Jesus of Nazareth
Page 49
7. Already in the Pentateuch the commandment to worship YHWH alone is the crystallizing core and the focus of meaning for all the law collections. Cf. Gerhard Lohfink, Does God Need the Church? Toward a Theology of the People of God, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 78–79.
8. For what follows, cf. Norbert Lohfink, “Love: The Ethos of the New Testament: More Sublime Than That of the Old?,” 239–54, in idem, Great Themes from the Old Testament, trans. Ronald Walls (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1982).
9. Cf. the collection of Jewish texts on this subject in Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 381–87.
10. The parallel in Matthew is 5:38-48, though its antithetical form there is probably secondary.
11. The entire problem is treated in detail in Gerhard Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Beiträge zu einer christlichen Ethik (Freiburg: Herder, 1988).
12. For the following sections on love and hatred in the Greek and Roman world I am much indebted to Marius Reiser’s essay, “Love of Enemies in the Context of Antiquity,” NTS 47 (2001): 411–27.
13. Mary Whitlock Blundell, Helping Friends and Harming Enemies: A Study in Sophocles and Greek Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 26.
14. Hesiod, Works and Days, ll. 353-54.
15. The extent to which the “Golden Rule” (Luke 6:31) also fits quite naturally in the Lukan context has been demonstrated by Michael Wolter: cf. Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, HNT 5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 258.
16. Plato, Great Dialogues of Plato, trans. W. H. D. Rouse (New York: Signet Classic, 1999), Meno 71E.
17. Archilochos, Fragment 23, 14 (West) = POxy 2310. Translation in Guy Davenport, Archilochos, Sappho, Alkman: Three Lyric Poets of the Seventh Century B.C. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 30.
18. Plato, The Republic I, 332A–336A.
19. Plato, Crito 48E–49E.
20. Seneca, On Benefits, trans. Aubrey Stewart (London: George Bell and Sons, 1905), IV, 26.1; VII, 31.1.
21. Cf. Georg Fischer and Dominik Markl, Das Buch Exodus, NSKAT 2 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009), 261–62, and especially Gianni Barbiero, L’asino del nemico. Rinuncia alla vendetta e amore del nemico nella legislazione dell’ Antico Testamento (Es 23,4-5; Dt 22,1-4; Lv 19,17-18), AnBib 128 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991).
22. Thus correctly Erich Zenger, A God of Vengeance? Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 31–32.
23. Following Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, 393.
24. Among the six antitheses in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, the antithetical form is secondary to the third (divorce), fifth (revenge), and sixth (love of enemies). Was Matthew also the one who introduced the antithetical form in the first (murder), second (adultery), and fourth (swearing)? It cannot be excluded. Even if he did so, everything favors the idea that he precisely reflected Jesus’ language act and intention. There are many indicators of this: for example, Jesus’ prohibition of divorce already in the Sayings Source, in the form of a legal decree, cf. Matt 5:32 // Luke 16:18. This already showed an affinity to the antithesis form.
25. That anger here does not refer to insults or blows to someone’s honor that could be pursued through the justice system is signaled by the continuation of the discourse in v. 22bc. Apparently it is about insults in common use, such as “you dummy.” I have deliberately omitted the continuation of the discourse in v. 22bc because it is very much disputed among exegetes. They have discussed whether v. 22bc was part of the original antithesis at all and also whether this is an intensification or not. If it is an intensification, then certainly the anger in v. 22a must be a purely internal act. For the problem of v. 22bc, see Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1989), 282–86.
26. Author’s translation.
27. Cf. n. 24 above.
28. Luke 16:18 reads: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” The phrase “and marries another” probably comes from Mark 10:11. If we eliminate that phrase and the adultery clause from Matt 5:32 the difference between Matt 5:32 and Luke 16:18 is limited. I have chosen the Matthean version as closer to the original. For what follows, cf. Gerhard Lohfink, “Jesus und die Ehescheidung. Zur Gattung und Sprachintention von Mt 5,32,” 207–17, in Biblische Randbemerkungen. Schülerfestschrift für Rudolf Schnackenburg zum 60. Geburtstag (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1974).
