and Elijah, ostensibly representing the Law and Prophets, appear to talk with Jesus; (iii) the witness of God the Father who says of Jesus, “This is my Son the Beloved, in whom I pleased. Listen to him!” Epistemological concern. The conditions for knowledge are central to all the issues Jesus addresses: who is rabbi/master, who is instructor, i.e. who speaks authoritatively on knowledge. Jesus’s lecture on Kingdoms “You are the ones who stood by me in my trials, and I grant you, as my Father granted me, a Kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 22:28-30)
Claims. Jesus makes a direct claim that he has a Kingdom and can grant a Kingdom – i.e. this is a direct, explicit messianic claim.80 Witnesses. Witnesses to support Jesus’s claim are possibly, firstly, the two Passover-meal objects that Jesus has interpreted as his own body and blood of a new covenant, paralleling the prior covenantal interpretation of the Passover (Exod 12:26-27; 19:3-6).81 It is possible that
80
According to contemporary association of the Messiah with Kingship, as noted above.
Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997), 758: “Especially critical is that the celebration of Passover assumes that the meal is not self-interpreting; why this particular food is eaten requires exposition.” 81
18 Jesus is also naming his disciples as the supporting witnesses: they have witnessed his trials and affirmed his new interpretation of the Passover.82 Epistemological concern. The conditions for knowledge (of Jesus’s identity, or of Kingdoms granted by God) are not clearly in view, but could be satisfied by those conditions that Jesus states for receiving a Kingdom (to stand by Jesus in his trials), or the conditions implied in affirming the sacramental witnesses Jesus has instituted. Jesus’s prayer for glorification Jesus spoke these [things], and having raised his eyes to Heaven he said, “Father, the hour is arrived. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, as you gave him authority over all flesh, so that he give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you sent, Jesus Christ. I glorified you on earth, finishing the work you gave me to do, and now glorify me Father, you by yourself, with the glory I had by you, before the world was.” (John 17:1-5)
Claims. Jesus makes no explicit, direct claim that he is the Messiah. Instead, he makes claims that strongly imply that he is the Christ – or will be, perhaps upon the Father’s glorification. Jesus’s third-person naming of “Jesus Christ” may be explained by his request for glorification: only when that glorification occurs is Jesus properly the Christ. If so, then Jesus is not claiming to be the Christ – he is asking the Father to make him the Christ. Witnesses. Jesus points to a reason that justifies his request: the work given by the Father and finished. This would apparently be a supporting witness for whatever claims Jesus is making. Epistemological concern. This becomes explicit in Jesus’s explanation of eternal life. This can be understood both via the OT Scriptural background, where knowledge of God is a required condition for life and also associated with the messianic age of salvation (e.g. Hab 2:14; Isa 11:9), and via other parts of John’s Gospel: Jesus’s mission is to bring knowledge of God (1:118), truth that sets humans free (8:32), etc.83 Knowledge of Jesus Christ (a condition for eternal life) possibly depends on the glorification of the Father. Jesus’s dialogue with a crucified man And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today, with me, you will be in Paradise.” (Luke 23:42-43)
Claims. There is no direct, explicit claim that Jesus has a Kingdom. If there is an affirmation of the man’s claim that Jesus has a Kingdom, it is indirect. One of the possible inferences from Jesus’s statement is that Jesus has a Kingdom and it is identical with Paradise. Witnesses. The witnesses present are (i) the crucified man; (ii) the evidence of Jesus’s ongoing crucifixion, i.e. his sacrificial, messianic death through unjust execution; (iii) the printed sign above Jesus’s head calling him “King” (23:38).
This could explain the description of Jesus’s company at Passover as “apostles” (22:14), a rare occurrence of the term in Luke, as Green points out, The Gospel of Luke, 757. 82
Barrett, St John, 81-2, 503: “knowledge itself implies relationship in addition to cognition: to know God is to be united with him” (82). Barrett cites concurring rabbinic commentary on e.g. Prov 3:6, Amos 5:4, Hos 4:6 (503). 83
19 Epistemological concern. This may be implicit in Jesus refraining from directly claiming to have a Kingdom, or in Jesus’s reference to Paradise (because this was a term more familiar than The Kingdom of God).84 Summary Combined results are summarised and presented in Chapter 3. This is to await the results of from Chapter 2, where Jesus’s answers at the interrogations are studied in a group of parallel texts – dominical responses to challenge in Jerusalem.
84
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea: vol. 3, pt. 1, the Gospel of St. Luke. (trans. J.H. Newman; New York: Cosimo, 2007), 757.
20 Chapter 2 – Understanding Jesus’s σὺ λέγεις-type answers We turn to the search for recurring features among Jesus’s responses to challenge during the final pre-Easter visit to Jerusalem. Can these provide clear, and clarifying, parallels to the σὺ λέγεις-type answers at the interrogations? (Surveying these requires some patience from the reader. Because there are several types of parallels that are interrelated and relevant, a table format is required for presenting the large amounts of evidence in a condensed way.) Indirect answers Jesus responds to challenges in Jerusalem indirectly. This can be shown for all the challenges, even leaving aside the σὺ λέγεις-type answers: Table 1: Indirect answers to challenges Challenge situation
Indirection in Jesus’s response
The question of messianic proclamation on nearing Jerusalem (Luke 19:37-40)
Challenged to respond to messianic praise about himself, Jesus responds without explicitly sanctioning it. He answers indirectly via a remark about stones and a Scriptural citation (Hab 2:11).
The question of abuse of the Temple (Matt 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46)
Protesting abuses at the Temple, Jesus answers any implicit challenge (of his authority to protest) indirectly. Jesus focuses on those responsible for abuse, not himself. Possibly the term My house in one of the citations of Scripture (Isa 56:7) is another indirect answer.
The question of messianic proclamation in the Temple (Matt 21:15-16)
Challenged on messianic praise about himself, Jesus responds with a question (“Have you not read….?”) and a citation of Scripture (Ps 8:3[2]) that only indirectly sanctions the messianic proclamation.
The question of Jesus’s authority (Matt 21:23-22:14; Mark 11:2712:11; Luke 20:1-18)
Challenged about the authorisation of his actions, Jesus responds with his own question about authority, followed by one or more parables – thus providing only indirect answers to the question.
The question of taxes to Caesar (Matt 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26)
Challenged to say whether paying taxes to Caesar is right, Jesus answer only indirectly, saying that giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s is right.
The question of marriage and resurrection (Matt 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40)
Challenged (possibly) to teach as Messiah by providing new teachings (based on expectations from Deut 18:15), Jesus answers only indirectly. He subtly delivers new teaching from Torah, itself nothing “new.”
The question of the greatest commandment (Matt 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34)
Challenged (here more conspicuously) to teach openly as Messiah by providing new teachings – either the greatest commandment is old (a denial of messianic identity), or new – Jesus answers only indirectly. His juxtaposition of two commandments (Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18) subtly creates a prima facie paradox: if all love is for God, how can one love oneself or neighbour? But a paradox indicates the existence either of a contradiction in Scripture or a novel solution, i.e. a new teaching.
The question of the Messiah and David (Matt 22:41-46; Mark 12:3537; Luke 20:41-44)
When Jesus asks about the Messiah, he is likely responding to the preceding challenges to him in Jerusalem, some or all of which concern messianic identity.85 Here again, Jesus is responding only indirectly, by
Luz also reads this as Jesus “turn[ing] the tables on his opponents,” “pos[ing] a question directed to the issue at the center of the controversies, his own person,” without requiring a theory of a missing question at the start of the text. Luz, Matthew 21-28, 88. 85
21 focusing on the ignorance of (some of) his challengers, rather than any statements about himself. The arrest of Jesus at Gethsemane (Matt 26:45-56; Mark 14:41-50; Luke 22:47-53)
The implicit challenge of arrest is answered not with direct statements of his innocence but indirectly, by focusing on the inconsistency of his challengers.
The interrogation of Jesus led by Annas (John 18:12-24)
Jesus gives no direct answers to questions, either about “his disciples and his doctrine,” or about his way of answering the chief priest.
The interrogation of Jesus led by Caiaphas / Sanhedrin (Matt 26:5768; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:66-71)
Jesus answers the question of his own identity indirectly (even leaving aside the σὺ λέγεις answers). Jesus focuses on his challengers’ unwillingness to believe or answer (Luke 22:67-68), and he speaks in the third-person about the Son of Man (in all three accounts).
The interrogation of Jesus led by Pontius Pilate (Matt 27:11-14; Mark 15:1-5; Luke 23:1-3; John 18:28-38)
When challenged by Pilate about his identity as King, Jesus’s answer (leaving aside the σὺ λέγεις answers) is indirect: it focuses on related issues: what his Kingdom is not, why he was born, whom he commands and how, the issue of truth.
The mocking of Jesus during his crucifixion (Matt 27:39-49; Mark 15:29-36; Luke 23:35-49)
The mocking involves challenges to Jesus to show himself as Messiah. Any response by Jesus is only indirect, as he only cites Ps 22.
Chiastic response Jesus responds to challenge not just indirectly: he also turns the focus and challenge from himself back onto his challengers. This can be called a chiastic response (i.e. crossing back).86 Chiasm (or chiasmus) is a mirroring of elements with themselves (or their antitheses); the term derives from the Greek letter chi (χ), because like the letter it involves a mirrored pattern around a central point. It is possible to identify a chiastic response in every one of the challenge situations: Table 2: Chiastic responses to challenges Challenge situation
Chiasm in Jesus’s response
Messianic proclamation on nearing Jerusalem
Jesus apparently cites Hab 2:11: its context (e.g. vv.9-14) is divine judgement of a wicked house and city.
Abuse of the Temple
Jesus articulates the basis of divine judgement for abuse of the Temple.
Messianic proclamation in the Temple
Jesus cites Ps 8:3[2]: this verse describes praise (LXX, or strength (MT)) divinely ordained to work against God’s enemies.