29. Cf. Hos 2:4 and ThWAT 7, 834.
30. For this whole complex, cf. Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law, trans. Allan W. Mahnke (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 292–94. On the content of the fourth commandment, cf. Rainer Albertz, “Hintergrund und Bedeutung des Elterngebots im Dekalog,” ZAW 90 (1978): 348–74.
31. Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers, trans. John Riches (Edinburgh: T & T Clark; New York: Continuum, 1981), 14.
32. This is about people who use the corban formula against their parents: “’Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God).” They thus take from their parents part of the support due to them by declaring it to be a temple offering.
33. Cf. the interpretation by Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, 483–84.
34. Ernst Käsemann, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” first published as “Das Problem des historischen Jesus,” ZTK 51 (1954): 125–53; reprinted in idem, Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague, SBT 41 (London: SCM Press, 1964), 15–47, at 39.
35. Ibid., 37.
36. Cf. the study by Ulrich Kellermann, Messias und Gesetz. Grundlinien einer alttestamentlichen Heilserwartung. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Einführung, BibS(N) 61 (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971). The clearest tie between Messiah and Torah is established in PsSol 17, and there the Messiah calls for the strictest observance of the Torah; cf. esp. PsSol 17:27, 32. The two passages in Midrash cited in Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1922–61), 4/1, 2 for a “new Torah” and a “Torah of the Messiah” are late and are completely downplayed by Billerbeck himself.
37. Cf. the reference to this possibility in Martin Hengel, “Jesus und die Tora,” TBei 9 (1978): 152–72, at 164, as well as in Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 365–67.
38. See the prohibitions of mixing things in Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:5, 9–11.
39. Frank Crüsemann, The Torah, 366.
Chapter 13
1. I do so because here I want to set aside the question of how Jesus and the evangelists evaluate the position of John the Baptizer in salvation history. For a reconstruction of the logion in the Sayings Source, see especially Helmut Merklein, Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip. Untersuchung zur Ethik Jesu, FB 34, 3rd ed. (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984), 80–96. For a more recent probing of the vocabulary, cf. Gerd Häfner, “Gewalt gegen die Basileia? Zum Problem der Auslegung des ‘Stürmerspruches’ Mt 11,12,” ZNW 83 (1992): 21–51.
2. Translator’s note: This is, in fact, the wording given in Editorial Board of the International Q Project, The Sayings Gospel Q in English Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), online at http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm.
3. Cf. Mark 8:35; Matt 16:25; Luke 9:24, and for the Sayings Source’s version Matt 10:39 // Luke 17:33. See also John 12:25.
4. Cf. Homer, Iliad V, 529-32, and other examples in Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, HNT 5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 348.
5. For details see Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1922–61), 2:37–46.
6. Literally, “Go (away) behind me!” Many interpreters seek (because of M
ark 1:17, 20 and the immediately following “become my followers,” lit., “go behind me,” in Mark 8:34) to read these words to mean that Jesus calls Peter back to discipleship: “Go behind me [again]!” But the immediate appellation of Peter as “Satan” speaks against this. Such a word in no way fits with the motif of discipleship. The Greek preposition opis has a very broad spectrum of meanings, as we can see from the reading hypage opisō mou in Matt 4:10. That is a variant, it is true, but that Satan can be so addressed in a considerable number of textual witnesses reveals the breadth of meanings this preposition can have.
7. So, for example, The Living Bible, but also the NAB.—Tr.
8. Cf. Lev 22:24, which forbids the castration of sacrificial animals, and Deut 23:2–3 on the exclusion of castrati from Israel’s worship.
9. b. Yebam. 63b, a saying of Rabbi Eliezer.
10. b. Yebam. 63a. Cf. Gen 5:2.