Jesus’s authority
Jesus focuses on his challengers’ disrespect for authority.
Taxes to Caesar
Jesus calls the challengers hypocrites, apparently showing that they carry idolatrous objects (coins with the image of Caesar) that they question.
86
Chiasm appears to fit a number of concepts and forms relevant here, e.g. the theology of the Cross, epistemologies characterised by apocalyptic and prophetic inversions of order, discussed by Boomershine, “Epistemology at the turn of the ages in Paul, Jesus, and Mark”; cf. chiasm as “the inverted order,” John W. Welch, Chiasmus in antiquity: structures, analyses, exegesis (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981), 9. Alternative terms for this structure of argumentation could not be found, e.g. inversion is obsolete and retort is rare according to the OED (ad loc.). One could consider terms from antiquity instead: for example, Ps 7:17[16] describes the chiasm of mischief upon one’s own head using the terms šûb (MT) and ἐπιστρέψω (LXX), i.e. return.
22 Marriage and resurrection
Jesus claims and demonstrates that his questioners know “neither Scripture nor the power of God.”
The greatest commandment
This is minimally a competitive challenge, if not a malicious one,87 so Jesus’s response is possibly chiastic, in that it focuses on divine commandments for love – the antithesis of competition (in the context of theology) and malice.
The Messiah and David
Jesus’s question about David and the Messiah can be viewed as a chiastic response to prior challenges about Jesus’s identity as Messiah: i.e. they can hardly challenge Jesus on messianic identity without understanding the texts.
Arrest at Gethsemane
Jesus focuses on the inconsistency of the arresting party and implies that Scripture is a witness against them (Scripture fulfilled by their dubious action).
Interrogation by Annas
Jesus challenges Annas’s methods (e.g. “Why do you question me?”) and the officer (ὑπηρέτης) to justify his violence.
Interrogation by Caiaphas / Sanhedrin
Jesus’s answer (leaving aside σὺ λέγεις-type answers) focuses on his challengers’ limitations (Luke 22:67-68), and cites two Scriptural passages describing doom for God’s enemies (the contexts of Dan 7:13 and Ps 110:1).
Interrogation by Pilate
Jesus (leaving aside σὺ λέγεις-type answers) answers in such a way as to lead Pilate to self-contradiction: what is the point of leading an interrogation if one does not know what truth is?
Mocking at the crucifixion
Jesus cites Ps 22 – it contains ironic description of mockers at 22:7-8 and their condemnation at 22:16.
Parallelism Poetic parallelism is a well established feature of Jesus’s sayings88 found also among Jesus’s Jerusalem responses. Parallelism is important here because it often forms poetic chiasm,89 and even Jesus’s overall chiastic response. Table 3: Parallelism in Jesus's responses Challenge situation
Parallelism in Jesus’s response
Messianic proclamation when Jesus entered Jerusalem
Silencing disciples would produce shouting stones. That combination of two pairs of antitheses produces a chiasm – the crossing-back pattern of a process (silencing the loud) and its reversal (hearing from the silent).
Abuse of the Temple
The antithetical parallelism of “house of prayer” versus “den of thieves.”
Jesus’s knowledge of the Pharisee-questioners’ insincerity is stated at Matt 22:18; Mark 12:15; Luke 20:23. Keener notes both the culture of “testing” and that in this case “the intent may be more malicious (cf. [Matt] 16:1; 19:3; 22:18).” Keener, A commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 530. 87
88
C.F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord: an examination of the formal elements of Hebrew poetry in the discourses of Jesus Christ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925); Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 14-20. 89
Other terms are concentric or inverted parallelism, and scholars have many definitions of chiasm, partly it seems due to a divide between OT and NT studies. Two definitions are: “By chiasmus is meant a series (a, b, c,…) and its inversion (…c, b, a) taken together as a combined unit.”; “…authentic chiasmus produces balanced statements, in direct, inverted, or antithetical parallelism, constructed symmetrically about a central idea.” Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew poetry: a guide to its techniques (JSOTSup 26: Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 201; John Breck, “Biblical chiasmus: exploring structure for meaning,” BTB 17 (1984), 70-74, esp. 71.
23 Messianic proclamation in the Temple
The antithetical parallelisms of praising babies versus enemies. Jesus’s answer also creates an antithesis around his challengers, who are complaining about praise.
Taxes to Caesar
The direct parallelism of twice repeating of “give to x what belongs to x,” with antithetical parallelism between idolatrous Caesar and God.
Marriage and resurrection
Antithetical parallelism: “He is not the God of the dead but the living”
The greatest commandment
Parallelism of three directions of love (with subtle antithesis).
Arrest at Gethsemane
Antithetical parallelism: the arrest party who arrive at night with swords and clubs to arrest Jesus who daily sat teaching in the Temple. Chiasm: The first term is thief and last term is prophets, an antithesis with poignancy given that prophets are not thieves yet traditionally treated as outlaws. The centre of the chiasm is “teaching,” suitable given that the whole action, though self-contradictory, is being taught by Jesus as corresponding to divine teaching (the Scriptures of the Prophets).
Interrogation by Annas
Antithetical parallelisms: “If I spoke evil, witness to the evil; if good, why do you strike me?”
Mocking at the crucifixion
The antithetical parallelism is clear in the Hebrew and Aramaic word order: God of me, God of me // Why abandon [you] me?
Paradox One instance of paradox among Jesus’s responses to the Jerusalem challenges is well known: Jesus’s question of how the Messiah can be both David’s son and David’s Lord (Matt 22:4146 par.). But there are paradoxical statements right across Jesus’s responses: Table 4: Paradox in Jesus's responses Challenge situation
Paradox arising from Jesus’s response
Messianic proclamation in the Temple
Ps 8:3[2] cited by Jesus is paradoxical in the LXX (and MT): How can praise (or strength) in the mouths of children function effectively against God’s enemies?
Jesus’s authority
Jesus’s counter-question on authority leads his challengers to demonstrate a paradox: How can religious authorities not refer to divine authority when they reason about authority? Their reasoning focuses only on saving face and their position (Matt 21:2526 par.)
Question of taxes to Caesar
Jesus’s answer leads to several paradoxes. (1) What is Caesar’s that is not God’s? The clear answer of Scripture is, Nothing, all that is in the earth is God’s (Deut 10:14; Ps 24[23]:1; Ps 50[49]:12). (2) How can an Israelite care about the rightful ownership of an object that is an abomination and offense to God? The thing in view of Caesar’s (the coin) is at least in many cases a sacrilegious abomination for Israelites, as it carries an idolatrous image, and an inscription that in some instances claimed a Roman emperor to be divine (cf. Exod 20:4-5b).90 (3) How can the principle of rightful ownership – the principle Jesus applies in his answer – support theft: giving Israel’s wealth to a foreign occupier? (4) Why would God, who demands exclusive worship, give his people into subjugation by idolaters?
90
Keener, A commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 524-525.
24 Marriage and resurrection
How can God not be a God of people who have died: if patriarchs and others are now living after a bodily resurrection (cf. Ezek 37:1-14), where are they living?
The greatest commandment
If one loves God with everything one has (according to Deut 6:5), how (with what) can one love neighbour or self (according to Lev 19:18)?
Interrogation by Annas
How can a court be unable to justify its actions, especially its violence (not answering Jesus’s questions)?
Interrogation by Caiaphas / Sanhedrin
There is a paradox created when Jesus refers, via citation of Dan 7:13, to the conclusion of a heavenly trial (Dan 7:9-14). How can a blasphemy trial on earth resolve a heavenly trial in favour of the one condemned (reading Jesus to be, or to become, the Son of Man)?
Interrogation by Pilate
How can an interrogation be led by one who has no concept of truth?
Elenchus and aporia For five of the Jerusalem challenge situations, at least one of the accounts describe Jesus responding with a question (Matt 21:16; Matt 22:24 par.; Mark 12:15; Mark 12:24; John 18:21, 23). What is the function of these counter-questions? Bultmann saw in counter-questions the early Church engaged in “typically Rabbinic” controversy and scholastic dialogues, citing many examples from rabbinic texts. 91 The typical form for an answer is the counter-question, and often it appears in such a form as to be a metaphor in form, too. Sometimes instead of the metaphor the counter-question is a detailed parable, sometimes ending with a question, or at any rate interrogatory in character…. [I]t is possible that an enquiry that dealt more accurately with the history of Rabbinic discussion, would show that its literary style has grown out of the form of question and answer. This was already in use in the ancient wisdom, and remained as the primitive form alongside the development of dialogue proper.92
It is evident that scholarship has not progressed much on the function of these questions. Tannehill, for example, a leading scholar on these types of dialogues in the Gospels, 93 only comments on Jesus’s counter-question at Luke 20:3-4 that, "As in other testing inquiries (cf. 10:26; 20:24), Jesus responds to a question with a counterquestion designed to move the discussion in a favourable direction.”94 Nor do relatively recent articles on the function of questions in Biblical texts by Meynet95 and de Regt96 provide illumination of Jesus’s questions.
91
Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. J. Marsh; rev. ed.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963), 41-46. 92
Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 42, 46.
Cf. Robert C. Tannehill, “Types and functions of apophthegms in the Synoptic Gospels,” ANRW 25.2:17921829. 93
94
Robert C. Tannehill, Luke (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 288.
Roland Meynet, “The question at the center: a specific device of rhetorical argumentation in Scripture,” in Rhetorical argumentation in biblical texts: essays from the Lund 2000 conference (ed. Anders Eriksson, et al.; Emory Studies in Early Christianity 8; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2002), 200-214. 95
Use of the term rhetorical question (RQ) is often problematic, as can be shown in de Regt’s article. Although all but one (Watson’s) of the many definitions cited hold that the RQ “implies that the audience itself knows the answer,” the discussions of RQs often find that scholars diverge greatly about their answers, even holding no possibility of an answer (e.g. Job 38:28a; Amos 5:25). L. J. de Regt, “Discourse implications of rhetorical questions 96
25 This leads us to consider Jesus’s questions in the light of elenchus (or cross-examination), because that concept describes a communication structure in which questions have a particular rather than general function. In cross-examinations, for example those in Plato’s early dialogues,97 questions have the function of critically examining a position or claim. If a question like “What is your favourite colour?” appeared in a Socratic cross-examination, its function would not be limited to the purpose of discovering a colour preference. Elenchus is important also as it has a function itself, thereby showing the ultimate purpose of the questions posed. It is not only a competitive effort, despite such connotations associated with its oldest recorded uses and modern uses. In early Platonic dialogues, and some OT texts (e.g. Jer 2:1-4:5; Isa 29:13-24), elenchus can be seen to move another party to metanoia (change of mind) through demonstrating an aporia (impasse) for that party’s initial way of thinking. The purpose for Socrates has been described as “To clear the mind of the illusion of knowledge [in order] to prepare the way for further inquiry…. urging us on to the practice of philosophy.”98 οἴει οὖν ἂν αὐτὸν πρότερον ἐπιχειρῆσαι ζητεῖν ἢ μανθάνειν τοῦτο ὃ ᾤετο εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, πρὶν εἰς ἀπορίαν κατέπεσεν ἡγησάμενος μὴ εἰδέναι, καὶ ἐπόθησεν τὸ εἰδέναι; Now do you imagine he would have attempted to inquire or learn what he thought he knew, when he did not know it, until he had been reduced to the perplexity of realising that he did not know, and had felt a craving to know? (Meno 84c)
The purpose in OT disputation texts (e.g. Jer 3:12-14, Isa 29:23-24) is not philosophy (i.e. love of wisdom) per se, but metanoia directed to returning into covenant with YHWH. Demonstrations of aporia can involve showing that Israel has no viable way without YHWH (e.g. Jer 2:14-19), or the self-negation of Israel’s apostasy (e.g. Jer 2:5b, 7, 21). Aporia and metanoia can be achieved instead not by reasoning but by God’s miraculous actions, producing new evidence (e.g. Isa 29:17-23), precisely in line with the stated intention of YHWH to stop the (corrupt) progress of the wise and understanding ones (v.14).99 Corrupted wisdom in human beings cannot be cured by reasoning alone but requires additional action by God, apparently.100 Also in Jesus’s responses to challenge in Jerusalem, there are repeated signals of the limits of reasoning. (1) The dialogues never end in reasoned agreement.101 (2) Paradoxical statements regularly occur (shown above), possibly signalling a crisis of reason. (3) Jesus’s answers produce aporia, regularly made explicit in the accounts: in Job, Deuteronomy and the Minor Prophets,” in Literary structure and rhetorical strategies in the Hebrew bible (ed. L. J. d. Regt, et al.; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996), 51-78, esp. 51-53, 63. Elenchus and related terms “are used by Plato in the middle dialogues (as e.g. at R. VII, 534c1-3) to refer to his own method, which is as different from that of Socrates [in the early dialogues] as is the Platonic Form from the Socratic form, satisfying radically different categorical criteria…” Gregory Vlastos, Socratic studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 2 note 6. 97
98
Charles H. Kahn, Plato and the Socratic dialogue: the philosophical use of a literary form (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 180. 99
This provides part of the basis for reading verses 13-24 together.
100
The limited power of reasoning was a problem also for Socrates and Plato, who wondered about the source of true knowledge, as the elenchic dialogues were not producing it (rather than only aporia), and turned from the dialogue form to myth as the basis of philosophical inquiry. Mary Margaret McCabe, “Form and the Platonic Dialogues,” in A companion to Plato (ed. Hugo H. Benson; Blackwell companions to philosophy; Oxford: Blackwell Reference Online, 2006), n.p. When agreement is articulated by Jesus’s challenger (Mark 12:32-33), Jesus can be read to problematise it immediately with a statement indicating the unresolved position of his challenger: i.e. he is not far from but neither is he in the Kingdom of God (v.34), and “after that no one dared question him” (i.e. silence without resolution). 101
26 i. Jesus’s counter-question on authority brings his challengers to an impasse as they choose not to answer; ii. Upon Jesus’s answer on taxes to Caesar, his challengers are amazed (ἐθαύμασαν, Matt 22:22) and end their participation in dialogue (Matt 22:22; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:26). iii. Jesus “silenced the Sadducees” (Matt 22:34). iv. After Jesus’s response to the scribe on the Greatest Commandment “no one dared question him” (Mark 12:34). v. After Jesus’s question on David and the Messiah, “no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore” (Matt 22:46, NKJV). Aporia in the Jerusalem challenges is never described as leading to metanoia. In the longest disputational text, Matthew’s account of Jesus’s response to the question of his authority, there are three points that accord with the Socratic-elenchic practice of leading an opponent to articulate his own self-contradiction (21:25, 31, 41),102 just as in prophet Nathan’s presentation of a case of the theft of a poor man’s lamb to King David (2 Sam 12:1-15). Yet no metanoia is described here or elsewhere. Elenchus offers an explanation for Jesus’s counter-questions beyond “moving things in a favourable direction.” It entails that Jesus turns the focus onto his challengers, cross-examining them with questions (and statements) that demonstrate their untenable position of attack (e.g. because of hypocrisy). The purpose of elenchus is unclear so far: it could be strategic, or pedagogical (didactic-wisdom), or metanoia (delayed), or all three.103 As shown above in the discussion of chiasm, in every one of the thirteen challenge situations it is possible to show that Jesus turns the focus from himself onto his challengers, either with questions, potent Scriptural references (e.g. Hab 3:1), or statements. Thus, it is possible to say that an elenchic function is present in all of Jesus’s responses to challenge in Jerusalem. Trap questions One possible explanation for the recurrence of indirect answers, chiastic answers, parallelism (chiasm), paradox, and elenchus is that they are ways to answer trap questions, which are formulated such that they must be sidestepped, as all five techniques do. It is arguable that in every one of the Jerusalem challenge situations, the challenge is a trap and cannot be answered directly. This can be demonstrated in some instances: 1. The question of taxes to Caesar. If Jesus answered, “No,” he would be calling for rebellion and could be executed. If he answered, “Yes,” the masses would hardly believe in him as the Messiah, who was expected to deliver God’s people from oppression, thus also clearing the way for arresting and killing him. 2. The question of marriage and the Resurrection. Jesus must forfeit the support either of those who believe in the resurrection, or of those who believe that Torah contains all relevant truth. Further, Jesus must show himself to be sympathetic either to the Pharisees or to the Sadducees.
102
The challengers themselves make explicit that they are not interested in the principle of divine authority (21:25); they pronounce judgements of figures in parables who are parallel to themselves (21:31, 41). These possibilities parallel Evans’s proposed variations among types of criticism in dominical parables, from “collegial, admonitory” (primarily for Pharisees) to harsh “warn[ing] of judgment” (primarily for “the power brokers,” e.g. the chief priests): Evans, “Jesus' rhetoric of criticism: the parables against his friends and critics,” 256-257. Given that both groups – and others – are among Jesus’s challengers in Jerusalem, a variation of elenchic aims might be expected. 103
27 Thereby he loses support and credibility as a Messiah for all Israel, appears partisan, and can be killed without mass uproar. 3. The question of the Greatest Commandment. If Jesus’s answer contains no new teaching, he would disappoint messianic expectations based on Deut 18:15 that the Messiah comes with new teaching. If Jesus does provide new teaching, i.e. a “greatest” commandment that does not appear in OT Scripture, he can be tried for blasphemy. Witnesses When challenged in Jerusalem, Jesus points to supporting testimony for his position. To show this, we first analyse the text where it is most complex to identify Jesus’s claims and its supporting testimony. Then we summarise for the other challenge situations. In the Matthean account of the challenge to Jesus on his authority, Jesus’s first claim is, “the tax collectors and the prostitutes go ahead of you into the Kingdom of God” (Matt 21:31b). Jesus points to evidence in the next verse (21:32): a
ἦλθεν γὰρ Ἰωάννης πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης,
b
καὶ οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ,
a
For John came before you in righteousness’s way,
b
and you did not believe in him,
c
οἱ δὲ τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι ἐπίστευσαν αὐτῷ·
d
ὑμεῖς δὲ ἰδόντες οὐδὲ μετεμελήθητε ὕστερον τοῦ πιστεῦσαι αὐτῷ.
c
yet the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed in him;
d
yet you, seeing, did not repent afterwards and believe in him.
Jesus cites two groups considered flagrant and unrepentant sinners whose belief in John should have led the chief priests and elders to belief. This alone satisfies the requirement of multiple, confirming witnesses. However, the parallel construction indicates that Jesus’s challengers’ should have believed already on the basis of what John was doing: stichs a and c describe evidence, b and d describe rejection of such evidence. Much work has been done in scholarship to determine what “in righteousness’ way” means here; either one of the two best supported interpretations, conduct and/or content of preaching in line with God’s will,104 forms an antithesis with the conduct (and/or speech) of “tax-collectors and prostitutes.” The same antithetical parallelism is clear in Jesus’s saying on nearly the same topic (Matt 11:18-19 par.): ἦλθεν γὰρ Ἰωάννης μήτε ἐσθίων μήτε πίνων,
b
καὶ λέγουσιν· δαιμόνιον ἔχει.
18a
For John came neither eating nor drinking,
b
and they said: “He has a demon.”
19a
ἦλθεν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων,
b
καὶ λέγουσιν· ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος φάγος καὶ οἰνοπότης,
The son of man came eating and drinking,
b
18a
τελωνῶν φίλος καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν. 19a
and they said: “See! A man, a glutton and a drunkard, friend of tax-collectors and sinners!”