11. For what follows, cf. esp. Josef Blinzler, “Eisin eunouchoi: zur Auslegung von Matt 19:12,” ZNW 48 (1957): 254–70.
Chapter 14
1. For the frequent occurrence of two–part sayings in the words of Jesus cf. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 380–96.
2. When Luke writes “earth” here he means the world. Jesus might originally have meant the “land (of Israel).”
3. Cf. Matt 6:19–20; 24:43; Luke 12:39.
4. Cf. Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1922–61), 1:971–72.
5. This could be quite accurate on the level of the intention of Matthew’s gospel. Cf. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20, trans. James E. Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 278–79.
6. This is the position defended by Tim Schramm and Kathrin Löwenstein, Unmoralische Helden. Anstössige Gleichnisse Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 42-49.
7. Thus Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. Samuel H. Hooke, 6th ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1962), 201.
8. This is the point of Ludwig Weimer’s book, Die Lust an Gott und seiner Sache. Oder: Lassen sich Gnade und Freiheit, Glaube und Vernunft, Erlösung und Befreiung vereinbaren? (Freiburg: Herder, 1981).
9. For what follows, cf. Norbert Lohfink, Das Jüdische am Christentum. Die verlorene Dimension (Freiburg: Herder, 1987), esp. 12.
10. In the next three sections I am making use of my book, Does God Need the Church? On the Theology of the People of God, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 139–50.
11. Feeding of the five thousand: Mark 6:30-44; Matt 13:13-21; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15; the feeding of the four thousand is a variant narrative: Mark 8:1-10; Matt 15:32-39.
12. Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity [1968] (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 257.
13. Ibid., 260.
14. This alludes to ibid., 261–62.
15. Cf. esp. John 12:23-24; 13:31–32; 17:1.
Chapter 15
1. Another and a whole newer version is offered by John 12:12-19. Matthew and Luke are both dependent on the Markan version.
2. In John 12:12-19 the Zechariah text is explicitly cited; Mark only alludes to it.
3. There are many ancient parallels for this. Cf. esp. Erik Peterson, “Die Einholung des Kyrios,” ZST 7 (1930): 682–702. For spreading out garments as a sign of respect cf. 2 Kgs 9:13 and Acta Pilati I.2.
4. So Jürgen Roloff, Jesus, 4th ed. (Munich: Beck, 2007), 107.
5. In Matthew’s gospel the action in the temple follows immediately on the entry into the city (Matt 21:10-12), as it does in Luke’s (Luke 19:37-46). Mark (or the model he was following) inserts a day between the two (Mark 11:11-15).
6. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), write correctly (p. 554): “Why, in view of the temple and the holy city that lay before him in all their beauty, should Jesus himself not have carried out a—messianic—parable–action, as he had done previously in establishing the Twelve, as he would a little later in cleansing the temple, and then at the Last Supper?”
7. Marius Reiser pointed out to me that under Roman rule Herod, the tetrarch Archelaeus, the Syrian legate Quirinius, the Roman governors, Kings Agrippa I and II, and Herod of Chalcis all installed and removed the high priests at will. The full list with all the evidence, arranged according to the person who made the appointment, can be found in Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), new English version rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979), 2:229–32. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.224-51.
8. See the details in Christiana Metzdorf, Die Tempelaktion Jesu. Patristische und historisch-kritische Exegese im Vergleich, WUNT 2d ser. 168 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), but esp. also Jostein ädna, Jerusalmer Tempel und Tempelmarkt im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr., ADPV 23 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999), and idem, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel. Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung, WUNT 2d ser. 119 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).
9. Cf. esp. Zech 6:9-15; 14:20-21. Chapters 40–48 of the book of Ezekiel set out in detail the plan of an eschatological temple. In the book of Tobit the eschatological Jerusalem is painted in glowing colors in 13:17. A little later it says: “But God will again have mercy on them, and God will bring them back into the land of Israel; and they will rebuild the temple of God, but not like the first one until the period when the times of fulfillment shall come.… [the house of God will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, a glorious edifice for all the generations forever], just as the prophets of Israel have said concerning it” (Tob 14:5, Codex Vaticanus).