The logic of these sayings is made clearer by considering them together: they both show that those who reject the divine authorisation of Jesus and John the Baptist were set on rejection no matter what the evidence presented to them. The self-contradiction of the rejection in Matt 11:18-19 is perhaps clearer to us because both fasting and not fasting are judged evil; but it is 104
Overviews of the evidence and scholarly positions, with evaluation, are provided by: William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew: vol. 3, commentary on Matthew XIX-XXVIII (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 170 and notes 43 and 4; Benno Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew and his world of thought (SNTSMS 41; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 94-96. Jeremias, arguing on the basis of Semitic antecedent, claims that 21:32a is “a biblicism which means ‘he brought the right way’”; New Testament theology, 46 and note 3.
28 credible that self-contradiction in Matt 21:32 would have been heard clearly to contemporaries through the pairing of the phrases “righteousness’ way” and “tax-collectors and prostitutes.” There are four other statements by Jesus: (1) about the future where authority is taken away (Matt 21:43); (2) about the future in relation to the cornerstone (Matt 21:44; Luke 20:18); (3) about the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 22:2); (4) about calling and election (Matt 22:14). Checking whether witnesses support Jesus’s statements about abstract realities is certainly important, yet complex. We restrict the analysis to less abstract statements, leaving Matt 21:43. It is supported by multiple witnesses, among them: (i) The three parables about flouting authority; (ii) The two pronouncements of judgement by the challengers upon the figures of the parables; (iii) The witness of Scripture: Ps 118:22-23. Table 5: Supporting witnesses Challenge situation
Supporting witnesses
Messianic proclamation on nearing Jerusalem
Scripture: Hab 2:11.
Abuse of the Temple
Scripture: Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11.
Messianic proclamation in the Temple
Scripture: Ps 8:3[2].
Jesus’s authority
Scripture: Ps 118:22-23; a parable about flouting authority (the wicked tenants; in all three accounts); in Matthew, two additional parables about flouting authority (the two sons; the disrespectful wedding guests); in Matthew, two pronouncements of judgement by the challengers upon the figures of the parables.
Taxes to Caesar
The image and inscription on the coin.
Marriage and resurrection
Scripture: Exod 3:6, 15 (Mark’s specific reference; Gen 17:7; 26:24; 28:21 are also possible).
The greatest commandment
Scripture: Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18.
The Messiah and David
Scripture: Ps. 110:1.
The arrest of Jesus at Gethsemane
Scripture: “the Scriptures of the Prophets” (Matt 26:56); “the Scriptures” (Mark 14:49); the contradictory self-witness of his challengers: they come armed at night to arrest someone whom they did not arrest as he taught daily in the Temple (all three accounts).
Interrogation led by Annas
The witness of Jesus’s widely public teaching; Jesus’s unanswered challenge to witness of any evil that he has spoken (18:23).
Mocking at the crucifixion
Scripture: Ps 22:1.
Jesus’s responses at interrogations on his identity as Christ and King Indirect answer, chiasm, parallelism, paradox, elenchus, aporia, witnesses and trap questions have been found across Jesus’s responses to challenge in Jerusalem. Do the σὺ λέγεις–type answers fit this pattern by contributing to the formation of these features at the interrogations?
29 Jesus’s dialogue with Caiaphas / the Sanhedrin And the chief priest, having risen amidst [them], questioned Jesus, saying, “You answer nothing? Why do these testify against you?” But he was silent and answered nothing. Again the chief priest questioned him, and said to him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “You say that I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of Heaven.” (Mark 14:53-65) Yet Jesus was silent. And the chief priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God that you tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “You say [so]. But I say to you: From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming upon the clouds of Heaven.” (Matt 26:63-64) And when it became day, the elders of the people, the chief priests and scribes assembled and led him into their council, saying “If you are the Christ, tell us.” And he said to them, “If I told you, you would not believe me. And if I asked, you would not answer or let me go.105 From now, the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of the power of God.” But they all said, “Then you are the Son of God?” But he said to them, “You say that I am.” (Luke 22:66-71)
Indirect answer. It is quite plain to see that answers of the form σὺ εἶπας / ὑμεῖς λέγετε (“you say”) are indirect ways to answer questions of what one says oneself, i.e. by answering that the questioning party is saying something. Chiasm and parallelism. Matthew’s account begins with chiasm. A1
ἡμῖν εἴπῃς106
say you to us…?
A2
σὺ εἶπας.
you say.
A3
πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν
but I say to you
A4
ὄψεσθε
you will see
A1 and A2 form an antithetic parallelism around opposed use of the second-person pronoun. A2 and A3 form an antithetic parallelism around contrasted personal pronouns, signalled by the conjunction πλὴν (‘but’). A4 is antithetical to A1 around the opposition of saying versus seeing. Setting the antithetical elements together we can see these antithetic parallelisms: ‘Say you…?’ ‘You say’ ‘But I say, You will see.’ The chiasm is formed by a mirroring of several antitheses. One is the antithesis of speech alone and speech with seeing (i.e. backed by evidence). In contexts of judicial interrogation and tests of credibility, this antithesis is decisive. You talk about talk, but I talk about (divine) events. Some readings of Mark107 and a Lukan parallel (22:70) are also chiastic: Jesus answers that the challenger(s) himself / themselves say(s) that Jesus is the Christ and/or the Son of God. The chiasm reverses the charge. (The same type of chiastic affirmation is read in many translations
The well attested phrase μοι ἢ απολυσατε (e.g. A D W Ψ) may articulate the logic of the next statement: because Jesus’s fate is sealed (a death sentence), from now the Son of Man has ascended to power, cf. Dan 7:1-27. 105
The aorist is literally an unlimited aspect. It can describe an enduring durative condition (e.g., “Do you say you are a good citizen?”). Indeed, aorist is used in the question of Caiaphas when Jesus has not said anything yet. 106
107
θ f 13 565. 700. 2542s pc; Or.
30 of the Matthean σὺ εἶπας,108 and Matt 27:43 indicates that Matthew understood the Sanhedrin to understand Jesus’s answer as an affirmation of their question.) Paradox. Paradox, the combination of antithetical (contradictory) claims, is possibly established by the σὺ λέγεις phrases, e.g.: How can an accusation of lying answer itself negatively? How can accusing someone of blasphemy (the explicit crime at Matt 26:65, Mark 14:64) testify in favour of the accused? Elenchus. The demonstrations of chiasm also show elenchus: all of the chiastic elements turn the focus back onto his challengers, cross-examining them. Aporia. Chiasms composed of antithetical parallelisms can create aporia much as paradoxes do. Consistent with an aporetic outcome, Matt 26:65 and Mark 14:64 show no further dialogue after Jesus’s answer, only judgement. Luke 22:71 also shows an end to dialogue. Trap question. One way to confirm the above analysis (finding indirect answer, chiasm, paradox, elenchus and aporia) is to check if Jesus is dealing with a trap question, because these are techniques to deal with trap questions. Indeed, at least at the level of the texts, the question of Jesus’s messianic identity at the interrogation is a potential trap. If Jesus answers “no,” he denies his mission. If Jesus answers “yes,” he is (possibly) speaking without the necessary evidence in support, i.e. God’s exaltation, and could legitimately be charged with blasphemy (cf. Matt 26:65, Mark 14:64). But the NT view is that Jesus’s mission requires his being executed without sin.109 Witnesses. Ps 110:1 is clearly cited in all three accounts, and Dan 7:13 in Mark and Matthew. An additional witness Jesus cites is Caiaphas / the Sanhedrin (at least in Luke and some readings of Mark, but potentially also Matthew). It is useful to evaluate whether the function of the two Scriptural witnesses is to confirm Jesus’s claim that his challengers testify that he is the Messiah: that would further confirm the chiastic readings of σὺ εἶπας / ὑμεῖς λέγετε. Both citations appear in contexts (Dan 7:1-28, Ps 110:1-7) depicting the exaltation of the Messiah over a plurality of enemies.110 Dan 7 adds that the hostile fourth kingdom’s key quality is “iron” (7:7, 19), that it is divided (7:24b) and directly precedes the establishment of God’s eternal Kingdom (7:26-27).111 There does seem to be a strong fit between the contexts: a situation of divided power among a plurality of rulers, among them Roman power (the identity of the fourth “iron” kingdom according to texts like 4 Ezra 112 and ancient Church exegesis113).
108
E.g. CEB, ESV, GNT, MSG, NET, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV.
109
Jesus sinlessness is explicit and necessary at 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 9:14.
The two texts’ descriptions of the enemies also overlap: they are “kings” and “rulers” (Ps 110:5-6), “a king” (Dan 7:24), “a horn” on the fourth “beast” / “kingdom” (7:7-8, 23); they are hostile to God (Dan 7:25), God’s anointed one (Ps 110:1, 2, 5, 6), God’s “holy ones” (Dan 7:21, 25). Ps 110 describes a plurality of kings and rulers engaged in hostility with the Messiah; also Dan 7:24 describes the fourth kingdom having a plurality of kings. 110
111
These qualities are also described in the parallel text Dan 2:31-45.
112
4 Ezra 12:11, cf. Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: a commentary on the book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; ed. Frank M. Cross; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 34; "In Daniel’s vision (Dan 7:7) the fourth kingdom symbolised the Greek or Macedonian Empire; here it is reinterpreted (vs. 12) as the Roman Empire." J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament pseudepigrapha (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 550 note b to 12:11. 113
E.g. Hippolytus, Jerome, and Theodoret of Cyrus identified the fourth beast/kingdom as the Roman Empire: Kenneth Stevenson, Michael Glerup and Thomas C. Oden, Ezekiel, Daniel (ACCS 13; Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 225.
31 This fitness is confirmed by many NT texts that describe the earthly enemies of the Messiah in terms of divided power among a plurality of rulers, among them Roman rulers, e.g. Acts 4:2428; Matt 20:18-19 // Mark 10:33-4 // Luke 18:31-33; cf. John 18:31-32; 1 Cor 2:8.114 And this way of explaining Jesus’s death continues into the 2nd century, e.g. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrneans (I.1)115 and Justin Martyr’s First Apology (1.40.5f.).116 Altogether, therefore, there exist several kinds of confirmation that Dan 7:13 and Ps 110:1 function as witnesses to support the claim that Caiaphas / the Sanhedrin, as they endeavour to have Jesus killed (Matt 26:3-4; cf. John 11:50; 18:14), testify to his identity.117 Epistemological concern. Luke 22:68 makes this explicit as it points to epistemological reasons not to answer questioning. Implicit epistemological concern is a strong explanation for the lack of direct affirmation of messianic identity in all three accounts. If Jesus is dealing with a trap question, then his σὺ λέγεις-type formulations are strategies for dealing with the epistemological problems of a “yes” answer, i.e. insufficient evidence at this point, or a “no” i.e. dishonesty and inconsistency. The Markan readings with ἐγώ εἰμι And the chief priest, having risen amidst [them], questioned Jesus, saying, “You answer nothing? Why do these testify against you?” But he was silent and answered nothing. Again the chief priest questioned him, and said to him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I AM, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of Heaven.”
Claims. Either this is a direct claim that affirms Jesus’s identity as Christ (“I am [he]”), or this is a statement of the divine name as given to Moses (“Tell them ‘I am’ sent you,” Exod 3:14), whereby it would be an indirect affirmation. The other two Markan parallel instances, where the phrase appears without a predicate (6:50; 13:6), are all dominical statements and also used in contexts focused on the urgent identification of true divine identity; these are joined by the dominical Johannine parallel instances (4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8), also all in contexts focused on true divine identification.118 In favour of the alternative, the case made by R.T. France that ἐγώ εἰμι in the Markan account is used only as “normal colloquial Greek” (citing Mark 6:50; 13:6; Matt 26:22, 25; John 4:26; 9:9; 18:5 in support) is not overpowering.119 Witnesses. Jesus’s citation of Scripture (Dan 7:13; Ps 110:1) here is the same as in the other Markan readings and Matthew.
114
It is also relevant that in the 1st century the Roman authority had authority over appointments of the chief priests (and the Sanhedrin); thus, NT references to the chief priest can carry a reference to Roman power and divided power. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.10, 15, 247; Hugo Mantel, Studies in the history of the Sanhedrin (HSS 17; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), 288. Mantel also cites Josephus, Ant. 20.251. 115
“…nailed to a tree in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch” (trans. K. Lake).
“…a banding together against Christ of Herod, the king of the Jews, and the Jews themselves, and Pilate, who was your procurator among them, together with his soldiers….” Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, eds., Justin, philosopher and martyr: Apologies (trans. D. Minns and P. Parvis; OECT; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 187. 116
117
Additional confirmation is given by NT texts that echo Dan 7 and Ps 110 in regard to an otherworldly dimension of Jesus’s power and its opposition: Acts 7:56, Col 1:12-13, Rom 8:34, 1 Pet 3:21-22, John 12:31, Eph 6:12. Just, Felix (S.J.), “‘I AM’ sayings in the Fourth Gospel,” n.p. [cited 22 October 2013]. Online: http://catholicresources.org/John/Themes-IAM.htm#NT. 118
119
R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 273 note 71, 610 note 34.
32 Epistemological concern. If we do not accept that ἐγώ εἰμι is a direct affirmative phrase, then epistemological concern remains an excellent explanation of the lack of direct affirmation of messianic identity. Pilate’s question on Jesus’s identity And at early morning, having made consultation, the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole Sanhedrin, having bound Jesus, led and handed him over to Pilate. And Pilate questioned him: “Are you the King of the Judeans?” And he answered him, saying, “You say [so].” And the chief priests accused him vehemently. And Pilate again questioned him, saying, “You answer nothing? See how they accuse you.” But Jesus did not answer to anything, so that Pilate was amazed. (Mark 15:1-5) And Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor questioned him, saying, “Are you the King of the Judeans?” And Jesus said, “You say [so].” And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how they accuse you?” And he did not answer him on any charge, such that the governor was greatly amazed. (Matt 27:11-14) And having risen, the whole multitude of them took him to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this one corrupting our nation and forbidding giving taxes to Caesar, and calling himself Christ – to be a king!” And Pilate asked him, saying, “Are you the King of the Judeans?” And answering him he said, “You say [so].” (Luke 23:1-3) They then led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium. It was the morning. And they did not go into the Praetorium, so that they would not be defiled but could eat the Passover. Then Pilate came out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” They answered and said to him, “If he were not an evildoer we would not hand him over to you.” Pilate said to them, “You take him and judge him by your own law.” The Judeans said to him, “It is not authorised for us to put anyone to death” – to fulfil the word Jesus had spoken indicating how he would die. Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, and he called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Judeans?” Jesus answered, “Are you saying this for yourself, or have others told you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Judean? Your nation and the chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not from this world. If my Kingdom were from this world, my servants would fight so that I should not be handed over to the Judeans. But my Kingdom is now not from here.” Then Pilate said to him, “Then you are a King?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a King. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is from the truth hears my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” (John 18:28-38)
Claims. The analysis of the Sanhedrin interrogation indicates that σὺ λέγεις has the same function here: a chiastic response by Jesus, claiming that Pilate himself says that Jesus is “the King of the Judeans,” or “a King”: Pilate, representing Roman power and moving toward an order to execute Jesus, is testifying that Jesus is the one described in Dan 7 and Ps 110 who will now ascend to kingly status (Dan 7:13, 14, 27; Ps 110:1f.120). Jesus’s claims via σὺ λέγεις answers are therefore indirect. However, the phrase “my Kingdom” in John’s account might be a direct claim to messianic status; or it can be read to be a negation of the premise of Pilate’s question, that “your nation and the chief priests handed you over,” i.e. Jesus is saying that he belongs to another kingdom/nation.
120
Artur Weiser, The Psalms, a commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 692, 694.
33 Elenchus and aporia. The σὺ λέγεις answers are a chiastic and elenchic response to Pilate’s questions. In the Johannine account, Jesus answers first with his own question to Pilate (18:34), also elenchic, he moves Pilate to an impasse (aporia), as Pilate does not have a concept of truth – but that is the basis of Jesus’s answer. Once Pilate asks, “What is truth?,” there is no further dialogue. More generally, impasse is reached through Jesus only answering in ways that Pilate cannot understand, e.g. Jesus talks about his Kingdom not being from/of (ἐκ) this world; his formulation about what he was born for is focused on truth and only indirectly addresses kingship. In the other three accounts, Jesus only speaks the words σὺ λέγεις: this produces no further dialogue, i.e. aporia is reached. Witnesses. Physically present in the setting in Matthew are “the chief priests and the elders” (Matt 27:12), whose efforts to have Jesus condemned by Pilate are putative witnesses that he is the Messiah based on Dan 7 and Ps 110. In Luke, the parties are “the whole multitude” (23:1) from the prior interrogation, and Mark (15:1-15) provides a similarly comprehensive description. In John’s account, the group seeking the death sentence on Jesus is not described exactly (only by third-person-plural verbs), but Pilate apparently describes them as “your nation and the chief priests” (τὸ ἔθνος τὸ σὸν καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς) (18:35), and they stand outside the Praetorium. Epistemological concern. In John it is explicit: Jesus relates the question to his born purpose to witness to “the truth” for those who are of “the truth.” It is implicit in the σὺ λέγεις answers, read as refusals to give a direct answer, and/or as markers of the knowledge limits of his questioners, i.e. you are saying it (without knowing it). Summary Results for analyses of Jesus’s responses at the interrogations are summarised in Chapter 3. The σὺ λέγεις-type answers can be read as indirect, affirmative, chiastic responses to the questions of Jesus’s identity as Christ and King. The analysis has found multiple types of confirmation for such readings. The analysis has also indicated that they also have an elenchic (cross-examining) function, producing aporia. They may also produce paradoxes.
34 Chapter 3 - Results, discussion and conclusions The question for analysis was, Do dominical statements with reference to messianic terms show intentional observance of a multiple testimony rule – based on the pattern of claims, witnesses (cited or present), and epistemological concern? The results of analyses are summarised here: Table 6: Claims, witnesses and epistemological concern Jesus’s claim
Supporting witnesses (or evidence)
Epistemological concern
Direct claim
Indirect claim
No
Yes
Cited by Jesus: “Heaven opened”; “the angels of God ascending and descending”; possibly Scripture (Gen 28:12); possibly Jesus’s deed of power (omniscience).
Major theme (explicit)
Jesus’s dialogue with No(?) a woman in Samaria (John 4:25-26)
Yes
Present: Jesus’s deed of power (omniscience); the woman (who has confirmed Jesus’s deed of power and will propose to Sychar residents that Jesus may be the Messiah).
Major theme (explicit)
Jesus’s dialogue with disciples of John the Baptist (Matt 11:2-6 // Luke 7:18-23)
No
Yes
Cited by Jesus: Jesus’s many deeds of power; John’s disciples (implied); possibly Scripture (lists of signs of the messianic time of salvation, Isa 26:19; 29:18ff.; 35:5ff.; 61:1f.).
Major theme (explicit)
Jesus’s dialogue with his disciples (Matt 16:13-20 // Mark 8:29-30 // Luke 9:1822)
No
Yes
Cited by Jesus: Simon (Peter); Jesus’s Father in Major theme Heaven (in Matthean account); future supporting (explicit in Matt; evidence: Hades’s gates never prevail against possibly implicit Jesus’s church; divine confirmation of the in Mark and church’s binding and loosing. Luke)
Jesus’s dialogue with Nathanael (John 1:49-51)
Present: Jesus’s disciples, who have witnessed Jesus’s deeds of power (corresponding to Scripture’s description of a messianic age). Jesus’s dialogue with people in Jerusalem (John 7:26-29)
No
Yes(?)
Cited by Jesus: The one who sent Jesus. (Jesus is also a witness for him: that he is true.)