10. Thus also Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus 2, EKK II/2 (Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), 131.
11. Cf. esp. 1 Cor 3:9, 16-17. The Essenes also saw their community as the eschatological temple; cf. 1QS 8.4-10; CD 3.19, and elsewhere.
12. For the remainder of this chapter I am using material from my book, Does God Need the Church? On the Theology of the People of God, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 190–201.
13. The quotation is adapted from Gustaf Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, Studies in the Gospels, trans. Paul P. Levertoff (New York: Ktav, 1971), 168. The age of the saying is disputed. Günther Stemberger, “Pesachhaggada und Abendmahlsberichte des Neuen Testaments,” 357–74, in idem, Studien zum rabbinischen Judentum, SBAB 10 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), at 360–61, proposes a later dating. Nevertheless, Exod 13:8 (cf. Exod 12:26-27) suggests that very early there was a Passover ritual with extensive interpretation.
14. Thus Hengel and Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum, 582. John 18:28 is crucial.
15. Cf. the brief summary of the major arguments for a Paschal meal in ibid., 582–86. Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. Norman Perrin (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 15–88, remains fundamental.
16. Thus Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 426.
17. Mark probably offers the oldest account. The differences between Mark and 1 Cor 11:23-26 are more easily explained as further development of the Markan version than the reverse. Cf. Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium 2, HTKNT II/2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 369–77.
18. For the sequence of the Passover meal, see Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 84–88. Rudolf Pesch has shown that Mark 14:22-25 is an integral part of a more extensive text that saw Jesus’ last meal as a Passover meal, most recently in “Das Evangelium in Jerusalem: Mk 14:12-26 als ältestes Überlieferungsgut der Urgemeinde,” 113–55, in Peter Stuhlmacher, ed., Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Vorträge vom Tübinger Symposium 1982, WUNT 28 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), esp. 146–55.
19. Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26.
20. Targum Onkelos (and similarly Targum Yerushalmi I) says of Exod 24:
8: “And Mosheh took half of the blood which was in the basins, and sprinkled it upon the altar, to expiate the people, and said, Behold, this is the blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you upon all these words.” Cf. Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 137.
21. In Isaiah the Servant is always Israel, including in the so-called Servant Songs. For more detail, see Gerhard Lohfink and Ludwig Weimer, Maria—nicht ohne Israel. Eine neue Sicht der Lehre von der Unbefleckten Empfängnis (Freiburg: Herder, 2008), 223–30.
22. Within Isa 52:13–53:12 we encounter the “many” in 52:14, 15; 53:11, 12. Isaiah 52:15 shows that this is about the “nations.” We should also consider that even within the Old Testament itself the noun “many” can stand both for eschatological Israel (Dan 9:27; 11:33; 12:3) and for the “many” from among the Gentile nations (Isa 52–53). The expression is similarly open in the New Testament: in the Last Supper tradition the first referent can only be Israel, but in Matt 8:11 the word clearly refers to the Gentiles. Cf. also Mark 10:45 with 1 Tim 2:6. For a correct interpretation of Isa 52:13–53:12, see also above, chap. 11 n. 21.
Chapter 16
1. An exception to this are the church communities that are Evangelical in nature. These generally hold to biblical language.
2. Cf. Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1854–1962), 10:1012–22.
3. This position is most fully developed and emphasized at present by, for example, Werner Zager, “Die theologische Problematik des Sühnetods Jesu. Exegetische und dogmatische Perspektiven,” 35–61, in idem, Jesus und die frühchristliche Verkündigung. Historische Rückfragen nach den Anfüngen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999). Zager tries to show that the second part of Mark 10:45, “to give his life as ransom for many,” is a post–Easter construction, as is the cup saying in Mark 14:24. According to him (pp. 36–45), the sole original cup saying is the eschatological prospect in Mark 14:25.