Major theme (explicit)
Jesus’s dialogue in Solomon’s Porch (John 10:24-38)
No
Yes
Cited by Jesus: The works that Jesus does in his Father’s name; possibly Jesus’s sheep.
Major theme (explicit)
Jesus’s dialogue on glorification (Matt 20:20-23)
No
Yes
Present: qualified witnesses James and John (sons of Zebedee).
Major theme (implicit)
Jesus’s dialogue with Pharisees on nearing Jerusalem (Luke 19:37-40)
No
Yes
Cited by Jesus: “the stones” that “would cry out”; the witness of Scripture (Hab 2:11).
Major theme (implicit)
Jesus’s dialogue with a crowd in Jerusalem (John 12:27-36)
No
Present: The “whole multitude of disciples” who cite God’s deeds of power. Yes
Possibly implicit in Jesus’s answer: God the Father’s voice from Heaven.
Major theme (explicit)
35 Jesus’s lecture on authority (Matt 23:810)
No
Yes
Present: qualified witnesses Peter, James and John.
Major theme (implicit)
Jesus’s lecture on Kingdoms (Luke 22:28-30)
Yes
No
Possibly cited by Jesus: disciples qualified by witnessing his trials.
Major theme(?) (implicit)
Jesus’s prayer for glorification (John 17:1-5)
No
Yes
Cited by Jesus: the work given by the Father and finished.
Jesus’s dialogue with Caiaphas / the Sanhedrin (Matt 26:63-64 // Mark 14:53-65 // Luke 22:66-71)
No
Yes
Cited by Jesus: Caiaphas/the Sanhedrin; Scripture Major theme (Dan 7:13; Ps 110:1). (explicit in Luke; implicit in Matt and Mark)
Mark 14:53-65 readings with ἐγώ εἰμι
No(?)
Yes
Cited by Jesus: Scripture (Dan 7:13; Ps 110:1).
Jesus’s dialogue with No(?) Pilate (Matt 27:11-14 // Mark 15:1-5 // Luke 23:1-3 // John 18:28-38)
Yes
Cited by Jesus: Pilate.
Jesus’s dialogue with a crucified man (Luke 23:42-43)
Yes
Present: Jesus’s body and blood of a new covenant; disciples who affirm this.
No
Present: “the chief priests and the elders” (Matt); “all the multitude” from the prior interrogation (Luke), “the chief priests” (Mark); Jesus’s “own nation” and “the chief priests” according to Pilate’s description (John). Present: (1) the crucified man; (2) the evidence of Jesus’s ongoing crucifixion, i.e. his sacrificial death through unjust execution; (3) the sign above Jesus’s head calling him a King (Luke 23:38).
Major theme (explicit)
Major theme (implicit) Major theme (explicit in John; possibly implicit in Matt, Mark, Luke)
Major theme (implicit)
Key results 1. Claims. Among the 24 well-attested Gospel texts where Jesus, before Easter, addresses the terms Christ, Messiah, King, or your Kingdom, with possible reference to himself, in only 1 text does Jesus clearly make a direct, explicit claim that affirms his messianic identity. Jesus makes an indirect (implicit) claim of affirmation in all the remaining texts (with one possible exception, John 7:26-29). This entire pattern is consistent with the prediction made on the basis of the hypothesis: if a requirement for sufficient evidence (e.g. multiple witnesses) was being observed, Jesus would refrain from direct claims until necessary evidence (such as his death and resurrection) was available. 2. Witnesses. Supporting witnesses or evidence are always either directly cited by Jesus or present when Jesus makes claims about his messianic identity. It is a plurality of witnesses except in two instances: when the witness is Jesus’s Father (John 12:27-36), and the one who sent Jesus (John 7:26-29). 3. Epistemological concern. In 10 of the texts where Jesus makes only an indirect claim about his identity as Messiah, he explicitly makes epistemological concern a major theme. Epistemological concern is implicitly a major theme in at least 3 of the remaining texts, and possibly all of them. The weakest indication of epistemological concern as a theme is when
36 Jesus makes a direct claim. This is also a confirmation of a testimony ethic being active. It would be expected that epistemological concern is raised a theme when there is a problem with testifying (answering directly, making a claim), i.e. when there is a conflict between the request and the testimony ethic. 4. All of the aspects analysed – claims, witnesses, epistemological concern – have been found to be consistent with intentional observance of a multiple-testimony requirement. Few if any exceptions have been found: when only God the Father testifies on Jesus’s behalf (John 7:2629: 12:27-36), it is not clearly an exception to the multiple witness requirement. Instead, the analysis shows consistent and conspicuous evidence of observance of a multiple testimony rule, attested by three different variables. Results from analyses of the Jerusalem challenge-responses are relevant here. A clear pattern was established across the Jerusalem challenge situations, perhaps all of which focus on Jesus’s messianic identity: Jesus avoids making direct claims about his identity. This means that in 23 + 24 non-overlapping texts121 where Jesus’s identity as Messiah is probably a concern, Jesus makes no direct claim about his identity but can be seen to approach the issue indirectly. In this set of texts, the four gospels are represented quite equally: John (8); Matt (15); Luke (12); Mark (12). This helps to address the problem of Mark’s under-representation in the main set of dominical statements: John (7); Matt (6); Luke (7); Mark (4). On their own, Mark’s 4 texts present difficulties for evaluating Mark’s relationship to the multiple witness requirement (via dominical statements): Jesus’s brief answer to Peter’s confession, the two versions of Jesus’s Sanhedrin interrogation answer, and Jesus’s terse answer to Pilate. Although our analysis has found that these four instances appear to follow the general pattern (no direct explicit claim, indirect affirmative claim, plural witnesses, epistemological concern), there have also been uncertainties, and that makes conclusions almost impossible in a small set. However, the 8 additional Markan texts that come from analysing Jesus’s responses to challenge in Jerusalem have been shown to follow the same general pattern. In those Markan texts, Jesus does not answer messianic-identity challenges directly by making explicit claims about himself. Instead, he answers indirectly and affirmatively, citing witnesses. These all implicitly indicate an epistemological concern – and so does the consistent use, also in Mark, of chiastic response and elenchus, often achieving aporia through paradoxes (5 of the 9 reviewed appear also in Mark). In the light of the full evidence, therefore, Mark’s dominical statements clearly follow the same pattern as Matthew’s, Luke’s, and John’s. Conclusions for the hypothesis 1. A key test has failed to falsify the hypothesis that a multiple witness requirement was a governing rule for the NT historians and letter authors. A representative set of dominical statements does not contain little evidence of observance of a multiple witness requirement. 2. Evidence of intentional observance of a multiple witness requirement in a large, representative set of dominical statements, drawn from all four Gospels, is consistent, conspicuous, attested by three different variables, and usually explicit. Therefore it appears highly credible that a dominical testimony standard involving the OT-Scriptural requirement for multiple witnesses could have been established in the NT community. (It is important to recall that dominical statements have a supreme authority in the NT, where there 121
Counting the two different Markan readings of 14:62 as two texts.
37 is no tolerance for dissent from Christ) Furthermore, the pattern of evidence in the primary set of dominical statements is clearly corroborated by the analysis of another set of dominical statements: responses to challenge in the last pre-Easter visit to Jerusalem. 3. The evidence also appears to pass key criteria for claims about the historical Jesus. Toward satisfying the criterion of multiple attestation, we have found that at least Matthew, Luke and John consistently attest to a dominical practice of making indirect (implicit) claims (pre-Easter) about his messianic identity, either citing multiple witnesses or in the presence of them, and making epistemological concern a major theme.122 For the criterion of discontinuity, defined as “discontinuity between gospel tradition and the emphases of primitive Christianity,”123 it is relevant that nowhere in the NT outside the Gospels is Jesus described as hesitant to affirm his messianic identity: indeed, 1 Tim 6:13 makes an emphatic point about Jesus’s “good confession before Pontius Pilate.” This is possibly one sign that Jesus’s caution in making statements about his identity caused embarrassment for the Church, a third criterion,124, not difficult to comprehend: ‘Why didn’t Jesus say plainly he was the Christ?’ is a potential complaint echoed in the NT (e.g. John 10:24) as well as modern scholarship.125 Also, when dominical statements repeatedly point to evidence that anyone could see, as to John’s disciples, that creates a challenge for the Church – they may also be expected to provide immediately available evidence to prove that Jesus is the Messiah – a potentially embarrassing situation for the early Church if sufficient evidence could not be produced in one or other situation (cf. Mark 16:17-18). The criterion of non-implausibility, that “assesses as unhistorical features which contradict known facts about the conditions of firstcentury Palestine,”126 is also met: our finding that Jesus’s sayings show concern for testimony rules is consistent with the known facts about 1st-century Palestine. Finally, the criterion of coherence can be satisfied. This is a highly criticised criterion, e.g. because a standard for coherence among a person’s sayings and doings in a far distant time and place can be difficult to establish, and in theory inauthentic material could cohere with authentic material by mimicking it.127 However, it does have force, by requiring “that items should cohere positively with other historical material.”128 Here we can apply it in two ways. First, we can point out that there is a clear coherence among the study texts. If any of these is “already judged to be historical by the application of some other criterion”129 then this criterion is met for the other texts. Second, the tendency of dominical statements to make indirect messianic claims with reference to evidence and epistemological problems cohere with the historical fact of Jesus’s
“Caution is required especially when attestation in different forms is used as a criterion. For example, the attestation of Jesus’ healings both in sayings and in narrative material can only demonstrate the historicity of his career as a healer in general, not that of specific healings or sayings.” Tobias Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: an aspect of his prophetic mission (SNTSMS 150; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 23. 122
123
Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 24.
“The underlying logic is that Christians would not have invented traditions that they themselves found embarrassing.” Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 22. 124
125
Theissen and Merz, The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide, 512-567
126
Here we use a positive form of the negative criterion implausibility described by Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 26 127
Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 25.
128
Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 25.
129
Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 25.
38 violent death; by contrast, if Jesus were secretive about his identity as Messiah, or denied it, that would present a problem of coherence. 4. Thus, the hypothesis of a multiple witness rule among NT historians and letter authors is supported both by the Gospels’ record of key dominical statements and by evidence about the historical Jesus. (i) The Gospels all share the same explicit, consistent, conspicuous picture of dominical observance of a multiple witness rule. And (ii) the NT texts meet the authenticity criteria of multiple attestation, discontinuity, embarrassment, non-implausibility, and coherence, supporting a conclusion that the historical Jesus took care to observe a multiple witness requirement. In summary, evidence in support of the hypothesis has been found across the NT and in a number of forms: 1. A requirement for multiple witnesses is explicit for church discipline at Matt 18:16, 2 Cor 13:1, 1 Tim 5:19, and Heb 10:28, and for identification of Jesus at John 8:17 and 1 John 5:7. 2. The Gospels of Luke and John show extensive evidence of being composed in such a way as to meet the multiple witness requirement through what is presented in the texts. Matthew and Mark also show extensive evidence of observation of the requirement. One example of this is the conspicuous care to provide multiple witnesses to the Resurrection, who are furthermore named in Mark. 3. Evidence of awareness and observation of the requirement is found across the NT letters and in Revelation: for example, 3 John 12, Rev 11:3, Rom 2:15; 8:16; 1 Cor 1:6; Heb 6:17-18. 4. Pairwise mission is a widely attested norm in the NT, the best explanation for which is a requirement for multiple (confirming) witnesses. This is broadly confirmed by rabbinic practices of forming disciple-pairs and scribal pairs, both in general and judicial contexts. 5. Dominical statements across the four Gospels show intentional observation of the multiple witness requirement. 6. The hypothesis is not undermined by investigation of the epistemology of NT texts. Rather than showing that the NT community was credulous, insisting on blind faith, a sampling of the sparse scholarship shows that NT texts were concerned not with alternatives to evidence but a variety of obstacles to its correct perception. 7. Thus, multiple testimony appears to have been part of a general ethic of verification for the NT. This multiple-testimony ethic was not limited to disciplinary/legal settings, nor to multiple human witnesses, but appears to have been a fundamental standard for verification widely, across many types of questions, and many types of witnesses/evidence. Implications for the study of the NT The hypothesis of an NT requirement for multiple witnesses is credible as a potential part or whole explanation for many of the most difficult problems for NT studies. 1. Explaining variations among the Gospels has exercised readers since antiquity. Redaction criticism is one of the main methods used today, but it is far from arriving at stable explanations. A requirement for multiple testimony would be a powerful explanatory factor: it would force a historian to record an event in one way and another historian in another way, when they had access to different witnesses in their different locations and times. Secondly, variations based on combinations of witnesses would not always follow a single tendency. This might explain why redaction criticism has worked for decades to determine a single situation with a single
39 overall tendency for each Gospel (or redactional layer). Still, a witness rule would likely produce a limited range of tendencies, limited by the number of witnesses available to each historian, so redaction criticism’s data remains meaningful but explainable in another way. 2. Explaining Paul’s relative silence on the life of Jesus, and difficult Pauline texts. If Paul observed the multiple testimony rule, it could explain why Paul’s letters give so few details of Jesus’s pre-Easter life. Paul had not (apparently) been an eyewitness: what could he report, based on multiple witness reports? (This, by the way, could confirm hypotheses that written Gospels came into existence after the Pauline letters.) Paul’s observance of the rule could also help decipher difficult texts of his, because the lining up of multiple pieces of testimony or evidence would indicate the claim Paul is working to establish in a text. 3. Understanding how histories of Jesus became Gospel texts. If a multiple witness requirement was a governing rule in the NT community, it would have shaped the way Gospel material came into being. Potentially it helps to explain the pattern of named eyewitnesses found in the NT, particularly the special prominence of a few persons rather than even at least the twelve: The material at hand indicates instead a certain focus on a few leading individuals within the group of disciples – a sampling of prominent representatives. Here the synoptic gospel narratives are in basic agreement. Most of the disciples remain inconspicuous, being included in the larger group without carrying any individual traits.130
Peter, the sons of Zebedee James and John, Jesus’s mother Mary and brother James, Mary Magdalene and the sisters Martha and Mary have a prominence partly explainable by a multiple witness rule, if they were the ones who in the post-Easter years worked as the confirming (and controlling) eyewitnesses for Jerusalem-centred, authoritative Gospel tradition (while other disciples were on mission elsewhere). Testimony rules are also important for evaluating how worship meetings and networks functioned to diffuse and control the Gospel material (that was the original reason for undertaking this study). In sum, governing rules for testimony could aid study the New Testament in powerful ways. It is worth remembering that governing rules, when proved, fundamentally shape other sciences like physics and chemistry. In Bible scholarship, hypotheses of governing rules are neither new nor marginal, for example the governing functions of formal poetic structures, of Semitic antecedents to Greek NT texts, of disciples’ conservation practices for authoritative teaching, of combinations of proof texts from OT Scripture.131 Indeed, a dominant hypothesis in Bible scholarship proposes a governing role for the situation in life (the Sitz im Leben) where oral texts were formed and preserved through repetition. These situations are given primary importance for understanding the later written texts and their histories. The underlying idea of that hypothesis, that the current situation of an author or editor has primary importance in explaining the text, nearly took over Bible scholarship, under disciplinary headings like form criticism and redaction criticism. Situation-centred hypotheses compete and combine with rule-centred hypotheses as explanations. If an NT historian followed 130 131
Byrskog, Story as history, 70.
Cf. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord; Nils W. Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament: a study in formgeschichte (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1942); Watson, Classical Hebrew poetry; John Breck, The shape of biblical language: chiasmus in the Scriptures and beyond (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994); Jeremias, New Testament theology; Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946); Birger Gerhardsson, The reliability of the Gospel tradition (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001); Samuel Byrskog, Jesus the only teacher: didactic authority and transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean community (ConBNT 24; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell), 1994; C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London: Nisbet, 1952).
40 rules of testimony, such as the multiple testimony requirement, that would limit the influence of his situation on the texts. Yet the situation of the historian and his witnesses will also affect the end results of a multiple testimony rule, as discussed above. Situation-centred hypotheses grew on top of assumptions that from the 1800s had begun to steer scholarship: particularly the assumption of the impossibility of miracles. It was thought that science must explain reports of miracles as untrue. But this was never clearly based on correct understandings of the actual findings of the physical and biological sciences, or of the philosophy of science.132 The assumption that science is incompatible with the historical authenticity of Biblical reports is not grounded in or inherent to science, it is a personalphilosophical choice, requiring careful evaluation of its merits and likely consequences. To the extent that such assumptions are held by a Bible scholar, these stand in the way of an evaluation of a hypothesis that laws of testimony controlled NT reports, because (i) complete evaluation requires suspending assumptions that supernatural phenomena are impossible (given that much of the relevant data concern such phenomena); (ii) the force of the hypothesis is to strengthen the credibility of the Biblical reports of supernatural phenomena. For challenging situation-based hypotheses and their assumptions, a forerunner is the work of Gerhardsson. His theory that disciplined preservation-oriented practices for the transmission of texts were evident, both in early Rabbinic Judaism and in the NT and early Church, ran into tremendous resistance from representatives of situation-centred theories.133 Gerhardsson worked steadily, however, to show in an extensive corpus of well received scientific work that the classically conservative practices of disciples and scribes for transmitting oral and written texts are evident in the NT texts.134 Moreover, the study of the techniques of transmission of Gospel traditions has become well established in NT studies in the half-century since Gerhardsson’s dissertation was published to such poor consideration.135 Theories of rule-governed conservation overlap with hypotheses of NT testimony rules (e.g. multiple witnesses, prohibiting false witness). A rule-based culture of careful preservation of reports would likely also have rules for what reports were considered sufficiently well attested to be preserved. This is confirmed by evidence from rabbinical sources, as we noted in our review of research.136 However, conservation theories often focus on conservation of teachings or other oral texts rather than eyewitness reports of events.137 A theory of an NT requirement for multiple witnesses (or verification) collides more directly with reigning assumptions about 132
Cf. John C. Lennox, God's undertaker: has science buried God? (New updated ed.; Oxford: Lion, 2009); Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian belief (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 374-421; Stefan Gustavsson, Kristen på goda grunder: om sanning i en tid av tvivel (Stockholm: Cordia, 1997), 177-179. Gerhardsson’s University of Uppsala dissertation (1961), and brief follow-up monograph (1964), necessitated by largely ungrounded criticism, are republished together as Gerhardsson, Memory and manuscript. 133
See for example, Birger Gerhardsson, “The secret of the transmission of the unwritten Jesus tradition,” NTS 51 (2005): 1-18; Gerhardsson, The Reliability of the Gospel tradition; Gerhardsson, “Illuminating the Kingdom: narrative meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels,” in Jesus and the oral Gospel tradition (ed. Henry Wansbrough; JSNTSup 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 266 - 330; Gerhardsson, The Gospel tradition (Malmö: Gleerup, 1986). 134
135
Cf. Werner H. Kelber and Samuel Byrskog, eds., Jesus in memory: traditions in oral and scribal perspectives (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2009); Samuel Byrskog, “The transmission of the Jesus tradition,” in Handbook for the study of the historical Jesus (ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter; 4 vols.; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), 1465-1494 136
Jeremias, “Paarweise sending im Neuen Testament,” 136-138.
137
Notable exceptions are Byrskog, Story as History; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
41 the authenticity of the NT report. Like a hypothesis of an NT prohibition of false witness, the theory of an NT verification standard is able to address very directly the deep scepticism of the scientific era, and possibly reunite the scientifically minded with Scripture once more.
42 Bibliography Abraham, William J. “The Epistemology of Jesus: An initial investigation.” Pages 149-168 in Jesus and philosophy: new essays. Edited by Paul K. Moser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Aquinas, Saint Thomas. Catena aurea: vol. 3, pt. 1, the Gospel of St. Luke. Translated by J.H. Newman. New York: Cosimo, 2007. Barrett, C. K. The Gospel according to St John: an introduction with commentary and notes on the Greek text. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the eyewitnesses: the Gospels as eyewitness testimony. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Oxford: Clarendon, 1946. Boomershine, Thomas E. “Epistemology at the turn of the ages in Paul, Jesus, and Mark: rhetoric and dialectic in apocalyptic and the New Testament.” Pages 147-167 in Apocalyptic and the New Testament. Edited by Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 24. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Breck, John. The shape of biblical language: chiasmus in the Scriptures and beyond. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994. Breck, John. “Biblical chiasmus: exploring structure for meaning.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 17 (1984), 70-74. Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by J. Marsh. Rev. ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963. Burney, C. F. The Poetry of Our Lord: an examination of the formal elements of Hebrew poetry in the discourses of Jesus Christ. Oxford: Clarendon, 1925. Byrskog, Samuel. Jesus the only teacher: didactic authority and transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean community. Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series 24. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994. Byrskog, Samuel. Story as history - history as story: the Gospel tradition in the context of ancient oral history. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 123. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Byrskog, Samuel. “The Transmission of the Jesus Tradition: Old and New Insights.” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 441-468. Byrskog, Samuel. “The historicity of Jesus: how do we know that Jesus existed?” Pages 21832212 in Handbook for the study of the historical Jesus. 4 vols. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011. Byrskog, Samuel. “The transmission of the Jesus tradition.” Pages 1465-1494 in Handbook for the study of the historical Jesus. 4 vols. Edited by Holmén, T. and Stanley E. Porter. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011. Caird, G. B. The language and imagery of the Bible. London: Duckworth, 1980. Casey, Maurice. The solution to the 'son of man' problem. Library of New Testament Studies 343. London: T & T Clark, 2007.
43 Catchpole, David R. “The answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt XXVI.64).” New Testament Studies 17 (1971): 213-226. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament pseudepigrapha. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983. Cohn, Haim Hermann, and Menachem Elon. “Evidence.” Pages 577-584 in vol. 6 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. 2nd ed. 22 vols. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2007. Davies, William D., and Dale C. Allison A critical and exegetical commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew: vol. 3, Commentary on Matthew XIX-XXVIII. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. de Regt, L. J. “Discourse implications of rhetorical questions in Job, Deuteronomy and the Minor Prophets.” Pages 51-78 in Literary structure and rhetorical strategies in the Hebrew bible. Edited by L. J. Regt, J. d. Waard and J. P. Fokkelman. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures. London: Nisbet, 1952. Dodd, C. H. Historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34b. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2001. Evans, Craig A. “Jesus’ rhetoric of criticism: the parables against his friends and critics.” Pages 256-279 in Rhetorical criticism and the Bible. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, and Dennis L. Stamps. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV: introduction, translation, and notes. The Anchor Bible 28a. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985. France, R.T. The Gospel of Mark. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002. Gerhardsson, Birger. The Gospel tradition. Malmö: Gleerup, 1986. Gerhardsson, Birger “Mark and the Female Witnesses.” Pages 217-226 in DUMU-E2-DUBBA-A: studies in honor of Åke W. Sjöberg. Edited by Hermann Behrens, Darlene Loding and Martha T. Roth. Occasional publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1989. Gerhardsson, Birger. “Illuminating the Kingdom: narrative meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels.” Pages 266 - 309 in Jesus and the oral Gospel tradition. Edited by Henry Wansbrough. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Gerhardsson, Birger. Memory and manuscript: oral tradition and written transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity; with, Tradition and transmission in early Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Livonia, Mich.: Eerdmans; Dove Booksellers, 1998. Gerhardsson, Birger. The reliability of the Gospel tradition. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001. Gerhardsson, Birger “The secret of the transmission of the unwritten Jesus tradition.” New Testament Studies 51 (2005): 1-18.
44 Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997. Gustavsson, Stefan. Kristen på goda grunder: om sanning i en tid av tvivel. Stockholm: Cordia, 1997. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary 33b. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1995. Hägerland, Tobias. Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of his Prophetic Mission. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Jeremias, Joachim. “Paarweise sendung im Neuen Testament.” Pages 136-143 in New Testament essays. Studies in memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 1893-1958. Edited by Higgins, A. J. B. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959. Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament theology. Part 1, The proclamation of Jesus. Translated by J. Bowden. London: S. C. M, 1971. Repr., London: Xpress Reprints, 1996. Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by W. Whiston. Perseus Digital Library. Cited 23 October. Online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a 1999.01. 0146. Just, Felix (S.J.), “‘I AM’ sayings in the Fourth Gospel.” No pages. Cited 22 October 2013. Online: http://catholic-resources.org/John/Themes-IAM.htm#NT. Kahn, Charles H. Plato and the Socratic dialogue: the philosophical use of a literary form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Kee, Howard Clark. “Knowing the Truth: Epistemology and Community in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 254-280 in Neotestamentica et Philonica: studies in honor of Peder Borgen. Edited by David E. Aune, Torrey Seland and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 106. Leiden; Boston, MA: Brill, 2003. Keener, Craig S. A commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: a commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003. Kelber, Werner H., and Samuel Byrskog, eds. Jesus in memory: traditions in oral and scribal perspectives. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2009. Lake, Kirsopp, ed. The Apostolic fathers: I Clement. II Clement. Ignatius. Polycarp. Didache. Barnabas. Translated by K. Lake. Loeb Classical Library 24. London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977. Lennox, John C. God's undertaker: has science buried God? New updated ed. Oxford: Lion, 2009. Lincoln, Andrew T. The Gospel according to Saint John. Black’s New Testament Commentaries 4. London: Continuum, 2005. Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. The New Century Bible Commentary. London: Oliphants, 1972. Lund, Nils W. Chiasmus in the New Testament: a study in formgeschichte. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1942.
45 Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 21-28: a commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. Mann, C. S. Mark. The Anchor Bible 27. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986. Mantel, Hugo. Studies in the history of the Sanhedrin. Harvard Semitic Series 17. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961. Martyn, J. Louis. “Epistemology at the turn of the ages: 2 Corinthians 5.16.” Pages 269-287 in Christian history and interpretation: studies presented to John Knox. Edited by William R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and Richard R. Niebuhr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. McCabe, Mary Margaret. “Form and the Platonic Dialogues.” Online article (no pages) in A companion to Plato. Edited by Hugh H. Benson. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell Reference Online, 2006. Meier, John P. Matthew. New Testament Message 3. Wilmington, Del.: M. Glazier, 1980. Meynet, Roland “The question at the center: a specific device of rhetorical argumentation in Scripture.” Pages 200-214 in Rhetorical argumentation in biblical texts: essays from the Lund 2000 conference. Edited by Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht and Walter G. Übelacker. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 8. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2002. Minns, Denis, and Paul Parvis, eds. Justin, philosopher and martyr: Apologies. Translated by D. Minns and P. Parvis. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2009. Morgenthaler, Robert. Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnis. Gestalt und Gehalt der Kunst des Lukas. 2 vols. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 14, 15. Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1949. Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27 rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1993. Perrin, Norman. Rediscovering the teaching of Jesus. London: S.C.M. Press, 1967. Piper, Ronald A. Wisdom in the Q-tradition: the aphoristic teaching of Jesus. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 61. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian belief. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes. Translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London:Heinemann, 1967. Perseus Digital Library. Cited 23 October 2013. Online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc= Perseus:text:1999.01.0178. Przybylski, Benno. Righteousness in Matthew and his world of thought. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Robbins, Vernon K. “Rhetorical composition & the Beelzebul Controversy.” Pages 161-193 in Patterns of persuasion in the Gospels. Edited by Burton L. Mack, and Vernon K. Robbins. Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1989. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St John. Herder's Theological Commentary on the New Testament. 3 vols. London: Seabury, 1982.
46 Simpson, John, ed. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edition. 20 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Stevenson, Kenneth, Michael Glerup and Thomas C. Oden. Ezekiel, Daniel. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 13. Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 2008. Stone, Michael E. Fourth Ezra: a commentary on the book of Fourth Ezra. Edited by Frank M. Cross. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1922-1961. Tannehill, Robert C. “Types and functions of apophthegms in the Synoptic Gospels.” ANRW 25.2:1792-1829. Part 2, Principat, 25.2. Edited by Hildegaard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. Tannehill, Robert C. Luke. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. London: SCM, 1998. Thomas, Robert L., and Stanley. N. Gundry A harmony of the Gospels, with explanations and essays: using the text of the New American Standard Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978. Thurén, Lauri. “Is there Biblical argumentation?” Pages 77-92 in Rhetorical argumentation in biblical texts: essays from the Lund 2000 conference. Edited by Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht and Walter G. Übelacker. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 8. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2002. Trites, Alison A. The New Testament concept of witness. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew poetry: a guide to its techniques. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 26. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Weiser, Artur. The Psalms, a commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962. Welborn, Laurence L. “‘By the mouth of two or three witnesses’: Paul’s invocation of a Deuteronomic statute.” Novum Testamentum 52 (2010): 207-220. Welch, John W. Chiasmus in antiquity: structures, analyses, exegesis. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981. Wells, Bruce. The law of testimony in the Pentateuchal codes. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 4. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004. Weren, Wim. “Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem: Mt 21,1-17 in the light of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint.” Pages 117-141 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C.M. Tuckett. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 131. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997. Van Vliet, Hendrik. No single testimony: a study on the adoption of the law of Deut. 19: 15 par. into the New Testament. Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon, 1958. Vlastos, Gregory. Socratic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. [SDG]
![[M576.Ebook] Download PDF Do You Hear What I Hear ...](https://p.pdfkul.com/img/300x300/m576ebook-download-pdf-do-you-hear-what-i-hear-_59d8f8371723dd870ec31a63.jpg)
